Meet Jane and Mike, two dedicated debt collection agents working for the same company. Mike and Jane are working on a portfolio of accounts worth $3,000 across 10 customers each. Mike collects $2,500, and Jane collects $2,200.

On the surface, Mike's performance seems superior. However, there's a significant difference beneath the numbers: Jane's consumers are all currently unemployed and facing substantial hardships, while Mike's consumers are employed and capable of making their payments. This distinction highlights a critical flaw in evaluating agent performance solely based on the amount collected.

Focusing exclusively on the total amount collected overlooks the complexities each agent faces. Jane operates in a challenging environment where consumers are less likely to pay due to financial instability. Her ability to recover $3,000 under these circumstances demonstrates resilience, empathy, and strategic communication skills. In contrast, Mike's higher collection amount comes from consumers who are in a better position to pay, making his achievements appear more impressive without reflecting the true difficulty of his cases.

Why Intent to Pay (ITP) matters in collections

Intent to Pay (ITP) refers to a consumer's willingness and ability to settle their debts. It's a critical factor that influences the success of debt collection efforts. Understanding ITP helps in assessing not just what agents collect, but how effectively they engage with consumers. Jane's efforts to collect from consumers with low ITP showcase her ability to handle difficult situations and work towards sustainable resolutions, whereas Mike's collections, while higher, may not require the same level of effort or skill.

How to normalize agent performance with ITP

To accurately evaluate agent performance, it's essential to normalize collections data against the ITP of the accounts they manage. This approach ensures that agents like Jane, who handle more challenging accounts, are recognized for their efforts and contributions. Ignoring ITP can lead to misguided incentives, where agents are rewarded for high collection amounts without considering the context, potentially encouraging aggressive tactics that may harm customer relationships and the company's reputation.

Monitoring call outcomes for better evaluation

In case you don't use Prodigal's proprietary ITP scores, one effective method to incorporate ITP into performance evaluations is by monitoring the outcomes of each call made by agents.

{{cta-banner}}

Tracking these outcomes provides insights into whether agents are making meaningful progress in resolving accounts. Consider the following hierarchy of call outcomes:

• Positive ITP:
  • Payment made during the call
  • Auto-pay setup established
• Neutral ITP:
  • Agreement to set up auto-pay for a future date
  • Promise to pay at a later time
  • Consent to receive a callback
  • Indication of willingness to pay if disputes are resolved
• Negative ITP:
  • Refusal to pay or engage
  • Legal flags such as cease and desist requests

By categorizing call outcomes in this manner, companies can assess whether agents are effectively moving consumers toward more favorable resolutions over time. For example, an agent consistently achieving positive outcomes or successfully navigating neutral outcomes towards positive ones demonstrates a higher level of effectiveness than an agent who merely focuses on immediate collections without addressing underlying issues.

Steps to implement a balanced evaluation system

Implementing a balanced evaluation system that accounts for ITP involves several actionable steps:

1. Assess current metrics: Review existing performance metrics to identify where ITP considerations can be integrated.
2. Implement call outcome tracking: Utilize a standardized hierarchy to monitor and evaluate the results of each agent's calls.
3. Normalize performance data: Adjust performance evaluations to account for the ITP of each account, ensuring a fair comparison between agents.
4. Provide training and support: Equip agents with the necessary tools and training to handle diverse consumer situations effectively.
5. Regularly review and adjust: Continuously monitor the evaluation system's effectiveness and make adjustments to optimize agent performance.

By adopting this comprehensive approach, companies can move beyond simplistic metrics and develop a more accurate understanding of agent performance. This not only improves collections rates but also fosters better consumer relationships and a more ethical approach to debt recovery. Recognizing the efforts of agents like Jane ensures that their valuable skills are acknowledged and encourages a balanced, sustainable collections strategy.