|
||||||||||||||
|
1. Volunteer certification 2. Intake and interview process 3. Reference materials available
4.
Title VI information provided 5. Privacy and confidentiality guidelines followed 6. Quality Review process 7. Returns timely filed/delivered 8. Correct SIDN 9. Correct EFIN
The training suggests that implementing these 9 Quality Site Requirements make a Site a Quality Site. The rationale is that accurate taxpayer returns are more likely to be produced at a Quality Site.
It is the opinion of this author that while following these 9 QSRs may make a site a Quality Site, as a whole, the 9 together are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure the creation of accurate returns, satisfied Clients, or contented volunteers.
Let us consider items 4, 5, 8, and 9. How does the absence of Title VI information displayed on the site, or not following privacy and confidential guidelines, or incorrect SDIN or EFIN affect the accuracy of a return? Title VI information displayed is a compliance requirement to inform taxpayers of their rights, and if someone took the time to read and understand it seriously, will realize that VITA sites technically do not follow the guidelines in Title VI. VITA sites are to help prepare taxes of low-income, elderly, limited English Speaking and disabled taxpayers. This suggests that VITA sites discriminate in favor of elderly and disabled taxpayers, and since many limited English Speaking taxpayers have a national origin other than the US, there is discrimination in favor of those. Not following the privacy and confidential guidelines may be against compliance requirements, but doing so may help the accuracy and correctness of the return in many situations. An incorrect SIDN or no SIDN does not affect the accuracy or correctness of the return, refund or tax due amount, but simply does not track the quality and productivity of the site, which may be important to the Site Coordinator, volunteers and SPEC. Likewise, if the EFIN is incorrect or there is no EFIN, the return will not e-file properly. On a paper return, the EFIN is irrelevant anyway.
Consider requirement #3, Reference Materials available; nothing is said about if or how they are to be used. At least two trainers in Tax Law classes have proudly stated that they do not remember the tax laws but look it up each time they are faced with any issue. A Taxpayer went to a site where two such volunteers were very polite, but needed to look up each item in the references, and that inspired no confidence in the taxpayers at all. The statement also brings into question the value of certification. If all answers can be found in the reference material or Pub 17, why do we even need to worry about certification? They can always be looked up. However, the biggest problem is that given this requirement, the lack of reference materials available caused a major problem. Orders for publication 4012, the volunteer resource guide made in October were not delivered by the end of January, and with no information provided that they would not be delivered. On being asked, the Relationship Manager informed us that copies would not be available, which made it difficult to meet this requirement even if it were important. It took a lot of persuasion to get more copies.
How about requirement #1, Volunteer Certification? While it is reasonable to require that volunteers who prepare tax returns for taxpayers are certified in Tax Law, let us look in detail at what this requirement says:
Volunteers must be certified to:
One trainer interpreted this to mean that all volunteers at a site must be certified to accomplish these activities which is unreasonable since those who are not certified (e.g. greeters, IT volunteers, or minors helping out with stapling papers) could not help in a site unless they went through this set of certification requirements. The correct interpretation would be that any, some, or all of the above activities must be performed by certified volunteers. It appears to suggest that transmitting returns does not require certification. A bigger problem is that there is no official way of verifying volunteer certification; scrawled signatures on an illegible form with scores entered in, or an identification badge with certification levels marked brought in as evidence of certification are easy to falsify when there is no process in place to verify that the volunteers are who they claim to be, and that they actually did the exam themselves. Verification of the certification of a volunteer can best be done by the Relationship Manager keeping and publishing an official list that is referenced by Site Coordinators. Link and Learn online testing captures that information, but does not provide it for independent verification, relying instead of producing a paper copy of an electronic file which can be modified fairly easily, and then asking for the site coordinator to verify it.
#2 appears to be a reasonable request, except that what is called an intake and interview process is another name of a mandatory form to be filled. In 2007 (for 2006 tax year) and prior years, this sheet included questions which were not relevant, required detailed explanation of something irrelevant to the taxpayer. One year, the wordy questions asked taxpayers for permission to receive junk mail. In 2007, use of the intake and interview sheet actually introduced new errors by the way the questions were asked that resulted in many taxpayers qualifying as HH who had their returns filed as Single. The other big problem is to require that the intake and interview sheet at all times reflect the current state of knowledge about the taxpayer information. The 2008 intake and interview sheet is a vast improvement from those in the past, but requiring it to accurately capture all the known taxpayer information before entering data into the computer defeats its purpose as a guide or a checklist. A more useful checklist is the electronic list provided in TaxWise, where the checking of various boxes results in introducing special forms and schedules into the return which could not be removed without unchecking the boxes. By the time the TP has filled the form with the information, it may have been more productive having them fill in a 1040A or 1040-EZ with the basic information of name, address and SSN, and have volunteers fill in and compute only the income, tax and refunds. The form in prior years used TaxSpeak, and over the years has moved towards PeopleSpeak, but requiring the paper form to be the document of record is getting into the way of it being useful.
#6 is an interesting activity. The Quality review process as currently defined means 100% inspection. In manufacturing and other processes, Quality is a process that results in fewer and fewer defects with less and less inspection. Statistical sampling is used to check that the quality is under control. On the other hand, it reasonable to expect responsible adult information workers to stand behind the quality of their work, a standard that is expected of most paid preparers. This practice may or may not have created the situation where volunteers do not have the self confidence to create an accurate return, but must be treated like kindergarten children whose every piece of work must be inspected by the teacher. Relationship managers have come in and asked to see paper copies of electronic returns, and it is was surprising to note that they are inspecting whether the SIDN and the EFIN were correct. To improve efficiency, these two pieces of information are entered in to the Tax Form Defaults so they appear on every return that is started from those Tax Form Default, so the review is in essence checking if the computer fills in default information correctly. Furthermore, it is neither necessary or a requirement for volunteers to remember the EFIN or the address of the site. One approach that works is to let the preparer who made the mistake contact the taxpayer for correction; that way, volunteers become more careful of their work instead of counting on other people to catch errors in their sloppy work. Additional analysis of the effect of quality process on return accuracy is discussed in more detail in a different section of this document.
#7 is determined by asking the Site Coordinator about representative statistics. Much of this information can be obtained objectively by using the appropriate reporting tools in TaxWise which reflects actual results instead of the wishful thinking on the part of the coordinator.
To improve accuracy of returns, here are some suggestions for thought and discussion:
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||