This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-924T 
entitled 'Employment Verification: Challenges Exist in Implementing a 
Mandatory Electronic Verification System' which was released on June 7, 
2007. 

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. 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways 
and Means, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 

Thursday, June 7, 2007: 

Employment Verification: 

Challenges Exist in Implementing a Mandatory Electronic Verification 
System: 

Statement of Richard M. Stana, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

GAO-07-924T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-924T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The opportunity for employment is one of the most powerful magnets 
attracting illegal immigration to the United States. The Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986 established an employment eligibility 
verification process, but immigration experts state that a more 
reliable verification system is needed. In 1996, the former U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, now within the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) 
began operating a voluntary pilot program, called the Employment 
Eligibility Verification (EEV) program, to provide participating 
employers with a means for electronically verifying employees’ work 
eligibility. Congress is considering various immigration reform 
proposals, some of which would require all employers to electronically 
verify the work authorization status of their employees at the time of 
hire. In this testimony GAO provides observations on the EEV system’s 
capacity, data reliability, ability to detect fraudulent documents and 
identity theft, and vulnerability to employer fraud as well as 
challenges to making the program mandatory for all employers. This 
testimony is based on our previous work regarding the employment 
eligibility verification process and updated information obtained from 
DHS and SSA. 

What GAO Found: 

A mandatory EEV program would substantially increase the number of 
employers using the system. As of May 2007, about 17,000 employers have 
registered to use the current voluntary EEV program, about half of 
which are active users. If participation in EEV were made mandatory, 
the approximately 5.9 million employers in the United States may be 
required to participate. Requiring all employers to use EEV would 
substantially increase the demands on DHS and SSA resources. DHS 
estimated that increasing the capacity of EEV could cost it $70 million 
annually for program management and $300 million to $400 million 
annually for compliance activities and staff. SSA officials estimated 
that expansion of the EEV program through this fiscal year would cost 
$5 million to $6 million and noted that the cost of mandatory EEV would 
be much higher and driven by increased workload of its field office 
staff that would be responsible for resolving queries that SSA cannot 
immediately confirm. 

DHS and SSA are exploring options to reduce delays in the EEV process. 
The majority of EEV queries entered by employers—about 92 
percent—confirm within seconds that the employee is work authorized. 
About 7 percent of the queries cannot be immediately confirmed by SSA, 
and about 1 percent cannot be immediately confirmed by DHS. Resolving 
these nonconfirmations can take several days, or in a few cases even 
weeks. DHS and SSA are considering options for improving the system’s 
ability to perform additional automated checks to immediately confirm 
work authorization, which may be important should EEV be mandatory. 

EEV may help reduce document fraud, but it cannot yet fully address 
identity fraud issues, for example, when employees present borrowed or 
stolen genuine documents. The current EEV program is piloting a 
photograph screening tool, whereby an employer can more easily identify 
fraudulent documentation. DHS expects to expand the use of this tool to 
all participating employers by September 2007. Although mandatory EEV 
and the associated use of the photograph screening tool offer some 
remedy, limiting the number of acceptable work authorization documents 
and making them more secure would help to more fully address identity 
fraud. 

The EEV program is vulnerable to employer fraud, such as entering the 
same identity information to authorize multiple workers. EEV is also 
vulnerable to employer misuse that adversely affects employees, such as 
employers limiting work assignments or pay while employees are 
undergoing the verification process. DHS is establishing a new 
Compliance and Monitoring program to help reduce employer fraud and 
misuse by, for example, identifying patterns in employer compliance 
with program requirements. Information suggesting employers’ fraud or 
misuse of the system could be useful to other DHS components in 
targeting limited worksite enforcement resources and promoting employer 
compliance with employment laws. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-924T]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 
512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to participate in this 
hearing on electronic employment verification. As we and others have 
reported in the past, the opportunity for employment is one of the most 
powerful magnets attracting unauthorized immigrants to the United 
States. To help address this issue, in 1986 Congress passed the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA),[Footnote 1] which made it 
illegal for individuals and entities to knowingly hire, continue to 
employ, or recruit or refer for a fee unauthorized workers. The act 
established a two-pronged approach for helping to limit the employment 
of unauthorized workers: (1) an employment verification process through 
which employers verify all newly hired employees' work eligibility and 
(2) a sanctions program for fining employers who do not comply with the 
act.[Footnote 2] 

Following the passage of IRCA, the U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform and various immigration experts indicated a number of problems 
with the implementation of immigration policies and concluded that 
deterring illegal immigration requires, among other things, strategies 
that focus on disrupting the ability of illegal immigrants to gain 
employment through a more reliable employment eligibility verification 
process. In particular, the commission report and other studies found 
that the single most important step that could be taken to reduce 
unlawful migration is the development of a more effective system for 
verifying work authorization. In the over 20 years since passage of 
IRCA, the employment eligibility verification process has remained 
largely unchanged. The House and Senate are considering legislation to 
reform immigration laws and strengthen electronic employment 
verification. Some of this legislation includes proposals that would 
require implementing a mandatory, functional electronic employment 
verification program for all employers before other immigration-related 
reforms could be initiated. Currently, the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) administers, and Social Security 
Administration (SSA) supports, a voluntary electronic employment 
verification program, called the Employment Eligibility Verification 
(EEV) program. 

My testimony today is an update of our prior work regarding employment 
verification and worksite enforcement. Specifically, I will discuss our 
observations on the current electronic employment verification program 
and challenges to making the program mandatory for all employers. 

In preparing this testimony, we reviewed our past work on employment 
verification and worksite enforcement efforts.[Footnote 3] We analyzed 
updated information provided by U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), USCIS, and SSA officials on steps they are taking to 
address weaknesses identified in our prior work, as well as challenges 
their agencies may face if an electronic employment verification 
program were made mandatory. We examined regulations, guidance, and 
other studies on the employment verification process. We also analyzed 
a report on the results of an independent evaluation of the electronic 
employment eligibility verification program, then known as the Basic 
Pilot program, conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at Temple 
University and Westat in June 2004.[Footnote 4] Furthermore, we 
received updated data on employer use of the current electronic 
employment eligibility verification system. We reviewed these data for 
accuracy and completeness and determined that these data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We conducted the 
work reflected in this statement from September 2004 through July 2005 
and updated this information in May and June 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Summary: 

A mandatory EEV would necessitate an increased capacity at both USCIS 
and SSA to accommodate the estimated 5.9 million employers in the 
United States.[Footnote 5] As of May 2007, about 17,000 employers have 
registered for the EEV program, about half of which are active users. 
USCIS has estimated that a mandatory EEV could cost USCIS $70 million 
annually for program management and $300 million to $400 million 
annually for compliance activities and staff, depending on the method 
for implementing the program. The costs associated with other 
programmatic and system enhancements are currently unknown. SSA is 
currently refining its estimates and was not yet able to provide 
estimates for the cost of a mandatory EEV. According to SSA officials, 
the cost of a mandatory EEV would be driven by the field offices' 
increased workload required to resolve queries that SSA cannot 
immediately confirm. 

USCIS and SSA are exploring options to reduce delays in the EEV 
process. According to USCIS, the majority of EEV queries entered by 
employers--about 92 percent--confirm within seconds that the employee 
is authorized to work. About 7 percent of the queries cannot be 
immediately confirmed by SSA, and about 1 percent cannot be immediately 
confirmed by USCIS. With regard to the SSA-issued tentative 
nonconfirmations,[Footnote 6] USCIS and SSA officials told us that the 
majority occur because employees' citizenship or other information, 
such as name changes, is not up to date in the SSA database. Resolving 
some DHS nonconfirmations can take several days, or in a few cases even 
weeks. USCIS and SSA are examining ways to improve the system's ability 
to use additional automated checks to immediately confirm work 
authorization. 

EEV may help reduce document fraud, but it cannot yet fully address 
identity fraud issues, for example, when employees present borrowed or 
stolen genuine documents. The current EEV program is piloting a 
photograph screening tool, whereby an employer can more easily identify 
fraudulent documentation. This tool is currently being used by over 70 
employers, and USCIS expects to expand the use of the tool to all 
participating employers by the end of summer 2007. Although mandatory 
EEV and the associated use of the photograph screening tool offer some 
remedy, further actions, such as limiting the number of acceptable work 
authorization documents and making them more secure, mat be required to 
more fully address identity fraud. 

EEV is vulnerable to employer fraud that diminishes its effectiveness 
and misuse that adversely affects employees. ICE officials stated that 
EEV program data could indicate cases in which employers may be 
fraudulently using the system and therefore would help the agency 
better target its limited worksite enforcement resources toward those 
employers. EEV is also vulnerable to employer misuse that adversely 
affects employees, such as limiting work assignments or pay while 
employees are undergoing the verification process. USCIS is 
establishing a new Compliance and Monitoring program to help reduce 
employer fraud and misuse by, for example, identifying patterns in 
employer compliance with program requirements. Information suggesting 
employers' fraud or misuse of the system could be useful to other DHS 
components in targeting limited worksite enforcement resources and 
promoting employer compliance with employment laws. 

Background: 

In 1986, IRCA established the employment verification process based on 
employers' review of documents presented by employees to prove identity 
and work eligibility. On the Form I-9, employees must attest that they 
are U.S. citizens, lawfully admitted permanent residents, or aliens 
authorized to work in the United States. Employers must then certify 
that they have reviewed the documents presented by their employees to 
establish identity and work eligibility and that the documents appear 
genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. In making their 
certifications, employers are expected to judge whether the documents 
presented are obviously counterfeit or fraudulent. Employers generally 
are deemed in compliance with IRCA if they have followed the Form I-9 
process in good faith, including when an unauthorized alien presents 
fraudulent documents that appear genuine. Following the passage of IRCA 
in 1986, employees could present 29 different documents to establish 
their identity and/or work eligibility. In a 1997 interim rule, the 
former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reduced the 
number of acceptable work eligibility documents from 29 to 27.[Footnote 
7] 

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
(IIRIRA)[Footnote 8] of 1996 required the former INS and SSA to operate 
three voluntary pilot programs to test electronic means for employers 
to verify an employee's eligibility to work, one of which was the Basic 
Pilot Program.[Footnote 9] The Basic Pilot Program was designed to test 
whether pilot verification procedures could improve the existing 
employment verification process by reducing (1) false claims of U.S. 
citizenship and document fraud, (2) discrimination against employees, 
(3) violations of civil liberties and privacy, and (4) the burden on 
employers to verify employees' work eligibility. 

In 2007, USCIS renamed the Basic Pilot Program the Employment 
Eligibility Verification (EEV) program. EEV provides participating 
employers with an electronic method to verify their employees' work 
eligibility. Employers may participate voluntarily in EEV, but are 
still required to complete Forms I-9 for all newly hired employees in 
accordance with IRCA. After completing the forms, these employers query 
EEV's automated system by entering employee information provided on the 
forms, such as name and Social Security number, into the EEV Web site 
within 3 working days of the employees' hire date. The program then 
electronically matches that information against information in SSA's 
NUMIDENT database and, for noncitizens, DHS databases to determine 
whether the employee is eligible to work. EEV electronically notifies 
employers whether their employees' work authorization was confirmed. 
Those queries that the DHS automated check cannot confirm are referred 
to DHS immigration status verifiers, who check employee information 
against information in other DHS databases. The EEV process is shown in 
figure 1. 

Figure 1: Electronic Employment Verification Program Verification 
Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on USCIS information. 

[End of figure] 

In cases when EEV cannot confirm an employee's work authorization 
status either through the automatic check or the check by an 
immigration status verifier, the system issues the employer a tentative 
nonconfirmation of the employee's work authorization status. In this 
case, the employers must notify the affected employees of the finding, 
and the employees have the right to contest their tentative 
nonconfirmations by contacting SSA or USCIS to resolve any inaccuracies 
in their records within 8 days. During this time, employers may not 
take any adverse actions against those employees, such as limiting 
their work assignments or pay. After 10 days, employers are required to 
either immediately terminate the employment or notify DHS of the 
continued employment of workers who do not successfully contest the 
tentative nonconfirmation and those who the pilot program finds are not 
work-authorized. 

The EEV program is a part of USCIS's Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements Program, which provides a variety of verification services 
for federal, state, and local government agencies. USCIS estimates that 
there are more than 150,000 federal, state, and local agency users that 
verify immigration status through the Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements Program. SSA also operates various verification services. 
Among these are the Employee Verification Service (EVS) and the Web- 
based SSN Verification Service (SSNVS), which can be used to provide 
verification that employees' names and Social Security numbers match 
SSA's records. These services, designed to ensure accurate employer 
wage reporting, are offered free of charge. Employer use is voluntary, 
and the services are not widely used. 

Mandatory EEV Would Require an Increase in Capacity at USCIS and SSA: 

Mandatory electronic employment verification would substantially 
increase the number of employers using the EEV system, which would 
place greater demands on USCIS and SSA resources. As of May 2007, about 
17,000 employers have registered to use the program, 8,863 of which 
were active users,[Footnote 10] and USCIS has estimated that employer 
registration is expected to greatly increase by the end of fiscal year 
2007. If participation in the EEV program were made mandatory, the 
program may have to accommodate all of the estimated 5.9 million 
employers in the United States. USCIS officials estimate that to meet a 
December 2008 implementation date, this could require about of 30,000 
employers to register with the system per day. The mandatory use EEV 
can affect the capacity of the system because of the increased number 
of employer queries. 

USCIS has estimated that a mandatory EEV could cost USCIS $70 million 
annually for program management and $300 million to $400 million 
annually for compliance activities and staff. The costs associated with 
other programmatic and system enhancements are currently unknown. 
According to USCIS, cost estimates will rise if the number of queries 
rises, although officials noted that the estimates may depend on the 
method for implementing a mandatory program. SSA officials told us they 
have estimated that expansion of the EEV program to levels predicted by 
the end of fiscal year 2007 would cost $5 to $6 million, but SSA was 
not yet able to provide us estimates for the cost of a mandatory EEV. 
According to SSA officials, the cost of a mandatory EEV would be driven 
by the increased workload of its field office staff due to resolving 
SSA tentative nonconfirmations.[Footnote 11] 

A mandatory EEV would require an increase in the number of USCIS and 
SSA staff to operate the program. For example, USCIS had 13 
headquarters staff members in 2005 to run the program and 38 
immigration status verifiers available for secondary 
verification.[Footnote 12] USCIS plans to increase staff levels to 255 
to manage a mandatory program, which includes increasing the number of 
immigration status verifiers who conduct secondary 
verifications.[Footnote 13] USCIS officials expressed concern about the 
difficulty in hiring these staff due to lengthy hiring processes, which 
may include government background checks. In addition, according to SSA 
officials, a mandatory EEV program would require additional staff at 
SSA field offices to accommodate an increase in the number of 
individuals visiting SSA field offices to resolve tentative 
nonconfirmations. According to SSA officials, the number of new staff 
required would depend on both the legislative requirements for 
implementing mandatory EEV and the effectiveness of efforts USCIS has 
under way to decrease the need for individuals to visit SSA field 
offices. For this reason, SSA officials told us they have not yet 
estimated how many additional staff they would need for a mandatory 
EEV. 

USCIS and SSA Are Exploring Options to Reduce Delays in the EEV 
Process: 

In prior work, we reported that secondary verifications lengthen the 
time needed to complete the employment verification process. The 
majority of EEV queries entered by employers--about 92 percent--confirm 
within seconds that the employee is authorized to work. About 7 percent 
of the queries are not confirmed by the initial automated check and 
result in SSA-issued tentative nonconfirmations, while about 1 percent 
result in DHS-issued tentative nonconfirmations. With regard to the SSA-
issued tentative nonconfirmations, USCIS and SSA officials told us that 
the majority occur because employees' citizenship status or other 
information, such as name changes, is not up to date in the SSA 
database. SSA does not update records unless an individual requests the 
update in person and submits the required evidence to support the 
change in its records. USCIS officials stated that, for example, when 
aliens become naturalized citizens, their citizenship status is often 
not updated in the SSA database. In addition, individuals who have 
changed their names for various reasons, such as marriage, without 
notifying SSA in person may also be issued an SSA tentative 
nonconfirmation. According to SSA officials, although SSA instructs 
individuals to report any changes in name, citizenship, or immigration 
status, many do not do so. When these individuals' information is 
queried through EEV, a tentative nonconfirmation would be issued, 
requiring them to go to an SSA field office to show proof of the change 
and to correct their records in SSA's database. 

USCIS and SSA are exploring some options to improve the efficiency of 
the verification process. For example, USCIS is exploring ways to 
automatically check for naturalized citizens' work authorization using 
DHS databases before the EEV system issues a tentative nonconfirmation. 
Furthermore, USCIS is planning to provide naturalized citizens with the 
option, on a voluntary basis, to provide their Alien Number or 
Naturalization Certification Number so that employers can query that 
information through the EEV system before referring the employees to 
SSA to resolve tentative nonconfirmations.[Footnote 14] SSA is also 
coordinating with USCIS to develop an automated secondary verification 
capability, which may reduce the need for employers to take additional 
steps after the employee resolves the SSA tentative 
nonconfirmation.[Footnote 15] USCIS and SSA officials told us that the 
agencies are planning to provide SSA field office staff with access to 
the EEV system so that field office staff can resolve the SSA tentative 
nonconfirmation directly in the system at the time the employee's 
record is updated at the field office. According to SSA officials, the 
automated secondary verification capability is tentatively scheduled to 
be implemented by October 2007. While these steps may help improve the 
efficiency of the verification process, including eliminating some SSA 
tentative nonconfirmations, they will not entirely eliminate the need 
for some individuals to visit SSA field offices to update records when 
individuals' status or other information changes. 

USCIS and SSA officials noted that because the current EEV program is 
voluntary, the percentage of individuals who are referred to SSA field 
offices to resolve tentative nonconfirmations may not accurately 
indicate the number of individuals who would be required to do so under 
a mandatory program. SSA and USCIS officials expressed concern about 
the effect on SSA field offices' workload of the number of individuals 
who would be required to physically visit a field office if EEV were 
made mandatory. 

EEV May Help Reduce Employee Document Fraud, but Cannot Yet Fully 
Address Identity Fraud Issues: 

In our prior work, we reported that EEV enhances the ability of 
participating employers to reliably verify their employees' work 
eligibility and assists participating employers with identification of 
false documents used to obtain employment.[Footnote 16] If newly hired 
employees present false information, EEV would not confirm the 
employees' work eligibility because their information, such as a false 
name or social security number, would not match SSA and DHS database 
information. However, the current EEV program is limited in its ability 
to help employers detect identity fraud, such as cases in which an 
individual presents borrowed or stolen genuine documents. 

USCIS has taken steps to reduce fraud associated with the use of 
documents containing valid information on which another photograph has 
been substituted for the document's original photograph. In March 2007, 
USCIS began piloting a photograph screening tool as an addition to the 
current EEV system. According to USCIS officials, the photograph 
screening tool is intended to allow an employer to verify the 
authenticity of a Lawful Permanent Resident card (green card) or 
Employment Authorization Document that contain photographs of the 
document holder by comparing individuals' photographs on the documents 
presented during the I-9 process to those maintained in DHS databases. 
As of May 2007, about 70 employers have been participating during the 
pilot phase of the photograph screening tool, and EEV has processed 
about 400 queries through the tool. USCIS expects to expand the program 
to all employers participating in EEV by the end of summer 2007. 

The use of the photograph screening tool is currently limited because 
newly hired citizens and noncitizens presenting forms of documentation 
other than green cards or Employment Authorization Documents to verify 
work eligibility are not subject to the tool. Expansion of the pilot 
photograph screening tool would require incorporating other forms of 
documentation with related databases. In addition, efforts to expand 
the tool are still in the initial planning stages. For example, 
according to USCIS officials, USCIS and the Department of State have 
begun exploring ways to include visa and U.S. passport documents in the 
tool, but these agencies have not yet reached agreement regarding the 
use of these documents. USCIS is also exploring a possible pilot 
program with state Departments of Motor Vehicles. 

In prior work we reported that although not specifically or 
comprehensively quantifiable, the prevalence of identify fraud seemed 
to be increasing, a development that may affect employers' ability to 
reliably verify employment eligibility in a mandatory EEV program. The 
large number and variety of acceptable work authorization documents--27 
under the current employment verification process--along with inherent 
vulnerabilities to counterfeiting of some of these documents, may 
complicate efforts to address identity fraud. Although mandatory EEV 
and the associated use of the photograph screening tool offers some 
remedy, further actions, such as reducing the number of acceptable work 
eligibility documents and making them more secure, may be required to 
more fully address identity fraud. 

While Most Employers Complied with EEV Procedures, the Program Is 
Vulnerable to Employer Fraud That Diminishes Its Effectiveness and 
Misuse That Adversely Affects Employees: 

EEV is vulnerable to acts of employer fraud, such as entering the same 
identity information to authorize multiple workers. Although ICE has no 
direct role in monitoring employer use of EEV and does not have direct 
access to program information, which is maintained by USCIS, ICE 
officials told us that program data could indicate cases in which 
employers may be fraudulently using the system and therefore would help 
the agency better target its limited worksite enforcement resources 
toward those employers. ICE officials noted that, in a few cases, they 
have requested and received EEV data from USCIS on specific employers 
who participate in the program and are under ICE investigation. USCIS 
is planning to use its newly created Compliance and Monitoring program 
to refer information on employers who may be fraudulently using the EEV 
system, although USCIS and ICE are still determining what information 
is appropriate to share. 

Employees queried through EEV may be adversely affected if employers 
violate program obligations designed to protect the employees, by 
taking actions such as limiting work assignments or pay while employees 
are undergoing the verification process. The 2004 Temple University 
Institute for Survey Research and Westat evaluation of EEV concluded 
that the majority of employers surveyed appeared to be in compliance 
with EEV procedures. However, the evaluation and our prior review found 
evidence of some noncompliance with these procedures. In 2005, we 
reported that EEV provided a variety of reports that could help USCIS 
determine whether employers followed program requirements, but that 
USCIS lacked sufficient staff to do so. Since then, USCIS has added 
staff to its verification office and created a Compliance and 
Monitoring program to review employers' use of the EEV system. However, 
while USCIS has hired directors for these functions, the program is not 
yet fully staffed. According to USCIS officials, USCIS is still in the 
process of determining how this program will carry out compliance and 
monitoring functions, but its activities may include sampling employer 
usage data for evidence of noncompliant practices, such as identifying 
employers who do not appear to refer employees contesting tentative 
nonconfirmations to SSA or USCIS. USCIS estimates that the Compliance 
and Monitoring program will be sufficiently staffed to begin 
identifying employer noncompliance by late summer 2007. 

USCIS's newly created Compliance and Monitoring program could help ICE 
better target its worksite enforcement efforts by indicating cases of 
employers' egregious misuse of the system. Currently, there is no 
formal mechanism for sharing compliance data between USCIS and ICE. ICE 
officials noted that proactive reduction of illegal employment through 
the use of functional, mandatory EEV may help reduce the need for and 
better focus worksite enforcement efforts. Moreover, these officials 
told us that mandatory use of an automated system like EEV could limit 
the ability of employers who knowingly hired unauthorized workers to 
claim that the workers presented false documents to obtain employment, 
which could assist ICE agents in proving employer violations of IRCA. 

Concluding Observations: 

Although efforts to reduce the employment of unauthorized workers in 
the United States necessitate a strong employment eligibility 
verification process and a credible worksite enforcement program and 
other immigration reforms may be dependent on it, a number of 
challenges face its successful implementation. The EEV program shows 
promise for enhancing the employment verification process and reducing 
document fraud if implemented on a much larger scale, and USCIS and SSA 
have undertaken a number of steps to address many of the weaknesses we 
identified in the EEV program. USCIS has also spent the last several 
years planning for an expanded or mandatory program, and has made 
progress in several areas, but it is unclear at this time the extent to 
which USCIC's efforts will be successful under mandatory EEV. It is 
clear, however, that a mandatory EEV system will require a substantial 
investment in staff and other resources, at least in the near term, in 
both agencies. There are also issues, such as identity fraud and 
intentional misuse, that will remain a challenge to the system. 
Implementing an EEV system to ensure that all individuals working in 
this country are doing so legally and that undue burdens are not placed 
on employers or employees will not be an easy task within the timelines 
suggested in reform proposals. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you and the subcommittee members may have. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements: 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Richard 
Stana at 202-512-8777. 

Other key contributors to this statement were Blake Ainsworth, Frances 
Cook, Michelle Cooper, Rebecca Gambler, Kathryn Godfrey, Lara Laufer, 
Shawn Mongin, Justin L. Monroe, John Vocino, Robert E. White, and Paul 
Wright. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Pub. L. No. 99-603, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. 

[2] IRCA provided for sanctions against employers who do not follow the 
employment verification (Form I-9) process. Employers who fail to 
properly complete, retain, or present for inspection a Form I-9 may 
face civil or administrative fines ranging from $110 to $1,100 for each 
employee for whom the form was not properly completed, retained, or 
presented. Employers who knowingly hire or continue to employ 
unauthorized aliens may be fined from $275 to $11,000 for each 
employee, depending on whether the violation is a first or subsequent 
offense. Employers who engage in a pattern or practice of knowingly 
hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized aliens are subject to 
criminal penalties consisting of fines up to $3,000 per unauthorized 
employee and up to 6 months' imprisonment for the entire pattern or 
practice. 

[3] GAO, Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment 
Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts, GAO-05-813 (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug. 31, 2005). 

[4] Institute for Survey Research and Westat, Findings of the Basic 
Pilot Program Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: June 2004). 

[5] In 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, there 
were approximately 5.9 million firms in the United States. A firm is a 
business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments 
in the same state and industry that were specified under common 
ownership or control. Under EEV, one employer may have multiple 
worksites that use the system. For example, a hotel chain could have 
multiple individual hotels using EEV. This hotel chain would represent 
one employer using the pilot program. 

[6] In general, in cases when the EEV system cannot confirm an 
employee's work authorization status through the initial automatic 
check, the system issues the employer either an SSA or a DHS tentative 
nonconfirmation of the employee's work authorization status, which 
requires the employee to resolve any data inaccuracies if he or she is 
able or chooses to do so. 

[7] Eight of these documents establish both identity and employment 
eligibility (e.g., U.S. passport or permanent resident card); 12 
documents establish identity only (e.g., driver's license); and 7 
documents establish employment eligibility only (e.g., Social Security 
card). 

[8] U.S.C. 1324a(b). IIRIRA was enacted within a larger piece of 
legislation, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. 
No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. 

[9] The other two pilot programs mandated by IIRIRA--the Citizen 
Attestation Verification Pilot Program and the Machine-Readable 
Document Pilot Program--were discontinued in 2003 due to technical 
difficulties and unintended consequences identified in evaluations of 
the programs. See Institute for Survey Research and Westat, Findings of 
the Citizen Attestation Verification Pilot Program Evaluation 
(Washington, D.C.: April 2003) and Institute for Survey Research and 
Westat, Findings of the Machine-Readable Document Pilot Program 
Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: May 2003). 

[10] Active users are those employers who have run at least one query 
in fiscal year 2007. 

[11] In general, in cases when the EEV system cannot confirm an 
employee's work authorization status through the initial automatic 
check, the system issues the employer a tentative nonconfirmation of 
the employee's work authorization status. 

[12] Thirty-eight immigration status verifiers were available for 
completing secondary verifications. According to USCIS, at any one time 
about 3 to 5 immigration status verifiers work to resolve tentative 
nonconfirmations. The other immigration status verifiers work on other 
verification programs, such as the Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements Program. 

[13] USCIS officials noted that this does not include staff for 
monitoring and compliance functions. 

[14] According to USCIS, providing these data to employers would be 
voluntary to help ensure that naturalized citizens are not subject to 
discrimination. 

[15] Currently, once an individual resolves the reason for the SSA 
tentative nonconfirmation, the employer must then re-query the EEV 
system in order to finalize the verification. 

[16] GAO-05-813

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 (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 www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: