Office of Debt Collection Management’s Implementation
of the Collection Litigation Automated Support System

Report No. 01-15
July 3, 2001
Office of the Inspector General

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and procedures, as we deemed necessary.

Our objectives were to assess the status of implementation of CLASS and the accuracy and timeliness of the system’s civil debt collection accounting. The audit focused on the Office of Debt Collection Management’s (DCM) efforts to implement CLASS from the time the contract with CACI-IMS, Incorporated, was awarded in May 1998 through November 2000.

We reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, DCM directives and reports, and other documents related to the implementation of CLASS. We also interviewed DCM and Executive Office for the United States Attorney officials involved in implementing CLASS.

To determine the adequacy of DCM’s efforts to implement CLASS, we also performed on-site reviews at 7 United States Attorneys Offices (USAOs) and 12 of the 18 Private Counsel offices in which CLASS was being used. A list of the offices we reviewed follows:

United States Attorneys Offices
Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit, MI
District of Columbia, Washington, DC
Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA
Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA
Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY
Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX
Southern District of Florida, Miami, FL

Private Counsel Offices
Holzman & Holzman, Southfield, MI
Shermeta, Chimko & Kilpatrick, Rochester Hills, MI
Mauro & Associates, Washington, DC
Herbert A. Rosentahl, Washington, DC
Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, Glendale, CA
Michael Cosentino, Esq., Alameda, CA
Goldsmith & Burns, Tarzana, CA
Hayt, Hayt & Landau, Garden City, NY
Sharinn & Lipshie, Garden City, NY
Alonso & Cersonsky, P.C., Houston, TX
Bennet & Weston, P.C., Dallas, TX
David Newman, Esq., Miami, FL

At the USAOs and the Private Counsel offices, we interviewed CLASS system users and office supervisors to determine if either had experienced:

• problems with data entry, reliability, storage, or retrieval.

• unexpected costs or modifications to its office software or hardware in order to make CLASS operational.

• unscheduled down time of the CLASS system.

• slow system response times when entering or updating data, or when generating reports.

• problems with CLASS’s ability to generate the documents needed to take collection actions.

• problems with CLASS’s joint/several liability feature.

• problems where CLASS did not provide adequate edits and quality control functions.

• problems with CLASS’s ability to calculate installment payments correctly.

At the USAOs and Private Counsel offices, we also reviewed documentation to determine if:

• guidance and training on the use of CLASS were provided to system users.

• the National Central Intake Facility help desk responded to user requests in a timely manner.

• the list of system users maintained by DCM matched the actual users in the field.

• data was accurately and timely entered into CLASS.