Federal User Fees
Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS Operations Gao ID: GAO-09-180 January 23, 2009U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an increase to its immigration and naturalization application fees by an average of 86 percent, effective July 2007, contributing to a surge in application volume that challenged the agency's pre-adjudicative operations. In July 2007, the incoming application volume increased an unprecedented 100 percent over the prior month and the processing of 1.47 million applications was delayed. GAO was asked to review USCIS's current fee design and compare it to the principles in GAO's user-fee design guide and USCIS's management of operations affected by the new fees, specifically in projecting application volumes and contracting for application processing services. To do so, GAO reviewed legislation and agency documentation; compared the fee design to GAO's principles of effective user-fee design (equity, efficiency, revenue adequacy, and administrative burden); visited processing centers; and interviewed agency officials at these locations and in headquarters.
USCIS's 2007 fee design reflects choices and trade-offs consistent with several of GAO's four user-fee design dimensions--efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and administrative burden. For example, in three areas the fee design reflects policy choices related to equity and administrative burden considerations: (1) the structure of fee exemptions and waivers, (2) limitations on certain fee increases for a population deemed unlikely to be able to pay, and (3) decisions about how costs were assigned among users. However, USCIS did not conduct the analyses necessary to fully inform congressional decision-making or internal deliberations on some key areas, such as the cost of activities funded by fees whose rates are set in statute. Notably, the $1,000 fee for USCIS's premium-processing service for employment-based applications, which was the fifth largest single generator of funds for USCIS in fiscal year 2007, will be used for business process and technology improvements. As such, the additional costs of premium processing services are funded by nonpremium processing fee-paying applicants, raising equity concerns. Since USCIS has not identified the total costs of these services, the actual dollar amount being subsidized is unknown. The new fee design also does not allow for an appropriate "reserve" or carryover balance, to ensure the continuity of operations and cover fixed costs in the event of a decrease in applications, nor does it consider the costs associated with certain fee collection operations. According to USCIS's schedule, if the next review identifies a needed fee adjustment, it would occur in September 2009. However, USCIS did not provide documentation that would allow us to determine whether the 2009 fee review would address identified shortcomings in the 2007 fee review or whether the remaining time frames for key milestones, such as refining data and the proposed rulemaking schedule, are reasonable. Absent timely reviews, it is more likely that fees and costs will become misaligned, leading to costly challenges. Projections of USCIS application volume have historically been developed and used as budget tools but do not effectively inform workload management efforts. Specifically, the projections do not identify monthly variations in application volume, despite variations that regularly exceed 20 percent and the serious operational challenges associated with application surges. USCIS's contractors do not receive workload projection information, despite requirements that processing centers shall maintain the capacity to accommodate "spikes" in receipt volumes that are anticipated at least 45 to 90 calendar days in advance. Further, USCIS projection documents do not consistently record critical information such as factors that drive application volume, inhibiting analysis that could improve projections over time. Service-center contractors process USCIS mail and are paid according to a fixed unit price per piece. Contractors count up to 90 percent of incoming mail, but USCIS has not developed an agencywide standard operating procedure for validating the contractors' counts. As a result, USCIS is limited in its ability to verify that USCIS is receiving the service that it is paying for.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-180, Federal User Fees: Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS Operations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-180
entitled 'Federal User Fees: Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews
Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS
Operations' which was released on January 23, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2009:
Federal User Fees:
Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and
Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS Operations:
GAO-09-180:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-180, a report to Congressional Requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an increase
to its immigration and naturalization application fees by an average of
86 percent, effective July 2007, contributing to a surge in application
volume that challenged the agency‘s pre-adjudicative operations. In
July 2007, the incoming application volume increased an unprecedented
100 percent over the prior month and the processing of 1.47 million
applications was delayed. GAO was asked to review USCIS‘s current fee
design and compare it to the principles in GAO‘s user-fee design guide
and USCIS‘s management of operations affected by the new fees,
specifically in projecting application volumes and contracting for
application processing services. To do so, GAO reviewed legislation and
agency documentation; compared the fee design to GAO‘s principles of
effective user-fee design (equity, efficiency, revenue adequacy, and
administrative burden); visited processing centers; and interviewed
agency officials at these locations and in headquarters.
What GAO Found:
USCIS‘s 2007 fee design reflects choices and trade-offs consistent with
several of GAO‘s four user-fee design dimensions”efficiency, equity,
revenue adequacy, and administrative burden. For example, in three
areas the fee design reflects policy choices related to equity and
administrative burden considerations: (1) the structure of fee
exemptions and waivers, (2) limitations on certain fee increases for a
population deemed unlikely to be able to pay, and (3) decisions about
how costs were assigned among users. However, USCIS did not conduct the
analyses necessary to fully inform congressional decision-making or
internal deliberations on some key areas, such as the cost of
activities funded by fees whose rates are set in statute. Notably, the
$1,000 fee for USCIS‘s premium-processing service for employment-based
applications, which was the fifth largest single generator of funds for
USCIS in fiscal year 2007, will be used for business process and
technology improvements. As such, the additional costs of premium
processing services are funded by nonpremium processing fee-paying
applicants, raising equity concerns. Since USCIS has not identified the
total costs of these services, the actual dollar amount being
subsidized is unknown. The new fee design also does not allow for an
appropriate ’reserve“ or carryover balance, to ensure the continuity of
operations and cover fixed costs in the event of a decrease in
applications, nor does it consider the costs associated with certain
fee collection operations. According to USCIS‘s schedule, if the next
review identifies a needed fee adjustment, it would occur in September
2009. However, USCIS did not provide documentation that would allow us
to determine whether the 2009 fee review would address identified
shortcomings in the 2007 fee review or whether the remaining time
frames for key milestones, such as refining data and the proposed
rulemaking schedule, are reasonable. Absent timely reviews, it is more
likely that fees and costs will become misaligned, leading to costly
challenges.
Projections of USCIS application volume have historically been
developed and used as budget tools but do not effectively inform
workload management efforts. Specifically, the projections do not
identify monthly variations in application volume, despite variations
that regularly exceed 20 percent and the serious operational challenges
associated with application surges. USCIS‘s contractors do not receive
workload projection information, despite requirements that processing
centers shall maintain the capacity to accommodate ’spikes“ in receipt
volumes that are anticipated at least 45 to 90 calendar days in
advance. Further, USCIS projection documents do not consistently record
critical information such as factors that drive application volume,
inhibiting analysis that could improve projections over time.
Service-center contractors process USCIS mail and are paid according to
a fixed unit price per piece. Contractors count up to 90 percent of
incoming mail, but USCIS has not developed an agencywide standard
operating procedure for validating the contractors‘ counts. As a
result, USCIS is limited in its ability to verify that USCIS is
receiving the service that it is paying for.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making seven recommendations to the Director of Homeland
Security to improve the timing and comprehensiveness of its next fee
review; analyze and use application projection information for workload
purposes; and implement procedures to validate contractors‘ invoices
for incoming mail. DHS agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-180]. For more
information, contact Susan Irving at (202) 512-8288, irvings@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
USCIS Fee Design Reflects Deliberate Choices Consistent with User Fee
Design Principles, but USCIS Lacks a Plan to Capture Certain Key Costs
in Future Reviews, Increasing the Risk of Misaligned Costs and
Collections, Major Fee Increases, and Processing Delays:
USCIS Application Volume Projections Do Not Effectively Inform Workload
Management despite Operational Challenges Associated with Application
Surges:
USCIS Does Not Consistently or Adequately Validate Invoices for Mail
Operations at the Service Centers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Lockbox Costs to Be Born by USCIS:
Table 2: Estimated Lockbox Costs Shared by USCIS and FMS:
Table 3: USCIS 2009 Fee Review Milestones and Time Frames:
Table 4: Fiscal Year 2009 Application Volume Projections for Top 10
High-Volume Form Types:
Figures:
Figure 1: Weighted Average Application Fee Adjustments Since Fiscal
Year 1998:
Figure 2: The Flow of Premium Processing Collections and Usage:
Figure 3: Percent Variation in Application Volume on a Monthly Basis
from Fiscal Year 2000 through April 2008:
Figure 4: Actual Incoming Application Volume USCIS-wide from October
2006 through March 2008:
Abbreviations:
CFO Act: Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990:
CPI: Consumer Price Index:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation:
FMS: Financial Management Service:
IEFA: Immigration Examinations Fee Account:
INA: Immigration and Nationality Act:
IRCA: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:
MOU: memorandum of understanding:
OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
OIS: Office of Immigration and Statistics:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPD: Operations Planning Division:
PMB: Production Management Branch:
RFE: request for evidence:
USCIS: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 23, 2009:
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and
International Law:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable David Price:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) is responsible for granting or denying the
applications or petitions of individuals seeking either to become
citizens of the United States or to reside or work in this country.
USCIS charges fees to process the millions of immigration and
naturalization applications it receives each year to recover all
processing costs.[Footnote 1] Although annual appropriations over the
last decade have been enacted for specific projects, such as USCIS's
initiative to reduce its backlog of pending applications, a large
proportion of USCIS's funding historically is derived from fees. In
fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 7.69 million applications, which
generated $2.08 billion in fee collections. In fiscal year 2009, USCIS
anticipates that fee collections will constitute $2.33 billion, or
about 94 percent of the agency's funding.
In 2004, we found that USCIS's fee collections were not sufficient to
fully recover operating costs[Footnote 2] so USCIS relied on funding
from various sources, including appropriated funds to reduce backlog
and premium processing fees.[Footnote 3] In February 2007, USCIS
completed a fee review to determine the level at which fees should be
set to recover the full cost of its services. Based on the review USCIS
implemented a new fee schedule, which went into effect July 30, 2007,
and increased application fees by an average of 86 percent.[Footnote 4]
According to USCIS, the 2007 fee increases ensure sufficient funds to
meet immediate goals for national security, customer service, and
standard processing time and to sustain and improve service delivery
through the end of 2009.
USCIS's new fee schedule has been widely questioned, partly because of
the magnitude of the increases and partly because of the agency's
failure to foresee and manage the surge in applications received
immediately before the effective date of the fee increases.[Footnote 5]
In July 2007, the incoming application volume increased an
unprecedented 100 percent over the prior month. This increase far
outpaced USCIS's pre-adjudicative application processing[Footnote 6]
capacity, and as a result, the processing of 1.47 million applications
was delayed. At your request, we reviewed:[Footnote 7]
* USCIS's current fee design and compared it to the principles in GAO's
user-fee design guide,[Footnote 8] identifying issues that USCIS did
and did not address effectively, and:
* USCIS's management of operations affected by the new fees,
specifically in projecting application volumes and contracting for
application processing services.
To analyze the design of USCIS's user fees we reviewed legislation and
agency documentation such as the proposed and final Federal Register
notices regarding the 2007 fee schedule and USCIS's February 2007 fee-
review analysis. In addition, we reviewed the principles of effective
user-fee design: equity, efficiency, revenue adequacy, and
administrative burden. To review the management of agency operations we
analyzed service-center contracts, historic application volumes,
application projections, and related documentation. We also conducted
site visits at the four service centers which are located in Texas,
Vermont, Nebraska, and California; the National Benefits Center in
Missouri; and the Chicago Lockbox[Footnote 9]and interviewed agency
officials at these locations and in headquarters.
Appendix I provides additional details about our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2007 through January
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained meets these standards.
Results in Brief:
USCIS's 2007 fee design provides transparent analysis and deliberate
choices and trade-offs consistent with several of the four user-fee
design principles--efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and
administrative burden. For example, in three key areas the fee design
reflects policy choices made that were consistent with issues related
to equity and administrative burden: (1) the use of fee exemptions and
waivers, (2) limitations on certain fee increases for a population
deemed unlikely to be able to pay, and (3) decisions about how costs
were assigned among users.[Footnote 10] However, USCIS did not conduct
the analyses necessary to fully inform either congressional decision-
making or internal deliberations on key areas. Specifically, it did not
analyze the cost of activities funded by statutorily set fees, the
appropriate "reserve," or carryover balance to ensure the continuity of
operations of activities funded by IEFA in the event of a decrease in
applications, or the costs associated with USCIS's lockbox operation.
It also lacks an established pattern of reviewing its fees biennially,
as required by the CFO Act of 1990.
* Statutorily set fees. Notably, the statutory $1,000 fee for USCIS's
premium-processing service for employment-based applications--which was
fifth largest single generator of funds for USCIS in fiscal year 2007--
will be used for business process and technology improvements. As such,
the additional costs of premium processing services are funded by non-
premium processing fee-paying applicants, raising equity concerns.
Because USCIS has not identified the total costs of these services, the
actual dollar amount being subsidized is unknown.
* Carryover balances. We have previously reported that carryover is one
way agencies can establish reserve accounts, that is, revenue to
sustain operations in the event of a sharp downturn in collections,
which is especially important for agencies like USCIS, in which fees
are expected to cover program costs. Although some processing costs
would necessarily decline as the volume of applications decline, not
all overhead costs are affected by application volume. For example,
USCIS overhead costs include projected total rent--which is a fixed
cost--of $383 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Therefore without
analyzing its full contractual and operating costs and determining an
appropriate target carryover balance, USCIS is at risk of reducing,
disrupting, or discontinuing services should collections decrease.
* Cost of lockbox operations. USCIS's 2007 fee review did not fully
account for the costs associated with lockbox services because these
costs were unknown at the time of the fee review. USCIS's 2007 fee
review estimated $2 million for lockbox costs, but this amount only
represents about 4 percent of the total $48 million estimated lockbox
costs for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (the period covered by the fee
review). USCIS's lockbox costs will remain misaligned with fee
collections unless USCIS adjusts the fees.
* Biennial fee review. OMB Circular A-25 recommends, and the CFO Act of
1990 requires agency CFOs to review their user fees biennially. USCIS's
lack of timely, comprehensive fee reviews prior to 2007 led to the need
for an average fee increase of 86 percent. This contributed to a surge
in application volume as applicants attempted to submit their
applications before the fee increase took effect, resulting in costly
operational challenges. For example, the number of applications
submitted increased an unprecedented 100 percent in July 2007 over the
prior month, exceeding storage capacity. At the Texas Service Center
unprocessed applications were stored outside in six rented 10-by-40-
foot containers, double-locked, and monitored by a full-time security
guard. USCIS incurred additional, unplanned costs as a result of the
surge in applications.
In addition, the increased volume of applications exceeded the service
center contractors' ability to process them. Fees were not deposited
within the 24-hour deposit requirement, which is based on a Department
of Treasury's financial management standard. As a result, the U.S.
government did not earn interest on these undeposited collections.
According to USCIS's fee review schedule, if the next fee review
identifies a needed fee adjustment, it would occur in September, 2009.
However, USCIS did not provide documentation that would allow us either
to determine whether the 2009 fee review would address identified
shortcomings in the 2007 fee review or whether the agency could meet
key dates such as data refinement and the proposed rulemaking schedule-
-all of which are necessary to complete the review in a timely manner.
Absent timely reviews, it becomes increasingly likely that fees and
costs will become misaligned, leading to costly challenges.
USCIS develops and uses annual application volume projections to inform
budget projections but does not develop projections suitable to inform
workload management efforts. This limits USCIS's ability to anticipate
and mitigate variations in monthly application volume despite
variations that regularly exceed 20 percent. In addition, little or no
projection information is provided to any of USCIS's processing centers
even though processing center personnel have said that such information
could be used to mitigate operational challenges resulting from surges.
USCIS's contractors do not receive projection information either
despite contract language that ties contractor performance to 45-and 90-
day projections. Further, USCIS projection documents do not
consistently record critical information about application volume
drivers such as policy decisions and known demographic trends,
inhibiting analysis that could improve projections over time. Service
centers have demonstrated that they can effectively prepare for, and to
some degree mitigate, surges in application volumes when such surges
are anticipated. For example, in 2008, the California and Vermont
Service Centers took steps to prepare for an anticipated surge in
certain application types in the spring based on their past experience.
In preparation, California Service Center officials worked with their
contractor to develop a plan for managing the surge, including
dedicating extra space for intake activities, employing multiple
shifts, and increasing the number of intake personnel by drawing from a
pool of 50 additional employees who are maintained through a contract
with a local temporary employment agency. The Vermont Service Center's
plan included extra dedicated space for intake activities.
Contractors perform all operations for incoming and outgoing mail at
the service centers, and they are paid according to a fixed unit price
for each piece of mail processed. USCIS mail operations payments
totaled $12 million over the first year of the contract. However,
contractors process almost all of the incoming mail--for example, in
Texas, more than 90 percent of the mail is counted by contractors--and
USCIS has not developed an agencywide standard operating procedure for
validating the contractors' counts. As a result, three of the four
service centers do not validate contractor mail counts at all. GAO has
previously reported that a basic tenet of government procurement is
that before payment is made, the purchasing agency must verify that the
services have been received in accordance with contractual
requirements, and the price charged is proper and correct. In most
cases, however, USCIS cannot verify that it is receiving the service
that it is paying for.
We are making seven recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland
Security to improve the comprehensiveness of future user fee reviews;
to analyze and use application volume projections for workload
management; and to develop and implement procedures to validate
contractor invoices for incoming mail services. In written comments on
a draft of this report, DHS generally concurred with our
recommendations. DHS also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
A user fee is a charge assessed to beneficiaries for goods or services
provided by the federal government.[Footnote 11] User fees generally
apply to federal programs or activities that provide special benefits
to identifiable recipients above and beyond what is normally available
to the public and are generally related to the cost of the goods or
services provided. GAO has previously concluded that regularly
reviewing a fee's design helps ensure that Congress, stakeholders, and
agencies have complete information about program costs, and fees that
are not regularly reviewed run the risk of having fees and costs
misaligned and overcharging or undercharging users.[Footnote 12]
Examinations of the trade-offs involved with a fee design can provide
decision-makers with more comprehensive information and can support
more robust deliberations about user-fee financing.
The Immigration and Nationality Act[Footnote 13] (INA), as amended,
[Footnote 14] authorizes USCIS to charge fees for adjudication and
naturalization services. Per the INA, these fees "may be set at a level
that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all
[adjudication and immigration] such services, including costs of
similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other
immigrants. Such fees may also be set at a level that will recover any
additional costs associated with the administration of the fees
collected." In fiscal year 2007, fee-exempt and fee-waived applications
represented 7 percent of USCIS's total applications received.
User-fee design principles are also established by several other
sources of guidance and criteria. GAO has previously reported on the
principles of effective user-fee design, including efficiency, equity,
revenue adequacy, and administrative burden.
* Efficiency: "Efficiency" refers to requiring identifiable
beneficiaries to pay for the costs of services, allowing user fees to
simultaneously constrain demand and reveal the value that beneficiaries
place on the service. If those benefiting from a service do not bear
the full social cost of the service, they may seek to have the
government provide more of the service than is economically efficient.
User fees may also foster production efficiency by increasing awareness
of the costs of publicly provided services and therefore increasing
incentives to reduce costs where possible.
* Equity: "Equity" refers to everyone's paying their fair share, but
the definition of fair share can have multiple facets. Under the
beneficiary-pays principle, the beneficiaries of a service pay for the
cost of providing the service from which they benefit. Under the
ability-to-pay principle, beneficiaries who are more capable of bearing
the burden of fees should pay more for the service than those with less
ability to pay.
* Revenue adequacy: "Revenue adequacy" refers to the extent to which
the fee collections cover the intended share of costs. It encompasses
variations in collections over time relative to the cost of the
program. Revenue adequacy also incorporates the concept of revenue
stability, which generally refers to the degree to which short-term
fluctuations in economic activity and other factors affect the level of
fee collections.
* Administrative burden: "Administrative burden" refers to the cost of
administering the fee, including the cost of collection and enforcement
as well as the compliance burden (the administrative costs imposed on
the payers of the fee).
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides
guidance to executive branch agencies through Circular No. A-25. This
circular establishes federal guidelines regarding user fees including
the scope and types of activities subject to user fees and the basis
upon which the fees are set. It also provides guidance for executive
branch agency implementation of fees and the disposition of
collections. Further, the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990
[Footnote 15] requires an agency's CFO to review, on a biennial basis,
the fees, royalties, rents, and other charges for services and things
of value and make recommendations on revising those charges to reflect
costs incurred. The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
Number 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the
Federal Government[Footnote 16] establishes standards for federal
agencies to use in reporting the costs of their products, services, and
activities.[Footnote 17]
Most of USCIS's user fees are cost-based fees set through the
regulatory process and deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account. Prior to the 2007 review, USCIS's last comprehensive fee
review was conducted in fiscal year 1997; the resultant fee increase
averaged $65. However, as shown in figure 1, the average fee increase
of $223 in 2007 dwarfs the other increases.
Figure 1: Weighted Average Application Fee Adjustments Since Fiscal
Year 1998:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Weighted Average Application Fee Adjustments Since Fiscal Year 1998:
Year: 1998;
Fee Adjustment, Comprehensive fee review: 76%;
Average fee rate: $150.
Year: 1999;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: N/A;
Average fee rate: $150.
Year: 2000;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: N/A;
Average fee rate: $150.
Year: 2001;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: N/A;
Average fee rate: $150.
Year: 2002;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: 12%;
Average fee rate: $168.
Year: 2003;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: N/A;
Average fee rate: $168.
Year: 2004;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: 33%;
Average fee rate: $223.
Year: 2005;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: 4%;
Average fee rate: $231.
Year: 2006;
Fee Adjustment, Inflation adjustment only: N/A;
Average fee rate: $231.
Year: 2007;
Fee Adjustment, Comprehensive fee review: 86%;
Average fee rate: $454.
Nine years between comprehensive fee reviews.
Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data.
Note: The July 30, 2007 increase of 86 percent includes the biometric
fee.
[End of figure]
For some fees, the fee rate is set in statute. This includes (1)
premium fees for employment based applications; and (2) fees on certain
employers sponsoring an individual for H-1B nonimmigrant worker status.
Premium fee collections are deposited into the Immigration Examinations
Fee Account, along with other fees set by regulation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. § 1356(m). The collection of fees imposed upon employers
sponsoring aliens for H-1B status are deposited into the H-1B
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.
Persons seeking immigration or naturalization benefits mail their
applications and associated fees (when applicable) to one of four
service centers or one of two lockbox facilities, depending on the form
type and geographic location of the applicant. Contract employees at
the service centers and designated financial agent employees at the
lockbox facilities are responsible for the initial processing of
applications: mail operations, data collection, fee collection, and
file operations. This report collectively refers to these processing
activities as pre-processing, or pre-adjudicative, services. Because
the National Benefits Center receives applications from the lockboxes
after any fee instruments have been detached and deposited, it does not
collect fees. After pre-processing, USCIS employees adjudicate the
applications (i.e., make determinations about whether to approve or
deny the benefits for which the applicant has applied).
USCIS also utilizes lockbox services provided by a designated financial
agency of the United States in accordance with an Economy Act
interagency agreement between USCIS and the Department of Treasury's
Financial Management Service (FMS). This agreement incorporates a
memorandum of understanding between USCIS, FMS, and the designated
financial agent addressing the performance of lockbox services
supporting the collection of fees for adjudication and naturalization
services.
SI International and Stanley Associates, Inc. are the contractors
employed at the service centers and the National Benefits Center. SI
International operates at the National Benefits Center, the Nebraska
Service Center, and the Texas Service Center, while Stanley Associates,
Inc. operates at the California Service Center and the Vermont Service
Center.
FMS has designated the financial agent, JP Morgan Chase, as a qualified
lockbox service provider authorized to process USCIS's application
fees.[Footnote 18] The lockbox in Chicago currently processes a limited
number of form types, but by the end of 2010 it is expected to process
all USCIS form types both at its Chicago location and at other
locations across the United States. USCIS officials have identified
several reasons to transition certain operations to the lockboxes.
Specifically, USCIS officials have said that FMS-designated financial
agents offer:
* a more secure environment for fee collections, resulting in improved
internal controls;
* centralized and expedited application-and fee-collection intake;
* reduced operational costs, as USCIS anticipates that FMS will fund a
portion of the lockbox activities through its permanent, indefinite
appropriation; and:
* flexibility in addressing issues related to unanticipated surges in
volume.
USCIS Fee Design Reflects Deliberate Choices Consistent with User Fee
Design Principles, but USCIS Lacks a Plan to Capture Certain Key Costs
in Future Reviews, Increasing the Risk of Misaligned Costs and
Collections, Major Fee Increases, and Processing Delays:
Many fee design choices described in USCIS's 2007 fee review provide
transparent analysis and are consistent with user-fee design principles
such as considerations related to equity and administrative burden.
However, USCIS did not conduct the analysis necessary to fully inform
either congressional decision-making or USCIS's internal deliberations
on key areas such as the cost of activities funded by statutorily-set
fees or the appropriate level of carryover balance for the agency. As
described below, despite costly operational challenges that resulted,
in part, from USCIS's lack of regular, comprehensive fee reviews, and
although fiscal years 2008 and 2009 fee collections significantly lag
projections, USCIS has no plans to determine and include in its next
fee review certain key costs that were missing from the 2007 review.
Without considering all costs associated with its fee-funded operations
when setting fee rates, USCIS fee collections may not be sufficient to
cover costs, especially since a large amount of USCIS's costs are fixed
costs; that is, costs that do not vary with the number of applications
received and processed. Since USCIS is mainly a fee-funded agency, this
raises concerns about potential service delays and disruption.
USCIS Fee Design Reflects Trade-offs among Fee Design Principles,
Particularly Equity, and Administrative Burden:
User fees can be designed to achieve various policy goals. Because the
four user-fee design principles--equity, efficiency, revenue adequacy,
and administrative burden--can be in conflict with one another, trade-
offs often must be made among them to achieve a given policy goal or
preference. It is important for decision makers to know the costs of
achieving a policy goal in order to understand and evaluate the
approach used to achieve the goal. USCIS's user-fee review clearly
describes the choices it made in structuring the fees it sets,
particularly in terms of equity and administrative burden, in three key
areas: (1) the use of exemptions and waivers, (2) limitations on
certain fee increases for a population deemed unlikely to be able to
pay, and (3) decisions about how costs were assigned among users.
Fee Exemptions and Waivers:
USCIS's user-fee design allows fee exemptions for certain form types
and fee waivers for some applicants, and USCIS funds these activities
through a surcharge added to fee-paying applicants. For example,
certain form types are fee-exempt, such as for refugees and applicants
seeking asylum, and fee waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis for
applicants who demonstrate an inability to pay by meeting certain need-
based criteria.[Footnote 19] The cost of fee exemptions and waivers is
allocated to the fee-based applications as a flat-rate surcharge. As a
result of USCIS's 2007 fee review, the fee-exempt and fee-waiver
surcharge is $72 per fee-based application, or 15 percent of the
average application fee.
We have previously reported that the cost of providing services to fee-
exempted or fee-waived users is commonly funded by general revenues or
by the fees of other users. When those who are more capable of bearing
the burden of fees pay more for the service than those with less
ability to pay, the ability-to-pay definition of equity is employed,
creating conflict with the beneficiary-pays definition of equity and
causing cross-subsidization among applicants. Both definitions of
equity are valid approaches depending on the policy goal an agency is
trying to achieve. Fee exemptions and waivers may also increase an
agency's administrative burden--the cost of administering the fee--
since the agency must carefully track when fees are due and from whom
rather than simply charging every applicant. Fee-paying applicants also
bear an administrative burden in terms of compliance costs associated
with waiver and exemption policies.
Downward Adjustment of Application Fees:
USCIS limited the increase in the fee charged for some low volume
applications to avoid what, in some cases, would have been a 250
percent fee increase or greater, levied on a population unlikely to be
able to pay. Instead USCIS limited the increase to the total average
increase across all applications--96 percent.[Footnote 20] The
unrecovered processing costs for these form types were distributed
across other form types and thus distributed among other fee-paying
applicants.
USCIS's adjustments are consistent with two different definitions of
equity. Specifically, USCIS demonstrated the ability-to-pay principle
of equity by adjusting the fees for form types where the dramatic fee
increase would likely exceed the applicant's ability to pay, thereby
ensuring that the fee increase was comparable to that which other
applicants would be paying. As a result, USCIS applied the adjustment
to:
* Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian Widow(er) or Special Immigrant
(where fee is not exempted);
* Form I-690, Application for Waiver of Excludability;
* Form I-695, Application for Replacement Employment Authorization or
Temporary Residence Card;
* Form N-300, Application to File Declaration of Intention; and:
* Form N-470, Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization
Purposes.
Second, USCIS demonstrated the beneficiary pays principle of equity by
not applying a downward adjustment to a second set of fees, for which
the population would likely be able to pay the large fee increase, some
of which increased by more than 250 percent. By not adjusting them
USCIS closely aligned these fees with the cost of providing the
services to these users. USCIS did not apply the downward adjustment of
application fees to:
* Form I-694, Notice of Appeal of Decision;
* Form I-698, Application to Adjust Status From Temporary to Permanent
Resident; and:
* Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions.
USCIS's user-fee review states that for these three form types there
does not appear to be a substantial rationale for lowering the fee
below the charge under the applicable methodology, because the affected
populations are likely able to pay the actual application cost. For
example, the Forms I-694 or I-698 are application forms associated with
the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. IRCA established
a legalization program for immigrants residing in the United States
since at least 1982. USCIS determined that since these individuals have
lived in the United States for such a long period of time they were
more likely to be able to afford the applicable fee. In addition,
applicants filing Form I-829 must be entrepreneurs with $500,000 to
invest, making it reasonable to assume that the full cost of the fee
would not be a hardship.
Assigning Costs among Users:
USCIS assigned costs to various fee-paying users in a combination of
ways in determining its fee rates. In our related study, we discuss how
the methodology used to determine the cost assignments could be
improved.[Footnote 21] Some costs were assigned based on the average
time to adjudicate the specific form types, some costs were assigned as
a flat-rate surcharge to all fee-funded form types, and some costs were
assigned proportionally among form types. For example, USCIS identified
the costs for adjudicating each form type, referred to as the "make
determination" costs, and assigned these costs to the corresponding
form type. In addition, all fee-paying applicants pay a flat-rate $72
surcharge to recover the costs associated with asylum and refugee
services and fee-waived and fee-exempt applications. Lastly, USCIS
allocated in proportion to FTEs $732 million in overhead costs,
including payroll, accounting, and legal services.
We have previously reported that if the cost of providing a service
varies for different types of users, fees may vary (a user-specific fee
[Footnote 22]) or be set at an average rate (a systemwide fee). All
other factors being equal, user-specific fees promote equity and
economic efficiency because the amount of the fee is closely aligned
with the cost of the service. USCIS's make-determination costs, which
make up 49 percent of its total costs, vary by form type and are
assigned accordingly; as such, this portion of the costs are aligned
with the associated fees. Systemwide fees minimize administrative
burden because they do not require identifying and charging specific
costs to each user. However, we raise concerns about the lack of
justification and support for USCIS's allocation of remaining costs in
our related report, including how USCIS allocated certain overhead
costs and whether alternate allocation methods may offer greater
precision.[Footnote 23]
USCIS Has Not Identified Costs Associated with Statutorily Set Fees,
Omitting Key Information Useful to Congressional Decision Makers:
USCIS does not know the relationship between the costs and the fees
associated with those fees that are set in statute; as a result,
decision-makers lack this key information for reviewing fees. The most
notable of the statutorily set fees is the $1,000 fee for the premium-
processing service, which was USCIS's fifth largest single generator of
funds in fiscal year 2007. USCIS officials said that they had not
identified the costs associated with statutorily set fees and that
doing so is not a priority for them because USCIS cannot change these
fee rates through the regulatory process. Unlike most of USCIS's
application fees, the premium processing and H-1B fees are not cost-
based fees, but Congress can still review and revise the fee. We have
previously reported that reliable information on the costs of federal
programs and activities is crucial for agencies and Congress to ensure
effective management of government operations, which includes setting
user fees.
Premium Processing:
In December 2000, Congress authorized the collection of a premium
processing fee, in addition to the regular application fees, for
employment-based applications.[Footnote 24] Congress set the amount of
the fee at $1,000 and directed that these amounts be available for (1)
the premium processing activities and (2) infrastructure improvements
associated with adjudications and customer-service.[Footnote 25]
Pursuant to this authority and as established in regulations, USCIS
guarantees that certain employment based applications will be processed
within 15 calendar days of receipt.[Footnote 26]
USCIS's 2007 fee review states that the agency intends to use all
premium-processing collections to fund planned infrastructure
improvements, as shown in figure 2, which are a significant component
of USCIS's Transformation Program[Footnote 27] and for the purposes of
the fee review, are not included in what the agency's definition of
overhead costs. Funding the Transformation Program with premium-
processing activities is consistent with the House Report to the FY
2008 DHS Appropriation Bill, H.R. 2638, which[Footnote 28] directed
USCIS to allocate all premium-processing fee collections to information
technology and business-system transformation.
Figure 2: The Flow of Premium Processing Collections and Usage:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the flow of premium processing
collections and usage, as follows:
Non-premium processing: $438 per application[A];
FY 2008: $2,254 million to:
* Premium processing activities;
* Non-premium processing activities.
Premium processing: $1,000 per application;
FY 2008: $163 million to:
* Infrastructure improvements.
Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data.
[End of figure]
This policy choice raises various equity issues. First, because all of
the premium processing funds will be used for business process and
technology improvements, the additional costs of premium processing
services are funded by non-premium processing fee-paying applicants.
However, since USCIS has not identified the total costs of these
services, neither Congress nor the agency knows the dollar amount of
the premium-processing costs being subsidized by non-premium-
processing, fee-paying applicants, though evidence suggests that there
are some additional costs. For example, we found that the California
Service Center had dedicated 20 adjudicators and a file room
exclusively for premium processing, and the Vermont Service Center has
a dedicated mail room for receiving premium-processing applications.
Second, while Congress supports this use of premium processing
collections, we note that these applicants are bearing an uneven amount
of the costs of the Transformation Program--an initiative that will
ultimately benefit all types of future applicants. Spreading the
transformation costs among all application fees would also create
inequities between applicants at different points in time--today's
applicants would be paying for improvements likely to benefit future
applicants but would distribute the burden across all fee-paying
applicants.
When the premium processing fee was enacted in December 2000 Congress
authorized USCIS to adjust it by the consumer price index (CPI) but
USCIS has not done so. USCIS officials said that adjusting with the CPI
was not necessary because the 2007 fee increases would fully recover
USCIS's transformation-related costs. However, had the premium-
processing fee been adjusted by the CPI each year, the 2007 fee
increases for other form types might have been less. If USCIS had
adjusted the premium-processing fee by the CPI during this period the
premium-processing fee in fiscal year 2007 would have been
approximately $1,171 rather than $1,000,[Footnote 29] and total premium-
processing collections would have been $221 million rather than $189
million in 2007.[Footnote 30] The additional $32 million collected in
just one year could have been used to defray the costs of the premium
processing service, thereby limiting the amount of cross-subsidization
by non-premium processing applicants.
H-1B Visa:
In 1998, Congress enacted a mandatory fee on employers seeking to have
an individual admitted to the United States as an H-1B Nonimmigrant
Worker.[Footnote 31] Congress sets the amount pursuant to statute;
currently the fee is $1,500 for most employers with more than 25 full-
time employees.[Footnote 32] Congress has directed that five percent be
available to the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS for various
duties related to the processing of H1-B applications, including
collecting the employer fee, and processing the applications. [Footnote
33] USCIS officials said that these funds are used for service center
contract activities.
All nonimmigrant workers, including workers seeking H1-B status, must
complete a Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker. The I-129 fee
is a cost-based fee set pursuant to regulation and is currently $320.
Accordingly, for most individuals seeking H1-B status, USCIS collects
and is authorized to use two fees: (1) five percent of the statutorily
set $1,500 employer fee; and (2) the Form I-129 fee of $320.[Footnote
34]
Congress "caps" the number Petitions for Nonimmigrant Workers seeking
H1-B status (H1-B petitions) for new employment on an annual basis.
Since fiscal year 2004, the annual cap on H-1B petitions has been
65,000.[Footnote 35] For fiscal year 2009, USCIS began accepting H1-B
petitions on April 1, 2008 and received 163,000 H1-B petitions subject
to the annual cap requirements within the first week. USCIS instituted
a two-step lottery selection process to determine which of the 163,000
petitions received would be adjudicated. This required USCIS to first
complete basic data collection for, and assign a number to, each
petition. USCIS has not identified the additional costs associated with
either administering the H1-B lottery or adjudicating applications
associated with the H1-B cap.
While the cost of the H1-B random lottery selection process is not
known, service-center employees have suggested that H1-B costs may be
significant. Vermont Service Center officials estimated that "pre-
filing" costs at just that service center for the H1-B program totaled
$1 million in 2008. They also said that Vermont Service Center
preparations for the H-1B filing period were carried out at the expense
of file-room operations. California Service Center officials said that
in an effort to manage the H1-B applications, they hired temporary
employees prior to and during the H1-B filing period in 2008. According
to USCIS officials, fees collected for all I-129 Nonimmigrant Worker
petitions cover these additional costs. Because USCIS officials do not
know the total costs of the H1-B program, the agency and Congress do
not know the extent to which the non-H1-B, I-129 applicants are
subsidizing the costs of the H1-B lottery and associated activities,
nor do they know whether USCIS's statutorily set share of the H1-B fee
covers H1-B processing costs.
USCIS Has Not Identified Its Share of Lockbox Costs nor Its Carryover
Balance Target, Omitting Information Useful to Agency Decision Makers:
USCIS's 2007 fee review did not fully identify and consider the costs
associated with lockbox operations nor a target level for carryover
balances that would ensure continuity of operations in the event of a
decrease in applications. If a fee review is not comprehensive, it may
not provide sufficient information to assess whether a fee needs to be
changed or the resulting fee rates could be insufficient to recover all
of the related costs, affecting agency operations and service levels.
Lockbox Funding:
USCIS's 2007 fee review did not fully account for the costs associated
with lockbox services because these costs were unknown at the time of
the fee review. In September 2008, USCIS and FMS entered into an
interagency agreement in which USCIS agreed to reimburse FMS for
lockbox-related costs that were unique to the needs of USCIS.[Footnote
36] This agreement incorporated a memorandum of understanding between
USCIS, FMS and the designated depositary outlining the terms and
conditions of the services provided, including the reimbursement levels
for one-time and annual costs that USCIS will pay FMS, see table 1.
Table 1: Lockbox Costs to Be Born by USCIS:
One time charges for development of expanded lockbox services:
Technology - paper solution: 50%;
IT Development resources: 50%;
IT Production Resources: 50%;
IT Hardware Purchases: 5%;
Facilities - leasehold improvements for Chicago, Dallas, and Phoenix
lockbox facilities: 5%;
Implementation costs and ramp-up costs: 30%;
Annual operating costs at operating sites:
Designated financial agent operations labor services: 40%;
Facility charges: 5%;
Technology charges - vendor services: 40%;
IT production support: 40%;
Ongoing tech, service support: 5%;
Operating costs: 25%;
Program management and project implementation team: 50%;
Record of Proceeding order: 100%;
Pass-through expenses: 100%;
Change requests - initiated by USCIS: 100%;
Vermont data entry site costs: 100%.
Source: USCIS.
[End of table]
USCIS's 2007 fee review estimated $2 million for lockbox costs, but
this amount only represents about 4 percent of the total $48 million
estimated lockbox costs for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (the period
covered by the fee review). USCIS must also retroactively pay for some
lockbox services incurred from October 1, 2007, through the date the
MOU was signed (March 27, 2008), and 20 percent of the actual lockbox
processing costs for five additional form types that are processed at
the lockbox but not covered by the MOU.
USCIS's lockbox costs will remain misaligned with fee collections
unless USCIS adjusts the fees. USCIS officials said the contracts for
pre-adjudicative operations at the service centers will be reduced as
the lockbox operations are expanded. Therefore, the net extent of the
misalignment for 2009 and beyond is unknown. However, USCIS expects
that lockbox costs will continue to increase over time, as shown in
table 2.
Table 2: Estimated Lockbox Costs Shared by USCIS and FMS:
One-time costs:
FY 2008: $11,430,000;
FY 2009: $9,260,000;
FY 2010: $4,900,000;
FY 2011: $2,000,000.
Annual costs:
FY 2008: $5,800,000;
FY 2009: $21,600,000;
FY 2010: $30,000,000;
FY 2011: $37,100,000.
Total:
FY 2008: $17,230,000;
FY 2009: $30,860,000;
FY 2010: $34,900,000;
FY 2011: $39,100,000.
Source: USCIS.
[End of table]
Carryover Balance:
In its 2007 fee review, USCIS did not fully consider issues related to
revenue adequacy because it did not conduct the analysis needed to
establish a target level of carryover balance, or "reserve," that would
allow for the continuity of operations funded by the IFEA account in
the event of a decrease in application volume. We previously reported
that when fees are expected to cover program costs that do not
necessarily decline with a drop in fee collections, a carryover balance
is important.[Footnote 37] Agencies should also consider revenue
stability, or the degree to which short-term fluctuations in economic
activity and other factors affect the level of fee collections. For
example, a decrease in application volume could significantly affect
operations when an agency receives nearly all of its funding from
application fees.
USCIS officials said they have not conducted the analysis to determine
what their carryover balance should be. However, they told us that an
appropriate level of carryover balance level should reflect: (1)
USCIS's first-quarter obligations, which includes the full contract
value for the whole fiscal year;[Footnote 38] (2) deferred revenue
equal to the amount of its outstanding workload,[Footnote 39] and (3)
the operating "tempo" of the organization. USCIS anticipates a
carryover balance of $450 million at the end of fiscal year 2009
depending on the level of revenue collected during the year, actual
spending, any dips in receipt, and/or any sudden surges. Without
analyzing its contractual and operating costs to determine an
appropriate target carryover balance, USCIS is at risk of reducing or
disrupting services if collections decrease. It is unclear for how long
and at what service level USCIS would be able to operate using its
current carryover should this become necessary. Moreover, the 2007 fee
review projected collections of $2,331 million for each of the fiscal
years 2008 and 2009 but actual fiscal year 2008 collections were only
$2,254 million (a difference of $77 million). USCIS revised its fiscal
year 2009 fee collection projections to $2,287 million ($33 million
more than fiscal year 2008 collections and $44 million less than the
original projection.)
Long Lags between Fee Reviews Resulted in Large Fee Increases and
Costly Challenges:
USCIS's 2007 fee review, the first comprehensive fee review since 1998,
increased application fees by an average of 86 percent which
contributed to a surge in application volume as applicants attempted to
submit their applications before the fee increase took effect.[Footnote
40] The 2007 fee increase and subsequent application surge contributed
to the following costly challenges:
* Increased filings of fee-waiver applications. The number of
applications for fee waivers increased after the new fee schedule as
proposed. For example, USCIS received more than three times the average
number of fee-waiver applications for Form N-400 (the application for
naturalization) in January 2007 (when the fee increase was announced)
than it had received in any of the preceding 15 months. Fee waivers add
to the cost of processing the corresponding applications because USCIS
must first determine whether to approve the waiver before it
adjudicates the corresponding application.
* Suspension of premium-processing service for some form types. USCIS
suspended premium process services for one form type for almost a year
as it responded to the surge in applications, reflecting a strategic
decision to reduce the agency's obligation to offer a service that it
likely could not have delivered effectively at that time. At $1,000 per
application, suspending premium processing resulted in an unknown, but
likely significant loss of collections for the agency. While USCIS did
not see a decrease in total premium-processing collections for 2007 as
compared to 2006, it is likely collections would have been higher if
premium processing had not been suspended. The effects--if any--on
USCIS's transformation efforts, which are funded solely by premium-
processing collections, are as yet unknown.
* Increased costs to secure high volumes of unprocessed collections.
The number of total applications submitted--and therefore the fees
collected--increased an unprecedented 100 percent between June and July
2007, exceeding storage capacity. At the Texas Service Center
unprocessed applications were stored outside in six rented 10-by-40-
foot containers, double-locked, and monitored by a full-time security
guard. While the storage containers and guards were important to
ensuring the security and internal controls over the applications,
USCIS incurred additional, unplanned costs as a result of the surge in
applications.
* Fees were not deposited according to the 24-hour cash management
standard. The increased volume of applications exceeded the service
center contractors' ability to process them. Fees were not deposited
within the 24-hour time frame required by the contracts.[Footnote 41]
The 24-hour deposit requirement is consistent with the Department of
Treasury's financial management standards and ensures government
receipts are safe and available to accrue interest for the government.
Further, the U.S. government did not earn interest on these undeposited
collections. In some cases, like those applications stored in the
rented containers at the Texas Service Center, application fees were
not deposited for months.
USCIS's Current Fee Review Time Frames are Consistent with Biennial
Review Requirements but USCIS Has No Plans to Consider All Key Costs:
Under USCIS's 2009 fee review schedule any fee adjustments would take
effect in September 2009 (see table 3). According to this schedule,
USCIS has refined its activity-based costing model, updated the model
data, completed its initial policy review, and plans to complete the
fee review by February 2009. However, as discussed above, USCIS's 2007
methodology did not identify key costs, such as the costs of completing
premium processing applications or those applications for which the fee
rate is set in statute, and did not include a plan for achieving an
appropriate level of carryover balance. USCIS did not provide
documentation of its revised fee methodology that would allow us to
determine whether these shortcomings would be addressed in the 2009 fee
review or whether the remaining timeframes for key milestones are
reasonable. We have previously reported that regular, substantive fee
reviews help ensure that Congress, executive branch agencies, and
stakeholders have complete information about both program costs and the
alignment between costs and collections. Absent regular reviews, it
becomes increasingly likely that fees and costs will become misaligned
leading to costly challenges, such as those described above. Further,
the CFO Act of 1990 requires that agency CFOs conduct a comprehensive
fee review once every two years, increasing the importance of meeting
the timeframes for the remaining fee review milestones.
Table 3: USCIS 2009 Fee Review Milestones and Time Frames:
2009 Fee review milestone: Refine activity-based cost (ABC) model;
Timeframe: FY 2008, January (complete).
2009 Fee review milestone: Update ABC model data;
Timeframe: FY 2008, June (complete).
2009 Fee review milestone: Initial resource baseline, enhancement,
policy review;
Timeframe: FY 2008, August (complete).
2009 Fee review milestone: Refine data and assess need for a
rulemaking;
Timeframe: FY 2009, December.
2009 Fee review milestone: Final decision on need and schedule for fee
rulemaking;
Timeframe: FY 2009, February.
2009 Fee review milestone: Issue notice of proposed rule making[A];
Timeframe: FY 2009, May.
2009 Fee review milestone: Issue final rule[A];
Timeframe: FY 2009, July.
2009 Fee review milestone: Final rule takes effect[A];
Timeframe: FY 2009, September.
Source: USCIS.
[A] These elements are included only if a new rulemaking is deemed
appropriate and necessary.
[End of table]
USCIS Application Volume Projections Do Not Effectively Inform Workload
Management despite Operational Challenges Associated with Application
Surges:
USCIS projects incoming application volume on an annual basis to inform
the agency's budget formulation. However, the annual projections do not
identify anticipated monthly volume variations, limiting their
usefulness for workload management purposes, and are no longer provided
to the processing centers that receive incoming applications. In
addition, USCIS has not consistently documented key information and
decisions about application volume drivers that could improve
projections over time.
USCIS's Workload and Fee Projection Group (Fee Group) Projects Annual
Application Volumes:
The Fee Group is comprised of representatives from a number of USCIS
offices and DHS's Office of Immigration and Statistics (OIS). OIS is
responsible for producing application volume projections based on
statistical analysis of historical application volumes, while the USCIS
offices are responsible for enhancing the accuracy of the OIS
projections through their understanding of immigration and
naturalization issues affecting application volumes.
OIS typically develops an initial annual application volume projection
for the current and forthcoming fiscal years in November of the current
fiscal year, and the Fee Group meets to discuss the OIS projection
shortly thereafter. At the Fee Group meetings, representatives from
USCIS's Production Management Branch (PMB) often provide their own
projections, which emphasize more recent application volumes, and then
lead discussions regarding the potential effect of application volume
drivers, such as policy decisions and stakeholder activities. Through
these discussions, OIS, PMB, and the other USCIS offices collectively
produce the Fee Group projections of annual application volume by form
type and fiscal year--typically for the current and forthcoming fiscal
years. OIS officials said they typically provide updated projections to
USCIS quarterly, and the Fee Group generally meets two more times a
year to produce updated Fee Group projections.
USCIS Projections Do Not Identify Monthly Variations in Application
Volume despite Their Magnitude and Effect on Workload Management:
Despite the processing challenges created by monthly application volume
variations, USCIS officials from the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO), the Operations Planning Division (OPD) and PMB--all
members of the Fee Group--said that USCIS projects application volumes
in order to project revenue but does not develop monthly application
volume projections to inform workload management. In the past, these
challenges have both increased costs and diminished service levels. For
example, the 2007 application surge contributed to delays in the
processing of 1.47 million applications, and, as of May 2008, USCIS did
not expect to shorten processing time as originally anticipated until
the second quarter of 2010. As previously discussed, the surge also
contributed to increased operating costs.
Monthly variations in application volume met or exceeded 20 percent 20
times from fiscal year 2000 through April 2008 and approached or
exceeded 50 percent on five occasions during that time frame, as shown
in figure 3 below.[Footnote 42]
Figure 3: Percent Variation in Application Volume on a Monthly Basis
from Fiscal Year 2000 through April 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Date: October, 1999:
Percent variation in application volume: -3.3.
Date: November 1999;
Percent variation in application volume: 2.9.
Date: December 1999;
Percent variation in application volume: 1.99.
Date: January 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -10.2.
Date: February 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 4.8.
Date: March, 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 27.0.
Date: April, 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -10.7.
Date: May 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 0.7.
Date: June 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 0.6.
Date: July 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -12.0.
Date: August 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 49.5.
Date: September 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -2.3.
Date: October 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -30.9.
Date: November 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: 13.7.
Date: December 2000;
Percent variation in application volume: -17.5.
Date: January 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 26.4.
Date: February 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -0.9.
Date: March 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 50.9.
Date: April 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 9.8.
Date: May 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -1.5.
Date: June 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -11.0.
Date: July 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 15.8.
Date: August 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 9.9.
Date: September 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -31.3.
Date: October 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -28.6.
Date: November 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: 67.9.
Date: December 2001;
Percent variation in application volume: -36.6.
Date: January 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: 21.4.
Date: February 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.3.
Date: March 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.8.
Date: April 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.2.
Date: May 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -1.6.
Date: June 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: 7.5.
Date: July 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -2.9.
Date: August 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.2.
Date: September 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.6.
Date: October 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: 14.1.
Date: November 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -6.9.
Date: December 2002;
Percent variation in application volume: -3.2.
Date: January 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: -1.9.
Date: February 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: -8.5.
Date: March 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 13.3.
Date: April 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.4.
Date: May 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: -9.4.
Date: June 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 4.0.
Date: July 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 6.2.
Date: August 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.6.
Date: September 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 5.1.
Date: October 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 7.8.
Date: November 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: -22.1.
Date: December 2003;
Percent variation in application volume: 9.5.
Date: January 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 7.9.
Date: February 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 5.6.
Date: March 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 23.8.
Date: April 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: -6.1.
Date: May 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: -15.1.
Date: June 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 1.2.
Date: July 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.9.
Date: August 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 4.1.
Date: September 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 2.0.
Date: October 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: -13.5.
Date: November 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 2.6.
Date: December 2004;
Percent variation in application volume: 17.3.
Date: January 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -6.7.
Date: February 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.0.
Date: March 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 22.1.
Date: April 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -2.8.
Date: May 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.9.
Date: June 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -8.7.
Date: July 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -13.0.
Date: August 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 5.8.
Date: September 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -11.6.
Date: October 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 4.2.
Date: November 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: -13.6.
Date: December 2005;
Percent variation in application volume: 7.6.
Date: January 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: 8.8.
Date: February 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.0.
Date: March 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: 17.0.
Date: April 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -13.0.
Date: May 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: 15.4.
Date: June 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -1.8.
Date: July 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -10.7.
Date: August 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: 20.3.
Date: September 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -11.3.
Date: October 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -1.7.
Date: November 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -18.3.
Date: December 2006;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.7.
Date: January 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 19.3.
Date: February 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.0.
Date: March 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 25.1.
Date: April 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 9.0.
Date: May 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: -0.2.
Date: June 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 12.4.
Date: July 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 99.6.
Date: August 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: -51.3.
Date: September 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: -28.1.
Date: October 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 9.9.
Date: November 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: -33.8.
Date: December 2007;
Percent variation in application volume: 3.8.
Date: January 2008;
Percent variation in application volume: 1.8.
Date: February 2008;
Percent variation in application volume: -5.4.
Date: March 2008;
Percent variation in application volume: 14.5.
Date: April 2008;
Percent variation in application volume: 25.1.
Source: GAO presentation of USCIS data.
[End of figure]
USCIS officials said that the variations have the greatest impact on
USCIS's contractors and lockbox operations because, as noted,
application fees must be processed and deposited within 24 hours of
receipt at the processing centers.
The service center contracts and the lockbox interagency agreement tie
performance expectations to application volume projections. The
contracts for pre-adjudication activities state that the contractors
shall maintain the capacity to accommodate "spikes" in receipt volumes
that are anticipated at least 45 calendar days in advance.
Additionally, the lockbox interagency agreement states that the
designated financial agent at the lockbox shall maintain the capacity
necessary to process surges of up to 20,000 applications per day per
processing site when the financial agent is informed of anticipated
surges 90 calendar days prior to the start of those surges. However,
the Fee Group's annual application projections do not reflect
fluctuations over 45 and 90 day periods and therefore the agency is
unable to provide this information to contractors and the designated
financial agents.
Projections for fiscal year 2007 illustrate the limitations of annual
projections--the inability to forecast a significant monthly
fluctuation even when a particular event--like the July 2007 fee
increase--is known. USCIS requested that OIS perform an analysis of the
historical relationship between fee changes and application volume on
an annual basis in order to project the effect the proposed 2007 fee
change would have on USCIS's budget formulation activities. However,
projecting application volume on an annual basis obscured volume
variations on a monthly basis. Specifically, the annual projection did
not identify a surge in application volume in the months preceding the
fee change because this temporary surge was largely negated by a
decrease in application volume in the months following the fee change.
See figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Actual Incoming Application Volume USCIS-wide from October
2006 through March 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Date: October 2006;
Actual incoming application volume: 628,728.
Date: November 2006;
Actual incoming application volume: 513,711.
Date: December 2006;
Actual incoming application volume: 484,497.
Date: January 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 578,095.
Date: February 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 549,059.
Date: March 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 686,970.
Date: April 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 748,801.
Date: May 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 747,505.
Date: June 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 839,835.
Date: July 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 1,676,660.
Date: August 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 815,801.
Date: September 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 586,659.
Date: October 2007
Actual incoming application volume: 644,878.
Date: November 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 427,207.
Date: December 2007;
Actual incoming application volume: 443,501.
Date: January 2008;
Actual incoming application volume: 451,566.
Date: February 2008;
Actual incoming application volume: 427,127.
Date: March 2008;
Actual incoming application volume: 488,996.
Source: GAO presentation of USCIS data.
[End of figure]
OIS officials said they can and have in the past developed projections
that account for monthly variations. The designated financial agent who
will be responsible for many USCIS pre-adjudication activities by the
end of 2009 projects monthly application volume for workload management
purposes. Specifically, the designated financial agent uses the same
data as the Fee Group to produce projections that account for monthly
variations and subsequently inputs the projection data into models that
predict how its resource requirements might change during application
surges.
USCIS Projection Documents Do Not Consistently Record Critical
Information about Application Volume Drivers, Limiting Analysis That
Could Improve Projections over Time:
The USCIS Fee Group's projection documents do not consistently identify
and record the drivers of application volume or how the projections
account for these application volume drivers. As a result, the Fee
Group does not have historical data that could be used to improve
projections over time. According to the Fee Group's charter, it is
responsible for assessing and documenting its projection methodologies
to determine what factors may account for gaps between the Fee Group's
projections and actual application volume--e.g., policy decisions,
demographic trends, etc. According to the charter, these assessments
and the corresponding documentation are intended to increase the
accuracy of the Fee Group's projections. While the Fee Group's
projection documents have identified policies that are expected to
affect application volume, as well as relevant demographic trends, the
Fee Group still does not consistently identify and document:
* known application volume drivers, such as policy decisions and
demographic trends;
* the magnitude by which baseline projections have been adjusted in
order to account for application volume drivers; and:
* reasons why OIS's baseline projections were not adjusted by the Fee
Group in an effort to enhance the accuracy of the projections.
The Fee Group's projection documents from the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2008 document five versions of the fiscal year 2009 volume
projections--an original version and four revisions--for 10 of fiscal
year 2007's largest volume forms.[Footnote 43] Within these revisions,
there were 22 projection changes, while the remaining 28 projections
were not adjusted from the preceding projection rounds. See table 4
below.
Table 4: Fiscal Year 2009 Application Volume Projections for Top 10
High-Volume Form Types:
Form Number: I-90;
18-Oct, 07: 637,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 637,000;
19-May, 08: 1,046,100[A];
28-May, 08: 1,046,100;
3-Jun, 08: 1,326,000[A].
Form Number: I-129;
18-Oct, 07: 438,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 438,000;
19-May, 08: 375,000[A];
28-May, 08: 375,000;
3-Jun, 08: 375,000.
Form Number: I-130 Immediate Relative;
18-Oct, 07: 289,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 289,000;
19-May, 08: 480,705[A];
28-May, 08: 480,705;
3-Jun, 08: 480,705.
Form Number: I-130 Preference;
18-Oct, 07: 446,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 446,000;
19-May, 08: 194,295[A];
28-May, 08: 194,295;
3-Jun, 08: 194,295.
Form Number: I-131;
18-Oct, 07: 198,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 198,000;
19-May, 08: 160,000[A];
28-May, 08: 179,000[A];
3-Jun, 08: 179,000.
Form Number: I-140;
18-Oct, 07: 135,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 135,000;
19-May, 08: 135,000;
28-May, 08: 135,000;
3-Jun, 08: 135,000.
Form Number: I-485;
18-Oct, 07: 439,038[A];
30-Oct, 07: 439,038;
19-May, 08: 346,762[A];
28-May, 08: 346,762;
3-Jun, 08: 346,762.
Form Number: I-765;
18-Oct, 07: 1,176,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 1,176,000;
19-May, 08: 1,280,000[A];
28-May, 08: 1,400,000[A];
3-Jun, 08: 1,400,000.
Form Number: I-821;
18-Oct, 07: 0[A];
30-Oct, 07: 0;
19-May, 08: 310,000[A];
28-May, 08: 310,000;
3-Jun, 08: 310,000.
Form Number: N-400;
18-Oct, 07: 750,000[A];
30-Oct, 07: 750,000;
19-May, 08: 650,000[A];
28-May, 08: 650,000;
3-Jun, 08: 650,000.
Source: GAO presentation of USCIS data.
Note: [A] numbers represent changes to fiscal year 2009 volume
forecasts.
[End of table]
The projection documents also show 23 unique explanations for the 22
projection estimates. In some instances, although the projection
estimate did not change, the explanation for the estimate did. For the
I-140 from October 30th to May 19th, the projection estimate remained
135,000; however the explanation for this projection was changed.
Nineteen of these 23 unique explanations did not comprehensively
account for the critical information identified above. Specifically,
our review of the projection documents revealed that the Fee Group does
not identify:
* application volume drivers (9 of the 23 unique projection
explanations),
* the magnitude by which baseline projections have been adjusted in
order to account for application volume drivers (6 of the 23 unique
projection explanations), and:
* reasons why OIS's baseline projections were adopted without any
adjustments being made (4 of the 23 unique projection explanations).
The Fee Group has had some success in accounting for application volume
drivers in this manner in the past. For example, in the cases of the N-
400 and I-90 renewal applications, the Fee Group has identified and
documented quantitative relationships between past and future
application volumes as well as the manner in which these relationships
have informed the respective projection methodologies. This type of
documented analysis, however, is the exception. USCIS officials have
stated that factors such as "public thinking" and the "immigration
environment" affect application volume but it is often unclear how the
Fee Group has accounted for these drivers in their projections. While
some drivers can be difficult to quantify, consistently documenting
these drivers and the resulting decisions will provide information that
can be analyzed and adjusted to improve both workload volume and
revenue over time.
Little or No Projection Information Is Provided to USCIS Processing
Centers despite the Potential to Mitigate Operation Challenges
Resulting from Surges:
Operations personnel at processing centers across the country said that
they receive little or no information about application volume
projections from USCIS headquarters that would be useful for workload
management. Officials at the four service centers and the NBC also said
that USCIS headquarters did not provide them with application volume
projections for the months preceding the July 2007 fee increase. USCIS
Service Center Operations officials also did not meet with processing
center contractors to discuss anticipated application volume increases
in 2007, despite the fact that USCIS officials stated that contractors
would be most affected by surge management issues.
Officials from USCIS's Service Center Operations said the projected
monthly application volumes for each service center are equal for all
months through the end of a projection period. In other words, while
these projections are adjusted each month to account for year-to-date
application volume, the remaining workload is assumed to be evenly
distributed across forthcoming months. Although USCIS Service Center
Operations used to provide these projections to the processing centers,
they determined that the projections had not been accurate enough for
operational purposes and no longer make this data available. While the
nature of USCIS's mission places a premium on responsiveness and
flexibility, GAO has reported that government agencies must move from
reactive behavior to more forward-looking approaches in order to
successfully transform into high-performing organizations.[Footnote 44]
Service centers have demonstrated that they can effectively prepare for
and to some degree, mitigate, surges in application volumes when such
surges are anticipated. For example, in 2008, the California and
Vermont service centers anticipated a surge in application volume
during the H1-B filing period based on the service centers' experiences
in 2007. In preparation, California Service Center officials worked
with their contractor to develop a plan for managing it, including
dedicating extra space for intake activities, employing multiple
shifts, and increasing the number of intake personnel by drawing from a
pool of 50 additional employees who are maintained through a contract
with a local temporary employment agency. The Vermont Service Center's
plan included extra dedicated space for intake activities.
Vermont Service Center officials also suggested that additional actions
could be taken to improve operations by using workload projections.
Specifically, they suggested that the negative effects of surges could
be mitigated if filing periods for certain high-volume form types were
scheduled to not overlap. They also noted that overtime hours could be
allocated prior to an anticipated surge in a particular form type in
order to better manage the workload for other form types. This would
provide for less dramatic resource reallocations during the surge
itself.
USCIS Does Not Consistently or Adequately Validate Invoices for Mail
Operations at the Service Centers:
Contractors perform all operations for incoming and outgoing mail at
the service centers, and they are paid according to a fixed unit price
for each piece of mail processed. USCIS expects these mail operations
payments to total $12 million over the first year of the contract.
However, a large portion of the per-piece mail count is conducted by
the contractor, and USCIS's approach to validating these counts is
inconsistent across service centers. In most cases USCIS cannot verify
that is receiving the service that it is paying for.
The majority of incoming mail is delivered through local U.S. post
offices, uncounted, in large "tubs." The contractors count the pieces
of mail they process and inform USCIS of the total. According to the
contracts, these counts shall be subject to government verification.
However, USCIS has not developed an agency-wide standard operating
procedure for validating the contractors' counts. As a result, three of
the four service centers do not validate contractor mail counts at all.
According to USCIS Service Center Operations officials at headquarters,
service centers are responsible for developing methods to validate
contractor mail counts. The Vermont Service Center's "Incoming Mail
Count Instruction" document and the Nebraska Service Center's standard
operating procedure for incoming mail do not require USCIS employees to
validate the contractors' incoming mail counts. California Service
Center employees told us that they do not validate 100 percent of the
incoming mail counts because a manual counting process would be
inefficient and disruptive. They also said that certain types of
electronic count verification such as counting the number of forms that
are data entered into USCIS's data systems would be unreliable because
a single piece of mail may include multiple forms. Also, mail that does
not include forms would not be data entered and therefore not captured
by this type of verification.
The Texas Service Center is the exception, having developed a method
for validating the contractor's mail count. USCIS employees randomly
select samples of "tubs" of incoming mail multiple times each week,
count the pieces of mail contained in the tubs and compare their counts
to the contractor's counts for these tubs. Texas Service Center
officials told us that over the course of the month, service center
employees ensure that they review an adequate sample size, aggregate
the difference between their sample counts and the contractor's sample
counts, multiply this difference by a factor that accounts for the
ratio between the sample size and the total amount of incoming mail,
and apply the result to adjust the contractor's monthly total count for
all incoming mail.
GAO has previously reported that a basic tenet of government
procurement is that before payment is made, the purchasing agency must
verify that the services have been received in accordance with
contractual requirements, and the price charged is proper and correct.
[Footnote 45] Without doing so, USCIS may be paying its contractors for
services that it has not received.
Conclusions:
The transparency and quality USCIS's user fee design depends on
complete, reliable information on which to base informed trade-offs
that support the goals of USCIS. Analyzing and understanding the costs
of providing these services are important so that both USCIS and the
Congress have the best possible information available to them when
designing, reviewing, and overseeing these fees. To this end, USCIS
took an important step forward with its 2007 fee review and should
continue to build on its efforts by including in its fee review the
full costs of its services including, premium processing, H1-B visas,
and other applications regardless of whether the fee is set through the
regulatory or statutory process. Further, Congress authorized USCIS to
adjust the premium process fee according to the consumer price index
but USCIS has not adjusted the fee since the fee's enactment. The
additional collections that would result from an inflation adjustment
could have been used to defray the costs of the premium processing
service--currently born completely by non-premium processing customers--
thereby limiting the amount of cross-subsidization by non-premium
processing applicants.
Regular, timely, and substantive fee reviews are critical for any
agency, but especially for agencies--like USCIS--that are mostly or
solely fee funded in order to ensure that fee collections and operating
costs remain aligned. Moreover, without analyzing its contractual and
operating costs to determine an appropriate target carryover balance,
USCIS is at risk of reducing, disrupting, or discontinuing services if
collections decrease.
A critical part of regularly reviewing and analyzing the fees is
understanding and managing the monthly fluctuations in the volume of
immigration and naturalization applications USCIS receives. Application
volume drives not only USCIS's annual budget but also its workload.
USCIS has developed a methodology for projecting application volume to
inform their budget formulation. By leveraging USCIS and OIS data and
analytical resources to identify and document application volume
drivers USCIS will improve its ability to predict both fee collections
and workload. Using this information to develop and implement a
servicewide surge management plan USCIS could improve its ability to
prepare for and respond to fluctuations in application volume and help
improve the timeliness, accuracy, and quality of USCIS's services.
While unexpected factors will always influence the rates of immigration
and naturalization filings, better analysis would allow USCIS to at
least partially mitigate the effect of these factors and improve its
ability to maintain high service levels.
Although service centers are responsible for developing methods to
validate contractor mail counts only one service center has developed a
reliable method to do so. Without a way to verify contractor mail
counts, USCIS's procurement practices are not consistent with basic
tenets of government procurement practices, and the agency has little
assurance that it is receiving the services for which it is paying.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend the Secretary of the Department of the Department of
Homeland Security direct the Acting Director of the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services to take the following 7 actions
to:
* develop and conduct timely user-fee reviews that:
- builds on the 2007 fee review and keeps with the CFO Act's biennial
user-fee review requirement, and:
- identifies and considers the full costs of USCIS's operations funded
from the IEFA account, including the cost of lockbox operations and
processing costs for applications where the fee rates are set in
statute such as for premium processing and H1-B visa;
* adjust the premium-processing fees to account for the consumer price
index;
* identify an appropriate level of carryover balance to ensure USCIS's
continuity of operations for IEFA-funded activities and include in the
next fee review a plan for achieving it;
* analyze application projection information from a workload
perspective, accounting for anticipated monthly variations in
application volume;
* use projection information across processing centers for workload
management purposes, including (1) developing an agencywide application
surge work-plan and (2) coordinating with the FMS-designated financial
agent on application volume forecasting;
* document projection decision making more effectively, by more
comprehensively accounting for (1) known application volume drivers,
(2) the magnitude by which baseline projections have been adjusted in
order to account for application volume drivers, and (3) reasons why
OIS's projections--based on statistical analysis of historical
application volumes--were not adjusted to account for any anticipated
drivers; and:
* develop and implement procedures for USCIS to validate the
contractors' invoices for incoming mail services at all four service
centers.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security (DHS) for review and received comments that are reprinted in
appendix II. In addition, DHS provided technical corrections, which
were incorporated as appropriate. DHS concurred with our
recommendations and provided additional comments for our consideration.
In the comments, DHS noted that the draft report did not make clear
that USCIS had not finalized its agreement for lockbox services with
the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service prior to the
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 2007 fee
review. We clarified this in the final report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security and interested congressional committees and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available on request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact Susan Irving (202) 512-8288 or irvings@gao.gov, or Jeanette
Franzel at (202) 512-9406 or franzelj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff making major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Susan J. Irving:
Director for Federal Budget Analysis:
Strategic Issues:
Signed by:
Jeanette Franzel:
Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to review (1) the structure of
USCIS's current fee schedule and compare it to the principles of GAO's
User Fee Design Guide,[Footnote 46] identifying issues that USCIS did
and did not address effectively; and (2) USCIS's management of
operations affected by the establishment of a new fee schedule,
specifically in (a) projecting application volume and (b) contracting
application pre-processing services.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed USCIS's: (1) Federal Register
notices on the proposed and final rule that adjusted USCIS's fee
schedule in 2007, (2) supporting documentation to the proposed rule,
(3) fiscal year 2009 budget justification, (4) service center contracts
and related contractor performance documents, (5) historic application
volumes, and (6) application projections and related documentation. We
also reviewed documents from USCIS's Ombudsman, DHS's Office of
Immigration Statistics, and the Department of Treasury's Office of
Financial Management. Finally, we reviewed prior GAO work on user fees
and USCIS's operations.
We conducted site visits at the four service centers, which are located
in California, Nebraska, Vermont, and Texas; the Chicago lockbox
facility; the Dallas District Office; and the National Benefits Center,
which is located in Missouri. We met with USCIS, contract, and
financial-agent officials responsible for mail operations, fee
collection, data collection, and file operations, communicating with
the public, engineering workflow processes, and managing contractors.
We also toured each of these facilities and tracked the flow of
application processing through initial receipt and data collection,
file storage, adjudications, and final processing.
In addition, we interviewed USCIS officials from the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Field Operations, the Operations
Planning Division, the Production Management Branch, the Service Center
Operations office, and the USCIS contracting office.
We also interviewed individuals from DHS's Office of Immigration
Statistics, DHS's Inspector General's office, USCIS's Ombudsman's
office, and representatives from non-governmental groups: the American
Council on International Personnel, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, and the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials. We also observed formal USCIS-stakeholder
interactions by attending a monthly outreach meeting with community-
based organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2007 through January
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink: http://www.dhs.gov]
January 13, 2009:
Ms. Susan J. Irving:
Director for Federal Budget Analysis:
Strategic Issues:
Ms. Jeanette Franzel:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Irving and Ms. Franzel:
Re: Draft Report GAO-09-180, Federal User Fees: Additional Analysis and
Timely Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee
Design and USCIS Operations (GAO Job Code 450642).
The Department of Homeland Security (Department) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report referenced above.
The report contains seven recommendations. The Department, specifically
the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), agrees
with the recommendations.
This report and its recommendations will help the USCIS strengthen
processes by which it analyzes costs and operations. USCIS appreciates
the work of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) staff but
has several concerns.
First, GAO's analysis relies heavily upon its report, Federal User
Fees: A Design Guide (GAO-08-386SP) (Design Guide) as a benchmark for
USCIS's efforts. While USCIS finds the Design Guide to be helpful, it
is important to note that it was published 15 months after USCIS
published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adjusting its fees.
Thus, the guide was unavailable when USCIS was completing most of its
analysis. USCIS will look to the Design Guide as it undertakes current
and future fee reviews.
Second, GAO suggests that USCIS does not fully appreciate the need to
assess the cost of activities funded by fees set in statute. While
USCIS agrees that it would be helpful to understand costs associated
with statutorily-set fee programs, USCIS believes that it appropriately
prioritized its analytical resources on those fees that could be
adjusted through rulemaking, and did not focus in 2007 on fees subject
to change only by enactment of legislation. Indeed, in fiscal year 2006
the Administration proposed legislation to increase the fee for
Temporary Protective Status, which is set by statute. That proposed
increase was not acted upon. Nonetheless, USCIS will determine the cost
of programs funded by statutorily-set fees and make that data available
to policy-makers.
Finally, GAO expresses concern that the 2007 fee review inadequately
took into account the future cost of lockbox operations. GAO's analysis
however does not make clear to the reader that USCIS had not finalized
its agreement with the Department of the Treasury's Financial
Management Service (FMS) prior to the publication of the NPRM in
January 2007. Thus, those costs were not decided and not available to
estimate or factor into the new fee schedule. Furthermore, during the
course of GAO's work, GAO was made aware that the final Lockbox
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USCIS and the FMS, which
detailed a cost sharing arrangement, had not been signed prior to
completing the 2007 fee review and NPRM.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security direct the Director of the USCIS to take the following
actions:
Recommendation I: Develop and conduct a timely user-fee review that:
* is in keeping with the CFO Act's biennial user-fee review
requirement;
* identifies and considers the full costs of USCIS's operations funded
from the Immigration Examination Fee Account (IEFA), including the cost
of lockbox operations and processing costs for applications where the
fee rates are set in statute such as for premium processing and HI-B
visa.
Response: USCIS officials are conducting a biannual fee review,
identifying and considering full costs of operations funded by the
IEFA, and assessing program costs associated with statutorily-set fees.
USCIS made this public commitment in the NPRM. See 72 Fed. Reg. 4888,
4895, Feb. 1, 2007.
Recommendation 2: Adjust the premium processing fees to account for the
consumer price index.
Response: USCIS will consider options to adjust premium processing
fees.
Recommendation 3: Identify an appropriate level of carryover level to
ensure USCIS's continuity of operations for IEFA-funded activities and
include in the next fee review a plan for achieving it.
Response: USCIS will conduct the requisite analysis to develop an
analytical basis for target estimates. It is important to note,
however, that carryover balances will vary from year to year depending
on annual contracts, staffing, and pending application costs.
Recommendation 4: Analyze application projection information from a
workload perspective, accounting for anticipated monthly variations in
application volume.
Response: USCIS will incorporate into its application projection
process a review of historical monthly receipt levels and develop
predictive models to both identify patterns and forecast trends that
can improve future production management operations.
Recommendation 5: Use projection information across processing centers
for workload management purposes, including (1) developing an agency-
wide application surge work-plan and (2) coordinating with the FMS-
designated financial agent on application volume forecasting.
Response: USCIS will provide application projection information that is
specific to each Service Center in order to better inform workload
management and related planning activities. USCIS will utilize
application projection, monthly variance analysis, and office specific
application volumes to develop agency-wide surge work-plans that
include identification of required officer hours, full-time equivalent
employee requirements, and completion targets. By utilizing these
discrete data points and calculating application specific completion
targets, field offices will be much better positioned to handle
workload surges.
Recommendation 6: Document projection decision making more effectively,
by more comprehensively accounting for (1) known application volume
drivers, (2) the magnitude by which baseline projections have been
adjusted in order to account for application volume drivers, and (3)
reasons why Office of Immigration and Statistics projections based on
statistical analysis of historical application volumes-were not
adjusted to account for any anticipated drivers.
Response: USCIS will include more documentation in subsequent fee
reviews.
Recommendation 7: Develop and implement procedures for USCIS to
validate the contractors' invoices for incoming mail services at all
four service centers.
Response: USCIS has already adopted this recommendation by developing
and implementing procedures to validate contractors' invoices for
incoming mail services at all four Service Centers and considers this
recommendation closed. Beginning in November 2008, the four Service
Centers have all adopted the Texas Service Center's practice of
sampling the daily incoming mail by counting it on a few days of each
month.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael E. McFarland, for:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Susan J. Irving, (202) 512-8288 or irvings@gao.gov:
Jeanette Franzel, (202) 512-9406 or franzelj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Jacqueline M. Nowicki (Assistant Director), Chelsa Gurkin, Emily
Eischen, Leah Probst, and Nate Tranquilli made key contributions to all
aspects of the report. Amy Rosewarne, William T. Woods, Julia C. Matta,
Sheila Rajabiun, Jack Warner, Diane Morris, Fred Evans, and Barry
Grinnell also provided assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, the term "application" refers to
both applications and petitions.
[2] See GAO, Immigration Application Fees: Current Fees Are Not
Sufficient to Fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'
Operations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-309R]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2004).
[3] In December 2000, Congress authorized the collection of a premium
processing fee in addition to the regular application fees for
employment-based applications. Congress set the amount of the fee at
$1,000 and directed that these amounts be available for (1) the premium
processing activities and (2) infrastructure improvements associated
with adjudications and customer-service. Pursuant to this authority and
as established in regulations, USCIS guarantees that certain employment-
based applications will be processed within 15 calendar days of
receipt.
[4] This includes the biometric fee, which is charged when fingerprints
are required to process an application.
[5] USCIS officials identified other factors that may have contributed
to the 2007 surge, including the publication of a State Department Visa
Bulletin stating that employment-based visas were immediately
available.
[6] "Pre-adjudicative application processing" refers to the initial
receipt and fee collection of applications, generally performed by non-
USCIS employees as part of mail operations, data collection, and file
operations. It does not include adjudication--the determination of
whether to approve the benefits for which the applicant has applied.
[7] We are completing three reports related to USCIS fees. The first,
Federal User Fees: Improvements Could Be Made to Performance Standards
and Penalties in USCIS's Service Center Contracts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1170R], September 2008, discussed
issues related to contract performance incentives for preadjudication
activities at the service centers. This, the second report, discusses
the design of USCIS fees and the effect of agency operations on those
fees. The third report, Immigration Application Fees: Costing
Methodology Improvements Would Provide More Reliable Basis for Setting
Fees, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-70], assesses
USCIS's methodology for determining application fees and controls over
fees.
[8] See GAO, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP] (Washington, D.C.: May 2008).
USCIS's 2007 user fee review was issued prior to the issuance of GAO-08-
386SP, however the comparison of USCIS's review to the user fee design
principles is important to identifying opportunities for future
improvements.
[9] A lockbox is a collection and processing service provided by
financial institutions that accelerates the flow of funds to the
Treasury.
[10] In a fully fee-funded agency, the costs of exemptions, waivers,
and limitations on fee increases are distributed among other fee-paying
applicants. We report on how USCIS assigned costs among users in
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-70].
[11] See GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP] (Washington,
D.C.: September 2005).
[12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP].
[13] Public Law No. 82-414.
[14] Congress enacted the original Immigration and Nationality Act in
1952. Pub. L. No. 82-414, ch. 447, 66 Stat.163 (June 27, 1952). Since
its enactment, the INA has been amended several times. The INA, as
amended, is codified in various sections of title 8 of the U.S. Code.
[15] Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838 (Nov. 15, 1990), relevant
sections codified at, 31 U.S.C. § 902.
[16] Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: Managerial Cost Accounting
Standards and Concepts (July 31, 1995).
[17] We report on USCIS's adherence to theses standards in [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-70].
[18] A second designated financial agent currently provides some
lockbox services for USCIS, but USCIS officials said these activities
are being shifted to JPMC-run lockboxes.
[19] In determining inability to pay, USCIS considers the totality of
all factors, circumstances, and evidence the applicant supplies
including age, disability, household income, and qualification within
the past 180 days for a federal means tested benefit, as well as other
factors associated with each specific case. More information about fee
waiver guidance can be found at [hyperlink,
http://www.uscis.gov/feewaiver].
[20] This does not include the biometrics fee.
[21] For a complete review of USCIS's cost accounting and fee-setting
methodology, see [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-70].
[22] In USCIS's case, this would be a form-specific fee as all fee-
paying applicants for a certain form type would pay the same amount
regardless of how much their individual application cost to process.
[23] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-70].
[24] Pub.L.No. 106-553, App. B, Title I, § 112, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-
68 (Dec. 21, 2000).
[25] Pub.L.No. 106-553, App. B, Title I, § 112, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-
68 (Dec. 21, 2000), codified at, 8 U.S.C. § 1356(u).
[26] 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(f). USCIS may designate the employment-based
applications that are eligible for premium services pursuant to public
notice in the Federal Register.
[27] USCIS is embarking on an agency-wide Transformation Program that
is intended to transform USCIS's current paper-based data systems into
a modern, digital processing resource that will enhance customer
service and better prevent future backlogs.
[28] H.R. No. 110-181, at 114 (2007).
[29] Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate of 17
percent from 2001 to 2007.
[30] Assumes the same number of applications would have been submitted.
[31] Congress also directed this fee be imposed on employers seeking to
extend the stay of an H1-B Nonimmigrant worker or seeking authorization
for an H1-B Nonimmigrant worker to change employers.
[32] Primary and secondary education institutions, certain institutions
of higher education, and certain nonprofit institutions are exempted
from paying the H1-B employer fee. The fee for employers with 25 full-
time employees or less is currently $750. USCIS deposits the H1-B fees
into the H1-B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.
[33] The remaining ninety-five percent is available to the Secretary of
Labor or the Director of the National Science Foundation for related
scholarship and grant activities noted in 8 U.S.C. § 1356(s)(1)-(4).
[34] In accordance with other USCIS fees set through the regulatory
process, USCIS deposits the I-129 fees, including those paid with H1-B
Nonimmigrant worker petitions, into the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account.
[35] The first 20,000 H1-B petitions filed on behalf of aliens with
U.S. earned master's degrees or higher are exempt from the annual cap,
so in practice 85,000 applications may be allowed under the cap.
Petitions filed on behalf of immigrants seeking employment in certain
educational and nonprofit institutions are also exempt from the annual
cap.
[36] This interagency agreement was entered into pursuant to the
Economy Act.
[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP].
[38] USCIS enters into year-long contracts at the start of the year and
therefore must have collections equal to the full contract value
available for obligation at the start of the year.
[39] USCIS's deferred revenue are fee collections received by the
agency for applications for which the adjudications have not been
completed.
[40] USCIS has identified additional factors that contributed to the
application surge, including the publication of a State Department Visa
Bulletin stating that employment-based visas were immediately
available.
[41] Specifically, the contract states that the fees be deposited not
later than the depository pick-up time on the next business day after
the receipt of the fees in service centers.
[42] As we have noted, during the 2007 surge the most dramatic monthly
application volume variation occurred from June to July, when incoming
application volume increased 100 percent.
[43] In 2008, the Fee Group ceased producing projections for the I-
129S, which was the sixth largest form by volume in fiscal year 2007,
because it is a non-revenue form. The Fee Group combined projections
for I-90 Renewals and Replacement ARC for fiscal year 2009.
[44] See GAO, High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and
Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public
Management Environment, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-
343SP] (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
[45] See GAO, Improvements Needed in Financial Management of GSA's
Teleprocessing Services Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AFMD-83-8] (Washington, D.C.: December
1982).
[46] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
