More Management Information Is Needed to Improve Oversight of Automated Collection System Outbound Calls
April 28, 2010
Reference Number: 2010-30-046
This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.
Phone Number |
202-622-6500
Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov
Web Site |
http://www.tigta.gov
April 28, 2010
MEMORANDUM
FOR
COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED DIVISION
COMMISSIONER, WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
FROM: Michael R. Phillips /s/ Michael R. Phillips
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report – More Management Information Is Needed to Improve Oversight of Automated Collection System Outbound Calls (Audit # 200930009)
This report presents the results of our review to determine
whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is effectively using the outbound
call feature[1]
on Automated Collection System (ACS) function cases. This audit was
conducted as part of our Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Audit Plan and addresses the
major management challenge of Tax Compliance Initiatives.
Impact on the Taxpayer
The predictive dialers (hereafter
referred to as PD or Dialer) are automated calling technology in which the ACS
places outgoing calls without an attending employee on the originating
telephone line. Our review showed that 1)
there is insufficient management information available about whether the PDs are
effective in contacting taxpayers to resolve delinquent accounts, and 2) new
receipt calling campaigns are run without prioritizing the cases within the new
receipts. This may cause the IRS to not
collect from taxpayer cases that have greater potential for increased revenue
collection and may cause unfair burden on other taxpayers who pay their taxes.
Synopsis
At two ACS call sites, the IRS uses the PDs to make outgoing calls to taxpayers and third parties regarding balance due accounts and return delinquency investigations. The PDs retrieve the number to be dialed from ACS files that are downloaded to the call site’s PD calling database. The Dialer then places the call to the taxpayer.
Our review showed that various issues may contribute to the PDs not currently
being used to their most effective and efficient capacity. Internal and external factors affect
how many calls and how often calls are generated to taxpayers using the PD
technology. The internal factors include balancing the ACS
function workload and meeting set goals within the ACS function. The external factors, beyond the IRS’ control,
include unforeseen legislative changes to tax laws that result in an increased
number of taxpayers calling into the ACS.
ACS function management places a priority on answering incoming calls to meet their objective in providing a high level of customer service to those taxpayers who call the ACS. As a result, ACS function management attempts to balance the use of the PDs and other activities while providing an adequate level of service to taxpayers who call in regarding compliance issues. This has resulted in shutting down the Dialers at times and taking resources from outbound calls and other activities to answer the increases in incoming calls.
The Dialers themselves can be counterproductive to ACS function level of service
goals during times of heavy call volumes.
If incoming call volumes are already high, running the PDs has the
potential to increase them because if the Dialers leave an automated message for
the taxpayer to return the IRS’ call, there likely will be an increase in
inbound calls from taxpayers returning Dialer messages. Conversely, if the number of outbound calls
is reduced, there will be fewer inbound calls, which increase the ACS function’s
ability to meet its level of service goals. If the PDs make fewer contacts with taxpayers, there
is the possibility of reduced collections and case resolutions. However, there is a need for more information
about the PDs’ effectiveness and consequences on other program goals and
responsibilities before making changes to existing policies and procedures.
Although some information is captured about the number of
outbound calls and the contacts made, ACS function management does not collect
sufficient data about the results of outbound calls to determine whether the
campaigns were successful. For example, ACS
function management does not regularly measure inbound calls that are a result
of outbound calls or compare campaign results.
As a result, ACS function management is unable to analyze the complete
results of the PDs campaigns, thereby reducing management’s ability to manage
and evaluate outbound calls which could cause inefficient use of limited
resources.
In addition, the ACS does not use pre-established risk scores and priority categories when first selecting cases for the PDs to call during new receipt campaigns. Experience among collection agencies and within the IRS is that new receipt cases have a greater likelihood to have more current contact information and, therefore, could be more productive. However, when ACS function management establishes the new receipt campaigns, they rely solely on the age of the case without regard to risk scores or priority categories. Our review of ACS outbound calls data from October 2006 through May 2009 showed that new receipt cases made up approximately 62 percent of the outbound calls.[2] As a result, some high-risk, high-priority cases with a greater potential for increased revenue collection may be omitted while other low-risk, low-priority cases with lesser collection potential may be worked first in new receipt campaigns.
Recommendations
We recommended that the Director, Campus Compliance Services, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, and the Director, Compliance, Wage and Investment Division, collect additional management information about outbound calls, including the identification of PD-related incoming calls when taxpayers are responding to Left Call Back Messages, and compare the results from the various campaigns. This management information should be collected on a continuous basis and be similar for both operating divisions. In addition, the Director, Campus Compliance Services, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, and the Director, Compliance, Wage and Investment Division, should revise the case selection criteria/process so that within the new receipts campaigns, those new cases having the highest risk scores and highest priority categories are the first taxpayers selected for PD calls.
Response
IRS management agreed with our recommendations. Management in the Small Business/Self-Employed and Wage and Investment Divisions will work together to collect additional information about outbound calls and compare results from the various campaigns. In January 2006, the IRS began the Consolidated Decision Analytics project to improve the case selection criteria/process within the Inventory Delivery System. The initial selection models were implemented in January 2009. Working with a contractor, the two impacted business divisions, the Small Business/Self-Employed Division and the Wage and Investment Division, began deliberations midyear in 2009 to maximize Consolidated Decision Analytics capabilities to enhance ACS operations, including the PD Tool. Once the Consolidated Decision Analytics is completed, a more advanced scoring engine will evaluate cases based on a comprehensive compilation of internal and external data and route them to the most appropriate treatment stream, including the PD, in priority order. The IRS is continuing its efforts to design related business and technology improvements to ensure the expansion of Consolidated Decision Analytics to ACS operations delivers the intended results. Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix V.
Copies of this report are also being sent to
the IRS managers affected by the report recommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you
have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance
and Enforcement Operations), at (202) 622-8510.
Automated Collection
System Activities Operate in a Shared Resource Environment
Better Management
Information Is Needed to Measure the Success of Outbound Calls
Risk and Priority Are Not
Considered During New Receipt Calling Campaigns
Appendices
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix
III – Report Distribution List
Appendix
IV – Glossary of Terms
Appendix V
– Management’s Response to the Draft Report
Abbreviations
|
ACS |
Automated Collection System |
|
FY |
Fiscal Year |
|
IRS |
Internal Revenue Service |
|
PD |
Predictive Dialer |
|
SB/SE |
Small Business/Self-Employed |
|
W&I |
Wage and Investment |
The Automated Collection System (ACS)[3] is a computerized system that maintains balance due accounts and return delinquency investigations. ACS function employees use this system when contacting delinquent taxpayers by telephone to collect unpaid taxes and secure tax returns. When cases are issued to the ACS, the system analyzes the cases for addresses, telephone numbers, and other characteristics. The system prints letters for mailing and assigns cases to the proper team. Each team’s inventory is assigned one of four responsibilities: investigation, contact, research, or support. Contact responsibilities include making outgoing calls to taxpayers and third parties regarding balance due and return delinquency accounts and answering calls from taxpayers.
The
effectiveness and efficiency of the ACS function are critical for the Internal
Revenue Service’s (IRS) overall filing and payment results, as well as taxpayer
attitudes toward tax compliance, because of the large number of taxpayer
accounts that it addresses each year. For
example, during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009,
the ACS received approximately 4.6 million balance due accounts, totaling
almost $32 billion, and approximately 1.2 million return delinquency
investigations. During that same fiscal year,
the ACS collected about $2.7 billion.
To make outgoing calls to taxpayers and third parties regarding balance due accounts and return delinquency investigations, the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) and Wage and Investment (W&I) Divisions’ Collection functions currently use predictive dialers (hereafter referred to as PD or Dialer) to call taxpayers. This outbound calling technology places calls without an attending ACS function employee on the originating telephone line. ACS function management decides which taxpayers to call by using set guidelines and priorities organized into campaigns. The system retrieves the number to be dialed from ACS files that are downloaded to the call sites’ PDs calling databases. The Dialers then place the call to the taxpayer or third party. Figure 1 shows what happens when the PD makes a call.
Figure 1: Possible Results of PD Calls
|
If the taxpayer answers: |
|
|
If there is no answer, a busy signal, or the taxpayer hangs up: |
|
|
If there is an answering machine: |
|
Source: IRS PD procedures.
There are two ACS call sites that make outbound calls. During FY 2008, the IRS used the Dialers to attempt contacts with 846,293 individual taxpayers and 603,416 business taxpayers. These attempts resulted in contacts (including leaving messages to call back) being made with 433,292 individual taxpayers and 327,898 business taxpayers. From October 2006 through May 2009, approximately 90 percent of the contacts made consisted of leaving messages for taxpayers to call back.
This review was performed at the SB/SE Division Headquarters in New Carrollton, Maryland, and the Brookhaven
Campus in
Automated Collection System Activities Operate in a Shared Resource Environment
As an important IRS point of contact for taxpayers who call in to resolve compliance issues, the ACS function must manage its resources to ensure that telephone calls are answered timely and appropriately. The employees who are trained to answer taxpayer calls have other responsibilities including working correspondence inventory, performing research on accounts, and making outbound calls. Figure 2 shows the amount of time ACS function employees worked on various activities during FYs 2007, 2008, and 2009.[4]
Figure 2: Direct Time Spent by ACS Function Employees by Activity
|
Activity |
SB/SE Division |
W&I Division |
|
Answering incoming calls |
62 percent |
74 percent |
|
Working correspondence inventory and research on accounts |
35 percent |
24 percent |
|
Making outbound calls |
3 percent |
2 percent |
|
Total |
100 percent |
100 percent |
Source: ACS function management call data reports for the period October 2006 through May 2009.
Employees
who make outbound calls must also answer inbound calls from taxpayers
ACS function management needs to balance having a fixed number of
employees to accomplish these activities while providing an adequate level of
service to taxpayers who call in to resolve compliance issues. Level of service is a statistic that measures
the rate of attempted telephone calls from taxpayers that are answered by the
IRS. Since the level of service measures
success in answering incoming calls, ACS function management makes it a
priority and emphasizes inbound, as opposed to outbound, calls. Inbound calls are the priority because
customers are generally calling the ACS to help resolve their existing
delinquent accounts. Since October 2006, IRS management has set the
level of service goal at approximately 80 percent.
The number of inbound calls may be influenced by events beyond the control of the IRS.
There are various factors, both internal and external, that
affect how often and how many resources management dedicates to the operation
of the PDs. The internal factors include balancing ACS function
workload to meet established goals within the ACS function. The external factors, beyond the IRS’ control,
include changes to tax laws that cause an increase in the number of telephone
calls by taxpayers with questions about the changes. In turn, this affects how often the Dialers can
be used. For example, the W&I
Division’s Dialer was shut down from March until August 2008, and the SB/SE
Division’s Dialer was shut down from May until August 2008 to address the
unusually high volume of incoming calls and questions generated by Congress
passing many tax-related laws regarding the economic downturn, including the
economic stimulus checks sent to millions of taxpayers. ACS function management needed to assign more
resources to answering the incoming calls instead of making outbound calls or
performing other responsibilities. These
issues may contribute to the Dialers not being used to their most effective and
efficient capacity.
The PDs
have a maximum system capacity based on the number of site licenses. The SB/SE Division PD call site has 75 software
licenses, and the W&I Division PD call site has 76 software licenses. Combined, as many as 151 ACS function employees
may be logged on the Dialers at any one time to make outbound calls. Our
review examined whether the software licenses for the PDs were being fully used. We compared the number of employees logged into
the PDs during a campaign to the total licenses available. Figure
3 shows these utilization rates for the SB/SE Division for FYs 2007, 2008, and
2009.[5] During that time
period, we did not identify any campaign in which all 75 SB/SE Division software
licenses were fully used.
Figure 3: Utilization Rates for the SB/SE Division PD
|
|
Daytime |
Nighttime Utilization Rates |
|
FY 2007 |
34
percent |
24
percent |
|
FY 2008 |
18
percent |
10
percent |
|
FY 2009[6] |
25
percent |
17
percent |
Source: Our
analysis of SB/SE Division PD utilization rates for the period October 2006
through May 2009.
Compounding the limited use of the PDs because of shared
resources,
the Dialers themselves can be counterproductive to ACS function customer
service goals during times of heavy call volumes. If incoming call volumes are already high,
running the Dialers has the potential to increase the incoming calls because when
the Dialers leave an automated message to return the call, there will likely be
an increase in inbound calls from taxpayers returning Dialer messages. Conversely, if the number of outbound calls
is reduced, there will likely be fewer inbound calls, which increases the ACS
function’s ability to meet its level of service goals.
Reducing
the number of outbound calls can improve level of service results.
The success of the PDs making outbound calls appears at odds with the ACS
function’s level of service goal. ACS function management considers a successful telephone
contact as either talking to the taxpayer directly, known as a Right Party
Contact, or leaving a voicemail requesting the taxpayer call back, known as a
Left Call Back Message. When outbound calls
are more successful at contacting taxpayers, including leaving messages for the
taxpayer to call back, it may result in fewer employees being available to make
additional outbound calls because those same employees may be needed to answer
the resulting inbound calls from the successful contacts. When outbound calls are less successful at
contacting taxpayers (or calls are not made), it may result in more employees
available to answer fewer inbound calls, which helps improve the level of
service.
One of the major benefits of the PDs is the ability to contact many taxpayers
in a reduced amount of time. If the PDs are
operating at a greater capacity, more delinquent and noncompliant taxpayers
will be contacted. If the PDs make fewer
contacts with taxpayers, there is the possibility of reduced collections and
case resolutions. However, there is a
need for more information about the PDs’ effectiveness and consequences on
other program goals and responsibilities before making changes to existing
policies and procedures. Therefore, we
are not making a recommendation at this time.
Better Management Information Is Needed to Measure the Success of Outbound Calls
Although some information is captured regarding the number of outbound calls and the contacts made, ACS function management does not conduct sufficient analysis on the results of outbound calls to determine whether the campaigns were successful. Specifically, management does not identify inbound calls that were received as a result of outbound calls, and the various campaigns are not compared to identify efficiencies and highest success rates for variables such as the best times to call and types of taxpayers to contact. Sound management practices dictate that sufficient management information needs to be obtained to evaluate the effectiveness of a program and allocate resources effectively.
ACS function management relies primarily
on the call site reports to provide information related to the PDs. These reports include information such as:
Figure 4 shows that from October 2006
through May 2009, the
combined contact rates (contacts per attempts) for the SB/SE and W&I
Divisions ranged from 44 percent to 55
percent for all outbound calls.
Figure 4: Contact Rates for Outbound Calls
|
|
SB/SE Division Contact
Rates |
W&I Division Contact
Rates |
|
FY 2007 |
44
percent |
50
percent |
|
FY 2008 |
54
percent |
51
percent |
|
FY 2009[7] |
55
percent |
52
percent |
Source: ACS function management call data reports for the period October 2006 through May 2009.
The overwhelming majority (approximately
90 percent) of contacts shown in Figure 4 were in the form of Left Call Back
Messages for both Divisions. However,
when a taxpayer calls into the ACS in response to a Left Call Back Message
generated by a PD outbound call, the incoming call is not identified as a PD-related
call. As a result, the entire population
of PD-related calls is not being captured, making it difficult for ACS function
management to analyze the complete results of their Dialer campaigns. Management has limited information about
PD-related call backs, based on just two ad hoc analyses that they performed.
Call data are moved from the PDs to the ACS daily. Once the campaign is over, the data are purged and no longer kept on the Dialers. However, there is no thorough analysis to:
· Compare PD campaigns.
· Determine the best times to call specific types of taxpayers (e.g., during the day/night, day of the week, week of the month, month/season of the year).
· Identify contact success rates by types of campaigns.
· Determine overall productivity.
Without sufficient management information, ACS function management’s ability to manage and evaluate outbound calls is weakened. This could cause inefficient use of limited resources and the possibility of missed opportunities to increase collections.
Recommendation
Recommendation 1: The Director, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division, and the Director, Compliance, W&I Division, should collect additional management information about outbound calls, including the identification of PD-related incoming calls when taxpayers are responding to Left Call Back Messages, and compare the results from the various campaigns. This management information should be collected on a continuous basis and be similar for both operating divisions.
Management’s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. Management in the Small Business/Self-Employed and Wage and Investment Divisions will work together to collect additional information about outbound calls and compare results from the various campaigns.
Risk and Priority Are Not Considered During New Receipt Calling Campaigns
Experience among collection agencies and within the IRS is that new receipt cases have a greater likelihood to have more current contact information and, therefore, could be more productive. In July 2000, the IRS Commissioner directed ACS function management to run all new receipt cases through the PD if a certain letter[8] had been issued to the taxpayer and a current telephone number was present. As a result, both the SB/SE and W&I Divisions use the PDs to call taxpayers with new ACS case receipts first.
The ACS classifies new receipts as cases in inventory during
the current cycle. ACS function management
attempts to select new receipt cases as they come into the system regardless of
the type of case or dollar amount owed.
Our review of ACS outbound call data from October 2006 through May 2009
showed that new receipt cases made up approximately 62 percent of all outbound
calls.[9]
ACS function management informed us that
neither Division selects all of their new receipt cases for PD calls. For example, the SB/SE Division’s FY 2009
goal for new receipt cases processed through the Dialer was 50 percent. ACS function management considers inventory
and resource factors in determining how many new receipt cases will be
processed through the Dialers and then runs other campaigns focusing on the
different types of case inventories.
Collection function inventory, including ACS function inventory, is generally managed by the Inventory Delivery System to select and deliver workload. The Inventory Delivery System assigns a risk and priority code to all cases that are assigned to the ACS. These priority codes are based on information including, but not limited to, the dollar amount owed, number of tax periods, and age of the case. Risk scores of High, Medium, or Low are also given to each case. According to the Internal Revenue Manual, high-risk and high-priority categories are considered to be more productive. However, when ACS function management establishes their new receipt cases PD campaigns, they rely solely on the age of the case without regard to risk scores or priority categories.
As discussed previously in this report, ACS function management does not collect sufficient information about the PD campaigns that would allow them to determine the relative productivity for the different types of campaigns. Although new receipt cases may be productive, some high- risk, high-priority cases with a greater potential for increased revenue collection may be omitted while other low-risk, low-priority cases with lesser collection potential may be worked if new receipt campaign cases are not prioritized. Not identifying and working all high-risk, high-priority cases first may have the effect of reducing overall collection potential. Because of the limited resources available in the ACS function, selecting and working these cases first is especially important.
Recommendation
Recommendation 2: The Director, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division, and the Director, Compliance, W&I Division, should revise the case selection criteria/process so that within the new receipt campaign cases, those new cases having the highest risk scores and highest priority categories are the first taxpayers selected for PD calls.
Management’s Response: IRS management agreed with this recommendation. In January 2006, the IRS began the Consolidated Decision Analytics project to improve the case selection criteria/process within the Inventory Delivery System. The initial selection models were implemented in January 2009. Working with a contractor, the two impacted business divisions, the W&I and SB/SE Divisions, began deliberations midyear in 2009 to maximize Consolidated Decision Analytics capabilities to enhance ACS operations, including the PD Tool. Once the Consolidated Decision Analytics is completed, a more advanced scoring engine will evaluate cases based on a comprehensive compilation of internal and external data and route them to the most appropriate treatment stream, including the PD, in priority order. The IRS is continuing its efforts to design related business and technology improvements to ensure the expansion of Consolidated Decision Analytics to ACS operations delivers the intended results.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Our overall objective was to determine whether the IRS is effectively using the outbound call feature on ACS[10] function cases. To accomplish this objective, we:
I. Determined whether the outbound call feature is being effectively maximized.
A. Analyzed the call trends to determine if the number of incoming versus outbound calls was appropriate.
1. Determined ACS function’s priorities and goals for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 and whether they were met.
2. Determined the breakdown of incoming versus outbound calls for various time periods. We relied on statistical data provided by the IRS for this test. At the time of our fieldwork, the data were available for October 2006 through May 2009.
3. Determined whether there were uncontrollable events, such as customer service priorities and legislative changes, that affected how the system was used and how the resources were allocated.
4. Identified issues and concerns about the ACS function’s level of service.
B. Identified if ACS function management tracked and measured what constitutes a successful outbound call.
1. Determined how ACS function management measures successful calls.
2. Determined if inbound calls, as a result of outbound PD calls, can be measured.
C. Identified how and when campaign criteria were established and the process for implementing the campaigns.
D. Determined if recent campaign objectives/criteria were achieved.
E. Determined whether there are potential changes to call site locations and resources that could affect the ACS outbound calls such as adding a call site and hiring new employees.
F. Performed research and interviewed IRS personnel to identify industry best practices.
II. Determined how IRS management uses the PD technology to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of ACS function compliance programs.
A. Reviewed current program plans, policies, procedures, and controls for use of the PD technology within the ACS function.
B.
Determined how specific program goals and
objectives from Step.
C. Determined if sufficient resources were allocated to achieve outbound calls and PD goals and objectives. We considered analytics such as the maximum number of employees the PDs are able to route outbound calls to at one time, at what rate these resources are being fully utilized, and the times resources are available. We relied on statistical data provided by the IRS for this test. At the time of our review, the data were available for October 2006 through May 2009.
III. Assessed whether the IRS management information system provides reliable measurement and feedback to ensure that program results or business goals were achieved as intended. We relied on statistical data provided by the IRS for this test. At the time of our fieldwork, the data were available for October 2006 through May 2009.
A. Determined if the IRS has an effective management information system to properly monitor and track PD outbound calls. We obtained management reports and other measurement results (e.g., PD calls answered) to identify the PDs’ effectiveness.
B. Identified variables that were being tracked as well as performance measures and business results measurements or other outcomes that indicate successful operations. For example, were there reports that relate taxpayer contacts to subsequent case actions leading to case resolutions, and was there any reporting mechanism that compared the productivity of the Dialers and other ACS function efforts to resolve cases?
Internal controls methodology
Internal
controls relate to management’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet
their mission, goals, and objectives.
Internal controls include the processes and procedures for planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting,
and monitoring program performance. We
determined the following internal controls were relevant to our audit
objective: the policies, procedures,
measures, and management information used to manage the ACS function. We evaluated these controls by discussing
with ACS function management the goals for outbound and inbound calls and for
the use of the PDs, and reviewing and analyzing various management reports and
measures.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Margaret
E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement
Operations)
Carl
Aley, Director
Lynn
Wofchuck, Audit Manager
Julian
O’Neal, Lead Auditor
Lynn
Rudolph, Senior Auditor
Janis
Zuika, Senior Auditor
Frank
O’Connor, Audit Evaluator
Appendix III
Commissioner C
Office of the Commissioner – Attn: Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Deputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S
Deputy Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W
Director, Campus Compliance Services, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S:CCS
Director, Compliance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CP
Chief Counsel CC
National Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O
Office of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC
Audit Liaisons:
Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S
Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W
Appendix IV
|
Term |
Definition |
|
Abandon Rates |
The number of taxpayers who voluntarily hang up before
their calls are answered by the IRS. |
|
Automated Collection
System |
A computerized
system that maintains balance due accounts and return delinquency
investigations of taxpayers who have not complied with previous notices. |
|
Average Talk Time |
The time
spent actually talking to the taxpayer over the telephone. |
|
Calls Handled |
The number of telephone
calls handled actually talking to the taxpayer. |
|
Campaign |
A small, more manageable workload group used to help
prioritize work to be completed that ACS function management has set
guidelines for which taxpayers to call.
For example, campaign types can be determined by dollar values, age of
case, type of tax, etc. |
|
Campus |
The data processing arm of the IRS. The campuses process paper and electronic submissions, correct errors, and forward data to the Computing Centers for analysis and posting to taxpayer accounts. |
|
Contact Rate |
The number of Right Party Contacts and Left Call Back Messages as a percentage of total Dialer attempts. |
|
Cycle |
One week. |
|
Internal
Revenue Manual |
A manual containing the procedures and controls for IRS employees to follow. |
|
Inventory
Delivery System |
An IRS Enterprise system that houses business rules used to analyze, assign, and deliver inventory to various Collection functions. |
|
Left Call
Back Message |
Message left on an answering machine by the PD or Collection function representative directing the taxpayer or power of attorney to return the IRS’ call. |
|
Outbound Call
Feature |
The ACS Dialer that makes outbound calls to taxpayers’ telephone numbers. |
|
Predictive
Dialer |
The system of outbound calling technology in which
calls are placed without an attending agent on the originating telephone
line.
|
|
Return
Delinquency Investigation |
An
investigation the IRS opens when a taxpayer does not file a return. |
|
Right Party
Contact |
Actual
contact with a taxpayer or power of attorney for the taxpayer. |
|
Software
License |
The IRS
purchased a certain number of PD software licenses which limits the number of
ACS function employees who can use the PD software simultaneously. |
Appendix V
Management’s Response to the Draft Report
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Commissioner
Small
Business/Self-Employed Division
April 7, 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL R. PHILLIPS
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT
FROM: Christopher Wagner /s/ Christopher Wagner
Small Business/Self-Employed Division
SUBJECT: TIGTA Draft Report - More Management Information Is Needed to Improve Oversight of Automated Collection System Outbound Calls (Audif1i 200930009)
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report titled: "More Management Information is Needed to Improve Oversight of Automated Collection System Outbound Calls."
The Predictive Dialer (PO) is an important tool used in implementing the IRS strategy for collecting delinquent taxes. We appreciate your acknowledgment that dialer capacity is limited and that external factors beyond our control sometimes hinder our efforts to maximize its use, such as the increased incoming call volume resulting from recent legislation.
The IRS initiated the Consolidated Decision Analytics (CDA)
project in January 2006 to optimize case selection and assignment of inventory
across various collection treatment streams. We began using the first set of
models to score inventory in January 2009. Later that year, IRS expanded the
Automated Collection System (ACS) CDA project to leverage the potential
benefits of full implementation of CDA models. The project team is nearing
completion of new business process redesigns that address your concerns by
optimizing workload resources and prioritizing case selection based on CDA
models in all treatment streams including the
We have also scheduled a PO Summit with major stakeholders
to begin the development of a PO Strategy that will address integration of the
We agree with the findings and recommendations contained in your report. A detailed response outlining our corrective actions is attached.
If you have any questions, please call me, or a member of your staff may contact Cheryl Sherwood, Director, Campus Compliance Services, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, at (202) 283-2518.
Attachment
Attachment
RECOMMENDATION 1:
The Director, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division, and the Director, Compliance, W&I Division, should collect additional management information about outbound calls, including the identification of PO-related incoming calls when taxpayers are responding to Left Call Back Messages, and compare the results from the various campaigns. The management information should be collected on a continuous basis and be similar for both operating divisions.
CORRECTIVE ACTION:
We agree with this recommendation. We will work together to collect additional information about outbound calls and compare results from the various campaigns.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
January 15, 2011
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Director, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division
Director, Compliance, W&I Division
CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING PLAN:
IRS will monitor this corrective action as part of our internal management system of controls.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
The Director, Campus Compliance Services, Small
Business/Self-Employed Division, and the Director, Compliance, Wage and
Investment Division, should revise the case selection criteria/process so that
within the new receipts campaigns, case priorities are considered and the
highest priority cases are the first taxpayers selected for
CORRECTIVE ACTION:
In January 2006, we began the Consolidated Decision
Analytics (CDA) project to improve the case selection criteria/process within
the Inventory Delivery System (IDS). The initial selection models were
implemented in January 2009. Working with a contractor, the two impacted
business divisions, W&I and SB/SE, began deliberations midyear in 2009 to
maximize CDA capabilities to enhance ACS operations including the Predictive
Dialer Tool. Once the COA is completed, a more advanced scoring engine will
evaluate cases based on a comprehensive compilation of internal and external
data and route them to the most appropriate treatment stream, including the
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
December 15, 2011
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Director, Campus Compliance Services, SB/SE Division
Director, Compliance, W&I Division
CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING PLAN:
IRS will monitor this corrective action as part of our internal management system of controls.
[1] See Appendix IV for a glossary of the terms.
[2] This is an average for both the Small Business/Self-Employed and Wage and Investment Divisions.
[3] See Appendix IV for a glossary of the terms.
[4] FY 2009 data are from October 2008 through May 2009. These are the FY 2009 data available at the time of our review.
[5] The data shown are only when the PD was turned on and are not a percentage of total resources. The W&I Division does not track these data; therefore, we only reported the SB/SE Division data.
[6] FY 2009 data are from October 2008 through May 2009. These are the FY 2009 data available at the time of our review.
[7] FY 2009 data are from October 2008 through May 2009. These are the FY 2009 data available at the time of our review.
[8] Letter 11, ACS Final Notice – Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Notice of a Right to a Hearing.
[9] This is
an average for both the SB/SE and W&I Divisions.
[10] See Appendix IV for a glossary of the terms.