Purpose: This section provides specific guidance on the use of statistics within Criminal Investigation. The guidance is shown in the form of examples of acceptable/non-acceptable language. See IRM 1.5.5.3.

Audience: All Criminal Investigation employees.

Policy Owner: Executive Director, Strategy.

Program Owner: Director, Assurance & Advisory within Strategy.

Primary Stakeholders: All Criminal Investigation employees.

Contact Information: To make changes to this IRM email *CI-HQ-IRM.

The guidelines, restrictions and prohibitions in the use of statistics as outlined in this manual applies to all Criminal Investigation (CI) employees and the managers of employees who exercise judgment in determining whether or how the IRS should pursue enforcement of the tax laws against a particular individual or entity, also referred to as Section 1204 employees as determined in The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Section 1204. An employee is considered a Section 1204 employee based upon the work activity performed and not the employee’s title, location, or operating/functional division.

For most special agents and their various levels of supervisors, exercising judgment as described in paragraph (1) applies to a majority of the tasks they perform. Those special agents who are assigned full/part time to specialty positions may be exempt from these provisions if they are not exercising judgment in determining whether or how the IRS should pursue enforcement of the tax laws.

Generally, professional staff do not execute the type of tasks in which they exercise judgment about enforcement of the tax laws. However, some professional staff (i.e., tax fraud investigative aides; investigative analysts; and interns) may make recommendations to special agents or management officials as to whether or how the IRS should pursue enforcement of the tax laws against specific individuals or entities. When making these types of recommendations, those professional staff come under the guidance of this manual.

A tax enforcement result (TER) is the outcome produced by an IRS employee's exercise of judgment in recommending or determining whether or how the IRS should pursue enforcement of the tax laws. Records of Tax Enforcement Results (ROTERs) are data, statistics, and compilations of information or other numerical or quantitative recordation of the TERs reached in one or more cases.
- Examples of TERs include, but are not limited to:

An employee evaluation includes any written documentation used to appraise or measure an employee’s performance to provide a performance rating, award recommendation, assessment for qualification for promotion or reassignment, eligibility for incentive or bonus, or ranking for reductions in force. Case reviews and workload reviews are excluded from this definition.

Managers must not cite TER outcomes or ROTERs as the basis for a Section 1204 employee's performance rating, and TERs and ROTERS must not be used in employee evaluations, written performance appraisals, or to suggest or impose production quotas or goals. Employee performance is to be measured against the employee's critical job elements (CJEs) and standards. Managers may NOT use ROTERs in monitoring progress against employee CJEs. ROTERs do not convey how an employee performed in relation to requirements of the CJE performance plan. Managers must be careful to not use “soft language or phrases” that are suggestive of TERs or ROTERs. Examples of these type of items are:

The prohibition of the use of ROTERs in performance evaluations applies to the result reached in a single case. As Section 1204 can apply to the result reached in a single case, managers cannot use the outcome of a TER from a single case to evaluate an employee or suggest quotas or goals.

Managers may cite and discuss TERs in case reviews, workload reviews, or other employee documentation that does not meet the definition of an employee evaluation to determine if an employee exercised appropriate judgement, used time efficiently, and applied the law properly. The discussion must be based upon the manager's review of the employee's work on the specific case(s) and focus on the facts and details related to an individual TER to fairly describe the employee's performance with emphasis placed on the employee's efforts rather than on the result. A manager may reference a TER in an individual case to compare an employee’s performance to specific performance standards and make recommendations on enforcement actions.

Managers’ annual performance plans will be prepared and agreed upon without ROTERs being cited in the written plan. Commitments and objectives should be qualitative in nature but can and should be guided by the organization's quantitative performance measures. If individuals are held accountable solely for achieving specific numerical targets, the natural response is to focus attention on the numbers and not on the actions.

Evaluations for all levels of management will be based upon the individual manager's actions taken in accordance with that manager's annual agreed upon performance plan. An evaluation should focus on the actions taken (commitments or objectives) against the objectives and the results achieved to improve performance in each responsibility. Numerical results are helpful only for making an initial assessment of the impact those actions had on the responsibilities.

Numerical (quantitative) performance measures may not be used as a stand-alone measure to determine the individual manager's evaluation rating when comparing their achievements to their annual performance plan. As with all non-supervisory employee evaluations, managerial evaluations must not cite any ROTERs.

Managers are free to discuss TERs with the subordinate manager being evaluated, but the manager's evaluation is required to emphasize the subordinate manager's performance against their annual agreed upon performance plan.

Self- assessments prepared by employees or managers must not contain ROTERs. Including ROTERs in self-assessments does not violate Section 1204 or Regulation 801: however, it is IRS policy that employees should not use ROTERs in self-assessments. If an employee or manager submits self-assessment information containing a ROTER, the management official receiving the information must:

The prohibition of using ROTERs in self-assessments includes knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) statements prepared and submitted as part of a promotion ranking package, such as letters of interest. It is important that supervisors review all KSA statements before they are submitted to the host personnel site or deciding official. Managers will review the KSA statements for ROTERs, as well as the accuracy of the statements made by the employee.

It is a Section 1204(a) violation if a ranking official or panel uses the information in the ranking process or if a supervisor uses the information when evaluating employees' performance.

CI measures and tracks other data that relates directly to individual cases. This data may represent the result of enforcement determinations controlled in whole or in part by another government entity and may include information which qualifies as a ROTER. If so, the data should be treated as a ROTER by CI.

Quantity measures are outcome-neutral production and resource data that do not contain information regarding the TER in any case or cases involving particular taxpayers. Quality measures are outcome neutral metrics used to assess the quality of performance, effectiveness or efficiency for work tasks or processes. Quality measures are based on the review of statistically valid work items handled by organizational units. Quantity and quality measures are not TERs or ROTERs.

Performance measures based in whole or in part on quantity measures will not be used to evaluate non-supervisory employees who are responsible for exercising judgment with respect to TERs (See Regulation 801.3(3)). Quantity measures can be used to determine areas of performance that may require management investigation of an employee’s exercise of judgement or quality of tasks, however non-supervisory Section 1204 employees may only be evaluated on work performed in the context of their CJEs. Quantity measures may be discussed in case reviews, workload reviews, or other employee documentation that does not meet the definition of an employee evaluation to determine if an employee exercised appropriate judgement, used time efficiently, and applied the law properly. Although quantity measures are not ROTERs, managers are prohibited from using the data to set or suggest a goal or quota for non-supervisory Section 1204 employees.

Quantity measures can be used to set production goals for organizational units, and managers can share and discuss those goals with the units’ employees, such as in group meetings, however managers cannot use those unit goals to set production goals for the unit’s Section 1204 employees or in the evaluation of those employees.

Quantity measures may be used to evaluate the performance of supervisory employees responsible for exercising judgment with respect to TERs or who supervise such employees.

Quality measures may be used to evaluate all supervisory and non-supervisory employees, regardless of their responsibility for exercising judgment with respect to TERs. Performance measures based on quality measures may be used to impose or suggest production goals for any employee. Additionally, quality measures may be used in all the same ways as quantity measures.

Balanced performance measures were developed to assist all managers to better utilize their resources. They provide insight into organizational processes and performance. Managers are expected to use these measures and tools to help them achieve an appropriate mix of customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and business results. See IRM 1.5.1, for more information on balanced performance measures.

ROTERs may be used at the national, regional, or field office level to monitor, direct and control program accomplishments and direction. Management officials participating in the activities of monitoring, directing, and controlling program accomplishments and direction must use caution that their use of ROTERS in authorized circumstances does not suggest or impose goals or quotes for subordinate organization units or employees.

Examples of the type of authorized activities in which ROTERS may be used include:

Goals for the balanced measures system will be set at the national level to satisfy government reporting requirements. Goals will be set no lower than the field office level. They will not be used to directly determine the evaluation of an organizational unit or an individual employee.

ROTERs may be used to prepare for operational reviews at the national, area, field office, branch and group levels. ROTERS should only be used as indicators to identify variances, whether above or below the norm. ROTERS may be used to identify areas where further investigation is needed. Specific areas will be selected for further review. The purpose of additional analysis and review is to determine the quality of the processes within the organizational unit.

Quantity and quality measures may be used to evaluate the performance of an organizational unit. Quantity and quality measures may also be used to impose or suggest production goals for an organizational unit. An organizational unit may disseminate quantity measures to employees of the unit as organizational or employee goals, but the information cannot be used in evaluations of unit employees.

Using results for diagnostic tools or workload indicators to compare one unit against other units may be appropriate for:

The performance of any one unit at any level of the organization must not be used as a standard by which the performance of other units is evaluated due to differences that exist in:

The review and analysis may be conducted by local management officials or through a field visitation by outside management personnel. The specific review should go beyond the raw statistics and should focus on the process to best determine what might be causing a variance.

ROTER data concerning one organizational unit may not systematically be shared with other units at the same level. It may only be shared with organizations to which it pertains. If ROTER data is to be shared, it must not be used to evaluate any Section 1204 employees.

Organizational units may share quantity measures, quality measures and other non-ROTER data at the same level.

The following information cannot be disclosed pursuant to the certification process:

The employee performance file, performance appraisal documents, and other supervisory documents are required to be sanitized or purged of any sensitive investigation-specific information and made available for independent review. Detailed information regarding the independent review process is outlined in IRM 1.5.3 and must not conflict with this subsection..

Operational and workload review documents containing any information identified in paragraph (1) above must be excluded from the independent review process.