Immigration and Naturalization Service: Information on the Disposition of
Naturalization Cases and on Courtesy as a Factor in Employee Performance
Appraisals (Correspondence, 05/23/2000, GAO/GGD-00-132R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) naturalization
application processing, focusing on: (1) the disposition of
naturalization cases from the Chicago District Office that were lost at
the Nebraska Service Center in 1997 or 1998; and (2) determining if INS
employee performance appraisals included a dimension pertaining to the
courteousness with which staff provide service to customers.

GAO noted that: (1) recurrent problems with transferring naturalization
case data from one automated system used by the service centers to
another used by district offices caused cases to be inadvertently
dropped at the Nebraska Service Center, as well as the other three INS
service centers, according to an INS Nebraska Service Center official;
(2) data were not available on the number of cases that were
inadvertently dropped during transfer; (3) an official from the Nebraska
Service Center estimated that about 4,000 naturalization cases were
inadvertently dropped during the data transfer for the Chicago district
during fiscal years 1997 and 1998; (4) an official from the California
Service Center also told GAO that this problem occurred at all four
service centers; (5) the official estimated that all over 44,000
naturalization cases were inadvertently dropped at the California
Service Center during the data transfer for the Los Angeles district
during fiscal years 1997 and 1998; (6) officials from both of these
service centers said that staff identified the cases that were
inadvertently dropped during the data transfer and manually entered the
case data into INS' automated case management system; (7) since INS did
not have a list of the specific cases that were inadvertently dropped,
it could not determine how many of these cases had been adjudicated; (8)
on May 1, 2000, INS directed its field offices to undertake new
initiatives to ensure that all individuals who submitted naturalization
applications before July 1, 1998, would be interviewed by September 30,
2000; (9) although the particular problem that caused naturalization
cases to be inadvertently dropped during data transfers in fiscal years
1997 and 1998 no longer exists, according to INS Nebraska and California
Service Center officials, new instances of dropped cases during data
transfers have occurred with INS' deployment of a new naturalization
automated case tracking system; (10) GAO plans to include further
information on this issue as part of GAO's ongoing review of INS'
application processing; (11) the INS offices that GAO contacted
generally had courtesy or tactfulness as a performance standard on the
appraisal forms of employees who routinely deal with the public; (12)
INS' Chicago District Office, Nebraska Service Center, and California
Service Center included this standard for employees who routinely deal
with the public at those offices; and (13) the Los Angeles District
Office included this standard for one of the three positions that
routinely deal with the public at that office, but did not include it
for the other two positions.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-132R
     TITLE:  Immigration and Naturalization Service: Information on the
	     Disposition of Naturalization Cases and on Courtesy
	     as a Factor in Employee Performance Appraisals
      DATE:  05/23/2000
   SUBJECT:  Immigration information systems
	     Naturalization
	     Performance measures
	     Data integrity
	     ADP
	     Immigrants
	     Personnel evaluation
	     Customer service
IDENTIFIER:  INS Computer Linked Application Information Management
	     System
	     INS Reengineered Naturalization Automated Casework System

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-132R

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(183643)

B-284779
Page 3GAO/GGD-00-132R INS Applications and Employee Appraisals
B-284779

May 23, 2000

The Honorable Judy Biggert
House of Representatives
 
Subject: Immigration and Naturalization Service: Information
on the Disposition of Naturalization Cases and on Courtesy as
a Factor in Employee Performance Appraisals

Dear Ms. Biggert:

At our meeting with you on February 2, 2000, you requested
that in the course of our work on the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's (INS) naturalization application
processing, we obtain information on two matters. First, you
asked us to inquire about the disposition of naturalization
cases from the Chicago District Office that were lost1 at the
Nebraska Service Center in 1997 and/or 1998. Second, you asked
us to determine if INS employee performance appraisals
included a dimension pertaining to the courteousness with
which staff provide service to customers. We reviewed these
issues and our responses follow.

Results in Brief

Recurrent problems with transferring naturalization case data
from one automated system used by the service centers to
another used by district offices caused cases to be
inadvertently dropped at the Nebraska Service Center, as well
as the other three INS service centers, according to an INS
Nebraska Service Center official. Data were not available on
the number of cases that were inadvertently dropped during
transfer. An official from the Nebraska Service Center
estimated that about 4,000 naturalization cases were
inadvertently dropped during the data transfer for the Chicago
district during fiscal years 1997 and 1998.  An official from
the California Service Center also told us that this problem
occurred at all four service centers. He estimated that over
44,000 naturalization cases were inadvertently dropped at the
California Service Center during the data transfer for the Los
Angeles district during fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Officials
from both of these service centers said that staff identified
the cases that were inadvertently dropped during the data
transfer and manually entered the case data into INS'
automated case management system.

Since INS did not have a list of the specific cases that were
inadvertently dropped, it could not determine how many of
these cases had been adjudicated. On May 1, 2000, INS directed
its field offices to undertake new initiatives to ensure that
all individuals who submitted naturalization applications
before July 1, 1998, would be interviewed by September 30,
2000.

Although the particular problem that caused naturalization
cases to be inadvertently dropped during data transfers in
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 no longer exists, according to INS
Nebraska and California Service Center officials, new
instances of dropped cases during data transfers have occurred
with INS' deployment of a new naturalization automated case
tracking system. We plan to include further information on
this issue as part of our ongoing review of INS application
processing.

The INS offices that we contacted generally had courtesy or
tactfulness as a performance standard on the appraisal forms
of employees who routinely deal with the public. INS' Chicago
District Office, Nebraska Service Center, and California
Service Center included this standard for employees who
routinely deal with the public at those offices. The Los
Angeles District Office included this standard for one of the
three positions that routinely deal with the public at that
office, but did not include it for the other two positions.

Background

Until December 1995, INS district offices were responsible for
all processing of applications for naturalization. In January
1996, selected INS district offices began forwarding
naturalization applications to one of INS' four service
centers for initial processing. By June 1998, INS required
that applicants mail all naturalization applications directly
to an INS service center. The service centers are responsible
for collecting fees, entering fee and other data into
automated systems, and processing naturalization applications
up to the point where the applicant needed to be personally
interviewed. The district offices are then responsible for
scheduling and conducting interviews and making the decision
to approve or deny the applicant.

From January 1996 to June 1998, the service centers entered
initial data from naturalization applications, including fee
amount received, into INS' automated application information
system, the Computer Linked Application Information Management
System (CLAIMS 3). Data from CLAIMS 3 were then to be
transferred to INS' naturalization case management system, the
Reengineered Naturalization Automated Casework System (RNACS).
In December 1997, INS began to deploy a new case management
system, CLAIMS 4, which could be used for both fee receipting
(previously provided by CLAIMS 3) and case management and
tracking (previously provided by RNACS). By June 1998, CLAIMS
4 had been deployed to INS' four service centers.

Although all four service centers have CLAIMS 4, not all of
INS' 33 district offices have CLAIMS 4. INS plans called for
deploying CLAIMS 4 to all district offices by December 2000.
For districts that still use RNACS for naturalization case
management, service centers must transfer data from CLAIMS 4
to RNACS in order for the districts to schedule interviews and
adjudicate the cases.

Disposition of Naturalization Cases

Transferring data from CLAIMS 3 to RNACS was problematic at
all INS service centers in fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
according to Nebraska and California Service Center officials.
They told us that some naturalization cases were inadvertently
dropped during automated data transfers during those years.
Although they had no quantitative data, the Nebraska and
California Service Center officials estimated that about 4,000
naturalization cases from the Chicago district, and over
44,000 cases from the Los Angeles district, were inadvertently
dropped by these two service centers during fiscal years 1997
and 1998. A California Service Center official explained that
the larger number of dropped cases at his center was due to
two factors: (1) the California Service Center received more
naturalization applications than the Nebraska Service Center,
and (2) dropped cases occurred over a longer period of time
because California received CLAIMS 4 in May 1998, about 5
months after Nebraska received it.

Officials from both the Nebraska and California Service
Centers told us that staff had systematically identified and
manually entered the dropped cases into RNACS during fiscal
years 1998 and 1999. According to a California Service Center
official, INS headquarters helped identify the dropped cases
by comparing RNACS data with data from an automated file
location system. Cases that were in the file location system
but not in RNACS were those that were dropped during the
transfer of CLAIMS 3 data from the service centers to the
RNACS system used by the district offices.

INS was unable to determine if all dropped naturalization
cases had been adjudicated because they did not have a list of
these cases. Recognizing that applications are to be processed
in the order received and that some cases received prior to
July 1, 1998, had not yet been interviewed or adjudicated, INS
informed its field offices of a new initiative on May 1, 2000.
Under the initiative, all naturalization cases received before
July 1, 1998, are to be scheduled for interviews by September
30, 2000.

According to INS officials, the problem of naturalization
cases being inadvertently dropped during the data transfers
between automated systems has continued to occur. Because
CLAIMS 4 replaced CLAIMS 3 at INS service centers, data
transfers between CLAIMS 3 and RNACS are no longer done.
Therefore, the opportunity for cases to be dropped in this
particular way no longer exists. However, INS officials told
us that cases have been dropped in the process of transferring
cases from CLAIMS 4 to RNACS; that is when naturalization
cases are transferred by the service centers to the district
offices that do not yet have CLAIMS 4. This problem may
continue to some degree at least until December 2000, when
CLAIMS 4 is expected to be deployed to all district offices
currently using RNACS, and data transfers between CLAIMS 4 and
RNACS should no longer be necessary.

INS' Chicago District Office received CLAIMS 4 in February
1998. The Los Angeles District Office is scheduled to receive
CLAIMS 4 in December 2000. We plan to include further analysis
on the nature and extent of INS' problems in transferring data
from CLAIMS 4 to RNACS and make any needed recommendations as
part of our ongoing review of INS application processing.

Courtesy as a Factor In Employee Performance Appraisals

According to INS officials, the primary types of employees
that deal with the public in-person or by telephone include
adjudications officers, immigration information officers, and
application clerks assigned to district offices and/or service
centers. District Directors and Service Center Directors are
responsible for developing the performance standards for these
employees.  A uniform INS appraisal form is used to evaluate
their performance.   The initial section of the form provides
space for the specific performance dimensions used to rate the
INS employee; the final section is for recording the rating.

The types of employees that deal with the public in-person or
by telephone varied by office.  Officials from the Chicago and
Los Angeles District Offices told us that the employees who
routinely deal with the public at those offices are
immigration information officers, district adjudications
officers, and application clerks. At the California Service
Center, immigration information officers and center
adjudications officers deal with the public, while at the
Nebraska Service Center, only immigration information officers
deal with the public.

Based on our review of employee performance appraisal forms
used at the Chicago District Office, the Nebraska Service
Center, and the California Service Center, we found that
courtesy or tactfulness was specifically mentioned as a factor
on the appraisal forms of employees who routinely deal with
the public. For the Los Angeles District Office courtesy was
specifically cited as a factor in the immigration information
officer appraisal. It was not cited for district adjudications
officers or application clerks. Instead, the Los Angeles
adjudications officers were rated on whether interviews were
properly conducted, and application clerks were rated on how
well they provided information at the information counter. A
Los Angeles District Office official told us that while
courtesy was not specifically cited as a factor on the
appraisal forms of adjudication officers and applications
clerks, it would normally be considered when evaluating how
well they conduct interviews and provide information.

Scope and Methodology

To address the two objectives, we interviewed INS headquarters
officials in the Benefit Systems Division and in the Human
Resources and Development Division. We also interviewed
officials from the Nebraska Service Center and the Chicago
District Office. In addition, we interviewed officials from
the California Service Center and the Los Angeles District
Office when we visited these locations as part of our ongoing
review on INS' application processing. We reviewed
documentation provided to us by INS on dropped cases. No
quantitative data or list of dropped cases was available from
the Nebraska or California Service Centers. We obtained and
reviewed copies of performance appraisal forms used by the
California and Nebraska Service Centers and the Los Angeles
and Chicago District Offices. We did not review completed
performance appraisals on INS employees. We conducted our work
from February through April 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments

We provided the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner with
a draft of this letter for comment and received oral comments
from INS' Acting Deputy Executive Associate Commissioner,
Immigration Services Division, on May 5, 2000. INS generally
agreed with our findings and provided technical comments,
which we incorporated where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this
letter until 10 days after its date. At that time, we will
provide copies to the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General;
and the Honorable Doris Meissner, INS Commissioner. We will
make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact
Evi L. Rezmovic or me at (202) 512-8777. The key contributors
to this effort were Gretchen Bornhop and Jennifer Kim.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana
Associate Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues
_______________________________
1 "Lost" naturalization cases are those cases on which
automated data were inadvertently dropped during the transfer
from one system used by INS service centers to another system
used by INS district offices. As a result, some naturalization
cases were missing from the automated system that district
offices used to identify cases ready for interview and final
adjudication. A hard copy of the case files and the automated
records still existed at INS' service centers.
*** End of document ***