ATTACHMENT C:
STAKEHOLDERS MEETING SUMMARY, 2007 (DC)
NOVEMBER 27, 2007 STAKEHOLDER MEETING REPORT
January 2008
Report Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC
Prepared by:
Westat
Rockville, Maryland
Introduction
STAKEHOLDER MEETING REPORT
On November 27, 2007, the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy and Westat hosted a stakeholder workshop in Washington, D.C., on the evaluation of the E-Verify program. The purpose of this one day workshop was to provide an open forum to identify, discuss, and prioritize topics that should be studied in the upcoming Westat evaluation of the USCIS E-Verify program. The workshop was attended by over 120 stakeholders including representatives from
65 private organizations as well as USCIS, DHS, Congressional and other government agencies staff.
The evaluators at Westat will use information from the workshop in the development of the evaluation design. Identifying stakeholders’ high priority issues early in the research process provides important input into the evaluation design and, therefore, increases the likelihood of providing the best possible answers to key questions. Of course, other factors, such as costs will be considered in developing the evaluation design and data collection instruments. Thus, a suggested high priority issue that would be extremely costly or take more time than this one-year evaluation would allow may not be included, even though some lower priority issues are incorporated.
This report consists of five sections and two appendices in addition to this introductory section. The second section explains how the workshop was organized. The third section is a summary of the opening plenary session. Section 4, is a summary of what participants thought were the highest priority issues for the evaluation to address across the spectrum of the different workshop topics. Section 5 summarizes the discussions of each of the 6 workgroups, emphasizing research questions raised or implied in the discussion. The final section is a summary of the closing plenary. Appendix A provides the sections of the advance package sent to potential attendees describing E-Verify and providing an overview of the workgroup discussion topics and sub- topics. Appendix B contains a list of workshop attendees.
Workshop Organization
The workshop consisted of an opening plenary session, six morning workgroup sessions, six afternoon workgroup sessions, and a closing plenary session. The group sessions were divided into six topics:
Topic 1: Use of the Photo Tool and Biometric Techniques in E-Verify
Topic 2: Resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations
Topic 3: Timing of Employee Verifications
Topic 4: Focusing on Special Employer Types: designated agents and the Employers Using designated agents
Topic 5: Focusing on Special Employer Types: Employment Agencies and the Temporary
Help Services
Topic 6: Focusing on Special Employer Types: Infrequent Users
Due to the high interest in Topic 2, there were two sessions for this topic in both the morning and the afternoon. Topic 5 was only offered in the afternoon and Topic 6 was only offered in the morning. Participants were assigned to a morning and an afternoon session using the preferences they had indicated on their registration forms as well as practical considerations such as the number of participants interested in the topic and a desire to spread organizational representation among sessions.
Opening Plenary
Lisa Roney, Director of Research and Evaluation in the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy, welcomed the participants to the workshop. She pointed out that the number of people attending the workshop and the diversity of government and private agencies represented were indicative of the high interest in the E-Verify evaluation. She then introduced Carlos Iturregui, Chief of the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy who spoke about the importance of this evaluation in light of the strong support for E-Verify from Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and other DHS officials.
Jonathan Scharfen, Deputy Director of USCIS, next addressed the session and emphasized that the reason for this workshop and the evaluation was to gather input to make the E-Verify system work better and to find “next steps.” He pointed out that this was extremely important in light of various immigration bills of which E-Verify is a part.
The next part of the plenary consisted of several Power Point presentations. Gerri Ratliff, Associate Deputy Director, USCIS National Security, Records, and Verification, presented an update on E-Verify. She talked about the growth of the program and the new the Photo Tool. She said that E-Verify currently has a 92 percent instant verification rate and that the mismatch rate has been lowered. She said that plans to include additional naturalization information in USCIS databases should lower it even more. Ms. Ratliff touched on other efforts that will focus on marketing the program to increase the number of users as well to improve ways to explain the program to employees, to monitor for problems, to address compliance issues, and to coordinate with SSA.
Lisa Roney then gave a presentation on the evaluation background, including legislative history. She noted that the current pilot legislation ends in November 2008 and that it is still unknown whether the program will continue as a pilot, remain voluntary, or be made compulsory for some or all employers. She spoke about the impact of prior evaluations including administrative changes that have already been made to the E-Verify program because of the evaluation reports.5
She also presented the key research questions and information on the evaluation research methods that Westat will use in the current evaluation.
The next presentation, given by Carolyn Shettle, Project Director, Westat E-Verify Evaluation, was an overview of the key findings from the FY 2007 report. These included findings on proper implementation, reducing unauthorized employment, protecting against discrimination, safeguarding privacy and employee rights, preventing undue burden on employers, changes in user population and the impact of those changes. She concluded her presentation with the goal of
5
This
report
can
be
found
at
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf
the meeting: identifying and then prioritizing the issues that the evaluation team should investigate in the upcoming evaluation.
Denise Glover, Assistant Project Director, Westat E-Verify Evaluation, gave an overview of the meeting logistics and guidelines for participation in the workshops. The plenary session then concluded with a short question and answer period. In response to a question about what is being done to follow up on fraudulent cases or on employers who are noncompliant, Ms. Ratliff said that standard operating procedures were developed in 2007 for this purpose, staff is being hired, and an office will be opening outside of Washington, D.C., to start the monitoring this coming year. Another participant questioned if there is a firewall to protect employers from criminal enforcement if they are voluntarily participating in E-Verify. Ms. Ratliff responded that information from E-Verify is only made available to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigators if they are already investigating an employer. Finally, in response to a question about a formal process to appeal a final nonconfirmation, Ms. Ratliff said that USCIS is considering ways to re-open cases to address this issue.
Summary of Priority Issues across Topics
Although the workgroups discussed separate topics and concerns, there was a great deal of overlap in issues raised. The fact that certain issues came up in most or all of the workgroups is a useful indicator of their high priority. The following broad research questions reflect what appear to be the highest priority issues.
Is
communication
among
the
Federal
government,
employers,
designated
agents,
and
employees
adequate
to
ensure
the
efficient
operation
of
the
E-Verify
program?
Workgroup
members
discussed
situations
illustrating
how
communication
breaks
down on many
levels:
from
government
to
employer
or
designated
agent,
from
employer
to employee,
and
from
employee
to
the
government.
Employers
may
not
be
correctly
implementing the program because information is not clearly communicated; for example undefined key terms (like “new hire”) or vague time frames create problems for
employers and employees. Workgroup members were especially concerned that employers don’t always get important information from USCIS about changes or enhancements to E-Verify. Many employers participating in the workshop were unaware that EV*STAR even existed while others “accidentally” found out about it when it came up on a specific log-in screen. Participants felt strongly that users needed to be informed of changes to the program in a more direct, visible, and timely manner in order to properly train staff and make any procedural changes before having to implement the modifications.
An example of confusion related to communication was exemplified by designated agents who said that they provided E-Verify services to some but not all of their clients. Those clients using E-Verify themselves were using the Photo Tool; however, designated agents were unable to use it for their other clients. Attendees also reported that E-Verify information sometimes differs or even conflicts among information sources, such as the manual, the tutorial, the DHS website, and advice given during phone calls. Participants felt very strongly that communication problems need to be identified and corrected before expanding E-Verify.
Communication problems affect employees in several ways. Currently, key documents are available only in English and Spanish and the literacy level required to read the
materials is higher than appropriate for many employees. Participants noted that all materials, such as the poster, the tentative nonconfirmation notice, and USCIS E-Verify information for employees on the web should be available in many other languages and use more appropriate literacy levels. For example, one participant commented that her company employs speakers of more than 20 different languages in just one location.
Participants wondered if employees actually understand the tentative nonconfirmation process. They suggested that more specific information should be given to employees, either through employers or the written notification, which would explain in more detail what had to be done to resolve a tentative nonconfirmation. Some suggested that USCIS provide templates that the employer could use to explain the process to the employee. Of course, communicating this information effectively to employees who are not native English speakers would still be a problem.
In addition, workshop members said that employees trying to resolve tentative nonconfirmations at SSA offices have encountered problems in communicating with SSA personnel who are not well informed about E-Verify and have, therefore, had problems in getting the tentative nonconfirmation resolved. These problems are exacerbated when there are no translators available for non-English speakers.
Another communication problem for both employers and employees raised is not being able to get through to DHS by phone. Participants reported getting busy signals or getting no answer because they called after operational hours. The questions are as follows: Can the phone system handle all of the calls if the program expands and how will DHS accommodate people who work odd hours or live in different time zones?
What
are
the
causes
of
employer
noncompliance
with
E-Verify
procedures
and
how
can
these
be
reduced?
Participants
opined that
some
noncompliance
is
intentional;
for instance,
there
may
be
intentional
attempts
by
employers
to use
E-Verify
to
prescreen
or discriminate.
For
example,
temporary
help
agencies
may
prescreen
by
waiting
to
place
someone
until
work
authorization
is verified
and,
if
the
person
is not authorized,
simply
not placing
that
person.
This
might
be difficult
to
determine
because
many
people
who
sign
up with temporary
help
agencies
don’t
get
placed
immediately
for
many
other
reasons.
Prescreening
also
occurs
when
clients
of
staffing
companies
request
that
the
staffing
company
complete
the
verification
process
before
referring
anyone
to
them
so that they
only
get
work-authorized
employees.
Similarly,
employers
may
withhold
training
or
job placement
when
a
tentative
nonconfirmation
is
returned
so they
don’t
incur the expense of training someone who is not work-authorized. It is also possible that employers discriminate by prescreening more frequently in the case of noncitizens than citizens.
Workshop attendees also indicated that other employers may be purposefully noncompliant to avoid staffing or financial burdens. For example, employers may postpone the tentative nonconfirmation notification of employees or wait a significant time after a final nonconfirmation to fire someone in order to get a particular job completed without having to hire and train someone else.
However, participants also said that noncompliance is in some cases the unintentional result of problems in the E-Verify program. As discussed above, unintentional noncompliance may occur because terms such as “hire date” are not clearly defined and
the time frames for specific actions required by E-Verify are not clearly stated. Many participants also felt that employers should have additional closure codes to explain why tentative nonconfirmations don’t get resolved.
Workshop attendees also discussed compliance issues that emerged with the introduction of the Photo Tool. Some thought that users just don’t understand the directions while others wondered if employers were purposely requesting other documents to bypass
using it. Additionally, because the Photo Tool is currently only used for noncitizens and the matching process is somewhat subjective, discrimination, intentional or not, could result. They also wondered if employers have more difficulty matching photos of certain national origin groups and suggested that examining data on non-matches might show a pattern of possible discrimination.
After discussing these issues, participants felt it was important to have a better system to monitor compliance. Right now ending the participation in E-Verify is the only potential negative consequence of being noncompliant. Participants wondered what would happen if the system is made mandatory, because termination of program participation would not then be an option.
Do
the
E-Verify
training
materials
adequately
prepare
employers
to use
E-Verify
and,
if
not,
how
can
they
be
improved?
This
topic
is closely
related
to the
previous
topics
but focuses
on a
specific
aspect
of
communication.
Of
paramount
concern
to attendees
was
training
on
system
changes
such
as
the Photo Tool and
EV*STAR.
Many
participants
whose businesses
use
E-Verify
had
not
heard
of
these
relatively
recent
additions
to
the program.
Others,
who did know about
them,
were
concerned
that the training
was
not clear
enough
for
users
to understand
how they
should
modify
their
use
of
the system.
This highlighted
the
participants’
concern
that
the
tutorial
and
other
training
information
would not
be
able
to keep
up with changes
or
additions
to
the E-Verify
program,
especially
if
the
system
were
made
mandatory.
Workgroup members also discussed how the effectiveness of the training may be weakened by the ambiguity in the definitions of key terms such as hire, new hire, and start date. They questioned why explicit definitions and examples of key terms were not
included in the tutorial and noted that there were inconsistencies in the definition of terms across Federal agencies. Participants were interested in how users came up with their interpretations of the terms, particularly if that impacted how they implemented the program. Workgroup members also said that the training is not clear about the time allowed between an employer receiving notification of a tentative nonconfirmation and actually notifying the employee, the time when the 8-day period to contest actually
begins, and the time frame for firing an employee after a final nonconfirmation.
Participants noted problems that can occur because users of designated agents are not required to complete the tutorial, yet they are ultimately the ones responsible for following through with tentative nonconfirmations. Many felt that signing the MOU was not sufficient and that the employers who use designated agents should still have to complete the tutorial. In addition to user training, group members discussed the problems that occur, mainly for employees, because many staff in some SSA offices aren’t adequately trained on the E-Verify program.
Are
there
ways
that the
employer
and
employee
burden
of
E-Verify
can
be
reduced?
Several participants said that the current time frame for resolving tentative
nonconfirmations may not be realistic. In some cases, the closest SSA office could be hours away, creating burdens for the employee such as time lost from work, loss of wages, arranging transportation and the cost for child care, etc. For the employer, this means losing a day’s work from the employee. Then, if the employee has to go back a second or third time to bring the correct documentation or resolve other problems, the same burdens are multiplied. Furthermore, multiple trips to SSA could make it extremely difficult to resolve a tentative nonconfirmation in time. Employees also have difficulty resolving the tentative nonconfirmation in time when SSA offices are not knowledgeable about E-Verify or do not enter data in a timely manner. One participant cited her own situation when it took the entire 8 days to resolve a tentative nonconfirmation although there were no problems with her documentation.
It was reported that SSA would like to change the time frame; however, the 60 to 90 days that SSA feels is needed would be unfair to employers who would have trained and established the employee in the job only to possibly find out much later that the employee was not work-authorized and had to be fired. A reasonable compromise needs to be made on the time allowed to resolve a tentative nonconfirmation, especially with regard to naturalized citizens who have a 10 percent rate of false tentative nonconfirmations. If a case is put “in continuance,” with no end date, it again burdens the employer with the expense and time involved in training and establishing an employee, who may end up being found to be “not authorized to work,” on the job. However, if the employer is sure that an employee who received a final nonconfirmation because the tentative nonconfirmation couldn’t be resolved in time is, in fact, work-authorized, is it fair to
make the employer fire the employee? Participants felt strongly that a formal appeal process is needed and would benefit both employers and employees.
Participants from some employment and temporary help agencies brought up other issues which affect their competitiveness and could become a financial burden. If an employment agency keeps placing workers who end up as not work-authorized with a client who must train them and put them to work, only to have to fire them and then find new workers, there is a good chance that the agency will lose that client. Similarly, if a temporary help agency places someone in a short term position and then that person has
to take off to resolve a tentative nonconfirmation, it is difficult to justify to the client. According to some participants, these situations have happened and they noted that there are some agencies which prescreen to avoid this problem. Obviously, by prescreening, those agencies are not complying with the program’s provisions. Therefore, the question is, until all agencies must use E-Verify and prescreening can be effectively monitored and stopped, how can the burden be eased without compromising the integrity of the E-Verify program?
A very different type of burden to employers discussed is the technology needed for E- Verify, especially if the program were to become mandatory. For example, small employers may find the cost of setting up and maintaining the technology too high; small employers, in particular may not have the technology required to use the Photo Tool; and some employers that do off-site hiring may not have computers, or even if they have laptops, they may not have Internet access, photocopying, or fax capability. Additional
burdens or challenges, for those using E-Verify in remote hiring situation include training, communications, and security. As E-Verify expands, participants were concerned about increased burdens and the impact on employers and employees.
WORKGROUP SUMMARIES
INTRODUCTION
The goal of each session was to frame and prioritize the research questions related to the topic that participants thought should be addressed in the upcoming evaluation. Topics and sub-topics6 were provided to guide the discussion of each of the groups and participants were encouraged to suggest additional topics. Each of the following summaries incorporates the comments and priorities from all workshops on that topic and the feedback from workshop reporters in the
workshop wrap-up session. It is important to note, that although the charge to each group was the same, there were differences in the way that the groups chose to implement it. Because of these differences, the write-ups of the workgroups are not strictly comparable. In particular, the differentiation between high priority questions and those of lower priorities is not necessarily consistent among groups. Additionally, not all of the questions discussed in each session could
be arranged easily under the subtopics. As a result, some of the questions were not assigned a priority and left unrated. Each summary is organized into three or four sections:
1. Background
2. Higher priority questions
3. Lower priority questions
4. Other unrated questions, if there were any unrated questions
These summaries are not intended to capture the verbatim conversations of the participants. To maximize the usefulness of the summaries for guiding the evaluation, the workgroup summaries emphasize the research questions that participants considered important for the evaluation to address. In addition, the listing of questions within the priority groups roughly reflects the broad topic groupings:
implementation
issues
o communication and training
o accuracy of findings
o compliance with program requirements
program
outcomes
o impact on employment of workers without work-authorization
o discrimination
o burden and cost
o
privacy
needs of special groups
needed programmatic changes impacts of scaling up E-Verify
6
See
Appendix
A
for
a
copy
of
the
questions
and
sub-topics
given
to
attendees.
TOPIC 1: USE OF THE PHOTO TOOL AND BIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES IN E- VERIFY
1. Background
E-Verify recently started requiring that all employers, except designated agents, use the Photo- Screening Tool which currently provides employers with photographs from immigration documents when the person being verified presents such documents. Using this tool, the employer can verify that the picture on the document matches the photo in USCIS files. Workshop participants were asked to raise and prioritize issues the evaluation should consider related to how well the Photo Tool was working and any problems related to its use. They were also asked to consider issues related to using biometrics such as finger prints or iris scans in E- Verify.
2. High priority questions
Participants identified a number of high priority issues that they thought the evaluation should address. These issues include:
Did
the
rapid
roll
out
of
the
Photo
Tool process
raise
issues
that could
affect
other
rapid
changes
to E-Verify?
Does
a short
implementation
time
from
the announcement
of
a
new
verification
process
to
its
mandatory
use
create
problems
for
employers
that
may
need
more
time
to train
their
personnel
on it?
Did
users
have
enough
time
to master the tutorial?
If
not, did that
cause
errors
when
they
used
the Photo
Tool?
Did
the short
time
to implement
the
Photo
Tool
make
it
more
difficult
for
employers
to follow
procedures
correctly?
Should
future
changes
to the
E-Verify
process
be implemented
as
quickly
as
the Photo
Tool
was,
and,
if they
are,
when
should E-Verify
users
be informed
about
the
changes,
where
and
how would
they
get
the
information
that
changes
were
being
made,
and
how
can
we
ensure
timely
and
thorough
training
on
the
new
procedures
before
they
have
to
be
used?
Is
the training
for
using
the
Photo
Tool
adequate?
Workshop
members
questioned
whether
employers
receive
adequate
training
on
using
the
Photo
Tool and
if the tutorial
is
clear
enough
for
employers
to easily
follow
through
with
the
correct
procedures.
Are
employers
able
to
make
accurate
comparisons
from
photocopies
or
scanned
photographs
that might
not be clear?
Do
the
quality
and/or
timeliness of
photos
transferred
through
a
fax
machine
or
photo-copied
create
problems?
What
is
the
error
rate
in
uploading
photos
from
the
original
database
to
E-Verify?
What happens if there are multiple applications and photos for one person? Will there be
a test to determine if employers have false matches?
Are
there
safeguards
to
detect
errors?
How
is
the
Photo
Tool
monitored?
Are
there
technical
malfunctions
that
could affect
the
Photo
Tool?
What
would the
employer
do, for
example,
if the Photo
Tool
was
not functioning
but
E-Verify
was?
As
E-Verify
expands,
especially
if
it becomes
mandatory
for
all
employers,
will
the
Photo
Tool
be
able
to handle
the
case
load?
What
problems
could
occur
with
verification
results
based
on
the
Photo
Tool?
Participants said that it is important to evaluate the Photo Tool results. For example, were
any nonconfirmations based on Photo Tool results later found to be work authorized? Conversely, were there any false matches? Participants discussed the problems of subjectivity and discrimination. Is there a pattern to false mismatches or false matches reflecting national origins?
Do
employers
follow
Photo
Tool
procedures
correctly?
Are
they
properly
retaining
all
photo
documentation?
Are
they
firing
employees
whose
photos
don’t match?
Are
employers
asking
for
non-Photo
Tool
documents
in order
to circumvent
having
to
use
the
Photo
Tool?
Are
employers
more
lax
on
the
Form
I-9
process
because
of
the
Photo
Tool?
Participants were concerned that employers may not be as careful in using
document photographs in the required Form I-9 determination of whether documents appear to belong to the person presenting them when using the Photo Tool. Other participants expressed concern that employers may compare the Photo Tool document to the employee instead of to the copy of the photo on documents presented during the I-9 process.
Are
unauthorized
employees
more
likely
to show
non-Photo
Tool documents
than
are
authorized
employees?
Are
employees
presenting
different
documents
than they
did
before
the
Photo
Tool?
On
the
employer
side,
the
question
to ask is whether
employers
are
specifically
requesting
(the
Photo
Tool) documents.
Do
they
violate
I-9
rules
and request
I-551s
or
I-866s
of
noncitizens?
A
comparison
of the
types
of documents
presented
pre/post
the
Photo
Tool
could
help answer
the
question.
Does
the
Photo
Tool
lead
to
discrimination
because
it is only
required
of
noncitizens?
Because
the
Photo
Tool
is
only
for
noncitizens,
is there
a
proclivity
to
discriminate?
How
does
employer
subjectivity
affect
the
outcome,
especially
when
using
photos that are
not
clear?
Are
there
verification
problems
due
to
the
quality
of
the
photos
and/or
the
timeliness
of
transmittal?
Will
the
fact
that
it
is
the employer’s
responsibility
to do the comparison add to discriminatory practices? Would we see a pattern if we broke down the requests for other types of documentation (Form I-551, I-766) or the results from the Photo Tool into national origins? Is this amplified if passport photos are added
to the Photo Tool?
Does
the
Photo
Tool create
new
burdens
for
the
employer?
Will
employers
incur
additional
expenses
to purchase
or
update
the
technology
needed
for
the
Photo
Tool?
Are
there
other
burdens
associated
with transmitting
photos
to the
verification
site,
especially
if there
is
off-site
hiring?
Is
there
a
financial
burden
related
to
transmittal
or
storage?
Are
there
any
burdens
related
to
security
issues?
Would
it
help
or
hinder
the
procedure
if
more
types
of
documents
could
be
used
for
matching?
Participants
thought
that
the
Photo
Tool
reassures
employers
about
hiring
noncitizens.
If
new documents
are
phased
in,
it
would be useful
to
continue
an
evaluation
of
changes
to the
types
of
documents
presented
by
employees
as well
as
which
documents employers accepted, especially if that shows any relation to the national origin and status of employees.
3. Lower priority questions
Although participants did not consider the following issues to be as high in priority as the preceding, they did raise questions that the evaluation should consider, if possible:
Is
there
a
greater
chance
for
error
or
malfunction
with
photos
from
other
agencies
that
may
be
included,
since
DHS
can’t
control
the
quality
of
their
systems?
How
can
we
determine
whether
the
Photo
Tool
does,
in
fact,
help
detect
fraudulent
documents?
Participants
discussed
an
evaluation
of mismatches.
They
also
suggested
looking
at
“failure
to
contest”
tentative
nonconfirmation
cases
when
they
were
the
result
of
the
Photo
Tool mismatch.
Has
the
Photo
Tool created
more
problems?
Could
the
Photo
Tool lead
to
more
“fake”
employer
fraud
and
identity
theft
because
the employer
could
capture
the
photo
and
information
that
went
with
it
and
make
new
documents
that
would
pass
E-Verify?
Will
the
change
in
types
of
documents
lead
to fraud
or
more
identity
theft?
What
would
be
the
impact
of
using
biometrics
on
privacy?
Who would
own
the
data
or
have
access
to the
data?
Who
would keep
records
of false
matches
or
mismatches
and how would they be stored? Privacy issues and civil liberties must be addressed for the Photo Tool or any biometric used. Other privacy concerns included whether the
system or database could be hacked or if the query could be hacked. Just how secure is it? Is it possible that there could be unauthorized access within the government? Does a centralized database present problems? What protection needs to be in place to limit the use of the information in E-Verify? Participants also questioned whether other DHS agencies would have access to E-Verify biometrics.
What
are
the
implications
of
using
state-level
documents
in
the
Photo
Tool?
Would
use of
driver’s
licenses
and
nondriver
IDs
create
a
Federal
database
that
would
include
most
Americans?
Should
states
be the
ones
to authenticate
these
documents
rather
than
DHS?
(It
was
clarified
that employers
are
only
supposed
to retain
a
pass/fail
for
the
photo match
and
not the
copy
of
the
photograph
returned
by
the
system
under
the
Photo
Tool.) Employers
and
civil
liberties
advocates
should be
asked
about
the
above
in
terms
of privacy,
etc.
Will
subjectivity
become
more
of
a
problem
if
the
Photo
Tool is
broadened
to
include
more
documents?
What
would
be
the
implications
of
using
a “real”
biometric
tool
instead
of
or
in
addition
to
the
Photo
Tool?
Would
E-Verify
users
be
interested
in
a
voluntary
fingerprint
pilot
program,
such
as
the Whole
Foods
“pay
by
touch”
system?7
What
would
it
cost?
What
would
be the benefits?
Would
it
be
difficult
to
implement
with
so many
employers?
Are
there
other
biometric
tools that
could
be used
for
verification?
Should
a true
biometric
tool be
an
alternative
or
an
additional
check?
How
many
incidents
of fraud
have been identified because of the Photo Tool? Are there data on how effective other biometric tools have been in reducing fraud? Would it be better to put more money into the Photo Tool or into a different “true” biometric tool? Would a “true” biometric tool
7
This
is
a payment
system
which
uses
a
customer’s
digital
fingerprint
to
charge
the
customer’s
checking
account
or
credit
card
avoid problems associated with the Photo Tool? If “true” biometrics were used, would subjectivity and discrimination decrease? Participants recommended that for the current evaluation, the focus should be on the Photo Tool even though it is not a true biometric.
TOPIC 2: RESOLVING TENTATIVE NONCONFIRMATIONS
1. Background
E-Verify sends a tentative nonconfirmation of work authorization status to the employer when employee work-authorization status cannot be determined. Once the employer informs the employee of the tentative nonconfirmation, the employee has eight business days to contest this decision. Past evaluations have shown that there are problems with this process, including employers that don’t properly notify employees and the burden on employers for training employees who do not successfully contest the tentative nonconfirmation. Workshop participants were asked to raise and prioritize issues the evaluation should consider related to the how well
the process for contesting tentative nonconfirmations is working, including the recently introduced automation of the SSA process for handling tentative nonconfirmations (EV*STAR).
2. High priority questions
Participants identified the following high priority issues that they thought the evaluation should address:
Do
communications
with
recipients
of
tentative
nonconfirmation
notices
need
to
be
improved?
Do
communication
issues
affect
the
process
to
resolve
a
tentative
nonconfirmation?
One
member
commented
that
employers
are
not
given
any
information
to pass on to the
employee
other
than
to
go
to an SSA
office
after
receiving
the
tentative
nonconfirmation.
Also, some
employees
may
not
actually
understand
the
tentative
nonconfirmation
notice
(as
well
as
E-Verify
posters
and
other
information)
due
to
literacy
and
language
difficulties,
especially
since
it
is
written
at
a high
literacy
level
and is currently
available
in only
English
and
Spanish.
Would
it
improve
the
process
to
have
more
detailed
instructions
on the
referral
notice
to
the
employee,
based
on the reason
for
the tentative
nonconfirmation,
or to have
templates
for
employers
to inform
their
employees
of what
they
need
to do (or
documents
to get)
before
they
go
to
resolve
the tentative
nonconfirmation?
Was
there
sufficient
notification
about
and
training
for
EV*STAR?
Many
participants
were
unaware
of
this new
process
and
said
that
they
had
not received
any
notification
of
its
existence.
Others
“accidentally”
found
out about it
when
it
came
up on the log-in
screen.
How
many
users
actually
knew
EV*STAR
existed
and
received
information
on how it
works?
Are
the
E-Verify
instructions
and/or
communication
problems
between
the
government
and
the
employer
major
factors
in
employer
compliance
or
noncompliance?
Does
the
fact
that
both
the training
and
MOU
do not give
specific
time frames
for
notifying
employees
after
the
employer
receives
notification
of
a
tentative
nonconfirmation
or
final
nonconfirmation
result
in
accidental
or intentional
noncompliance?
Is
EV*STAR
reducing
the
number
of
erroneous
final
nonconfirmations?
Participants
wanted
to know if EV*STAR
solves
the problem
of
the
employee
who
goes
to SSA,
gets
everything
straightened
out,
buts
still
receives
a
final
nonconfirmation
because
the employer
makes
a
second
inquiry
before
the
corrected
data
are
entered
by
SSA.
The
participants suggested comparing the number of erroneous final nonconfirmations with EV*STAR to the number of final nonconfirmations prior to its use. Similarly, rates of erroneous tentative nonconfirmations should be compared.
Who
can
best
improve
the
E-Verify
process?
In
all
the
discussion
about
the
E-Verify
process,
workshop
members
voiced
concern
that
many
of
the
problems
related
to tentative
nonconfirmations,
especially
for
naturalized
citizens,
were
due
to
problems
in the system
-
SSA
databases
not kept
up-to-date,
no
system
for
timely
update
of
SSA
databases
by
DHS
regarding
naturalized
citizens,
poor
communication
from
government
agencies
to employers,
and
lack
of training
in
the
process
for
SSA
employees.
Some
participants
asked
if the
burden
should be
shifted
from
the
employer
to the
government.
What
are
the
chances
of
false
positives?
Why
are
there
conflicting
results
between
E-
Verify
and
SSA
no match
decisions?
Are
there
problems
with
compliance
because
of
web-based
sites
and
forms
that are
not
kept
updated?
Are
there
other
reasons
that
employers
are
not
correctly
notifying
employees?
Do
we
have
data
to understand
how
many
tentative
nonconfirmations
become
final
nonconfirmations
and
the
actual
reasons?
Some
participants
suggested
asking employers if they wanted additional closure codes such as “can’t locate employee” or “employee will not return until…” in order to show reasons with more accuracy. How are web services being used?
What
are
reasons
that
employers
may
not
want
to
terminate
employees
receiving
final
nonconfirmations?
Is
there
an
official
definition
for
“terminate.”
Participants
pointed
out that
the
MOU
does
not give
an
exact
time
frame
for
terminating.
Does
the MOU
need
to set
a specific
time
or
should it
be
case
by
case?
Group
members
discussed
why
it
might
be
difficult
to
set a specific
time
frame
to terminate.
They
cited
the example
of
employers
who
may
have
to
locate
off-site
employees.
They
also
discussed
other explanations
of
why
employers
may
not
want
to
terminate
an
employee
in
a
set
time frame.
These
included
the
employer
that
thinks
the case
could
be resolved
if
the
employee had more time or that wants to appeal a final nonconfirmation because the employer is convinced that the employee is actually authorized to work. Are there other reasons to examine? Currently, there is no formal appeal process that would give the employer extra time before having to terminate. Are there any consequences for the employer who terminates an employee based on faulty E-Verify data? Would employers be open to discrimination suits if they terminated due to an erroneous final nonconfirmation?
Is
there
a
system
in
place
for
monitoring
compliance?
Workshop
members
thought
an
evaluation
of the
monitoring
would
be
useful
as
well
as how
monitoring
impacts
participation.
Do
financial
and/or
staff
burden
cause
employers
to be
noncompliant
or
to
drop
out
of
the
program?
Participants
discussed
evaluating
the
problem
of
small
companies
or large
companies
with small branch
offices
where
the
lack
of trained
human
resources
personnel
or the
cost
in
dollars
and
time
to train
new
human
resources
personnel
make
the E-Verify process a burden so that the employer gives up using the system or ends up
being noncompliant. Do the special problems faced by employers with remote sites cause them to become noncompliant?
What
has
been
the
impact
of
EV*STAR
on
response
times?
One
E-Verify
user’s
experience
is
that
it
has been
taking
3
to 4 weeks
for
a
response
to
show up
in
the
system.
Are
data
actually
updated
in real
time?
What
has been
the experience
of
users
with
EV*STAR?
Participants
said
that
more
data
on the
actual
response
times
from
EV*STAR
need
to be collected
before
evaluating
its
impact
on
employees.
Is
the current
time
frame
realistic
and
fair
to
both
employers
and
employees?
Workshop members discussed the difficulties (time involved, expenses, transportation,
and loss of income) that employees faced to meet the time frame, especially if they were in rural areas with no SSA offices nearby, were working off-site, or if more than one trip to SSA was necessary. Employers of off-site workers said that the initial problem is just getting the tentative nonconfirmation notice to the employee to get a signature before the employee can start the process to resolve it. This difficulty could mean a long delay between the date an employer receives the tentative nonconfirmation and the date it is given to the employee. Could this benefit an employer who suspects that the employee is not work-authorized but wants to keep the employee working? On the other hand, participants said the delay could mean that the employer will incur significant costs and training time for someone who will have to be replaced. Does the time frame take into account problems with the SSA office such as not understanding what information the employee needs to correct, the documents the employee needs to show, or not entering corrected data in a timely manner to avoid a final nonconfirmation?
Does the current time frame give employees time to retrieve the necessary documents? Participants discussed options for changing the time frame for resolving cases. SSA would reportedly like 60-90 days but that would create an unfair burden on employers that have to deal with employee benefits, insurance, training, etc. At the same time, participants said that with a 10 percent erroneous tentative nonconfirmation rate for naturalized citizens, the current time frame is probably too short. Participants agreed that more research is needed to find a reasonable compromise on lengthening the time to resolve without creating additional employer burden. Similarly, participants questioned the ability of USCIS verifiers to resolve complicated noncitizen cases within the current time frame. How do “in continuance” cases impact employers and employees and how long can a case be “in continuance”?
Is
a process
needed
to
request
a reconsideration
of
a
final
nonconfirmation?
Several
participants
suggested
a
study
of
the
process
used
to reopen
a
final
nonconfirmation.
Currently,
it
seems
to
be
an
informal
process
and
a
more
formal
appeal
process
might
be beneficial.
What
do employers
and
employees
think
about
this?
Does
SSA
implement
EV*STAR
when
an
employee
shows
up
without
the
referral
letter?
Is
privacy
an issue?
Do
employers
find
it
difficult
to
be
compliant
regarding
privacy
issues
when
dealing
with
tentative
nonconfirmation
or
final
nonconfirmation
notifications
to off-site
employees,
such
as
in the
trucking
and
construction
industries?
Who
actually
gives
the
tentative
nonconfirmation
to
the
employee
working
off-site?
What
burdens
does
an
employer
have
in
these
cases
to stay
compliant?
Are
they
reasonable
burdens?
How
can employee privacy be protected if other employees can get access to E-Verify information by getting someone else’s password? Is sharing of passwords an issue to be explored?
Are
there
particular
problems
with
E-Verify
when it
comes
to special
groups
such
as refugees,
those
with
temporary
protected
status,
those
with
nonimmigrant
visas, and
others?
How
does
the program
work
for
employees
with
expired
but extended
protected
status that is not
shown on any
document
(and
who would
probably
get
a tentative
nonconfirmation
and
final
nonconfirmation)?
How
does
the accuracy
of
DHS
databases,
especially
if
they
aren’t
up-to-date,
affect
E-Verify
results
for
the
special
groups?
How
does
E-Verify
manage
cases
of
employees
whose
temporary
authorization
to work
would expire
after
they’ve
been
hired
or
whose
authorization
is restricted
to a specific
employer?
What
does
implementation
of
mandatory
participation
in
Arizona
show
us about
the likely
effects
of
a
larger-scale
mandatory
program?
Participants
thought
it
would be
important
to
study
Arizona,
if mandatory
participation
becomes
law
there
this
year.
This could be
an
indicator
of
the
ability
of
the
program
to
expand
as
well
as
showing problems
that
occur
with
expansion.
Would
making
E-Verify
mandatory
cause
any
companies
to go
out of
business
because
of
costs,
staffing,
and/or
the
consequences
of
noncompliance? Is the publicity about E-Verify effective?8
3. Lower priority questions
Although participants did not consider the following issues to be as high in priority as the preceding, they did raise questions that the evaluation should consider, if possible:
Is
more
outreach
to
employees
needed?
Participants
questioned
if some
noncompliance
was
the result
of
the
failure
to
effectively
notify
employees
and
if that failure
was
due
to
language
and
literacy
barriers.
As
with the
tentative
nonconfirmation,
it
was
noted
that
the poster that is required to be posted to explain to employees about the program and their rights may have the same language/literacy issues. Do employees understand what “discrimination” actually means?
What
are
the
consequences
of
noncompliance?
Workshop
members
first
wanted
to know if
there
were
actual
consequences
and
then
how
these
consequences
affect
employer
participation.
Do
employers
close
final
nonconfirmations
as invalid
queries?
Would
a
review
of
the
documentation
answer
questions
regarding
the
time
of
termination?
Is
there
a
way
for
an
employer
to
know
that
the
I-9
needs
updating
without
asking
the employee?
Changes
that
could
impact
compliance
include
whether
it would be effective
to
have
a
way
to
sign
off
electronically
on
the
I-9
and
tentative
nonconfirmation?
Why
do
employees
receive
a final
nonconfirmation?
8
This
issue
came
up
within
the
context
of
another
issue
and
it
is
not
clear
whether
participants
thought
this
was
a
Priority
1
task.
Is
there
a
way
to
determine
if
discrimination
plays
a part
in how
quickly
employees
with
final
nonconfirmations
get
terminated?
What
is
the
cost/benefit
ratio
of
keeping
the USCIS
Immigration
Status
Verifiers
(ISVs) and
what
percent
of
tentative
nonconfirmations
do
they
actually
resolve?
Do
all
databases
need
to be integrated
before
considering
terminating
the
ISVs?
Would
there
still
be
a
need
for
some
verifiers,
even
if the
system
became
totally
electronic?
Participants
discussed
the
need
for
a ceiling
on
the
ratio
of the
erroneous
tentative
nonconfirmation
rates
for
noncitizens
to citizens
prior
to
eliminating
the
USCIS
secondary
verification
process.
TOPIC 3: TIMING OF EMPLOYEE VERIFICATIONS
1. Background
There appears to be little consensus surrounding the definition of a new hire among employers. This may have important implications for how E-Verify is used by employers, especially as it relates to the potential for prescreening. Workshop participants were asked to raise and prioritize issues the evaluation should consider related to the timing of employee verifications.
2. High priority questions
Participants identified a number of high priority issues that they thought the evaluation should address:
What
is
the
definition
of
a
“new
hire”?
Participants
were
concerned
with
the
lack
of clarity
in
the
definition
of
new
hire.
How
do
USCIS
and
E-Verify
materials,
such
as
the on-line
tutorial
and
manual,
define
new
hire?
They
believe
that
there
needs
to
be
an
assessment
of
employer
understanding
of
the
definition
of “new
hire”.
Many
participants
said
the
definition
of
“new
hire”
is
ambiguous.
For
example,
if one
firm
buys
another
firm,
are
the
employees
of
the
acquired
firm
considered
new
employees?
Can
an
employer
verify
a
job
candidate
who
has
accepted
a
conditional
offer
as
a
new
hire?
The
definition
needs
to be
tied
to a specific
action
or
event.
Specific
examples
should
be provided
in the training
materials
instead
of
a
simple
definition.
One
participant
recommended
that
“new
hire”
should
mean
when
an
employee
is
first paid.
However,
other
participants
objected
because
being
hired
and
being
paid
are
not
always
closely
connected.
For
example,
a
temporary
staffing
agency
may
hire
someone
and
not
have work
available
until
weeks
or months later.
Where
are
employers
getting
their
understanding
of
new
hire
and
hire
date?
All
participants
thought
the
evaluation
should include
a
question
to determine
not
only
how
employers
interpret
“new
hire”
but
where
they
came
up with
their
interpretations.
Is
the E-Verify
definition
of
“new
hire”
consistent
with
the
definition
used
by
other Federal
agencies?
Several
of the
attorneys
in the
groups
mentioned
that
USCIS
should
review
the
definition
of
hire
provided
by
the
U.S.
Department
of
Labor
and
the
U.S.
Department
of Justice,
and
the
Internal
Revenue
Service.
Other
Federal
agencies
have
knowledge
and
experience
on
how to define
a
new
hire.
Participants
agreed
that
employers
prefer
a
consistent
definition
of
new
hire.
Should
the
definition
of
“new
hire”
be
industry-specific?
Participants
recommended
that a
range
of
industries
be
examined
to see
if
the
definition
of
new
hire
could
be tailored
to an industry.
How
should
E-Verify
be
used
by
contractors?
Are
employees
of
contractors
considered
new
hires?
Should
contractors
working
for
Federal
or state
governments
be treated
in the same
way
as
private
contractors?
Are
Federal
and
state
contractors
verified
for
each
contract
they
are
employed
under?
Do
employers
understand
the
connection
between
the
I-9
and
E-Verify
for
new
hires?
Most
participants
understood
the connection
between
the
I-9
and
E-Verify
for
new
hires. However the participants noted that not all employers understand this relationship. One participant said that an I-9 would be not be required when hiring a foreign worker and added that there may be other exceptions where the I-9 and E-Verify may not be linked. Are the training documents and guidance regarding use of I-9 and E-Verify consistent? Are there cases where the I-9 and E-Verify are not linked? Is there documentation provided regarding any exceptions?
Are
there
situations
when
the
three-day
window
for
verifying
new
hires
is
not
required?
One
exception
to the
three-day
window
was
noted:
the
case
where
an
employee
has
applied
but
not
yet
received
a
Social
Security
number.
Participants
asked
what
other
exceptions
might
exist
and
if these
exceptions
were
documented.
Are
employers
properly
implementing
the
procedures
for
using
the
I-9
and
E-
Verify?
Are
employers
complying
with
the
three-day
window?
There
was
agreement
that employers
could
easily
not
comply
with
the
three-day
window
by
changing
the start
date entered
in the
E-Verify
system.
Are
employers
pushing
back
the start
date
if
verifying
before
the
employee
accepts
the
job?
Are
employers
changing
the
start
date
if
they
verify
an
employee
after
more
than
three
days?
Participants
noted that
the
new
the
Photo
Tool would make
it
more
difficult
for
some
employers,
such
as
those
without
computers
and
other
technology
or
employers
who
hire
seasonal
and/or
rural
workers,
to verify
employees
within three
days.
Is
the three-day
window
for
verifying
new
hires
the appropriate
interval
in
all
cases?
Participants
understood
that there
is
a three-day
window
for
verifying
the
new
hires
after
they
had
started
work.
Verifying
employees
with the Photo
Tool within three
days
will
be
a
challenge
for
some
seasonal,
rural,
high-volume
and
small
employers.
These
employers
may
not
have
computer
access
at
all
work
sites or
have
the
technology
to reproduce
and
send
color
photographs.
3. Lower priority questions
Participants considered the following issues to be of lower priority than the preceding:
How
well
do
employers
understand
their
E-Verify
obligations
with
respect
to
prescreening?
How
well
do
employees
understand
their
rights
and
know
about
the
E-Verify
program?
How
pervasive
is
prescreening?
What
are
DHS
and
USCIS
doing
or
planning
to do for
monitoring
and
compliance
regarding
prescreening?
Is
E-Verify
being
used
to
re-verify
some
or
all
employees
after
they
are
hired?
One
example
of
a
possible
legitimate
use
of
re-verification
is after
an
employee’s
temporary
work
authorization
expires.
Is
prescreening
being
done
only
for
certain
types
of
job
candidates,
for
example,
based
on
national
origin?
Are
there
differences
in
verification
based
on
national
origin,
etc.?
Are
employers
using
E-Verify
as a tool to
retaliate
against
certain
types
of
employee
behavior?
One
example
is
an employer
who
does
not
verify
new
employees
and
then
threatens
to verify
them
if they
attempt
to
unionize
or
join a union.
What
is
the
employer
cost
burden
for
tentative
nonconfirmations
resulting
in
final
nonconfirmations?
What
is
the
cost
to
employees
in
terms
of
lost
time
working
while
resolving
tentative
nonconfirmations
or the
loss
of
a
job due
to
a tentative
nonconfirmation?
Are
different
industries
prescreening
for
different
reasons?
4. Other unrated questions
The following questions were discussed but their priority is not clear:
How
can
USCIS
effectively
communicate
accurate
and
consistent
information
to
employers?
Stakeholders
noted
that E-Verify
information
can
vary
depending
on
the source:
the
manual,
the
on-line
tutorial
or
phone
calls.
Calls
to USCIS
can
yield
conflicting
information
and
the current
documentation
does
not always
reflect
the
guidance
given
verbally.
What
are
the
issues
for
E-Verify
when
minors
are
hired
to
work,
for
example,
in
the
fast
food
industry?
Should
they
be
verified
through
the program?
In
what
languages
other
than
English
and
Spanish
should
E-Verify
employee
notices
be
translated?
What
differences
are there
between
employers
that
use
designated
agents
and employers
that use
E-Verify
themselves?
For
example,
do they
differ
in terms
of tentative
nonconfirmation
rate,
compliance
issues,
and
rate
of
termination
of
employees
when
required?
Is
there
a
way
for
a
corporate
headquarters
to
check
to
see
if
any
of
its
branch
offices
have
signed
up
for
E-Verify?
Several
stakeholders
discovered
their
branch
offices
had
signed
up for
E-Verify
without
informing
the
corporate
headquarters.
Do
SSA
and
USCIS
have
the
capability
to
process
additional
workers
as
E-Verify
expands?
TOPIC 4: FOCUSING ON SPECIAL EMPLOYER TYPES: DESIGNATED AGENTS (DAs) AND THE EMPLOYERS USING DESIGNATED AGENTS
1. Background:
There has been a recent increase in the number of designated agents using E-Verify. Prior evaluations have not asked any questions about the unique needs of or problems facing these users. Workshop participants were asked to raise and prioritize issues the evaluation should consider related to designated agents and employers using designated agents. The discussion primarily reflects the perspective of designated agents because few employers using designated agents were represented at the workshop.
2. High priority questions
Workgroup members discussed what they believed to be high priority issues for the evaluation:
What
services
do
designated
agents
perform
for
their
clients?
There
was
some
confusion
about
what
services
designated
agents
should,
could,
or
would
provide
to their clients.
Who
has
responsibility
for
what
portion of
the
work,
especially
notification
of tentative
nonconfirmations?
What
roles
do designated
agents
play?
Some
participants
did
not know that there
are
different
types
of
services
offered
by
designated
agents.
Participants
agreed
that designated
agents’
clients
are
responsible
for
dealing
with
tentative
nonconfirmations
and
final
nonconfirmations,
but other
responsibilities
were
less clear. Some participants said that a designated agent’s basic service is to “outsource” submission of employment verification queries for newly hired employees. Others said the basic services are either to provide electronic Form I-9 software that links with E- verify or to provide Web-services to do verification. Designated agents may input
information from an electronic Form I-9 and report the findings back to the client; then, based on the findings, clients follow up on certain cases such as tentative nonconfirmation cases. Furthermore, designated agents said that clients may not really
understand how using a designated agent actually works because they sometimes ask
their designated agent to follow up with tentative and final nonconfirmation cases and have to be informed that the designated agent cannot legally perform those functions for their clients.
Do
the
designated
agents
provide
sufficient
training
to their
clients?
What
training
do
designated
agents
provide
to
their
clients?
How
does
it
vary
by
the
type
of
designated
agent?
From
the discussion,
it
was
obvious
that designated
agents
do not all
provide
the same
level
of training
or
assistance
to
their
clients.
Some
instruct
clients how to use the software
or
provide
training
on
the basic
use
of
the
web
system
while
others
do
not.
What
level
of client
training
is
needed?
What
is
required?
Does
the training
meet
USCIS
standards
related
to level
of
compliance?
What
should
training
include?
Can
it
vary
by
designated
agents/employers
based
on division
of responsibilities?
Do/should
designated
agents
train
on employee
rights?
Do/should they
train
on the
tentative
nonconfirmation
process,
even
though
the
designated
agent
is
not involved
in that process
other
than
notifying
the
employer
of
a
tentative nonconfirmation? Participants also questioned whether designated agents should
be expected to train on employee rights and wanted to know where the line can be drawn between training, consulting, and legal advice.
Do
designated
agents
need
to
address
problems
that arise
when
their
clients
use different
(or
older)
web-browsers
that display
module/information
differently?
Participants
reported
that
when
this
happens,
the
regular
training
materials
do not work
for
them.
The
designated
agent
then
has
to
create
different
training
materials
to
accommodate
these
users.
How
can
communication
between
designated
agents
and
USCIS
be
improved?
How
much time
do
designated
agents
need
to incorporate
new
features
into
their
systems
and into
the trainings
before
being
required
to implement
them?
Several
designated
agents
made
it
clear
that
they
need
to be informed
by
USCIS
ahead
of time
about
any
changes
to the system
(such
as
the implementation
of
EV*STAR
and
the
Photo
Tool) so that
designated
agents
can
keep
up with the
latest
features
and
incorporate
these
features
into
their
systems
and
training.
They
also
suggested
that
designated
agents
be
involved
in the
development
process
for
new
features
and
wondered
what
the
best
medium
is
to
reach
designated
agents?
There
seemed
to be
consensus
that
using
email
to
reach
designated
agents
is
not sufficient.
One
suggestion
was
for
USCIS
to
have
a
web
repository
to
store
all
the
changes
they
made
so
that
clients as
well
as
designated
agents
can
access
and see
them. The
groups
were
not
able
to
come
up
with a
consensus
idea
about
an
effective
communication
tool.
Should
USCIS
be
taking
a more
active
role
in
communicating
with
clients
of designated
agents?
Many
participants
agreed
that
clients
of designated
agents
should
be required
to take
the
E-Verify
tutorial
or
at
least
be
educated
about
how to use
E-Verify,
beyond
what
they
learn
from
the MOU.
One
participant
added
that
clients
and designated
agents
should
have
the
same
levels
of understanding
but
the
current
communication
model could
be a
problem,
since
it
goes
from
USCIS
to
clients, then
clients
to designated
agents,
which
they
believe
is not
working
the
way
it
should
be.
Three-way
communication
among
the
parties
was
suggested
as
a better
model.
One participant noted that her company had been doing all its own verifications, including using the Photo Tool. When the company decided to use a designated agent for verifications at some branches, it found out that designated agents did not yet have the Photo Tool. This created an “inconsistency” in the process since the company had been using the Photo Tool previously and would continue to use it with the branches for which it was not yet using designated agents. The company was not aware that designated
agents were unable to use the Photo Tool and having the two different processes in place has caused confusion.
Should
USCIS
be
doing
a
better
job
in
communicating
with
the
general
public?
Some information (including general materials, user manual, and the tutorial) is available
only to registered users. USICIS has reportedly been working to improve putting the information out to the public and there is now a website for E-Verify.
How
does
varying
training
impact
level
of
employer
compliance?
Participants
thought
that the evaluation
should look
at
the
results
of training.
Are
rules
being
followed
regardless
of the type
of
training?
What
are
the
obligations
of
designated
agents
and
their
clients
with
respect
to
ensuring
privacy?
Who
stores
the data
and
how?
What
are
security
needs
of
clients?
Another
concern
for
both
the
designated
agent
and
designated
agent
user
is
technology
that is not up-to-date
which
creates
security
concerns
and
training
issues.
One
participant
gave
the
example
of
how
some
designated
agents
use
outdated
encryption
protocols
which
creates
possible security
problems.
It
was
reported
that clients
have
stopped
using designated
agents
without
up-to-date
technologies
because
of
these
security
concerns.
What
are
the
challenges
faced
by
special
groups
of
employers?
What
are
the challenges
of using
E-Verify
in
remote
hiring
situations—including
technology
availability,
management
of
security,
training,
and
communications?
What
are
the
consequences
of not being
able
to
adhere
to
E-Verify
rules
because
of
remote
hiring
or
other
problems?
For
example,
will
this
affect
discrimination
or
privacy?
Participants
noted that
these
challenges
will
be
tremendous
if the
process
goes
mandatory.
Even
now, it
can
be
difficult
to
comply
with
the
“within
certain-days
rules.”
Another
problem,
especially
when
hiring
night
shift
employees,
is
that
the
system
is not
available
24/7.
How
should
the
designated
agent
process
work?
What
services
are
appropriate
for
the
designated
agents
to
provide?
Some
designated
agent
users
prefer
having
control
over
the verification
process
while
others
think
the designated
agent
should
have
the
responsibility
to take
care
of
tentative
and
final
nonconfirmations.
Attitudes
towards
allocating
responsibilities
between
designated
agents
and
their
clients
varied
considerably.
Several
participants
felt
that
using
a
designated
agent
should
allow
companies
to “outsource
the human resources
function
completely,”
and
complained
that
the
responsibilities
(e.g.,
following
up
tentative
nonconfirmation/final
nonconfirmation
cases)
are
still
on
the
client. These participants questioned why the current MOU does not allow designated agents to take care of tentative nonconfirmation notifications.
Participants wondered if designated agent practices could be standardized or if they would need to vary based on serving different employer types or industries. Are there industry specific needs of clients that designated agents can serve? Are the two MOUs (one for employers, one for designated agents) sufficient, given the variety of approaches used by designated agents?
Should
there
be
a
certification
process
for
designated
agents?
Participants
wondered
if clients
would want
their
designated
agents
to
be
certified
by
USCIS,
and
if
so, what
would that certification
include?
3. Lower priority questions
Although participants did not consider the following issues to be as high in priority as the preceding, they did raise questions that the evaluation should consider, if possible:
How
should
USCIS
communicate
with
employees?
Participants
agreed
that
the poster is not
an
effective
way
to
put
information
out
to
employees.
What
types
of
monitoring
do/can
designated
agents
provide
to
make
sure
their
clients
are
following
the
rules
for
notifying
employees?
Why
do/would
clients,
including
Federal
Government
agencies,
use
designated
agents?
What
problems
do
clients
of
designated
agents
encounter?
Many
of
those
present
felt
this
was
a low
priority
because
it was
up to the
employer
to monitor their
contractors.
Would
greater
differentiation
of
the
types
of
designated
agents
be useful?
Further
clarify
distinction
among the different
types
of designated
agents
(i.e.,
web
service
designated
agents,
regular
designated
agents,
etc).
What
types
of designated
agents
are
there?
Do
designated
agents
provide services
to other
designated
agents
and,
if so, how?
How
can
use
of
E-Verify
by
designated
agents
be improved
or
streamlined
to
better
serve
employers?
How
can
the program
be improved
to
make
it
worthwhile
for employers
to use
designated
agents
instead
of
“just
buying
the
software”?
Participants
would like
the
evaluation
to
look
at
how
E-Verify
is
similar
or
dissimilar
to
other
designated
agent
services
to
see
how
the
process
might
be streamlined.
4. Other unrated questions
The following questions were discussed but their priority is not clear:
Whose
responsibility
is
it
to
notify
clients
of
new
features
and
how
to
use
them?
How
do
designated
agents
communicate
with
clients?
Is
it
industry
specific?
Do
they
communicate
new
features
if they
know
about
them?
What
training
should
be
provided
for
designated
agents?
In
addition
to
the tutorial, what
other
types
of training
can
be
provided?
What
subject
areas
should
be
covered?
Do
designated
agents
understand
the
importance
of
educating
employers?
How
can
USCIS
help
designated
agents
provide
training?
What
information
do
clients
of
designated
agents
want
or
need?
What
information
can clients access or how much do they know about the system? If an employer is using a
designated agent to reduce the burden, would requiring more training for the employer add burden?
What
monitoring/compliance
is
done
to
see
if
designated
agents
provide
adequate
training?
Do
designated
agents
have to
build
in
new
features
when
USCIS
adds
new
features?
Is there a cost burden?
What
are
the
challenges
for
current
users
transitioning
to using
designated
agents?
How widespread is dual/mixed use, i.e., employers using designated agents for some
verifications, perhaps at specific sites, and also doing other verifications on their own? What special challenges or problems does this present?
TOPIC 5: FOCUSING ON SPECIAL EMPLOYER TYPES: EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES AND TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES
1. Background:
An increasing percent of verifications are conducted by companies providing employment services. The previous evaluations have shown that these employers have relatively high rates of prescreening, quite possibly because the “normal” hiring and verification process assumed by E- Verify is not consistent with the ways that employment services actually operate. Workshop participants were asked to raise and prioritize issues the evaluation should consider related to the unique needs of the temporary help and employment agencies.
2. High priority questions
Participants identified a number of high priority issues that they thought the evaluation should address:
Are
agencies
prescreening?
Is
there
a
way
to
determine
if
agencies
are
prescreening
(other
than
the occasions
when
employees,
who
think they
have
been
prescreened
contact
DHS)?
Why
does
prescreening
occur?
“What
is
the definition
of hire?
Is
it
the
date
an
employee
accepts
a job or
the
first
day
of
paid
work?”
Apparently
DHS
considers
it
to
be the former,
while
ICE
considers
it
to
be the
latter.
When
should
employment
agencies
and
temporary
help
agencies
be
using
E-Verify?
Participants discussed the major difference between how an employment agency operates
and how a temporary help agency operates, particularly as it relates to using E-Verify. They concluded that because employment agencies refer but do not actually hire or pay employees, they should not be verifying work authorization. Temporary help agencies, however, actually hire people to be in their pool of available workers and issue them paychecks and, therefore, do need to verify. A subset of employment agencies includes day labor centers and state agencies. Participants stated that because neither of these is an actual employer, they are not supposed to do verifications. Also, the fact that some staffing agencies offer both employment services and temporary help services creates additional complications.
Are
agencies
prescreening
at the
request
of
clients
or
to
be
able
to
ensure
clients
that
all
employees
they
refer
or
place
are
work
authorized?
A
temporary
help
agency
could delay placing someone until it was sure the person was work authorized or an employment agency could register to use E-Verify and then only refer work-authorized
potential employees to its clients.
What
are
the
burdens
of
E-Verify
for
those
employers
providing
employment
services?
What
are
the
burdens
associated
with off-site
hiring?
Does
the volume
of
verifications
done
by
agencies
create
more
of
a
burden?
Can
system
down-time
be
decreased?
Attendees
reported
that this
issue
especially
affects
agencies
doing
verifications
during
extended
business
hours.
They
said
that
this
is
a
problem
for
agencies,
especially
those
with
large
numbers
of employees.
Should
the
maximum
number
of
cases
for
batch
processing
be
increased?
How
can
SSA
response
to
E-Verify
be
improved?
Workgroup
members
said
that
SSA
office
employees
don’t understand
E-Verify.
They
don’t
recognize
the
referral
letter
and
don’t resolve
the
correct
issue.
They
believe
that
the
SSA
response
time
needs
to be shortened.
3. Lower priority questions
Participants did not consider the following issues to be as high in priority as the preceding:
Is
it
clear
how
to
handle
special
hiring
procedures?
All
participants
from
agencies
agreed
that
there
are
no
special
burdens
or
procedures
when
an
employer
converts
an
employee
of
a
temporary
help
agency
into
a
permanent
employee.
However,
one participant
stated
that
most
staffing
agencies
would recommend
to their
clients
that
they
re-run
employees
who
are
converted
from
temporary
to
permanent
through
E-Verify.
Why
should
or
shouldn’t
prescreening
be
allowed?
Could
prescreening
be
used
to
discriminate?
What
are
the
burdens
of
clients
of
employment
services?
Employment
agency
participants
said
they
face
a
challenge
in making
sure
that
their
clients
that
hire
off-site,
to which they
refer
employees,
have
the
necessary
technology-
computers,
Internet
access, faxes, etc. to use E-Verify. The Photo Tool has also created some issues,
especially with off-site recruiting. One participant suggested that it might be useful to talk with agencies that don’t use the system to find out their reasons for not participating.
Does
E-Verify
reduce
the
competitiveness
of
employment
service
agencies
using
E-
Verify
compared
to
agencies
not using
it?
One
group
member
commented
that some clients
don’t
understand
why
the
agency
can’t
share
the
results
of E-Verify
with
them.
This may
cost
them
business
since
other
agencies
may
be
willing
to
share
the
information
illegally.
TOPIC 6: FOCUSING ON SPECIAL EMPLOYER TYPES: INFREQUENT USERS
1. Background
According to prior evaluations, employers who use E-Verify are not representative of all employers in the nation; e.g., enrolled employers tend to be disproportionately large employers that presumably use the program more frequently than other employers would. This raises the concern that unanticipated problems may arise if the program is made mandatory for all employers. Because of time and funding limitations, interviews with employers that have never signed an MOU are not planned for the current evaluation. However, we do plan to obtain information from employers who have signed up for the program but never used it or have terminated using the program. This session focused on understanding what kind of information we need from these employers that is likely to be of use in shaping E-Verify in the future.
2. High priority questions
The workgroup examining infrequent users did not formally rate the research questions. However, the discussion permits identifying some questions that appear to be high priority for the workgroup participants:
What
are
the
special
challenges
faced
by
small
employers?
Are
there
more
small
employers
in the “infrequent
user”
category
than
large
employers?
Does
the
small
employer
with
five
or
fewer
employees
have
any
incentive
to
use
the
system?
For
the
small employer,
are
cost
or
the
possibility
of
getting
an
erroneous
non-
confirmation
which
would, in effect,
represent
a
large
percentage
of
the
employer’s
workforce
factors
in using
or
not
using
the
system?
Would
using
a
designated
agent
make
the
small
employer
more
willing
to
use
E-Verify?
What
are
the
special
challenges
facing
the
largest
employers?
One
participant
mentioned the
difficulty
with
seasonal
hiring,
such
as
in agriculture,
and
having
to
verify
300 employees in a short amount of time. Another problem in the agriculture industry is email and Internet access. One suggestion for the evaluation was to break out groups that use temporary worker/H2A programs and find out why they use E-Verify to see if the reasons are the same as the rest of the agriculture industry. Another participant suggested broadening this to include any industry with seasonal workers, such as the landscaping industry. What would be their reasons for using or not using E-Verify?
Why
do
most
employers
not
participate
in
E-Verify?
Throughout
the
discussion,
participants
reiterated
that
the
evaluation
needed
to include
employers
that
never
signed
up for
E-Verify
and
not just
the
employers
that
signed
up but
had
never
used
E-Verify
and
those
that
had
signed
up
for
the
program
but
later
terminated
use
of
it.
Participants
thought
that
the
cost
to
train
an employee
who
may
lose
time
when
resolving
a
tentative
nonconfirmation
or
who
ends
up as
a final
nonconfirmation
and
has
to be
terminated
could
be a
reason
not to
use
the
system.
Some
thought
that
the
additional
cost
and responsibility
of
using
the
Photo
Tool may
cause
employers
to terminate.
Are
there
employers
that
are
apprehensive
about
using
the
system
because
their
employees
are
largely
illegal?
If
so, they
should
be
asked
if
there
is
anything
other
than
mandatory
implementation
that
would get
them
to
sign
up and
use
E-Verify.
One
group
member noted that this question has been asked and basically employers don’t want to use the system if everyone else in their industry isn’t also using it. Another participant commented that the evaluation should look at other surveys that have been done on E- Verify, such as by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
Do
employers
believe
that
E-Verify
has
negative
consequences?
Do
employers
believe
that participation
in E-Verify
makes
them
more
likely
to
be subject
to
enforcement
actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Does using E-Verify affect employer competition and would that cause a user to terminate? An example was given of a contractor, not using E-Verify and employing illegal workers, who successfully put in a lower bid for a job than his competitor who only used verified workers. Did the competitor have to bid higher because of the cost of using E-Verify and only employing legal workers?
Why
do
some
employers
use
E-Verify
infrequently?
One
participant
commented
that
infrequent
users
are
not
necessarily
purposely
avoiding
the
system
but could
simply
be
employers
who
just don’t need
to use
it
that
often.
Another
questioned
the difficulties
faced
by
a
small
employer
with
a
high
employee
turnover
rate.
Another
group
member
thought
that
these
infrequent
users
needed
to be asked
if
they
would
be
more
likely
to
use
the system
again
if
tentative
nonconfirmations,
especially
for
naturalized
citizens,
could
be
reduced.
This reduction
could
occur
with
more
accurate
and
up-to-date
databases
and
with better
communication
between
DHS
and SSA.
Another
participant
suggested
that
if
a marketing push by SSA got people to update their information (change of name due to marriage or divorce, for example), it might lower the tentative nonconfirmation rate which might encourage employers to use E-Verify again.
3. Lower priority questions
The following question appeared to be of lower priority than the previous questions:
How
can
we
best
categorize
types
of
infrequent
users?
Participants
suggestion
making the following
distinctions
between
employers:
- Employers that have never registered to use E-Verify
- Employers that no longer want to use the system but have not formally terminated use
- Employers that have formally terminated use
- Employers that are dissatisfied with the system
- Employers that rarely have new hires
- Employers selectively screening new employees
- Employers that registered for E-Verify but never actually used it; for example, some employers may have just signed up to find out more about the tutorial and the system. If this is so, would it encourage prospective employers to sign up if they could first have a demo of the registration process and the tutorial?
- Employers that mistakenly signed up for E-Verify as a new user instead of going through the administrator when the company is already registered
CLOSING PLENARY
To give everyone an overview of all the topic workshops, one participant from each of the topic sessions presented a summary of the main discussion points for that session. This information was incorporated into the discussion from the individual workgroups. The floor was then opened to other research suggestions. The research questions raised included:
Are
there
any
difficulties
with
the
employer
registration
process
and,
if
so,
why
do
they
occur?
What
are
the
implications
of
expanding
E-Verify
from
a
small
to
a large
population?
What
is
likely
to happen
if
E-Verify
becomes
mandatory?
In
particular,
what
will
the
effect
be
on
training
and
enforcement?
If
Arizona
makes
E-Verify
mandatory
this
year,
it could
serve
as
a model.
How
well
are
key
terms
defined
and
how
should
they
be
defined
to
make
sure
that
they
are
clear
and
consistent.
Are
there
questions
about
the
program
that
are
not
addressed
in
the
MOU
and,
if
so, why?
What
modes
of
communication
for
new
information
and
training
from
USCIS
would employers prefer?
Are
the
databases
used
in
E-Verify
secure?
Has
illegal
employment
been
reduced
by
E-Verify?
To
what
extent
are
“false
positives,”
i.e.,
failure
to
detect
employees
without
work-authorization
a
problem?
What
are
the
reasons
for
erroneous
tentative
nonconfirmations?
This
could be addressed
by
examining
information
from
USCIS
regarding
the
challenges
to
tentative
nonconfirmations.
How
would
greater
clarity
and
transparency
on
this
issue
affect
the
program?
Next,
Carolyn
Shettle
went
over
the
“next
steps”
following
the
stakeholders
meeting.
They
are:
A report
on the
Stakeholder
workshop
Reconsideration
of
the
methodology
for
the
evaluation
in
light
of the workshops,
including
formulation
of
questions
to ask
employees
and
employers
Kathy Lotspeich closed the session by reiterating the importance of the Stakeholders meeting and the evaluation. She reminded participants that USCIS is already implementing changes based on Westat’s most recent evaluation. She concluded by noting that in just one year the number of staff working on E-Verify has grown from 18 to 154 people which is an excellent indicator of the importance of the program. Finally, in response to a question, she said that, for her, the main “take home” message from the conference was the need for better communication.
Appendix A: Information Sent to Potential Workshop Participants
Description of the E-Verify Program
E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot) is a secure Internet-based system operated by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). E-Verify allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) first authorized the Basic Pilot program and required it to be evaluated. Since the small-scale start of the program, the program has expanded; it is currently available to all U.S. employers. More than 23,000 employers are currently registered for E- Verify.
Employers can register for E-Verify online by completing an application and signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with USCIS which is necessary to officially participate in the program. Once registered, users must take an online tutorial and pass a Mastery Test prior to using the system.
E-Verify users enter information captured on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9) for all newly hired employees no later than 3 business days after the new hire’s start date. The employer may not prescreen job applicants and may not take any adverse action against employees based upon E- Verify unless the program issues a final nonconfirmation of employment authorization. E-Verify compares employee information for both citizens and noncitizens against the more than 425 million records in the SSA database. For those claiming to be citizens, if the information is consistent with the SSA data and the employee information shows that the employee was born in the United States or has permanent work-authorization, the system confirms work-authorization. For employees claiming to be noncitizens, if SSA finds that the employee Form I-9 information is consistent with its records, the information is compared to the more than 60 million records stored in the DHS database. If the employee information is consistent with DHS information and the DHS records indicate that the person is work- authorized, a work-authorized finding is issued. Currently, 93 percent of queries are instantly verified as work-authorized.
When a noncitizen referred for a DHS check cannot be immediately verified as work-authorized, the case is referred to an Immigration Status Verifier who will check additional DHS records. If these records indicate that the employee is work-authorized, a finding of work-authorization will typically be made within a day of the employer’s submitting the case.
If work-authorization cannot be verified by SSA or DHS, a tentative nonconfirmation finding is issued by the system. The employer is required to notify employees of the tentative nonconfirmation notice and ask whether they wish to contest the finding. Employees wishing to contest are referred to SSA or DHS, as appropriate, to straighten out their records within eight days of being referred. Employees who do not contest or who are not found to be work-authorized after contesting receive final nonconfirmations and the employer should terminate their employment.
The employer may choose to use an E-Verify Designated Agent (DA) as a liaison between the employer and E-Verify to conduct the verification process. Both the DA and the employer must register online and sign an MOU with SSA and USCIS.
If a company has several hiring sites interested in participating in E-Verify, each site that will perform the employment verification queries must go through the registration process and sign an individual MOU.
For additional information on E-Verify, please visit: www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.
Description of Workgroup Topics
Introduction
The write-ups below describe the workgroup topics and sub- topics to be discussed at the workshop. Workgroup members will also be encouraged to bring up additional relevant issues in these groups that we may not have thought of.
Topic 1: Using Biometrics (e.g., the Photo Tool) for Verification
Overview: E-Verify recently started requiring that all employers use the Photo-Screening Tool which currently provides employers with photographs from immigration documents when the person being verified presents such documents, so that the employer can verify that the picture on the document matches the photo in USCIS files. The goal of this session is to frame and prioritize the research questions related to the photo tool and other potential biometric tools that the evaluation should address.
Sub-topic 1: How well do you think the Photo Tool is working? Are there problems that you are aware of that the evaluation should explore?
Sub-topic 2: Does the Photo Tool raise any new issues for employers/employees that we should explore?
Sub-topic 3: Do you think it has been effective in detecting fraudulent work documents? Are there questions about its effectiveness that we should be addressing?
Sub-topic 4: Do you think that the Photo Tool has resulted in changes to the types of work documents employees are submitting for the Form I-9? Is this an issue for research?
Sub-topic 5: Do you think that the Photo Tool should be expanded to include additional documents? Why or why not? Is it important to ask employers about this?
Sub-topic 6: Do you think we should raise questions about additional biometric tools that could be used to reduce identity fraud and the employment of unauthorized workers? If so, what?
Sub-topic 7: What do you think the effects of using biometrics are on discrimination and privacy? Is this something we should address?
Wrap-up: Among the areas identified for evaluation research, what are the relative priorities?
Topic 2: Resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNC’s)
Overview: E-Verify sends a tentative nonconfirmation of work authorization status to the employer when employee work-authorization status cannot be determined. Once the employer informs the employee of the tentative nonconfirmation, the employee has eight business days to contest this decision. Past evaluations have shown that there are problems with this process, including employers that don’t properly notify employees and the burden on employers for training employees who do not successfully contest the tentative nonconfirmation. The goal of this session is to frame and prioritize the various issues related to tentative nonconfirmations that may arise for the employee and the employer.
Sub-topic 1: How long should employees have to resolve tentative nonconfirmations? Are there any specific aspects of this process that the evaluation should address?
Sub-topic 2: What are employers’ views of the new SSA procedures for handling TNC’s using EV*STAR which makes employer procedures for handling SSA TNC’s more similar to the USCIS procedures? What implications do you think this has on potential employees? Are there questions about EV*STAR that we should be addressing?
Sub-topic 3: Why do employers sometimes fail to notify employees of their rights and how to contest? Is there a way to increase compliance? Are there circumstances in which notification is not feasible? What additional information about this problem could the evaluation obtain?
Sub-topic 4: What criteria do you think should be used in deciding that it is possible to terminate the use of USCIS secondary confirmations, i.e., confirmations done by USCIS Immigration Status Verifiers prior to issuing a TNC for noncitizens that are not found to be work-authorized automatically?
Sub-topic 5: How long do you think employers should have to terminate employees who receive final nonconfirmations?
Wrap up: What are the key issues surrounding TNC’s that this evaluation should address?
Topic 3: Timing of Employee Verifications
Overview: There appears to be little consensus surrounding the definition of a new hire among employers. This may have severe implications for how E-Verify is used by employers, especially as it relates to the potential for prescreening. The purpose of this session is to formulate and prioritize questions to address how employers define new hire, and what implications this has for potential employees and possible prescreening.
Sub-topic 1: How do you think employers are interpreting the definition of new hire? What do you think should be the definition of “new hire” for the E-Verify program? Is there a need for the evaluation to examine this question?
Sub-topic 2: When does a new hire “begin work” (the first day of paid work, or when they begin training, etc.)? What implications do you think this has for discrimination? Is there a need for the evaluation to examine this question?
Sub-topic 3: Do you think E-Verify is used selectively or inconsistently for new hires? How can we address this issue in the evaluation?
Sub-topic 4: What do you think are the implications of prescreening for employers and employees? Are there any circumstances in which prescreening should be allowed? How should this evaluation address issues surrounding prescreening?
Wrap Up: What should be the relative priorities in addressing issues of employee verification?
Topic 4: Focusing on Special Employer Types: Designated Agents (DA’s) and the Employers Using Designated Agents
Overview: There has been a recent increase in the number of DA’s using E-Verify. Prior evaluations have not asked any questions about the unique needs of DA’s and the employers that use DA’s. The goal of this session is 1) to understand the role DA’s and Employers using DA’s play as it relates to using E-Verify, and 2) to frame relevant questions that will yield insight into unique issues related to these employers.
Sub-topic 1: What specific E-Verify-related services do Designated Agents (DA’s) provide to clients/companies? How does the E-Verify process work with DA’s and their clients? Who has responsibility for what portion of the work, especially resolving TNC’s? What kind of information should the evaluation collect from DA’s and their clients about these processes?
Sub-topic 2: What types of training or technical assistance do or should DA’s provide to their clients? (e.g., privacy issues related to transferring work documents to DA’s; who is responsible for prescreening employees, if this occurs—the DA or the company?)
Sub-topic 3: What problems have companies encountered in working with DA’s or do you think they might encounter? What questions do they ask DA’s? What information should the evaluation collect on this topic?
Sub-topic 4: How do you think the clients of DA’s are made aware of the latest tools, such as the Photo Screening Tool and EV*STAR? Is this sufficient?
Sub-topic 5: Do you think that employers using DA’s should be required to take the E-Verify Tutorial and Mastery Test? Why or why not? How, if at all, should the evaluation address this issue?
Sub-topic 6: What problems do you think companies encounter in working with DA’s? What questions should be asked in the evaluation to address these possible concerns?
Wrap up: What are the relative priorities when addressing issues related to DAs and
Employers using DAs for this evaluation?
Topic 5: Focusing on Special Employer Types: Employment Agencies and
Temporary Help Services
Overview: An increasing percent of verifications are conducted by companies providing employment services. The previous evaluations have shown that these employers have relatively high rates of prescreening, quite possibly because the “normal” hiring and verification process assumed by E-Verify is not consistent with the ways that employment services actually operate. This session is designed to develop the relevant questions that should be addressed to understand what unique issues related to these employers should be addressed in the new evaluation.
Sub-topic 1: What do we need to know about the practices of employment services? Should we collect this information from employers or are there other reliable sources of this information?
Sub-topic 2: Do you think the burden of using E-Verify is different for employers providing employment services than for other employers? If so, how? What do we need to find out about this in the evaluation?
Sub-topic 3: Do special issues arise when a company wants to convert an employee of a temporary help service agency into a permanent employee? For example, does it make sense for the hiring company to verify an employee already verified by the temporary help agency using E-Verify? What more do we need to know about how this works?
Sub-topic 4: Are there specific improvements to E-Verify unique to employment services that you think we should ask them about?
Wrap Up: What are the relative priorities when addressing issues related to employment services providers for this evaluation?
Topic 6: Focusing on Special Employer Types: Infrequent Users
Overview: According to prior evaluations, employers who use E-Verify are not representative of all employers in the nation; e.g., enrolled employers tend to be disproportionately large employers that presumably use the program more frequently than other employers. This raises the concern that unanticipated problems may arise if the program is made mandatory for all employers. Because of time and funding limitations, interviews with employers that have never signed an MOU are not planned for the current evaluation. However, we do plan to obtain information from employers who have signed up for the program but never used it or have terminated using the program. This session focuses on understanding what kind of information we need from these employers that is likely to be of use in shaping E-Verify in the future. The goal of this session is to develop and prioritize questions that provide some insight as to the special challenges, if any, these employers have with the system.
Sub-topic 1: What are the possible reasons employers terminate their use of the program that you think we should obtain information about? (e.g., staffing issues)
Sub-topic 2: Should we obtain information about the circumstances that would lead them to sign up to use the system again?
Sub-topic 3: If the program should become mandatory, what challenges do you think these employers might face that we should ask about?
Sub-topic 4: Are there sub-groups of employers in the infrequent user category that should be identified, so that we can ask them targeted questions? If so, what are they and what kind of information do we need from them?
Wrap Up: What specific issues are most important to address in the evaluation regarding infrequent users of E-Verify?
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
File Title | ATTACHMENT C: |
Author | Haydee Gonzalez |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 2021-01-31 |