FINDINGS OF THE E-VERIFY® PROGRAM 

EVALUATION 

December 2009 

Report Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 

Prepared by: 

Westat 

Rockville, Maryland

Westat 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. xix 

PART 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 

I BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 

1. Introduction......................................................................................... 3

2. The Design of E-Verify ...................................................................... 4

2.1. Introduction................................................................................. 4

2.2. Registering for E-Verify ............................................................. 4

2.3. The Form I-9 Verification Process.............................................. 5

2.4. The E-Verify Verification Process.............................................. 5 

3. Report Organization............................................................................ 9 

II RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................ 13 

1. Background......................................................................................... 13

2. Survey Design and Data Collection.................................................... 13 

2.1. Stakeholders Meeting.................................................................. 13

2.2. Web Surveys of Employers......................................................... 14

2.3. Onsite Studies ............................................................................. 20

2.4. Data from the E-Verify System .................................................. 26

2.5. Other Federal Data Sources ........................................................ 33

2.6. Interviews of Federal Officials and Contractors ......................... 34

2.7. System Testing............................................................................ 34 

3. Measurement and Data Analysis ........................................................ 35 

3.1. Measurement....................................................................... 35

3.2. Data Analysis ...................................................................... 46 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT............................................................ 47 

1. Introduction......................................................................................... 47

2. System Outcomes ............................................................................... 47 

2.1. Background................................................................................. 47

2.2. Findings....................................................................................... 48 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation iii 
Chapter Page 

3. Programmatic Changes....................................................................... 56

4. Legislative Changes............................................................................ 60

5. Characteristics of Employers Using the Program and the Workers 

For Whom They Submit Cases........................................................... 61 

5.1. Background................................................................................. 61

5.2. Findings....................................................................................... 62 

PART 2. MEASURES OF PROGRAM SUCCESS....................................................... 75 

IV E-VERIFY USAGE......................................................................................... 77 

1. Background......................................................................................... 77

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 78 

2.1. General Findings........................................................................ 78

2.2. Impact of Legislative Changes.................................................... 84 

V TIMELINESS .................................................................................................. 89 

1. Background......................................................................................... 89 

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 90 

2.1. Time From Case Initiation to Final Resolution........................... 90 

2.2. Federal Timeliness ...................................................................... 92 

2.3. Employer Timeliness .................................................................. 99 

2.4. Worker Timeliness...................................................................... 104 

3. Impacts of Legislative and Program Changes on Timeliness............. 105 

3.1. Legislative Changes .................................................................... 105 

3.2. Photo Screening Tool.................................................................. 106 

3.3. SSA and USCIS Pre-TNC Checks.............................................. 107 

3.4. EV-STAR.................................................................................... 108 

3.5. Naturalization Phase I ................................................................. 108 

3.6. Naturalization Phase II................................................................ 109 

VI ACCURACY ................................................................................................... 111

1. Background......................................................................................... 111

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 113 

2.1. General Findings......................................................................... 113 

2.2. Impacts of Legislative and Program Changes on Accuracy ....... 119 

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


iv Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Chapter Page

VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT... 127 

1. Background......................................................................................... 127 

1.1. Ways Noncitizens Without Work Authorization Can Obtain 

Employment................................................................................ 127

1.2. Expected Impact of E-Verify Versus the Form I-9 Paper 

Process in Reducing the Employment of Noncitizens Without

Work Authorization .................................................................... 129

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 130 

2.1. General Findings........................................................................ 130

2.2. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes on the 

Ability of the E-Verify Program to Reduce Unauthorized 

Employment................................................................................ 138 

VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE......................................................................... 143 

1. Background......................................................................................... 143 

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 144 

2.1. General Findings......................................................................... 144 

PART 3. STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ............................................................... 161 

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE................................. 163 

1. Background......................................................................................... 163

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 165 

2.1. Satisfaction and Burden .............................................................. 165

2.2. Financial Costs............................................................................ 179

2.3. How Well is E-Verify Meeting the Unique Needs of Different 

Types of Employers? .................................................................. 181

2.4. Impacts of Legislative and Program Changes on Employer 

Satisfaction and Costs ................................................................. 187 

X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS............................. 193 

1. Background......................................................................................... 193 

1.1. Protection of Worker Rights ....................................................... 193

1.2. Financial and Nonfinancial Burdens........................................... 193

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation v 
Chapter Page 

1.3. Verification-Related Discrimination........................................... 194

1.4. Potential Impacts of Recent Program Changes........................... 195 

2. Findings .............................................................................................. 196 

2.1. General Findings........................................................................

2.2. Discrimination.............................................................................

 196

 203

2.3. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes................. 214 

XI FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS............................................................. 219 

1. Background.........................................................................................

2. Usage ..................................................................................................

3. Accuracy .............................................................................................

4. Photo Screening Tool.......................................................................... 

5. The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC Checks............................................... 

6. EV-STAR ...........................................................................................

 219

 219

 221

223

224

 224

7. Naturalization Phase I......................................................................... 224

8. Naturalization Phase II........................................................................ 224 

PART 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 225 

XII CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 227 

1. E-Verify Strengths and Ongoing Challenges...................................... 227 

1.1. Preventing Unauthorized Employment....................................... 

1.2. Usage........................................................................................... 

1.3. Timeliness................................................................................... 

227 

227 

228 

1.4. Accuracy ..................................................................................... 

1.5. Employer Compliance ................................................................ 

1.6. Employer Burden and Satisfaction ............................................. 

1.7. Worker Rights, Worker Burden, and Discrimination ................. 

1.8. Privacy and Security ................................................................... 

1.9. General Improvements................................................................ 

229 

229 

230 

230 

231 

232 

2. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes ........................ 232 

2.1. State Legislative Changes ........................................................... 

2.2. Program Changes ........................................................................ 

232 

233 

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


vi Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Chapter Page 

XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY ............................. 237 

1. Increasing the Effectiveness of E-Verify in Reducing 

Unauthorized Employment................................................................. 237 

1.1. Testing and Evaluating a Pilot Program That Requires 

Workers to Be Found Employment Authorized Prior 

to Starting Work.......................................................................... 237 

1.2. Testing and Evaluating a Pilot Program Using Analyses 

of the Transaction Database to Detect Identity Fraud 

and Requiring Expedited Reviews of Cases Identified............... 239 

1.3. Using Biometrics and/or Expanding the Photo 

Screening Tool............................................................................ 240 

1.4. Expanding E-Verify Usage ......................................................... 241 

1.5. Other Recommendations Related to Reducing 

Unauthorized Employment ......................................................... 242 

2. Decreasing Violations of Worker Rights and Discrimination 

Against Foreign-Born Workers With Employment Authorization..... 242 

2.1. Decreasing the Inaccuracy Rate for Foreign-Born Workers 

With Employment Authorization................................................ 242 

2.2. Enhancing Training and Resources............................................. 244 

2.3. Increasing Government Outreach to Protect Workers’

Rights .......................................................................................... 246 

3. Improving Operating Efficiency and User-Friendliness..................... 247 

3.1. Modifying Deadlines .................................................................. 247 

3.2. Expansion of E-Verify ................................................................ 247 

3.3. Adoption of an Alternate Electronic Verification Program ........ 248 

3.4. System Issues.............................................................................. 248 

3.5. Federal Verification Process ...................................................... 251 

4. Conducting Additional Research ........................................................ 252 

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... GL-1 

Appendix Page 

A STEPS FOR CLEANING THE TRANSACTION DATABASE.................... A-1 

B METHODOLOGY USED FOR MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF 

 INACCURACY RATES ................................................................................. B-1 

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation vii 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

1 Outcomes From the E-Verify Program: April–June 2008............................... xxiv 

2 Estimated Consistency Between Initial E-Verify Finding and True WorkAuthorization Status ......................................................................................... xxvi 

I-1 Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being U.S. Citizens on 

Form I-9............................................................................................................ 8 

I-2 Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being Noncitizens on Form 

I-9 ..................................................................................................................... 9 

II-1 Web Survey Sample Size and Response Rate, by Stratum............................... 15 

II-2 Comparison of the Weighted 2008 Web Survey Sample and Frame 

Distributions ..................................................................................................... 19 

II-3 Changes in Types of Workers With Cases Submitted to E-Verify by 

Employers in the Longitudinal Database: October 2004–June 2008 ............... 29 

II-4 Employer Access Method on the Registration Database Compared to 

Access Method Reported by Employers on the Web Survey........................... 31 

II-5 SSA Birth/Citizenship Status, by Final Case Outcome for Workers Found 

to Be Employment Authorized: April–June 2008 ............................................ 32 

II-6 Adjusted Birth/Citizenship Status, by Final Case Outcome for Workers 

Found to Be Employment Authorized: April–June 2008 ................................ 33 

II-7 Selected Indicators Used in Examining Program Success................................ 38 

II-8 Information Needed to Calculate Inaccuracy Rates Used in This Report ........ 42 

III-1 Final E-Verify Outcome Findings: April–June 2008 ....................................... 48 

III-2 E-Verify Findings, Reflecting Intermediate Steps: April–June 2008............... 49 

III-3 Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being U.S. Citizens on 

Form I-9: April–June 2008 .............................................................................. 50 

III-4 Citizen FNC Cases, by SSA Response Code: April–June 2008....................... 51 

III-5 Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being Noncitizens on 

Form I-9: May 5–June 2008 ............................................................................ 52 

viii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS 

CONTINUED 

III-6 Noncitizen SSA FNC Cases, by SSA Response Code: 

May 5–June 2008 ............................................................................................. 53 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation ix 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

III-7 Reasons That USCIS FNC Cases Received TNCs: May 5–June 2008 ........... 53 

III-8 Total Number of E-Verify Cases, by Agency Issuing the Final Outcome: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 54 

III-9 Trends in E-Verify Outcomes: July 2004–June 2008...................................... 55 

III-10 State Legislation Related to E-Verify............................................................... 60 

III-11 Distribution of E-Verify and National Employers, by Employer Size ............. 62 

III-12 Trend in Percent of All Small E-Verify Employers Transmitting Cases, 

by Employer Size: July 2004–June 2008.......................................................... 63 

III-13 Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Size for Employers Transmitting at 

Least One Case to the E-Verify Transaction Database: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 64 

III-14 Trend in Percent of Active E-Verify Employers Having Fewer Than 100 

Employees, by Access Method: April 2007–June 2008.................................. 65 

III-15 Trend in Percent of All Cases Transmitted to E-Verify, by Size of 

Employer Transmitting Cases (Small Employers Only): 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 66 

III-16 Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Employer Size for Workers: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 66 

III-17 Percent of All Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify, by Industry: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 68 

III-18 Industry of All Active E-Verify Employers Responding to the 2006 and 

2008 Web Surveys............................................................................................ 69 

III-19 Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Industry for Employers Transmitting 

Cases to the E-Verify Transaction Database: July 2004–June 2008 ................ 70 

III-20 Trend in Percent of Employers Transmitting Cases to the E-Verify 

Transaction Database, by Alternate Access Methods: 

April 2007–June 2008 ...................................................................................... 71 

III-21 Trend in Percent of Cases Submitted to E-Verify, by Access Method: 

April 2007–June 2008 ...................................................................................... 71 

x Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS 

CONTINUED 

III-22 Reported Percent of Employees Who Are Immigrants: 2006 and 2008........... 72

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xi

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

III-23 Trend in Distribution of Form I-9 Citizenship Status: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 73 

III-24 Trend in Percent of Foreign-Born Workers Among Workers Found to Be 

Work Authorized: January 2006–June 2008 .................................................... 74 

IV-1 Number of Cases Transmitted to E-Verify and Number of New Hires 

Nationally: July 2004–June 2008 ..................................................................... 79 

IV-2 Trend in the Number of Employers Transmitting Cases to the E-Verify 

Program: April 2005–June 2008....................................................................... 80 

IV-3 Reasons Employers Reported for Enrolling in the E-Verify Program: 

2008 .................................................................................................................. 81 

IV-4 Ways Employers Learned About E-Verify: 2008 ............................................ 81 

IV-5 Percent of Employers That Used the E-Verify System Within Three 

Months of Signing an MOU: January 2005–March 2008 ................................ 82 

IV-6 Percent of Employers Formally Terminating E-Verify Within One Year 

of Enrolling: July 2004–June 2007................................................................... 83 

IV-7 Reasons Employers Give for Never Using or Stopping Use of E-Verify: 

2008 .................................................................................................................. 83 

IV-8 Reasons Active Employers Give for Temporarily Not Using E-Verify: 

2008 .................................................................................................................. 84 

IV-9 Percent of Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify Within Three 

Months of Signing an MOU, by State Legislation Group: Employers 

Signing MOU in January–March 2008 ............................................................ 85 

IV-10 Number of Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify, Arizona and 

Other States: July 2004–June 2008 .................................................................. 85 

IV-11 Percent of Active E-Verify Employers Responding to the 2006 and 2008 

Web Surveys, by State Legislation Group at Time of Survey.......................... 86 

IV-12 Increase in the Number of Employers Transmitting Cases From 

April–June 2005 to April–June 2008, by State Legislation Group................... 87 

V-1 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Case 

Resolution, by Case Outcome: April–June 2008.............................................. 91 

xii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

V-2 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final 

Resolution, for All Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal 

Sample: October 2004–June 2008.................................................................... 92 

V-3 Trend in Percent of Workers Who Were Verified Instantly as Work 

Authorized, for all Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal 

Sample: October 2004–June 2008................................................................... 93 

V-4 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for Cases Found Employment Authorized by SSA After a TNC, All 

Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008.................................................................................. 94 

V-5 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for SSA FNC Cases, All Employers and for Employers in the 

Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 .............................................. 95 

V-6 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for Cases Found Work Authorized by USCIS After a Secondary Review, 

All Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008 .................................................................................. 96 

V-7 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for Cases Found Work Authorized by USCIS After a TNC, All 

Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008.................................................................................. 97 

V-8 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for USCIS FNC Cases, All Employers and Employers in the 

Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 ............................................. 98 

V-9 Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

for USCIS Cases Found Not Work Authorized, All Employers and 

Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 .................. 99 

V-10 When Employer Reports Using E-Verify to Verify Work Authorization ........ 100 

V-11 Trend in Percent of Cases Entered Within One Week of Hire Date, for 

All Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008 .................................................................................. 101 

V-12 Trend in Number of Calendar Days Between Issuance of a TNC and 

Referral: October 2004–June 2008.................................................................. 102 

V-13 Number of Days Between Receiving and Signing TNC Notice....................... 103 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xiii 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

V-14 Amount of Time for Employer to Terminate Employment After 

Employee Receives an FNC or Unauthorized Finding..................................... 104 

V-15 Number of Calendar Days Between Employer Referral and Worker 

Contacting SSA: October 2007–June 2008 ...................................................... 104 

V-16 Mean Number of Calendar Days Between Hire Date and Case Initiation, 

by State Legislation Group: April–June 2008 .................................................. 105 

V-17 Mean Number of Calendar Days Between TNC Issuance and Referral, 

by State Legislation Group: April–June 2008 .................................................. 105 

V-18 Observed Case Outcomes and Case Outcomes Without the Photo 

Screening Tool: May 5–June 30, 2008............................................................ 106 

V-19 Trend in Percent of Workers Who Were Verified Instantly as Work 

Authorized, for All Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal 

Sample: October 2004–June 2008................................................................... 107 

V-20 Case Outcomes for Workers Attesting to Being Citizens in 

April–June 2008 ............................................................................................... 108 

V-21 Extent to Which Naturalized Citizens Availed Themselves of the 

Opportunity to Contact USCIS Instead of SSA: May 5–June 30, 2008 .......... 109 

VI-1 Estimated Consistency Between Initial E-Verify Finding and True WorkAuthorization Status ....................................................................................... 112 

VI-2 Estimated Total Inaccuracy Rates, Using Alternate Assumptions: 

April–June 2008 ............................................................................................... 114 

VI-3 Estimated Inaccuracy Rate for Authorized Workers, Using Alternate 

Assumptions: April–June 2008 ........................................................................ 114 

VI-4 Estimated Inaccuracy Rate for Unauthorized Workers, Using Alternate 

Assumptions: April–June 2008 ....................................................................... 114 

VI-5 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rate for Ever-Authorized Workers, for All 

Employers and Employers in Longitudinal Sample ......................................... 115 

VI-6 Consistency Between Form I-9 and Transaction Database Information for 

Discrepancies Likely to be Attributable to Input Errors in Cases 

Receiving TNCs ............................................................................................... 116 

xiv Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS 

CONTINUED 

VI-7 Percent of Employers Reporting at Least One TNC Due to Data Entry 

Error.................................................................................................................. 117 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xv 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

VI-8 Employer-Reported Information About Finding Data Entry Errors................. 118 

VI-9 Employer Opinions on Whether They Believe E-Verify is Highly 

Accurate............................................................................................................ 119 

VI-10 Erroneous TNC Rates for Ever-Authorized Workers, by State Legislation 

Group: April–June 2008 ................................................................................... 120 

VI-11 Flow Diagram of the Photo Screening Tool Process for Noncitizens: 

May 5–June 30, 2008........................................................................................ 121 

VI-12 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for Foreign-Born Citizens: 

January 2006–June 2008 .................................................................................. 123 

VI-13 Observed E-Verify Outcomes for Citizens and Estimated Outcomes if 

Naturalization Phase I Had Not been Implemented: May 5–June 30, 2008..... 124 

VII-1 Estimated Effectiveness Rates, Using Alternative Assumptions: 

April–June 2008 ............................................................................................... 132 

VII-2 April–June 2008 Case Outcomes by Number of Times Associated SSNs 

or A-Numbers Appear on the July 2004–June 2008 Transaction Database ..... 134 

VII-3 Trend in Percent of Cases Involving an SSN or A-Number Used Six or 

More Times: July 2004–June 2008 .................................................................. 135 

VII-4 Time to Obtain an Alternate Job for Workers Receiving TNCs Who 

Reported That They Had Been Prescreened and Had Not Been Offered a 

Job..................................................................................................................... 137 

VII-5 Opinions of Employers Registered for E-Verify But Not Using It About 

the Likely Impact of E-Verify on Items Related to Recruitment of 

Workers and Competitiveness .......................................................................... 138 

VII-6 Percent of Workers Providing Specified Types of Documents Among 

Workers Screened by E-Verify: October 2007–June 2008 .............................. 140 

VIII-1 How Many Staff Completed the Online Tutorial ............................................. 145 

VIII-2 Percent of Employers Reporting Using E-Verify for Different Types of 

Workers ............................................................................................................ 146 

VIII-3 Number of Employers Whose Workers Report Being Job Applicants 

When Their Work-Authorization Status Was Determined and Whether 

xvi Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS 

CONTINUED 

the Employer Reported Using E-Verify for Job Applicants............................. 147

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xvii

CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

VIII-4 Employer Definition of Hire Date .................................................................... 148 

VIII-5 Percent of Web Survey Employers, by Definition of New Hire Used and 

Industry............................................................................................................. 148 

VIII-6 Number of Onsite Study Employers, by Definition of New Hire Used and 

Industry............................................................................................................. 149 

VIII-7 Employers’ Definition of New Hire, by Whether They Prescreen Job 

Applicants......................................................................................................... 149 

VIII-8 Number of Onsite Study Employers, by Approximate Percent of Their 

Workers With TNC Notices in Their Files....................................................... 153 

VIII-9 Reported Incidence of Noncompliance With E-Verify Procedures for 

Handling TNCs................................................................................................. 154 

VIII-10 One or More Types of Adverse Actions Taken as Reported by Onsite 

Study Employers .............................................................................................. 155 

VIII-11 Discrepancies Between Information in Reviewed Records and 

Transaction Database Information Related to Processing Dates ...................... 156 

VIII-12 Employer Compliance With Requirement to Display E-Verify 

Participation...................................................................................................... 157 

IX-1 Percent of Employers Agreeing With Statements About the Overall 

Functioning of E-Verify ................................................................................... 166 

IX-2 Employer Views of E-Verify Registration and Start-Up Procedures: 

2006 and 2008 .................................................................................................. 167 

IX-3 Number of Onsite Study Employers That Reported Being Satisfied or 

Dissatisfied With Registration Procedures ....................................................... 168 

IX-4 Percent of E-Verify Users Reporting E-Verify Resources Are Helpful or 

Very Helpful..................................................................................................... 169 

IX-5 Employer Views of the User-Friendliness of E-Verify System Navigation 

and Data Entry.................................................................................................. 171 

IX-6 Employer Satisfaction With Communication With SSA and USCIS............... 173 

IX-7 Employer Preferences for Modes of Communication From E-Verify ............. 175 

xviii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

IX-8 Reasons That Losing Unauthorized Workers Was Burdensome for Some 

Employers......................................................................................................... 176 

IX-9 Costs for Setting up E-Verify for Employers Reporting Costs, by Type of 

Cost for 2008 Users .......................................................................................... 180 

IX-10 Annual Costs for Maintaining E-Verify, by Type of Cost: 2008 ..................... 181 

IX-11 Satisfaction Scores of Employers, by Reason for Registering for E-Verify..... 183 

IX-12 Employer Set-Up Costs, by Type of Employer ................................................ 184 

IX-13 Employer Set-Up and Maintenance Costs, by Number of Cases 

Submitted to E-Verify in September–November 2007 .................................... 185 

IX-14 User-Reported Reasons for Deciding to Use a Designated Agent ................... 186 

IX-15 User-Reported Advantages of Using a Designated Agent................................ 187 

IX-16 Mean Satisfaction Scale Scores, by State Legislation Group........................... 188 

IX-17 Employer Set-Up and Maintenance Costs, by State Legislation Group........... 188 

IX-18 Responses of E-Verify Users to Questions Related to Satisfaction With 

the Photo Screening Tool: 2008 ....................................................................... 189 

IX-19 Employers’ Reasons for Not Using the Photo Screening Tool ........................ 191 

X-1 Percent of Web Survey Employers, by Whether They Report Informing 

Employees of TNCs.......................................................................................... 197 

X-2 Percent of Web Survey Employers, by How Often They Report 

Informing Employees of TNCs Privately ......................................................... 199 

X-3 Total Cost to Workers to Resolve TNCs .......................................................... 200 

X-4 Days of Work Lost in Order to Resolve TNCs................................................. 201 

X-5 Types of Adverse Action Reported by Workers............................................... 202 

X-6 Workers’ Reactions to Receiving TNCs........................................................... 202 

X-7 Employers’ Willingness to Hire Foreign-Born Workers.................................. 203 

X-8 Trends in Erroneous TNC Rates, by Form I-9 Citizenship Status: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 204 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xix 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

X-9 Trends in Erroneous TNC Rates, by Form I-9 Work Status: 

July 2004–June 2008 ........................................................................................ 205 

X-10 Trend in Gap in Erroneous TNC Rates Between Workers Attesting to Be 

Citizens and Noncitizens: July 2004–June 2008 .............................................. 206 

X-11 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates, by SSA Citizenship Status: 

January 2006–June 2008 .................................................................................. 206 

X-12 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born 

Workers: January 2006–June 2008................................................................... 207 

X-13 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for Foreign-Born Citizens and 

Noncitizens: January 2006–June 2008 ............................................................ 208 

X-14 Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Citizens: 

January 2006–June 2008 .................................................................................. 209 

X-15 Trend in the Number of Days Between Case Initiation and Final Case 

Resolution, by Citizenship Status: October 2004–June 2008........................... 211 

X-16 Trends in the Percent of Cases Verified Instantly as Work Authorized, by 

Attested Citizenship Status: October 2004–June 2008..................................... 212 

X-17 Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution, by Final Case Finding 

and Form I-9 Citizenship Status: April–June 2008 .......................................... 213 

X-18 Percent of Cases Initiated Within Three Work Days of Hire Date, 

by Form I-9 Citizenship Status: April–June 2008 ............................................ 213 

X-19 Percent of Web Survey Employers Saying They Are More Likely to 

Request Immigration Documents During the Verification Process.................. 215 

X-20 Trend in the Erroneous TNC Gap Between Workers Attesting to Being 

Citizens on the Form I-9 and Workers Attesting to Being Noncitizens ........... 216 

X-21 Trend in Erroneous TNC Gap Between U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born 

Workers: January 2006–June 2008................................................................... 217 

X-22 Extent to Which Naturalized Citizens Who Received TNCs Availed 

Themselves of the Opportunity to Contact USCIS Instead of SSA: 

May 5–June 30, 2008........................................................................................ 218 

XI-1 Trends in Percent of Cases Needing SSA Resolution of TNCs ....................... 221 

xx Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


Exhibit Page 

XI-2 Trends in Percent of All Cases Requiring USCIS to Conduct a SecondLevel Review.................................................................................................... 222 

XI-3 Trends in Percent of All Cases Requiring TNC Resolution by USCIS............ 223 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxi 
CONTENTS


CONTINUED


xxii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxiii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FINDINGS OF THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM EVALUATION 

1. BACKGROUND 

This document summarizes the major findings and recommendations from the Findings of the E-Verify 

Program Evaluation report.1

 Section 1 of the summary provides the following background information 

about E-Verify to help the reader understand the evaluation findings: evaluation goals, description of the 

E-Verify Program, legislative and programmatic changes to the Program, research methods, and 

contextual information (employer and worker characteristics, system outcomes, and consistency between 

E-Verify findings and true work-authorization status). Section 2 examines the major E-Verify Program 

strengths and the ongoing challenges facing the Program in light of E-Verify goals. Section 3 focuses on 

how useful recent changes have been in improving the Program’s ability to meet its goals. The final 

section, Section 4, provides the evaluation’s recommendations. 

1.1. Evaluation Goals 

This evaluation’s primary goals are as follows: 

• Determine the extent to which E-Verify is successfully meeting its stated goals of 

– Reducing the employment of unauthorized workers, 

– Protecting privacy and workers’ civil liberties, 

– Reducing (or at least not increasing) discrimination, and 

– Preventing undue burden on employers; 

• Determine the extent to which the Program is operating efficiently; 

• Determine the impact of recent legislative and program changes; and 

• Provide the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) with recommendations for future program changes. 

1.2. Description of the E-Verify Program 

The Basic Pilot Program, now referred to as E-Verify, was originally authorized under the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to electronically verify the 

work-authorization status of new hires of participating employers. Its authorization has been extended 

several times since then, and the Program has been expanded in scope and modified considerably based, 

in part, on earlier evaluation reports available on the USCIS Web site.2

 The E-Verify evaluation report 

1 To make the Executive Summary more easily understood as a stand-alone document, its organization is different from that of the full report. 

2

 See Westat, Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation, September 2007 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf) 

for the most recent report. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxiv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

summarized here presents the findings of the 2008 evaluation of E-Verify, which covered the time period 

between September 2007 and June 2008. 

E-Verify is the only Federal electronic employment verification program available to employers to 

validate the lawful employment status of new hires. The Federal government has made changes to this 

system since its inception in 1997 and continues to make and plan for additional enhancements. 

The following description reflects the program design at the end of the evaluation data collection period 

in June 2008. It should be noted that the USCIS Form I-9, which must be completed for all new hires 

nationally, is the starting point for submitting cases to E-Verify. 

After registering for E-Verify, signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with USCIS, and 

completing required online training, participating employers are supposed to perform electronic 

verification of every newly hired employee. To verify a newly hired employee, the employer submits 

information (Social Security number (SSN), name, date of birth, citizenship or alien status, and, if 

relevant, alien number (A-number) or I-94 number), from the Form I-9 over a secure Internet connection 

to be matched against government data. The information is first matched against SSA data and then, for 

noncitizens and some naturalized citizens, against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data. 

If the worker attests to being a U.S. citizen and the information submitted matches SSA information, the 

employer is instantly notified by the system that the worker is employment authorized. If information 

from the SSA database does not match the worker information entered, E-Verify instantly requests the 

employer to check for possible input errors and, if no changes are made, E-Verify issues a Tentative 

Nonconfirmation (TNC) finding. If the worker attests to being a citizen and SSA records are consistent 

with the worker information except that SSA cannot confirm work-authorization status, USCIS 

naturalization databases are automatically checked to determine whether those records confirm 

citizenship through naturalization.3

 If they do, the employer is instantly notified by the system that the 

worker is employment authorized; otherwise, the employer is asked to check for possible input errors and, 

if no changes are made, a TNC is issued. 

If the worker attests to being a noncitizen and the SSA database information matches the worker 

information, the worker information is electronically checked against DHS databases. If the information 

matches DHS information and indicates that the worker is authorized to work in the United States and the 

worker has used a Permanent Resident (“green”) card or an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) 

as proof of identity, the automated response includes the digitally stored photograph (if available) that 

was used to produce the card that the worker presented in the verification process. The employer then 

determines whether the photo provided in the E-Verify response matches the photo on the document 

presented. If the employer confirms that the photo returned in the E-Verify response matches the photo on 

the document (or if no photo is available on E-Verify), the worker is instantly verified as work authorized. 

If the DHS database information does not match the worker information, E-Verify instantly requests the 

employer to check for possible input errors and, if no changes are made, the information is sent to an 

Immigration Status Verifier (ISV)4

 who checks additional information available in DHS records to verify 

work-authorization status and provides an electronic response to the employer, usually within 24 hours. If 

the ISV cannot confirm work authorization or the employer indicates that the document photograph does 

not match the electronic photograph displayed by the E-Verify system, a TNC finding is issued. 

3 As of 2009, E-Verify also checks Department of State (DOS) U.S. passport data to confirm the individual’s citizenship status if the individual 

submits a U.S. passport and SSA information does not confirm citizenship. 

4 Immigration Status Verifiers are now referred to as Management Program Assistants. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxv 
5 National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org). 

6 Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah are in this category. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

When a TNC is issued, employers are required to inform affected workers in writing of the E-Verify 

finding and their right to contest the finding. If any discrepancies with SSA or DHS records are resolved 

by the worker during the contesting process, E-Verify issues an employment-authorized finding. When 

workers say that they do not want to contest TNCs or fail to contact SSA or USCIS within 10 Federal 

workdays, the E-Verify system issues a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) finding and employers are 

expected to promptly terminate the workers’ employment. 

1.3. Legislative and Programmatic Changes 

This section describes the legislative and major program changes made since March 2007, when data 

collection for the previous evaluation report was completed. 

There have been numerous cases in which state legislatures have proposed or enacted legislation to 

require E-Verify usage by some or all of its employers. To simplify analyses, the following State 

Legislation Groups were used based on the situation as of March 31, 2008: (1) implemented legislation 

requiring all employers to participate in E-Verify (Arizona was the only state in this category);5 

(2) implemented legislation requiring some employers such as state agencies and their contractors to 

participate in E-Verify;

6

 and (3) had not implemented legislation requiring participation in E-Verify. 

Although there were additional changes in proposed state legislation after this date, the trend data 

presented in this report end with the April through June 2008 quarter. Using the March cutoff permits 

examination of quarterly trends, including those for the April through June 2008 period. 

Major program changes examined in this report are as follows: 

• Photo Screening Tool (September 2007). The Photo Screening Tool permits employers to 

compare photographs on worker documents with digital photographs stored in government 

systems. As of the time that the report was being written, the only documents available on the 

Photo Screening Tool were those issued to work-authorized noncitizens: green cards and 

EADs. 

• SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks (September 2007). The SSA pre-TNC check instantly 

prompts employers to review the information they had input about their workers and correct 

any detected errors when the information would otherwise generate an SSA TNC finding. For 

USCIS, the pre-TNC check prompts employers to review their input prior to the case being 

sent to secondary verification in which ISVs manually check additional DHS databases. 

• EV-STAR and the pre-FNC check (October 2007). EV-STAR automates the tracking process 

for referring and contesting TNCs at SSA to make it more similar to the tracking system used 

by USCIS. As part of this process, all SSA TNCs, except those shown by EV-STAR to have 

been successfully contested, are automatically resubmitted to E-Verify prior to the issuance of 

an FNC in what is referred to in this report as the pre-FNC check. 

• Naturalization Phase I (May 2008). This change adds an automated DHS naturalization 

database checking process for workers who attest to being U.S. citizens when SSA records are 

consistent with the information submitted on SSN, name, and date of birth but cannot confirm 

U.S. citizenship status. 

xxvi Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• Naturalization Phase II (May 2008). This change provides a special referral letter for workers 

attesting to being U.S. citizens when their SSA records are consistent with the information 

submitted on SSN, name, and date of birth but neither SSA nor DHS records can confirm U.S. 

citizenship status. The letter provides workers with an opportunity to voluntarily contact 

USCIS by phone or fax to confirm their U.S. citizenship rather than going in person to an SSA 

field office. 

In addition to the changes listed above, USCIS reported having made a variety of other program changes 

between March 2007 and June 2008. Examples of these changes include establishing a Monitoring and 

Compliance unit, a Privacy Branch, and a new Customer Call Center; revising the E-Verify Web site to 

make it easier for employers to locate online resources; updating the online user’s manual; updating the 

Designated Agent tutorial; adding announcement banners to the E-Verify screen to notify employers of 

upcoming changes; providing forgotten passwords through an automated system to employer users; and 

expanding employer and worker outreach efforts. USCIS continues to work on system and programmatic 

enhancements to the E-Verify system. 

1.4. Research Methods 

1.4.1. Introduction 

This section provides an overview of the research methods used in this evaluation for data collection and 

analysis. It also points to some of the data limitations. 

1.4.2. Data Collection 

The evaluation team for E-Verify adopted a multimodal approach to data collection, including the 

following: 

• Discussions with a broad array of stakeholders at a meeting in November 2007; 

• Five focus groups of employers; 

• Web surveys of 2,320 employers that had enrolled in the E-Verify Program; 

• Onsite in-person interviews and observations of 109 participating employers, record reviews 

for 1,246 of their workers that the Transaction Database indicated had received TNC findings, 

and in-person interviews with 424 of these workers; 

• Meetings with Federal program officials and contractors knowledgeable about and experienced 

with E-Verify; 

• Analysis of E-Verify transaction and registration data entered by employers and the Federal 

government; 

• Analyses of other Federal data sources, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings 

and Labor Turnover Survey and the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and County 

Business Patterns of 2006; and 

• Testing of the E-Verify computer system by the evaluation staff. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxvii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Standard research and quality control procedures were used in this study to assure the quality of the data. 

These procedures included training of data collection and data processing staff and data cleaning based on 

consistency and range checks. Key findings from the multiple approaches were cross-checked to 

determine their consistency and, where possible, the reasons for any differences. 

1.4.3. Data Analysis 

The report relies primarily on descriptive statistics and tests of significance of the data analyzed. 

Comparisons based on quantitative data are statistically significant unless stated otherwise. 

In some situations, it is not possible to obtain direct measures of key variables of interest. In these 

situations, where possible, the evaluation uses model-based estimates of those variables or indicators that 

can be considered indirect measures of the variables. 

Arguably, the most important of the model-based estimates are the estimates of what are referred to in the 

report as inaccuracy rates;7

 these rates provide information about whether E-Verify findings are 

consistent with the true employment-authorization status of cases submitted to the system. The inaccuracy 

rate itself does not provide information on the sources of inaccuracies (e.g., identity fraud, out-of-date or 

inaccurate Federal records, or employers’ inputting information incorrectly). 

The need for using model-based estimates of inaccuracy rates arises because it is usually not possible to 

accurately determine the true employment-authorization status of workers at the time that their cases were 

submitted to E-Verify. Like any model-based estimates, these estimates are dependent upon the 

reasonableness of the assumptions underlying the model as well as the accuracy of the data used in 

constructing the model. As is typical of model-based estimates, the assumptions used in developing these 

estimates are based on the best data available from the evaluation and other reliable sources such as the 

Census Bureau, the Department of Labor, and recognized immigration experts. Additionally, this 

empirical information is used to develop alternate plausible assumptions to provide a range of estimates. 

These inaccuracy rates can be estimated for either the initial or the final E-Verify findings; this report 

bases the rates on the initial findings unless otherwise noted. Additional information on the model is 

contained in the Addendum to the Executive Summary as well as in the full report. 

Since inaccuracy rates are only approximate, they are not precise enough to be used in analyzing trends 

and in comparing subgroups of the population.8

 However, since the erroneous TNC rate, i.e., the 

percentage of workers found to be employment authorized after receiving a TNC, is estimated from 

transaction data, it can be used for trend analysis. The erroneous TNC rate is also a reasonable measure of 

the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. However, the erroneous TNC rate underestimates the 

inaccuracy rate for authorized workers since it excludes authorized workers with TNCs who do not 

correct their records because their employers do not tell them about the TNCs or for other reasons. 

1.4.4. Data Limitations 

Like other surveys, the accuracy of the E-Verify Web survey of employers is limited by factors such as a 

respondent’s (in this case, an employer’s) inability to understand questions or provide accurate answers. 

The onsite study provides more in-depth information about employer behavior than the Web survey since 

it is based on a more detailed interview and also obtains information from observation, record reviews, 

and interviews of workers. However, the information from the onsite study cannot be considered 

7 The inaccuracy rate is equivalent to the term “error rate” encountered in research literature. 

8 The ranges of the model-based estimates are often larger than any differences between time periods or subgroups are likely to be. 

xxviii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

statistically representative because of the low response rate; many employers refused to participate in the 

lengthy site visits.9

 Of particular concern is the possibility that employers that cooperated with the study 

are more likely to comply with E-Verify procedures than are employers that did not participate in the 

study. 

Information obtained directly from the E-Verify Transaction Database is based on all 9.4 million cases10 

for the period July 2004 through June 2008 or on specific subgroups of these cases such as all foreignborn U.S. citizens. Although errors that result from sampling are not an issue for these estimates, other 

errors may exist in the data. For example, there may be data input errors or errors made in the process of 

cleaning the Transaction Database. 

1.5. Contextual Information 

1.5.1. Employer and Worker Characteristics 

Employers enrolled in E-Verify and the cases they submit to E-Verify are not representative of all 

employers in the United States and their newly hired employees. For example, large employers are much 

more likely to be enrolled in E-Verify than are small employers. There have also been notable trends in 

the characteristics of employers participating in E-Verify and the workers for whom they submit cases 

since the start of the Program. These trends include an increase in the representation of E-Verify 

employers with fewer than 10 employees and a decrease in the percentage of workers attesting to being 

noncitizens. 

1.5.2. System Outcomes 

To answer the evaluation questions presented in the Background section, it is necessary to have an 

understanding of system outcomes. Exhibit 1 shows the case outcomes from April through June 2008. 

During that time, employers submitted approximately 1.7 million cases to E-Verify. 

Exhibit 1. Outcomes From the E-Verify Program: April–June 2008 

by ISV without a TNC 

3.6% 

Received TNC 

1.1%

Verified work authorized 1.0% 

FNC (no show) 

0.01%

95.3% Not work

Instantly verified authorized 

as work after contesting 

authorized 

0.5% 

2.1% Verified work authorized 

FNC (not contested) after contesting 

NOTES: “Not contested” Final Nonconfirmations (FNCs) are ones issued when employers do not report through E-Verify that they have referred 

workers to SSA or USCIS to resolve Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs). Not contested TNCs occur when workers tell their employers that they 

do not wish to contest; however, they also occur when workers are not told about their TNCs. “No show” FNCs are those in which employers 

report that they have referred workers to SSA or USCIS but workers do not contact the agency. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

See the full report for additional information about the limitations of the onsite data. 

10A case is defined as a single hiring of a specific individual by a specific employer. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxix 

9 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Most workers are instantly verified as work authorized. In April through June 2008, 95.3 percent of 

cases were instantly found to be employment authorized (88.0 percent by SSA and 7.3 percent by 

USCIS). An additional 1.1 percent of cases were verified after initial review by an ISV without a TNC 

being issued. Another 0.5 percent of the cases were found to be employment authorized after receiving a 

TNC (0.3 percent by SSA and 0.1 percent by USCIS).

11

 Less than 0.1 percent (.01 percent) of cases were 

not found to be work authorized after being contested. The remaining 3.1 percent of cases received FNCs 

because workers had not contested their TNCs (2.1 percent had not been referred to SSA or USCIS, 

because the workers had not told their employers they planned to contest (in some cases because the 

employer did not give the worker the opportunity to contest), and 1.0 percent had presumably told their 

employers that they wished to contest but failed to do so). 

The percentage of cases found to be employment authorized instantly and the percentage found 

employment authorized without a TNC have increased considerably since the inception of E-Verify. 

In April through June 2008, 95.3 percent of the cases were instantly found to be employment authorized 

compared to 91.6 percent in July through September 2004. During the same time period, the percentage 

of cases found employment authorized without a TNC (i.e., the cases were found employment authorized 

either instantly or after an ISV review) increased from 92.3 to 96.4 percent. 

1.5.3. Consistency of E-Verify Findings With True Work-Authorization Status 

In addition to understanding E-Verify outcomes, answering the evaluation questions requires an 

understanding of what are referred to in this report as inaccuracy rates (i.e., rates measuring the 

inconsistency of E-Verify findings with workers’ true work-authorization status). As discussed in the 

research methods section, these rates are model-based estimates and must be viewed as approximate. 

The total inaccuracy rate is approximately 4.1 percent. As seen in Exhibit 2, it is estimated that in 

approximately 96.0 percent of E-Verify cases submitted from April through June 2008, the E-Verify 

finding was consistent with the worker’s true employment-authorization status (an estimated 93.1 percent 

of all cases were cases in which an authorized worker was found to be employment authorized and 

2.9 percent were unauthorized workers who were not found to be employment authorized). The remaining 

cases (4.1 percent of all cases submitted to E-Verify) received a finding that was inconsistent with the 

worker’s true employment-authorized status (3.3 percent were unauthorized workers who were found to 

be work authorized and 0.7 percent were authorized workers not initially found to be employment 

authorized).12

 This means the total inaccuracy rate (resulting primarily from identity fraud, out-of-date or 

inaccurate Federal records, and data input errors) is estimated to be approximately 4.1 percent. The 

corresponding plausible range is estimated as 2.3 percent to 5.7 percent.13 

The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is less than 1 percent. The overwhelming percentage of 

authorized workers are found to be employment authorized (93.1/ (93.1+0.7)) = 99.2 percent), and only 

0.8 percent of authorized workers are not initially found to be employment authorized. In other words, 

the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is approximately 0.8 percent with a plausible range of 

0.6 percent to 1.0 percent. 

Due primarily to identity fraud, the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is approximately 

54 percent. As seen in Exhibit 2, approximately 3.3 percent of all E-Verify findings are for unauthorized 

11 The sum of these percents is not equal to the total because of rounding. 

12 The sum of these percents is not equal to the total because of rounding. 

13 See the Addendum to the Executive Summary for additional information and Chapters II and VI and Appendix B in the full report for an 

explanation of total inaccuracy rate estimation procedures. 

xxx Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

workers incorrectly found employment authorized and 2.9 percent of all findings are for unauthorized 

workers correctly not found employment authorized. Thus, almost half of all unauthorized workers are 

correctly not found to be employment authorized (2.9/6.2) and just over half are found to be employment 

authorized (3.3/6.2). Consequently, the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is estimated to be 

approximately 54 percent with a plausible range of 37 percent to 64 percent. This finding is not 

surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it has been clear that many unauthorized workers 

obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify.

14 

Exhibit 2. Estimated Consistency Between Initial E-Verify Finding and True Work-Authorization 

Status 

6.2% 

93.1% 

Authorized workers 

found authorized 

initially 

0.7% 

Authorized workers 

not found 

authorized initially 

3.3% 

Unauthorized 

workers 

found work 

authorized 

2.9% 

Unauthorized 

Unauthorized workers 

workers not found 

work authorized 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

2. E-VERIFY STRENGTHS AND ONGOING CHALLENGES 

2.1. Unauthorized Employment 

2.1.1. Introduction 

One of the primary goals of E-Verify is to reduce unauthorized employment. This section addresses the 

question of how well E-Verify is meeting this goal. Underlying the analyses in Section 2 is the 

assumption that the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment depends upon its 

ability to identify workers without employment authorization, the length of time unauthorized workers 

identified by E-Verify are permitted to work, and the time lag between the employee’s termination and 

any re-employment, which, in turn, is strongly influenced by how widespread use of E-Verify is. Each of 

these factors is addressed in this section. 

2.1.2. Identification of Unauthorized Workers 

2.1.2.1. Strengths 

E-Verify has been proven to be effective in identifying many workers who are not work authorized. 

The evaluation estimates that approximately half (an estimated 46 percent with a plausible range of 36 to 

14 For additional information, see the Addendum to the Executive Summary and Chapters II and VI and Appendix B in the full report. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxxi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

63) of the cases submitted in April through June 2008 for unauthorized workers correctly received either 

FNCs or unauthorized findings, i.e., they were not found work authorized. 

2.1.2.2. Challenges 

E-Verify, as currently formulated, does not detect most identity fraud cases for workers who use 

information about real employment-authorized persons. If a worker presents documents that contain 

information about a real work-authorized person and if the documents appear to be valid, E-Verify is 

unlikely to detect the identity fraud.15

 As a result, it is estimated that approximately half (54 percent with 

a plausible range of 37 to 64 percent) of unauthorized workers with cases submitted to E-Verify receive 

an inaccurate finding of being work authorized. 

2.1.3. Time Unauthorized Workers Are Permitted to Work 

2.1.3.1. Strengths 

The time to process cases submitted to E-Verify has decreased. The mean number of days from case 

initiation to final resolution has decreased from 0.9 days in October through December 2004 to 0.4 days 

in April through June 2008. One major reason for the decrease in time from case initiation to final 

resolution is that the percentage of all cases instantly verified as work authorized increased steadily 

between the start of the Program and June 2008. A second likely reason is that changes in the secondary 

review process were instituted to speed up that process. 

Most workers receiving TNCs received their TNC notices promptly. Among the 352 record review 

cases that included a signed TNC notice, 320 were signed by the worker within a week of the issuance of 

the TNC. Among the 191 record review cases with a referral date and a signed TNC notice indicating that 

the worker wanted to contest the TNC, 183 were referred to SSA or USCIS within a week of the date the 

worker signed the TNC notice. 

2.1.3.2. Challenges 

Employers do not always follow the requirement to terminate employment when E-Verify is not 

able to confirm that an employee is work authorized. Approximately 8 percent of Web survey 

employers reported that they had never terminated the employment of employees who had received FNCs 

or unauthorized findings. 

2.1.4. E-Verify Usage 

2.1.4.1. Strengths 

E-Verify has been growing rapidly since its inception. In April through June 2005, 217,000 cases were 

submitted to E-Verify. By April through June 2008, this number had grown to 1.7 million—an eightfold 

increase in three years. 

2.1.4.2. Challenges 

Most U.S. workers are not processed through E-Verify. The evaluation team estimated that it is likely 

that information was submitted to E-Verify for no more than 12 percent of all new hires in the nation in 

15The designers of E-Verify were aware of this limitation of the program and recognized there was no immediate workable solution. 

xxxii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

April through June 2008. This limited usage means that most jobs are offered by employers that do not 

use E-Verify, thus providing potential job opportunities for workers whose employment was terminated 

by E-Verify employers. 

2.2. Protection of Privacy and Worker Civil Liberties 

2.2.1. Introduction 

This section first discusses how well worker privacy was protected by employers and the Federal 

government. It then discusses how well employers complied with E-Verify procedures designed to protect 

worker rights and the civil liberties of employment-authorized workers. 

2.2.2. Privacy and Security 

2.2.2.1. Strengths 

SSA and USCIS have taken care to protect the privacy of the workers with information submitted 

to E-Verify. SSA and USCIS have a number of policies in place to ensure the security of all of their 

databases, including E-Verify. In addition, the Federal government processes queries only for employers 

that have signed an MOU. These employers are identified through establishment access and user 

identification codes. Each person using the system is also expected to have an individual user 

identification number and password that must be changed regularly. Additionally, employers have access 

only to the cases they submit. 

2.2.2.2. Challenges 

Concern has been raised about the potential for a non-employer to gain access to E-Verify or for an 

authorized user to use E-Verify for purposes other than employment-eligibility verification. There 

are currently no safeguards in place to ensure that entities enrolling in E-Verify are legitimate employers 

that will only use the system for employment verification; however, there are no reported cases of either 

non-legitimate employers enrolling in the Program or employers using it for purposes other than 

employment authorization. USCIS and SSA are exploring ways to implement safeguards against this 

type of abuse as the system expands. 

Employers did not consistently inform employees of TNC findings in private. Although almost all 

employers (94 percent of 2006 Web survey employers and 91 percent of 2008 Web survey employers) 

reported that they always inform employees of TNC findings in private, 33 of 140 workers in the 2008 

onsite study reported being notified in an area that was not private. 

2.2.3. Employer Compliance with E-Verify Procedures Designed to Protect Worker Rights 

2.2.3.1. Strengths 

The transaction data were consistent with the claim that employers generally do not single out 

either citizens or noncitizens for verification. Of the approximately 8,600 employers that had 

submitted cases to E-Verify for at least 100 workers between July 2004 and June 2008, 0.1 percent did 

not submit cases for any workers attesting to being citizens and 4.2 percent did not submit any noncitizen 

cases. These numbers are small enough that it is reasonable to believe that few, if any, of these employers 

are selectively submitting cases for either citizens or noncitizens among their new hires. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxxiii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Employers were more likely to report that all staff actively using the E-Verify system had 

completed the tutorial in 2008 than in 2006. In 2008, 90 percent of Web survey respondents reported 

that all of their staff that use E-Verify had completed the tutorial compared to 84 percent in 2006, 

presumably decreasing employer noncompliance attributable to employers’ misunderstanding the 

Program’s procedures. 

2.2.3.2. Challenges 

As was noted in prior evaluations, not all employers consistently comply with E-Verify procedures. 

Some employers did not comply with E-Verify requirements, such as entering Form I-9 information 

within three workdays, only submitting cases for recent hires, not delaying training for workers with 

TNCs, or promptly terminating the employment of workers receiving FNCs. For example: 

• According to the record review information, at least 27 of the 108 onsite study employers had 

submitted at least one case for a job applicant. Based on information from worker interviews, it 

appears that the incidence of prescreening may be significantly underreported by employers. 

Of the 42 onsite study employers that said they did not screen job applicants as a general 

practice, 35 had one or more employees who reported that their work-authorization status was 

determined through E-Verify when they were job applicants. Although some of the worker 

reports of prescreening may be inaccurate because of confusion or poor memory, it seems 

reasonable to believe that many of these were cases in which the employer did, in fact, 

prescreen at least some workers but did not report such behavior in an interview. 

• Some employers fail to inform employees or job applicants of their TNCs or take adverse 

actions against them such as curtailing their training during the time they contest TNCs, 

thereby denying them their rights to due process under E-Verify. Among the 161 workers who 

discussed whether adverse actions had been taken against them by employers as a result of 

their TNCs, 59 workers reported that adverse actions (such as hiring delays, training delays, 

and not being paid for work completed while contesting) had been taken against them. 

One reason for employer noncompliance was that employers were not always aware of their 

responsibilities under E-Verify. For example, of the 12 onsite study employers that reported 

prescreening some or all of their job applicants, eight did not appear to understand that prescreening is not 

allowed by E-Verify. 

2.3. Verification-Related Discrimination 

2.3.1. Introduction 

Discrimination can be either intentional or unintentional, but in both types of discrimination, members of 

a protected group are treated less favorably than others. Intentional discrimination occurs if the employer 

knowingly treats members of a protected group less favorably than members of other groups (e.g., by 

refusing to hire anyone who is foreign born). Unintentional employment discrimination occurs if 

unfavorable treatment of protected groups occurs without the employers’ realizing that their actions may 

harm one or more member(s) of a protected group. In the case of E-Verify, unintentional discrimination 

occurs when members of a protected group have a higher probability of receiving TNCs than other groups 

do and there are negative consequences for workers receiving TNCs. These factors, in turn, are functions 

of the accuracy of E-Verify findings, employer compliance with procedures designed to protect worker 

rights, and the degree of burden and/or cost imposed on authorized workers who receive TNCs. 

xxxiv Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


2.3.2. Strengths 

E-Verify apparently reduces discrimination against foreign-born workers in the hiring process. 

Although 81 percent of users reported that E-Verify made them neither more nor less willing to hire 

immigrants, when change was reported, it was almost always in favor of making employers more willing 

to hire immigrants (17 percent) compared to those who were less willing (2 percent). 

The accuracy of the USCIS database, as measured by the erroneous TNC rate for workers ever 

found authorized, has improved considerably. The overall erroneous TNC rate declined from 

0.9 percent to 0.5 percent between April through June 2005 and April through June 2008. 

Employers believe that E-Verify is accurate. A large majority of employers (92 percent) using E-Verify 

report that it is a highly accurate system for verifying work authorization. 

The gap between the erroneous TNC rates for U.S-born and foreign-born workers has decreased 

substantially. The gap in erroneous TNC rates between foreign-born and U.S.-born workers decreased 

from 4.0 percent in April through June 2006 to 2.4 percent in April through June 2008 due to the 

institution of Naturalization Phase I, which checks USCIS databases about naturalized citizens when 

workers attest to being citizens but have information on the SSA database indicating they are noncitizens. 

Almost half of interviewed workers who discussed their costs for resolving TNCs reported that they 

had no costs. Of the 115 workers who reported information about costs, 47 reported that there were no 

costs for contesting the TNC. This finding would tend to reduce any discriminatory impact of TNC since 

work-authorized foreign-born persons more frequently receive erroneous TNCs than do U.S.-born 

16 persons.

2.3.3. Challenges 

Foreign-born workers with employment authorization are more likely to incorrectly receive TNCs 

than are U.S-born workers. The percentage of foreign-born workers found to be work authorized at any 

stage of the E-Verify process and who received a TNC prior to having their work authorization verified in 

April through June 2008 was 2.6 percent, compared to 0.1 percent of workers who are U.S. born. This 

means that foreign-born workers with employment authorization were more than 20 times more likely 

than U.S.-born workers to incur any burden associated with resolving TNCs. Although the process for 

resolving TNCs is usually neither costly nor burdensome, some workers with employment authorization 

are dismissed or not hired because of TNCs without an opportunity to avail themselves of their right to 

resolve their TNCs with SSA or USCIS. 

Workers attesting to being work-authorized noncitizens on the Form I-9, especially those who are 

not lawful permanent residents, are more likely than those attesting to being U.S. citizens to receive 

erroneous TNCs. Between April and June 2008, the erroneous TNC rate was 0.3 percent for workers 

attesting to being U.S. citizens, compared to 1.0 percent for lawful permanent residents and 5.3 percent 

for other noncitizens with authorization to work. 

Although much improved since the last evaluation, the erroneous TNC rate for naturalized citizens 

remains well above the rate for U.S.-born workers. Largely due to out-of-date SSA and USCIS 

database information on the citizenship status of many foreign-born citizens, the erroneous TNC rate for 

16 As explained in Section 2.3.1, discrimination does not require that an action is intended to harm a group of protected individuals; it can also 

occur unintentionally. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxxv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

naturalized citizens in April through June 2008 (3.2 percent) remained well above the rate for U.S.-born 

workers (0.1 percent). 

Some workers reported costs of more than $50 to resolve TNCs. Among the 53 workers reporting 

costs greater than zero for resolving TNCs, 25 workers spent more than $50 because they had to take time 

off from work or had expenses such as for baby sitting or transportation. This finding suggests there are 

negative consequences for at least some workers receiving TNCs, thus potentially contributing to a 

discriminatory impact since foreign-born workers are considerably more likely to receive TNCs. 

2.4. Employer Burden and Satisfaction 

2.4.1. Strengths 

Employers were generally satisfied with E-Verify and indicated that it was not burdensome. Most 

Web survey employers (95 percent) reported that E-Verify is an effective tool, and a large majority of 

them (80 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is impossible to fulfill all the employer 

obligations required by the E-Verify process. In addition, of the 104 onsite study employers discussing 

their overall satisfaction with E-Verify, 99 reported being generally satisfied. 

2.4.2. Challenges 

Perceived employer burden does prevent some employers from using E-Verify. Approximately onequarter of those employers that had signed up for E-Verify and had either never used the Program or 

stopped using it cited real or perceived employer burden as a reason for their nonuse. 

Some employers were dissatisfied with aspects of E-Verify and/or made recommendations about 

possible improvements to E-Verify. One frequently mentioned employer recommendation for 

improvement was to allow employers to screen job applicants. Another improvement recommended by 

some employers was to change the current requirement of submitting cases to E-Verify within three 

Federal workdays of hire to a longer time frame. 

Employer satisfaction appeared to be somewhat lower in 2008 than in 2006. In 2008, 80 percent of 

Web survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is impossible to fulfill all the employer 

obligations required by the E-Verify process, significantly lower than in 2006 when 95 percent disagreed 

or strongly disagreed with this statement. This may relate in part to the fact that some states have made 

E-Verify mandatory for some or all of their employers, changing it from the totally voluntary program it 

was in 2006. 

2.5. Program Efficiency 

2.5.1. Strengths 

USCIS staff report that they have undertaken a number of efforts to improve E-Verify. In response 

to earlier evaluations and other factors, USCIS had made ongoing changes to the Program to address 

identified shortcomings and to improve program performance. Reported efforts to improve E-Verify 

include adding data sources that can be checked automatically, making the system and forms more userfriendly through clearer guidance and improvements to the tutorials, exploring ways to make E-Verify 

more secure, and working toward full implementation of a monitoring and compliance capability. These 

efforts have also included enhancing outreach efforts to employers and, to a lesser extent, workers, 

xxxvi Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

including presentations by USCIS, Webinars for employers, advertising campaigns, and establishment of 

a phone center to provide program information to the public. 

2.5.2. Challenges 

One of the most frequent employer complaints was that communication between E-Verify users 

and SSA and USCIS was not optimal. Of the 74 onsite study employers that commented on their 

communication with SSA, 17 employers were dissatisfied. Some of these employers reported that SSA 

offices did not understand or even know about E-Verify, while a few others were frustrated that SSA 

could not provide an explanation as to why some cases took longer than 10 days to resolve. Of the 103 

onsite study employers commenting on their communication with USCIS, 27 said they were dissatisfied 

with the communication. Of the 27 dissatisfied employers, 15 were dissatisfied with the way changes 

were communicated, eight were dissatisfied with their communication with the helpline, and four were 

generally dissatisfied with their communication with USCIS. 

3. IMPACTS OF RECENT LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM CHANGES 

3.1. Legislative Changes 

Arizona is the only state that had implemented legislation that required the use of E-Verify by all 

employers in the state during the time period examined in this report. However, several other states had 

enacted legislation requiring some employers (primarily public agencies and their contractors) to register 

for the Program. Because of the small number of states involved, it is difficult to differentiate the effects 

of legislative changes from other differences among these states. However, based on the limited analysis 

of available data, it appears that the effects of legislative changes were as follows: 

• Increased use of E-Verify. In Arizona, the number of employers transmitting cases to 

E-Verify had a 50-fold increase between January through March 2007, a year before their 

mandatory participation law first took effect, and April through June 2008, the first quarter 

after it was implemented. During the same time period, the remaining states increased their 

usage by two- or threefold. A difference this large is unlikely to be attributable to factors other 

than the legislation. 

• Arizona employers had an average compliance score below that of employers in other 

states.17 Comparing Arizona employers responding to the Web survey with other survey 

respondents based on a general measure of compliance with E-Verify procedures with a mean 

of 500 and a standard deviation of 10018 indicated that Arizona employers were slightly less 

compliant than other employers (474 compared to 510 for other employers). It is possible that 

this is because employers required to use E-Verify are less compliant than other employers. 

However, it may be due to factors other than the State Legislation Group differences, such as 

differences in the characteristics of employers in Arizona compared to the rest of the country or 

the disproportionately high number of employers newly enrolled in E-Verify in Arizona. 

• Employers in Arizona were more timely than other states in case submission and 

referring workers to SSA or USCIS. The average time from hire date to case initiation was 

4.8 calendar days for employers in Arizona in April through June 2008 compared to 8.2 days 

for states requiring some employers to use E-Verify and 9.8 days for other employers. The 

17 This difference is statistically significant at the .05 level using a one-tail test. 

18 See Chapter II of the full report for additional information on the Compliance Scale. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxxvii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


average time from TNC issuance to referral in April through June 2008 for Arizona was also 

lower than average (3.6 days for Arizona compared to 4.0 days for employers requiring some 

but not all employers to register and 4.3 days for employers in other states). 

• No detectable effects on overall employer satisfaction were noted between Arizona and 

other employers. 

3.2. Photo Screening Tool 

Most employers expressed considerable satisfaction with how the Photo Screening Tool was 

implemented and reported no significant problems in using it. Among employers that had used the 

Photo Screening Tool, 97 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “The Photo Tool is easy to use.” 

However, there was widespread confusion among employers about how to use it. For example, 59 percent 

of employers reported in the Web survey that they compared the picture from the Photo Screening Tool 

with the worker (instead of or in addition to comparing it with the document), which is not consistent with 

E-Verify Photo Screening Tool procedures. 

Despite employer satisfaction with the Photo Screening Tool, its effects on the E-Verify Program 

were mixed: 

• Since the current Photo Screening Tool can only be used for those workers submitting certain 

immigration documents, it clearly increases at least the appearance of unintentional 

discrimination against noncitizens. 

• The effectiveness of the Photo Screening Tool is significantly limited by the fact that it is not 

available for most workers with cases submitted to E-Verify—it was only available for 

4 percent of workers in the period May 5 through June 30, 2008. Furthermore, at the time the 

report was written it appeared unlikely to be expanded to a significantly larger group of cases 

in the foreseeable future. 

• The Photo Screening Tool slightly increased the ability of E-Verify to identify workers without 

employment authorization. The estimated percentage detected in April through June 2008 

would have been 45.8 percent without the Photo Screening Tool compared to the 46.0 percent 

estimated effectiveness rate with the Photo Screening Tool. On the other hand, the Photo 

Screening Tool led to an extremely minor increase in the inaccuracy rate for workers with 

employment authorization, since employers may incorrectly determine that the document photo 

does not correctly match the photo displayed by the Photo Screening Tool. 

• The Photo Screening Tool has very slightly decreased the percentage of cases that are verified 

instantly, thereby slightly reducing timeliness. 

• The Photo Screening Tool has contributed to employer noncompliance in the sense that it 

creates additional procedures that the employer must follow. Compliance with these procedures 

has been relatively poor, presumably because the procedures are new, relate only to certain 

workers, and are not fully understood. 

3.3. Pre-TNC Checks 

The pre-TNC checks appear to have been successful in reducing the erroneous TNC rate. This 

change, implemented in mid-September 2007, instructs employers to recheck their data input when an 

initial check indicates that the worker is about to receive an SSA TNC or the case is about to be sent for a 

xxxviii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

secondary verification review and a possible TNC for cases sent to USCIS. The erroneous TNC rate for 

all workers ever found work authorized declined from 0.72 to 0.58 (a decline of 0.14 percent) between 

July through September 2007 and October through December 2007. The observed erroneous TNC rate 

decline was larger than the declines observed between these same two periods in the two preceding years. 

It also seems plausible that the pre-TNC check explains the decline in data input errors leading to TNCs 

that were reported by employers reporting having had such errors in the Web survey (from 52 percent in 

2006 to 42 percent in 2008). 

The pre-TNC checks may have led to a slight increase in the percentage of E-Verify cases instantly 

verified. The percentage of cases instantly verified increased 0.2 percentage points (from 94.3 to 94.5) 

between July through September 2007 (the quarter before the TNC check was implemented19

) and 

October through December 2007 (the first quarter after the change was made). 

3.4. EV-STAR 

In the long run, EV-STAR should make a positive contribution to E-Verify. EV-STAR automates 

tracking SSA tasks and should reduce employer burden by eliminating the need to resubmit cases after 

workers have resolved SSA TNCs. It has also increased SSA’s ability to track E-Verify cases and has 

decreased the percentage of cases receiving erroneous SSA FNCs when SSA is not able to promptly 

verify the work authorization of individuals who must provide SSA with documents that may take a long 

time to obtain, such as some birth certificates. The pre-FNC check instituted in conjunction with EVSTAR that compares the E-Verify data for SSA TNC cases not reported to be successfully resolved in 

EV-STAR also detects some cases that might have previously defaulted to FNCs. However, the 

implementation of EV-STAR created considerable initial confusion on the part of some employers that 

did not understand the changed procedures. 

Employers had mixed views on the impact of EV-STAR on SSA response time. Some employers 

commented that the change in SSA procedures that occurred when EV-STAR was implemented has had a 

positive impact on SSA response time. However, other employers reported dissatisfaction with changed 

procedures because they believe that the change has made the process more time consuming. It is possible 

that this dissatisfaction was at least partially attributable to initial employer confusion about the changed 

procedures. 

3.5. Naturalization Phase I 

The institution of Naturalization Phase I led to a dramatic reduction in the erroneous TNC rate for 

foreign-born citizens. Naturalization Phase I was designed to reduce erroneous TNC findings for 

naturalized citizens by checking USCIS data files with information about naturalized citizens when SSA 

can confirm the identity but not the employment-authorization status of workers attesting to be U.S. 

citizens. The erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens dropped from 7.0 percent to 3.2 percent 

between January through March 2008 and April through June 2008, even though Naturalization Phase I 

did not take effect until May 5, 2008, while the rate stayed constant for U.S.-born workers. 

Naturalization Phase I also led to a small reduction in the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying 

workers without employment authorization. An unintended consequence of Naturalization Phase I 

was an increase in the percentage of workers without employment authorization who were found work 

authorized. Based on the model developed for the evaluation, it is estimated that approximately 1,400 of 

the 6,100 cases found work authorized by the Naturalization Phase I check were cases for workers 

19 The pre-TNC checks were introduced in mid-September 2007 near the end of the quarter. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xxxix 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

without employment authorization who had committed identity fraud using information about naturalized 

citizens. These cases represent approximately 2.3 percent of the cases for workers without employment 

authorization submitted to E-Verify between the start of Naturalization Phase I on May 5, 2008, and June 

30, 2008, with a plausible range of 0.4 percent to 4.0 percent. Thus, the implementation of Naturalization 

Phase I decreased the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying workers without employment authorization 

by approximately 2 percentage points. If Naturalization Phase I had not been in effect, the estimated 

effectiveness rate for workers without employment authorization would have been approximately 

48 percent instead of the estimated 46 percent. 

3.6. Naturalization Phase II 

Approximately half of eligible workers took advantage of the opportunity established by 

Naturalization Phase II to contact USCIS instead of SSA to resolve erroneous TNCs. Since USCIS is 

much less likely than SSA to require an in-person visit, this should reduce the time workers need to spend 

to resolve TNCs in the short run and should slightly decrease the Federal costs of resolving TNCs, since 

USCIS per-case costs are lower than those of SSA. However, it may not be a time-saver in the long run, 

since contesting a TNC with USCIS does not currently allow SSA records to be updated unless the 

worker directly contacts SSA, thus potentially resulting in recurring TNCs in the future as these workers 

change jobs and work for other employers participating in E-Verify unless SSA and USCIS can develop 

automated procedures to address this problem. 

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER IMPROVING E-VERIFY 

4.1. Introduction 

This section discusses the primary recommendations of the evaluation. They are grouped into the 

following four categories: 

• Increasing the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment; 

• Decreasing violations of worker rights and discrimination against foreign-born workers with 

employment authorization; 

• Improving operating efficiency and user friendliness; and 

• Conducting additional research. 

4.2. Increasing the Effectiveness of E-Verify in Reducing Unauthorized Employment 

• USCIS should test a pilot program requiring employers to submit cases prior to allowing 

workers to start work. There are significant potential advantages and problems that may accrue 

under such a policy change; therefore, it is essential that the test be monitored and evaluated 

prior to deciding whether to modify E-Verify. 

• The Photo Screening Tool should be discontinued until it can be expanded to contain both 

significantly more identification documents and documents that are not already highly tamperproof and counterfeit resistant. 

xl Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


• There should be exploration of the use of biometrics to prevent identity fraud, and serious 

consideration should be given to testing and evaluating a pilot program using fingerprints or 

other biometric checks. 

• Use of sophisticated algorithms to identify cases where fraud is likely to be involved (such as 

where an SSN has been used a large number of times in a pattern suggesting fraud) and using 

an expedited TNC-contesting process with these cases should be developed and tested. A pilot 

program should be conducted to determine the implications of requiring workers identified as 

likely to be perpetrating fraud to undergo an expedited TNC-contesting process, preferably at 

the same time as the pilot to test verification prior to work. 

• Implementation of a strong monitoring and compliance program and enforcement procedures 

to prevent flagrant violations of E-Verify procedures is vital, given the amount of employer 

noncompliance. 

• Outreach to make nonparticipating employers aware of the Program, its benefits, and its 

requirements should be continued as an essential part of E-Verify expansion; however, care 

should be taken to not expand the Program so rapidly as to create problems with USCIS and 

SSA implementation and monitoring of the Program. 

4.3. Decreasing Violations of Worker Rights and Discrimination Against Foreign-Born Workers 

With Employment Authorization 

• There should be additional outreach activities to encourage naturalized citizens, workers with 

derivative citizenship, and lawful permanent residents to update their SSA records. 

• Continuing efforts are needed to ensure that the E-Verify Program has access to all DHS 

electronic databases that provide information needed to determine the work-authorization 

status of noncitizens, naturalized citizens, and workers with derivative citizenship status and to 

ensure that these databases are up to date. 

• USCIS should ensure that SSNs are collected and entered into its electronic systems during 

future contacts with noncitizens, including those naturalizing and their children obtaining 

derivative citizenship. 

• USCIS should ensure that information about the current work-authorization status of 

noncitizens with temporary humanitarian statuses20

 is up to date and included in USCIS 

databases. 

• SSA and USCIS should use algorithms that are as similar as possible in matching Form I-9 

information with their databases. 

4.4. Improving Operating Efficiency and User-Friendliness 

• USCIS should consider making a number of additional changes to the tutorial and/or online 

resources to further improve their effectiveness. These include steps to make the system more 

user-friendly and providing supplemental examples of complicated cases. 

20Humanitarian statuses permit certain individuals to reside and work in the United States temporarily. Blanket extensions of Temporary 

Protected Status based on specific country of origin, for instance, are frequently announced through a Federal Register notice. In many cases, 

individual employment authorization documents and system records are not updated to reflect the extension of legal stay and employment in 

these cases. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xli 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

• The tutorial should be changed to consist of specific modules to permit staff responsible for 

implementing aspects of E-Verify other than data entry (e.g., informing workers of TNCs) to 

have the training they need and to permit data input staff with strong computer skills to skip 

basic computer-user training. 

• Employer staff that use E-Verify should be retested periodically and, if needed, complete 

refresher training. 

• Employer staff that use E-Verify should be made more aware of options to obtain help from the 

technical help desk and USCIS’s customer service representatives and to ensure that 

information providers are well trained. 

• A mechanism allowing workers to confirm that their SSA and/or USCIS records are correct 

and up to date should be established. 

• Any expansion of mandatory requirements for using E-Verify should be phased in over time. 

• Caution should be exercised in considering, creating, or requiring an alternative electronic 

verification program to the current E-Verify Program. If an alternative system is seriously 

considered for implementation, it should be tested and evaluated as thoroughly as the current 

E-Verify system has been before considering widespread use. 

• The current system and any major revisions should be subject to additional formal usability 

testing. Redesigns should take into account the needs of external users for accurate and 

complete database documentation, including explicit information about new changes since the 

last version of the user’s manual. 

• Recent efforts to implement automated cleaning of the Transaction Database by the contractor 

responsible for operating E-Verify should be continued to produce reports that are consistent 

with evaluation reports and that are more accurate for certain types of analysis. 

• Consideration should be given to reducing the worker burden associated with the requirement 

for in-person contact with SSA to resolve TNCs. 

• Small employers, especially if their number continues to grow, are likely to need help in 

identifying reputable Designated Agents that can act on their behalf. USCIS should, therefore, 

decide whether Designated Agents should be certified and, if so, how to ensure that they and 

the entities for which they conduct verifications properly follow E-Verify procedures. 

• SSA and USCIS should complete ongoing efforts to review and revise all worker materials to 

make them more suitable for use with workers having limited English skills. 

• Several employers recommended that the requirement to enter employees’ information into the 

E-Verify system within three workdays be lengthened to accommodate periods of heavy hiring 

and business processes such as mailing Form I-9s to a headquarters office that cannot easily be 

completed within three days. 

4.5. Conducting Additional Research 

• Major procedural changes should be subject to independent evaluation based on existing data 

and/or a pilot program prior to full implementation. 

xlii Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

• Periodic general evaluations of E-Verify activities should be continued as long as the Program 

continues to be significantly modified and expanded. 

• Additional analyses of transaction data should be conducted to determine whether employer 

characteristics explain or are confounding the conclusions in this evaluation and to examine the 

extent to which seasonal trends affect results. For example, it is possible that differences in the 

percentage of small employers between Arizona and other states explains why Arizona 

employers are more timely in submitting cases to E-Verify. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xliii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF INACCURACY RATES 

1. Introduction 

A model is a simplified representation of a process (e.g., models used to forecast weather) or an object 

(e.g., model airplanes). Models based on reasonable assumptions are regularly used in research and 

statistical analysis to estimate values that are otherwise unknowable. 

Within this report, model-based estimates are used in answering two of the most basic questions 

addressed in the evaluation: (1) how accurate is E-Verify and (2) how effective is E-Verify in identifying 

workers without employment authorization. Ideally, answers to these questions would be based on the 

true employment-authorization status of the workers for whom cases are submitted to E-Verify, so that 

their true status could be compared with the E-Verify finding. If this information were available, 

calculating inaccuracy rates would be straightforward; however, since the true work-authorization status 

of workers is not available, a work-authorization model was developed and used to obtain approximate 

answers to these key questions. Like all model-based estimates, these estimates are dependent upon the 

reasonableness of the assumptions underlying the model as well as the accuracy of the data used in 

constructing the model. In this case, assumptions are generally based on information collected from 

employers and workers as part of the evaluation and on the best available estimates of various aspects of 

the unauthorized work force as developed by other recognized researchers. 

Additional information about the model is contained in the Methodology chapter and Appendix B of the 

full report, Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation. 

2. Types of Inaccuracy Rates 

The following inaccuracy rates are estimated using the work-authorization model developed for this 

report: 

• The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is the percentage of workers with employment 

authorization who are not found by E-Verify to be employment authorized. The initial 

inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is the percentage of authorized workers who receive 

TNCs. The final inaccuracy rate is the percentage of employment-authorized workers who 

receive either FNCs or unauthorized findings. This can occur for a variety of reasons, including 

typographical errors by employers and Federal records that are not up to date or are inaccurate. 

• The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is the percentage of workers without 

employment authorization who are found to be employment authorized through E-Verify. 

Worker identity fraud is believed to be the major source of these inaccuracies. 

• The total inaccuracy rate is the percentage of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify who 

receive a finding that is not consistent with their true employment-authorization status. Note 

that this inaccuracy rate is not equal to the sum of the two inaccuracy rates above because the 

disproportionately much larger number of authorized workers in the labor force results in the 

total inaccuracy rate being much closer to the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. 

xliv Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Two other rates that are closely related to or calculated from the above inaccuracy rates are also used in 

the report: 

• The effectiveness rate is the percentage of workers without employment authorization who are 

correctly not found to be employment authorized. This rate is equal to 1.00 minus the E-Verify 

inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. 

• The erroneous Tentative Nonconfirmation rate is the percentage of workers who are ever 

found to be work authorized by E-Verify who first receive a TNC. This rate can be directly 

calculated from available data, but it is an underestimate of the inaccuracy rate for authorized 

workers since it does not include an estimate of the number of employment-authorized workers 

who receive a TNC but do not contest it either because they were not informed of the TNC or 

were informed but chose not to contest. 

3. Assumptions Used in the Model 

3.1. Assumptions Affecting All Estimated Inaccuracy Rates 

The following assumptions are relevant for estimating the inaccuracy rates for authorized workers, 

unauthorized workers, and the total inaccuracy rate: 

• When a TNC finding is issued, employer and worker behaviors may differ depending upon the 

worker’s true employment-authorization status, but those behaviors do not depend on the 

reason for the TNC. For example, it is assumed that employers are no more or less likely to 

have informed workers of TNCs caused by invalid SSNs than they are to inform them of TNCs 

based on a name not matching the SSA database. 

• The final work authorization findings for workers who contest TNCs are correct. 

3.2. Additional Assumptions Used to Estimate the Number of Authorized Workers Who Initially 

Received TNCs 

The following assumptions are relevant for estimating the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers: 

• Sixty to 80 percent of authorized workers are informed by their employer of a TNC. (In other 

words, 20 to 40 percent are not informed of the TNC and receive FNCs.) 

The range selected is based on information gathered during the evaluation: 

– On the employer Web survey, 98 percent of employers reported that they always 

informed their employees of TNCs. 

– Among the 100 onsite study employers that discussed their employee notification 

processes, 96 said that they always notify employees of TNCs. 

– However, there is good reason to believe that employers underreport noncompliance with 

E-Verify notification procedures. Among the 82 employers with two or more workers 

receiving TNCs, 37 had one or more employees who reported that they did not receive an 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xlv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

explanation. This may be an overestimate of noncompliance because workers may not 

recall having the notice explained. 

– Among the 108 onsite study employers for which the evaluation team reviewed 

employment verification files of workers receiving TNCs, over half were missing copies 

of TNC notices for a majority of the workers for whom cases had been submitted to 

E-Verify. In some of these cases, it is likely that the employer provided the worker with 

the notice but did not correctly file it, as specified in E-Verify procedures. 

Based on the totality of the above information, the evaluation assumes that the actual percentage is 

between 60 percent and 80 percent, with 70 percent being a reasonable point estimate. 

• Eighty-eight to 95 percent of work-authorized employees who were told about their TNCs 

chose to contest them and 5 to 12 percent did not contest them (e.g., employment-authorized 

workers might not contest because they have decided to leave the job for reasons either related 

or unrelated to the TNC finding) and became FNCs. These estimates were based on 

information from onsite worker interviews that found that the ratio of employment-authorized 

workers who received FNCs because they did not contest after being informed of their TNCs to 

the number of employment-authorized workers who received FNCs because they were not 

informed of their TNCs was approximately 0.18. 

3.3. Additional Assumption Used to Estimate the Number of Unauthorized Workers Who Were 

Found to be Employment Authorized 

The following assumption is relevant for estimating the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers: 

• The model estimates that the total percentage of cases for unauthorized workers that are 

submitted to E-Verify is between 4.7 and 7.5 percent. 

This range was based on the following information: 

• The Pew Hispanic Center estimate of workers in the national labor force who were not work 

authorized in 2008 is 5.4 percent. 

• Standardizing E-Verify transaction data to compensate for the state and industry differences 

between the national labor force and the Transaction Database cases provides an estimate that 

6.7 percent of E-Verify cases are for unauthorized workers. 

• The 6.7 percent rate is further adjusted to take into account the fact that unauthorized workers 

tend to be more mobile than other workers due to a number of factors, including their lower 

educational attainment and disproportional employment in occupations with high turnover rates 

and in seasonal employment. According to Pew, the geographic mobility rate for immigrants 

between 2007 and 2008 was 18 percent for unauthorized immigrants compared to 11 percent 

for U.S.-born residents, meaning that unauthorized immigrants are 60 percent more mobile 

than U.S.-born workers. Assuming a correlation of geographic and job mobility, the estimated 

percentage of unauthorized workers among new hires would be 10.7 percent. 

• The 10.7 percent rate is adjusted to account for employment in the informal labor market (in 

which employees are paid “off the books”) since employers in the informal labor market would 

be unlikely to use E-Verify. The Immigration Policy Center estimates that between 25 percent 

and 50 percent of unauthorized workers are in the informal labor market. With this adjustment, 

xlvi Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

it is estimated that between 5.4 and 8.0 percent of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify 

were unauthorized. 

• The Pew estimate of unauthorized workers in the labor force is most likely an underestimate, 

according to the Director of the Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. 

• Based on the above information, a point estimate of 6.2 percent and a range of 4.7 to 

7.5 percent were used as the plausible range. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation xlvii 

PART 1. INTRODUCTION 

The goal of Part 1 is to provide information that the reader needs to fully understand the findings of the 

report. It includes three chapters. 

• Chapter I provides background information on how E-Verify operates and explains the report 

organization. 

• Chapter II describes the research methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data for the 

evaluation. 

• Chapter III provides contextual information that facilitates understanding the evaluation 

findings, including system outcomes, recent programmatic and legislative changes that are 

likely to have had an impact on the the Program, and the characteristics of employers using the 

the Program and the workers for whom they submit cases. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 1 
2 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
This report includes information collected through Web and onsite surveys of employers that have signed 

up for E-Verify, in-person surveys of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify, a stakeholder conference, 

21 For additional information about the history of electronic verification, see Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation (September 2007) at 

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf. 

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted in September 1996, 

authorized the creation of three small-scale pilot programs to test the feasibility and desirability of 

electronically verifying the work-authorization status of newly hired employees. Two of these pilot 

programs have been terminated; however, the third pilot program, referred to originally as the Basic Pilot, 

was expanded in scope and extended until November 2008 by the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2001 

(Pub. Law 107-128) and the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 (Pub. 108-156) 

and further extended until September 2009 based on fiscal year (FY) 2009 appropriations language. In 

June 2004, a Web version of the Basic Pilot Program (initially called the Web Basic Pilot and later, the 

E-Verify Program) was implemented, incorporating many improvements growing out of experiences with 

the original Basic Pilot Program and evaluations of all the pilot programs.

21 

This report presents the results of data analyses conducted for the evaluation of the E-Verify Program. It 

presents information on how well the Program has been implemented and its success in meeting the 

program goals, focusing on the time period between September 2007 and June 2008. It also analyzes the 

impact of legislative and programmatic changes since the implementation of the E-Verify Program and 

makes recommendations for future program enhancements. The report’s primary goals are to: 

• Determine whether E-Verify has been implemented as intended; 

• Determine whether E-Verify is successfully meeting its goals of 

– Reducing the employment of unauthorized workers, 

– Reducing (or at least not increasing) discrimination, 

– Protecting worker civil liberties and privacy, and 

– Preventing undue burden on employers; 

• Determine the extent to which the Program is operating efficiently; 

• Determine the impact of recent legislative and program changes; and 

• Provide the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) with recommendations for future program changes. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 3 
I BACKGROUND


and interviews of Federal employees and contractors. It is also based on record reviews of worker 

verification files, transaction data collected in conjunction with operating the Program, and Federal data 

about the nation’s employers and workforce. 

Section 2 of this chapter describes the primary features of E-Verify at the time this report was prepared, 

and Section 3 describes the organization of the remainder of the report. 

2. THE DESIGN OF E-VERIFY 

2.1. Introduction 

This section discusses the E-Verify Program that existed as of June 30, 2008. This end point reflects the 

last date for which data were available in time for analysis for this evaluation. For the sake of simplicity, 

the process described is for “regular employers” that constitute approximately 90 percent of E-Verify 

users. Modifications of the program procedures for special types of employers, such as Designated 

Agents, are discussed in Chapter IX. 

2.2. Registering for E-Verify 

The first step toward using the E-Verify system is to register online to use the Program. During this 

registration process, the employer prints out a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (see 

Appendix D) agreeing to adhere to E-Verify program requirements. 

As of June 2008, the registrant needed to choose one or more of the following access methods: 

• Employer. This is the basic access method, used by companies to electronically verify the 

employment eligibility of their newly hired employees and perhaps employees of other 

branches of the same firm. 

• Corporate Administrator. This access method permits users to view reports and administer 

new and existing E-Verify accounts within the registering company. It is designed for use by 

someone in a headquarters office to monitor the E-Verify activity of company users when 

multiple establishments are inputting information into E-Verify. 

• Designated Agent. This method allows a service provider to act on behalf of client companies 

to verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees using E-Verify. It allows 

the service provider to individually track its clients’ reporting, billing, and compliance needs as 

well as to verify its own new hires’ employment eligibility using E-Verify. 

• Web Services. This method allows a company to extract information from its existing Human 

Resources or payroll system or an electronic Form I-9 and transmit that data to SSA and 

USCIS to verify employment authorization using E-Verify. This access method requires the 

company to develop or purchase software to interface between its system and E-Verify. The 

compatibility of the software the Web Services user wishes to use must be reviewed by the 

USCIS contractor responsible for system operations prior to use to ensure it is compatible with 

the E-Verify Program interface. 

4 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
BACKGROUND
 I 

Once the employer has signed and submitted the MOU electronically, the program administrator

22

 must 

complete an online tutorial and pass a Mastery Test before being granted access to the verification system 

or being able to register additional users. Other E-Verify users must also complete the tutorial and pass 

the Mastery Test before their user names and passwords will be issued to grant them access to the system. 

The tutorial covers both how to use the online verification system and the employer’s responsibilities 

under the Program, including the proper ways of handling the various verification outcomes and the need 

to post a notice of the employer’s participation in E-Verify where job applicants can see it. 

The Mastery Test consists of 31 multiple-choice and true/false questions about the requirements and 

correct procedures for using E-Verify. Users must answer 22 questions correctly (71 percent) to pass the 

test. Once the Mastery Test has been successfully completed, the employer is granted access to the 

verification system. 

2.3. The Form I-9 Verification Process 

The starting point for verifying cases under E-Verify is the existing Form I-9 process used by all 

employers, including those not enrolled in E-Verify. When workers are hired, they are required to 

complete Part 1 of the Form I-9 and provide the employer with documentation of their identity and workauthorization status. Depending on the worker’s citizenship or immigration status, a wide variety of 

documents are acceptable for these purposes (see Appendix E).23

 In Section 1 of the Form I-9, the worker 

records personal information, attests to citizenship status, and signs the form. 

The employer completes Section 2 of the form, recording the type of documents presented as proof of 

identity and work authorization, the document number(s), and any expiration dates on immigration 

documents. After reviewing the documents presented by the worker, the employer records the date of 

hire. The employer also signs the Form I-9 to certify having examined the documents presented by the 

worker and having found them to appear valid and to belong to the person presenting them. Under the 

Form I-9 process, the verification responsibility rests solely with the employer. Depending on the 

employer’s familiarity with various immigration and other documents and skills in the detection of 

fraudulent identity and employment eligibility documents, a worker without employment authorization 

may or may not be denied employment under this system; similarly, an employer unfamiliar with a 

particular document may erroneously assume that the worker presenting the unfamiliar document is not 

employment authorized.24 

2.4. The E-Verify Verification Process 

The automated verification process in E-Verify begins with employers inputting the Form I-9 information 

into the E-Verify computer system within three days of hire.25

 The Form I-9 data entered include the 

worker’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number (SSN); attested citizenship status; Alien or 

22The program administrator is the person who has responsibility for handling passwords and other administrative tasks related to E-Verify for the 

employer. This may or may not be the “corporate administrator” listed above. 

23 This is the version in use at the time of data collection. At that time, USCIS was planning on publishing regulations and a revised Form I-9, 

allowing a smaller number of documents. 

24 The employer is prohibited from asking the worker for additional documentation than provided, assuming that the worker has provided 

documentation consistent with the Form I-9 process and the documentation appears to be valid and belong to the worker. 

25 The description here assumes manual data input, which is, by far, the most common input process; however, there are also options available for 

electronic abstractions from electronic Form I-9s or employer databases. It also assumes that employers follow E-Verify procedures, which, as 

discussed in Chapter V, is not always the case. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 5 
I BACKGROUND


Nonimmigrant Admission Number (for noncitizens); the type of document(s) presented with the Form I-9 

and certain document numbers; and any document expiration dates for immigration documents. If an 

immigration document with a photograph is used by the worker for verification purposes, the employer is 

also required to photocopy it. 

Employers participating in the Program submit the Form I-9 information electronically through the 

E-Verify system over the Internet. Immediately after the employer submits the information, the SSA 

database is checked automatically against the employer-input information. If the person attests to being a 

U.S. citizen on the Form I-9 and his/her SSN, name, and date of birth match SSA’s records and the SSA 

database indicates that the person is a U.S. citizen or is a noncitizen with permanent work authorization, 

the employer is immediately notified electronically through the E-Verify system that the worker is 

authorized to work. In this situation, no further effort on the part of workers, employers, or Federal staff is 

required other than the requirement that employers close these cases and retain the required verification 

information with their Form I-9 files. 

If the SSA database does not match the worker information other than work-authorization status input by 

the employer, the system immediately asks the employer to recheck the data input. If the employer does 

not submit changed information or if the changed information still is not consistent with the SSA 

database, an SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) is issued and the worker must visit an SSA field 

office to straighten out the discrepancy. 

If the SSA database information matches the information submitted by the employer except that a worker 

identified as a citizen on the Form I-9 is shown on the SSA database as a noncitizen without permanent 

authorization to work, the submitted information is checked against USCIS databases of naturalized 

citizens.26

 If neither SSA nor USCIS database checks can confirm U.S. citizenship, E-Verify issues a 

TNC finding and the worker must go to an SSA field office to provide documentary proof of his or her 

citizenship status or call an Immigration Status Verifier (ISV)27

 at USCIS to try to resolve the case. 

If the SSA database information matches the worker information and the worker attested to being a 

noncitizen on the Form I-9, the information is electronically checked against the USCIS Verification 

Information System (VIS) database that contains information from several Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) databases. If the USCIS information indicates that a noncitizen is work authorized and 

the worker has used a Permanent Resident (“green”) card or an Employment Authorization Document 

(EAD) as proof of identity, the automated response includes the digitally stored photograph (if available) 

that was used to produce the card the worker presented in the verification process. The employer then 

determines whether the photo provided in the E-Verify response matches the photo on the document 

presented. If the employer confirms that the photo returned in the E-Verify response matches the photo on 

the document (or if no photo is available on E-Verify), the system provides an instantaneous response that 

the worker is “employment authorized.” Employers are then required to record the verification number 

and result on the Form I-9 or print a copy of the transaction record and retain it with the Form I-9 and the 

photocopy of the document used, if required. 

If the DHS database records do not match the information that the employer input, the E-Verify system 

instantly requests the employer to confirm that the case was properly input. If the employer does not 

26As of 2009, E-Verify also checks Department of State (DOS) U.S. passport data to confirm the individual’s citizenship if the individual submits 

a U.S. passport and SSA cannot confirm citizenship. 

27 Immigration Status Verifiers are now referred to as Management Program Assistants. 

6 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
BACKGROUND
 I 

submit changed information or if the changed information still does not allow USCIS to confirm work 

authorization, E-Verify indicates to the employer that the “Verification is in process” and the case is 

automatically sent for review by an ISV. The ISV searches other DHS information to determine whether 

work-authorization status can be confirmed using this additional information—a process that typically 

takes a day or less from receipt of the electronic information to a decision on whether USCIS can confirm 

work-authorization status without requiring worker action. If the ISV does not have sufficient information 

to confirm work-authorization status, a TNC is issued and the worker must contact USCIS to provide 

additional information. 

When the SSA or USCIS records either do not match the data input by the employer or are not sufficient 

to verify that the worker is employment authorized, the E-Verify system issues a TNC finding. In cases 

where the employer finds that the photo on the immigration document presented by the new employee 

does not match the photo provided in the E-Verify response, the E-Verify system issues a TNC finding 

and the employer express mails a copy of the worker’s document and case information to USCIS for 

further review. When a TNC is issued, employers are required to provide the affected worker with a 

system-generated written notification of the finding and give the worker the opportunity to contest it. 

Workers are required to indicate on the written notification whether or not they wish to contest TNC 

findings and sign the notification letter. Employers are supposed to retain a copy of the signed notice in 

the file. 

When workers say they wish to contest TNCs, employers are instructed to (1) provide them with a written 

referral with case-specific information to SSA or USCIS, as appropriate, to correct the discrepancy; 

(2) record the referral date in E-Verify by selecting the “referral button”; and (3) if the reason for the TNC 

was a Photo Mismatch, send a copy of the worker’s immigration document to DHS. The E-Verify system 

provides a referral form that explains the worker’s rights and responsibilities during the contesting period. 

Workers then have eight Federal working days to contact SSA or USCIS to attempt to resolve the 

discrepancy. If an SSA TNC is issued, workers other than certain naturalized citizens must go to an SSA 

field office. If a USCIS TNC is issued, the worker may contact USCIS by telephone or in person and, if 

requested to do so, fax copies of documents to USCIS.28

 As of May 2008, naturalized citizens who have 

received an SSA TNC because SSA did not confirm their citizenship status may follow the procedures to 

either visit an SSA field office or call USCIS to resolve the TNC. 

While the TNC is being contested, employers may not take adverse actions against workers based on the 

issuance of the TNC. Prohibited adverse actions include not hiring the worker, firing the worker, not 

allowing the worker to work until the TNC is resolved, delaying training, assigning different work, or 

reducing pay while contesting. 

If workers indicate they do not wish to contest TNC findings, their cases are classified as Final 

Nonconfirmations (FNCs). If they indicate they want to contest but do not follow through by contacting 

SSA or USCIS to correct the discrepancy in their records, their cases are considered “no shows” after 10 

Federal working days and FNCs are issued. 

If the worker contacts SSA or USCIS within eight Federal working days but the Federal government 

cannot resolve the case within 10 Federal working days, SSA or USCIS places the case “in continuance” 

28 Although workers are given eight Federal working days to resolve TNCs, in accordance with the IIRIRA legislation, workers who contact 

USCIS on the ninth or 10th day after referral may be able to resolve their cases. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 7 
Employer enters new Information is compared with 

employee Form I-9 data. SSA database Authorized 

Tentative Nonconfirmation 

issued 

Citizenship status 

verified? Matched Yes 

Pre-TNC Check 

Matched Not matched 

Naturalization Phase I 

No Citizenship status verified 

Citizenship status not verified 

Cannot verify both 

identification and permanent 

work-authorization data 

Not matched 

Employee resolved TNC with SSA 

or USCIS (under Naturalization 

Phase II)? 

Final Nonconfirmation by SSA 

Authorized 

No 

Citizenship status verified? No 

Yes 

Yes 

I BACKGROUND


until it can be resolved. This may happen, for example, when SSA needs to see an original birth 

certificate to confirm citizenship but the worker needs to request a copy by mail from the issuing source. 

When the system issues FNCs, employers then must terminate these workers’ employment to comply 

with the law. If employers do not terminate employment of workers who cannot be verified as work 

authorized, they are required by law to notify USCIS that they are continuing to employ the worker. 

The major steps of the E-Verify verification process are illustrated in Exhibits I-1 and I-2.29 

Exhibit I-1. Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being U.S. Citizens on Form I-9 

NOTE: This is the process that was in effect on June 30, 2008. 

29 The process described assumes that employers follow the E-Verify procedures. 

8 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
SSA Tentative 

Employer enters new 

employee Form I-9 data 

Information is compared 

with SSA database 

Nonconfirmation issued 

Final 

Nonconfirmation by 

SSA 

SSA refers to 

USCIS 

Employee resolved TNC 

with SSA? 

Authorized 

USCIS status verifier checks 

other DHS databases Authorized 

Matched 

No 

Not matched 

Matched 

Pre-TNC check 

Matched 

Not matched Not matched 

Work 

authorization 

verified? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Information is compared with USCIS 

database 

Pre-TNC check 

Not matched 

Not matched 

Matched and 

verified 

Matched and 

verified 

Eligible for Photo 

Screening Tool? 

Photo matched? 

Yes Photo 

matched 

No 

Photo not matched 

Matched, but 

not verified 

USCIS Tentative 

Nonconfirmation issued

Work authorization Employee resolved Yes verified? TNC with USCIS? 

No 

Final Nonconfirmation by

USCIS

Authorized 

Unauthorized 

Yes 

No 

Contested 

Not contested 

NOTE: This is the process that was in effect on June 30, 2008. 

Exhibit I-2. Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being Noncitizens on Form I-9 

BACKGROUND I 

3. REPORT ORGANIZATION 

This report is divided into four major parts: 

Part 1, which provides introductory information about E-Verify and the evaluation, consists of the 

following chapters: 

I. Background describes the E-Verify program and the report organization. 

II. Research methods describes the quantitative and qualitative research methods used in this 

report and discusses some of the limitations of the available data used. 

III. Putting changes in context provides information about system outcomes, characteristics of 

E-Verify participants, and E-Verify program and legislative changes to provide a context for 

interpreting the evaluation findings in the remaining chapters. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 9 
I BACKGROUND


Part 2, which discusses measurements of the extent of E-Verify’s success, including examinations of the 

trends when appropriate, consists of the following chapters: 

IV. Usage focuses on questions related to employer usage of the Program. 

V. Timeliness discusses the extent to which E-Verify provides timely results to employers, the 

extent to which employers act in a timely manner when performing E-Verify-related tasks, 

and how quickly workers contesting their cases contact USCIS or SSA. 

VI. Accuracy examines the accuracy of E-Verify findings for work-authorized and unauthorized 

persons. 

VII. Effectiveness in reducing unauthorized employment examines the extent to which 

E-Verify has been meeting its primary goal of reducing unauthorized employment. 

VIII. Employer compliance examines how well employers have generally complied with 

E-Verify program requirements and the related question of the extent to which any lack of 

compliance can be explained by employers’ not understanding the Program’s requirements. 

Part 3, which provides E-Verify information from the perspective of major stakeholders, consists of three 

chapters: 

IX. E-Verify from the perspective of employers. 

X. E-Verify from the perspective of workers. 

XI. E-Verify from the perspective of the Federal government. 

Part 4 contains two concluding chapters: 

XII. Conclusions presents the primary conclusions of the evaluation. 

XIII. Recommendations makes suggestions for future program modifications. 

The organization of the chapters in Parts 2 and 3 has been standardized to the extent feasible as follows: 

• Background information related to the topic; and 

• Findings, broken down further by: 

– General findings, which provide information about the topic, including observed trends 

on relevant variables. 

10 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
BACKGROUND
 I 

– Impact of legislative and program changes on findings, which examines whether 

legislative and programmatic changes appear to have contributed to the observed 

findings. 

A glossary and two appendices are included at the end of this report. These appendices present technical 

information on some of the methodology used in the report. Supplemental tables, data collection 

instruments used in the evaluation, and copies of the primary E-Verify notices and forms are included in 

separate documents. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 11 
12 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CHAPTER II. RESEARCH METHODS 

1. BACKGROUND 

The evaluation team for E-Verify adopted a multimodal approach to data collection. Sources included the 

following: 

• Discussions with a broad array of stakeholders at a meeting in November 2007; 

• Five focus groups of employers; 

• Web surveys of employers that had enrolled in the E-Verify Program; 

• Onsite interviews and observation of employers; 

• Interviews of workers who received E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs); 

• Reviews of worker verification records; 

• E-Verify transaction and employer databases; 

• Other Federal data sources; 

• Meetings with Federal officials and their contractors; and 

• System testing. 

Standard research and quality control procedures were used in this study to assure the quality of the data. 

These procedures included training of data collection and data processing staff and data cleaning based on 

consistency and range checks. 

Given the complex nature of an evaluation design that uses multiple data sources, it is important to 

understand the relationships among the data sources, their uses, and the data collection instruments. 

Section 2 describes the different approaches used for the E-Verify evaluation and Section 3 discusses the 

analytic techniques. 

2. SURVEY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION 

2.1. Stakeholders Meeting 

The evaluation team conducted a stakeholders meeting on November 27, 2007, which was attended by 

more than 130 people representing the Federal government, employers, and workers. Attendees were 

solicited through a Federal Register notice as well as through invitations sent to persons and groups 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 13 
II RESEARCH METHODS


known to have an interest in the E-Verify Program. The primary goal of the meeting was to obtain input 

from diverse stakeholders to help shape the data collection instruments and this report. 

2.2. Web Surveys of Employers 

As part of the evaluation, Web surveys of employers were conducted with both “active” employers, 

i.e., employers that were using E-Verify according to recent records, and “inactive” employers that had 

enrolled to use E-Verify but, based on Transaction Database data, were not currently using it. This section 

describes the methodology related to these surveys. 

2.2.1. Sample Selection and Recruitment 

The Web survey was stratified by three main types of employers: active employers, inactive employers, 

and terminated employers. Active employers are those that had at least one query in the three months 

ending in November 2007 transmitted by the employer or by its Designated Agent on behalf of the 

employer and the employer had not formally terminated use of the system as of November 2007. These 

criteria were used to ensure that employers had sufficient experience with the system to provide wellinformed opinions about it. Employers registered only as Web Services providers were not included 

among the employers on the sample frame and were therefore not selected.30 

The active employers were further divided into three subcategories: Designated Agents, Users of 

Designated Agents, and other active employers. Consequently, five strata were defined as follows: 

• Designated Agents—active Designated Agents; 

• Users of Designated Agents—active Users of Designated Agents that are not Designated 

Agents themselves; 

• Other active employers—active employers other than Designated Agents and Users of 

Designated Agents; 

• Terminated employers—employers that had formally terminated use of the system between 

September and November 2007; and 

• Other inactive employers—employers that had not formally terminated use of the system, had 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between June and August 2007, and had not 

had any transactions in the three months ending in November 2007. 

Employers in the primary sampling units (PSUs) selected for the onsite survey were excluded from the 

Web survey. Since the PSUs for the onsite survey sample were selected using a probability sampling 

method that resulted in a random sample, the remaining PSUs also constitute a random sample. Therefore, 

this exclusion does not interfere with the representativeness of the Web survey and was designed to 

prevent employers from having to participate in both data collection efforts. 

30 This was an unintentional omission on the part of the evaluation team. A total of 189 Web Services providers were excluded from the sample 

frame provided to the evaluation. These employers constituted 1.5 percent of the active employers for the three months ending in November 

2007. 

14 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

Strata with few employers (active Designated Agents, active Users of Designated Agents, and terminated 

employers) were sampled 100 percent so that relatively efficient statistical inferences could be made 

about these types of employers. 

Within the other two strata (other active and other inactive), probability proportional to size (PPS) 

sampling was used, where the square root of the number of transactions was the measure of size for active 

employers and the cube root of the number of workers was the measure of size for inactive employers. 

This sampling methodology was designed as a compromise between the need for efficiency in estimates 

of the percentage of employers with specified characteristics and the percentage of workers of employers 

having specified characteristics, since both of these types of estimates are used frequently in the 

evaluation. 

A total 3,203 employers were selected.31

 Of these selected employers, 351 were found to be out of scope 

because they were no longer in business or because they were duplicate listings of an establishment. An 

additional 532 employers did not complete the survey, while 2,320 completed it. Thus, the overall 

unweighted survey response rate was 81 percent. The weighted response rate was 84 percent. Exhibit II-1 

shows the number of eligible employers on the sample frame, the sample size, the number of respondents, 

and response rate for each stratum. 

Exhibit II-1. Web Survey Sample Size and Response Rate, by Stratum 

Number of 

eligible 

Stratum employers on Number of Number of Unweighted Weighted 

the sample employers completed response response 

frame selected1 surveys rate2 rate 

Designated Agents 269 269 195 75% 75% 

Users of Designated Agents 301 301 104 68 68 

Other active employers 9,117 2,100 1,681 84 86 

Terminated employers 130 130 41 84 84 

Other inactive employers 2,668 403 299 79 78 

Total 12,485 3,203 2,320 81 84 

1 The number of selected employers includes employers who were found to be ineligible during data collection. 

2 The response rates were calculated after excluding ineligibles, so the unweighted response rate does not match the values of 

(number of completed surveys/number of employers selected). 

2.2.2. Instrument Design and Development 

2.2.2.1. Selection of Questions for the Survey 

Many of the questions asked in the Web survey were adapted directly from the Web survey conducted for 

the 2006–07 evaluation. The following modifications were made to the previous survey instrument: 

• Questions found not to be useful in the previous evaluation were deleted or modified. 

31This includes 21 duplicate employers that were removed from the sample after initial selection. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 15 
II RESEARCH METHODS 

• Questions arising from the 2007 stakeholders meeting and early discussions with Federal staff 

were added. 

• Questions about recent changes made to E-Verify, such as the Photo Screening Tool, were 

added. 

• Questions designed to obtain additional insights into the special needs of inactive employers, 

Designated Agents, Users of Designated Agents, and staffing and temporary help agencies 

were added. These questions reflected information obtained during a series of employer focus 

groups. 

2.2.2.2. Pretesting of the Draft Survey 

The initial drafts of the different versions of the Web survey were pretested with small groups of 

employers to verify that the questions were clear and that the survey did not take an excessive amount of 

time to complete. The research team conducted online focus groups using WebEx, a Web hosting service 

for integrated teleconferencing. The survey was then modified based on input from the focus groups. 

2.2.2.3. Creation and Testing of the Web Survey 

Programming staff created an online version of the Web survey that contained different modules for the 

populations of interest. The process used to develop the Web application was an iterative one. Research 

staff provided specifications for the survey. After programmers had created and tested the draft 

instrument, research staff tested the survey and requested changes to its appearance and functionality. 

Programmers made and tested the requested changes, which were tested again by research staff. This 

process continued until both programming and research staff approved the survey for use. 

The following is a list of the features of the online survey: 

• It made use of logins, passwords, and a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) to ensure limited access 

and data security. 

• Programmable conditional and skip logics were built in. Respondents were automatically 

navigated to the correct location in the survey based on information about them on the 

Transaction Database and on their responses to prior questions so that employers were not 

asked irrelevant questions. 

• Validations and edits were designed to alert respondents to missed questions or inconsistent 

responses. 

• Respondents were able to save and close the survey and then return to the next unanswered 

question at any time before the survey was completed. 

• Different response formats such as “select one” and “select all” were allowed. Questions were 

formatted with all the standard input controls (i.e., drop-down boxes, text areas, text boxes, 

radio buttons, and check boxes). 

16 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

• Respondents were able to navigate back through the survey and change prior responses without 

data loss. 

• When respondents completed the survey, they were offered the opportunity to print a copy of 

their responses. This printed copy also informed them which questions were part of a skip 

pattern, as well as which ones had not been answered. 

• A receipt control module was built into the system to provide the evaluation team with 

information on response rates and other survey statuses. 

A copy of the final version of the Web survey is contained in Appendix F. 

2.2.3. Staff Training 

The evaluation team provided thorough training to the telephone and data entry staff that worked on the 

employer survey. For the telephone staff (that obtained correct e-mail addresses, reminded respondents 

that their questionnaires had not been completed, answered respondent questions, and conducted refusal 

conversion), this training included an explanation of the purpose of the survey, review and explanation of 

calling duties, and role-playing scenarios. For data entry staff (that used the data management system), 

training consisted of an explanation of the purpose of the survey, review of result codes and edits, and 

practice inputting data into the management system. 

2.2.4. Data Collection 

The initial contact with employers was through an e-mail from Westat containing the information that the 

employer needed to access and complete the survey; it also requested the recipient to provide information 

on who should be contacted if the recipient was not the correct contact person. The e-mail included an 

attached letter from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director of Research and 

Evaluation on agency letterhead; the letter explained the survey, reminded participants of their 

responsibility to cooperate with the evaluation as stated in the MOU they had signed, informed them that 

Westat would be conducting the survey, and stressed that provided information would be kept 

confidential. 

When e-mails bounced back as undeliverable, an e-mail was sent to the alternative contact person if one 

was listed on the employer file provided by the USCIS contractor responsible for operating the E-Verify 

system. If there was no alternative contact person, or if the e-mail to the alternative contact person also 

proved to be undeliverable, the employer was called to ascertain the correct contact person and the initial 

e-mail was then sent to the appropriate person. 

If the survey had not been completed within approximately one week of the initial e-mail contact, Westat 

sent a reminder e-mail to the employer. Sample members who still had not responded approximately one 

week later were reminded by telephone. Approximately two weeks later, a FedEx letter was sent to the 

remaining nonrespondents. Toward the end of the data collection period, USCIS placed a notice on the 

E-Verify Web site stating that data collection was nearing completion and urging those employers that 

had been asked to participate to respond, if they had not already done so. A final e-mail reminder to 

complete the survey was sent approximately two weeks prior to the database closing. Attached to this email was a second letter from USCIS, stressing the importance of cooperation. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 17 
II RESEARCH METHODS


Data collection took place during a four-month period starting in March 2008. 

2.2.5. Weighting Procedures 

Weighting was used to permit drawing valid inferences from responses from persons included in the 

respondent sample to the populations from which they were drawn. Sample weighting was used to adjust 

for both differential sampling probabilities and for unit nonresponse. First, to adjust for differential 

sampling probabilities, base weights were computed as the reciprocal of a respondent’s probability of 

selection. These base weights accounted for the PPS selection described earlier. Next, because some 

nonresponse occurs even with the best data collection strategies in sample surveys, nonresponse 

weighting adjustments are almost always necessary to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias. The Web 

survey was not an exception, so nonresponse weighting adjustment was done using nonresponse 

weighting classes created within the original sampling strata. The Chi-squared Automatic Interaction 

Detector (CHAID) was used to identify variables most highly related to response propensity within the 

sampling strata. The variables from the sampling frame such as industry based on the first digit North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, indicator for being an employment service, 

indicator for being a User of a Designated Agent, census region, and size group based on number of 

workers were used for creating these cells. 

To see whether this nonresponse adjustment was done well or not, distributions of employer 

characteristics calculated using the weighted data of the respondent and ineligible employers were 

compared with the corresponding population distributions obtained from the sample frame.32

 Chi-square 

tests were performed to see if the differences between the weighted distributions and the frame 

distributions are statistically significant at the 5 percent significance level. Exhibit II-2 presents these 

comparisons. 

As shown in the exhibit, the weighted distributions by geographic location, industry, categorized group of 

the number of workers, and urbanicity are not significantly different from the corresponding frame 

distributions. Only the state legislative characteristic has a slightly significant difference, with a P-value 

less than 0.05. Thus, the nonresponse adjustment has effectively reduced the potential bias due to 

nonresponse. However, it should be noted that it is not possible to adjust or test for nonresponse bias on 

variables not on the sample frame; there may be nonresponse bias attributable to these variables. In 

particular, it is reasonable to believe that noncompliant employers are more likely to be nonrespondents 

than are compliant employers. 

2.2.6. Database Construction 

The initial database file from the employer Web survey was generated directly from the Web application. 

These data were cleaned and weighted prior to conducting the analyses. Employer-level variables from 

the Transaction Database, such as the number of verification queries and the number of TNCs, were then 

added to the file created by the Web application. Programmers also created an extract from this file 

containing only employers and variables for which comparable data existed on both the 2006 and 2008 

E-Verify surveys. A comparable extract was created from the 2006 Web survey database and the two files 

were merged to facilitate comparisons of the 2006 and 2008 E-Verify results. 

32 To make a fair comparison, ineligible units were included in the analysis because the frame also includes an unknown number of them. 

18 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
II RESEARCH METHODS 

Exhibit II-2. Comparison of the Weighted 2008 Web Survey Sample and Frame Distributions 

Weighted Web Web survey 

Variable survey sample sampling frame 

(percent) (percent) 

Geographic location 

California 8.7 9.7 

Texas 5.6 6.7 

Florida 3.9 5.2 

Arizona 6.5 6.5 

Northeast 14.8 14.5 

Northern/Western 14.0 13.7 

Midwest 17.9 16.2 

Southern 28.2 27.1 

U.S. territories 0.3 0.3 

Industry 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 1.7 1.8 

Mining, utilities, construction 11.9 11.4 

Manufacturing 14.2 14.6 

Wholesale/retail trade 8.3 6.8 

Technical/education/arts/entertainment 20.6 20.2 

Employment services 14.6 16.0 

Public administration/social services 5.1 5.8 

Accommodation/food services 11.8 12.0 

Other industries 11.8 11.4 

State legislative characteristic* 

Enacted legislation requiring all employers participate in E-Verify 6.8 7.1 

Enacted legislation requiring state offices and agencies and certain 

private employers to participate in E-Verify 30.2 27.6 

Pending legislation requiring every employer to register with and 

participate in E-Verify 7.8 7.3 

Pending legislation requiring state offices and agencies and certain 

private employers to register for and use E-Verify 16.6 19.2 

Pending legislation preventing businesses not registered with E-Verify 

from receiving state economic incentives 0.4 0.8 

No significant legislation enacted or required 30.1 30.2 

Not available 8.1 7.6 

Number of workers 

< 10 15.4 15.2 

10-19 7.1 7.8 

20-99 28.6 27.6 

100-499 32.4 31.4 

500-999 7.2 8.0 

> 1,000 9.3 10.1 

Urbanicity 

Metro area with 1 million or more population 56.6 58.7 

Other metro area 30.2 28.9 

Non-metro area 13.1 12.4 

*Difference in distributions is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 19 
II RESEARCH METHODS


2.2.7. Data Limitations 

Like all surveys, the employer survey is subject to both sampling errors and nonsampling errors. As 

discussed above, nonresponse bias may exist because employers that know they are not following 

procedures may be more likely than other employers to be nonrespondents. It is also subject to response 

bias, since it is relying upon employer representatives to provide information about their employers. Not 

only may these employers try to put themselves in a good light by providing information based on what 

they think they should be doing, but they may also not be aware of practices by others in their 

organization. 

2.3. Onsite Studies 

2.3.1. Overview 

The site visit component of the evaluation consisted of the following elements: 

• Interviews with establishment employees responsible for the E-Verify process; 

• Observation of the establishment’s verification process; 

• Examination of worker records related to the verification process; and 

• Interviews with workers, which were usually conducted at the worker’s home. 

2.3.2. Sample Selection and Recruitment 

2.3.2.1. Employer Sample 

A sample of employers was selected for the onsite study using a two-stage sample design in which the 

first stage was a sample of 50 PSUs formed on the basis of geographical location and the second stage 

was a sample of employers that use E-Verify within the selected PSUs. 

To be eligible for the survey, employers needed to meet the following criteria: 

• The total number of TNCs for the employer, based on the Transaction Database for the period 

September to November 2007, was greater than or equal to 1. 

• Employers were located in one of the 48 contiguous states or the District of Columbia 

(i.e., excluding Hawaii, Alaska, and outlying territories). 

PSUs were formed by clustering eligible employers in adjacent geographic areas and included at least 15 

but no more than 35 employers, with a few exceptions, to support selection of a random sample of four 

employers and their substitutes within each PSU, resulting in an initial sample size of 200. 

Both stages used PPS for selection. The measure of size for PSU selection is the total number of eligible 

employers in a PSU; the measure of size for employer selection is the square root of the total number of 

TNCs for an employer. 

20 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

Employers in the initial sample that had fewer than four employees who had received TNCs in the period 

November 2007 to January 2008 were deleted from the initial sample. Collecting information from these 

employers was not considered to be cost-effective, because a high number of them were likely not to have 

workers who would participate in the worker interviews.33

 The final sample size was 162 employers. 

The employers selected for participation in the onsite study were sent an initial e-mail requesting their 

participation, with an attached letter from USCIS endorsing the study and asking for their cooperation. 

Because of the complex nature of the onsite study, all follow-up recruitment was conducted by telephone, 

or occasionally, in person toward the end of data collection. 

For each of the 162 sample employers, two34

 additional employers similar to the selected employer in 

terms of the number of TNCs within the same PSU were selected to constitute substitute sample 

employers. When a sample employer selected for the study refused to cooperate or did not participate 

because it was no longer an E-Verify employer, the first substitute sample employer was replaced for the 

originally selected employer. If the first substitute employer also did not agree to participate in the study, 

a second substitute sample employer was used, when available. Occasionally, even the second substitute 

did not participate in the study, and a third substitute employer was selected and used when available. 

Of the 162 employers constituting the original sample, three were excluded because they were found to be 

out of scope, resulting in a sample of 159 employers. A total of 57 employers from the original sample 

and an additional 52 of the substitute sample employers participated in the study. Thus, the total number 

of employers that participated in the onsite study was 109 for an unweighted response rate of 69 percent, 

assuming participating substitutes were perfect substitutes for the original sample employers. Reasons 

proffered by sample members for not participating include the following: 

• No time; 

• Didn't want to be involved; 

• Thought it was an audit;35 and 

• Couldn’t/didn’t want to spare the personnel to cover the needs of the site visit. 

The response rate would have been much lower if all contacted employers, either original or substitute, 

had been included in the calculation. 

33 The Transaction Database used for this initial selection had to be constructed sufficiently in advance of fielding the employer site visits to allow 

time for recruiting the requisite supervisors and interviewers. At that time, the transaction data for November 2007 to January 2008 were not 

yet available, resulting in the use of an earlier time period for selection of PSUs and employers. Since it was desired to use as short a time as 

feasible between the initiated date and the fielding date to minimize nonresponse, the worker sample was selected based on the November 2007 

to January 2008 data that were available when worker data were selected. 

34 In some cases, it was not possible to identify two similar employers not already in the sample. 

35 Even when interviewers explained to the respondent that this was not an audit, some employers appeared to continue thinking of it as an audit. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 21 
II RESEARCH METHODS


2.3.2.2. Worker Sample 

A sample of workers was selected for each employer participating in the site visits. For onsite study 

employer participants that had more than 21 TNCs, a random sample of 21 workers with TNCs in the 

period November 2007 through January 2008 was selected. For employers with 21 or fewer TNC 

workers during this time, all workers receiving a TNC within this period were selected. The worker 

samples for each employer were selected after the employer agreed to participate in the study; therefore, 

if a substitute employer was used for the study, the workers of the substitute employer were used instead 

of the workers of the original employer. 

Selected workers constituted the sample for both the record review and the worker interview. Of the 1,407 

selected workers in the final employer sample, record reviews were conducted for 1,246 workers and 424 

workers were interviewed.36 

The unweighted response rate for the record reviews selected was 89 percent. The primary reasons for 

unavailability of records include the following: 

• Some employers reported that they maintained worker records for only short periods of time. 

• Some workers were never officially hired by the company. 

• Some employers could not locate worker records. 

• Some TNC records were duplicates (the Transaction Database contained duplicates due to data 

entry errors that were not detected during the cleaning process). 

The unweighted response rate for the worker interviews was 37 percent. The inability to locate the sample 

workers was the key reason for worker interview nonresponse. Worker contact information either was 

missing or incorrect on the Form I-9 or other documentation, and accurate updated information was 

unavailable from the employer, the tracing service, or neighbors. In a few cases, interviewers were fairly 

certain that the person they were trying to interview was the sampled worker, but the person denied being 

the sample member. Finally, a few workers refused to participate because they were afraid of employer 

retribution (i.e., they would be fired if their employer discovered they had participated in the interview). 

2.3.3. Instrument Design and Development 

Three data collection instruments were prepared for use in the onsite study portion of the evaluation: an 

employer interview protocol (one version for general employers and another one for 

temporary/employment agencies), a worker interview protocol, and a record review form (see Appendices 

G, H, I, and J). Interviewers were given some leeway in what questions they asked workers and 

employers within the frameworks established by the written materials, but they were encouraged to ask all 

relevant questions. 

Development of the instruments for the onsite interviews started with a review of the onsite protocols 

used in the last evaluation. Modifications were made in light of the research goals of this study, input 

36 Workers were considered eligible for an onsite interview whether or not it had proven feasible to do a record review for the worker, except 

when the record review or discussions with the employer indicated that the worker was out of scope. 

22 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

from stakeholders, and experiences with the previous onsite interviews. Since the research team did not 

plan to make comparisons between the workers interviewed in the current onsite interviews and 

previously interviewed workers, there was no attempt to maintain consistency between the new 

instruments and those used in earlier evaluations. The team developed two versions of the employer 

protocols—one for general employers and one for temporary/employment agencies—that were similar on 

almost all of the questions. 

The record review form was designed to obtain as much information as possible about the experiences of 

each worker during the TNC process and was also used to capture any information available in the record 

that could assist in locating the worker. These forms were individualized for each worker on the list and 

contained the information necessary to verify that the correct worker’s record had been provided by the 

employer; they also included information about the case from the Transaction Database. The form 

permitted interviewers to indicate whether the information in the worker’s record was consistent with the 

information on the Transaction Database and, if not, provided space for them to describe any 

discrepancies, including missing documents. 

2.3.4. Interviewer Selection, Training, and Monitoring 

Semi-structured observations and interviews must be conducted by highly educated and experienced 

interviewers who have been intensively trained. Accordingly, the evaluation team selected experienced 

interviewers known to the interviewer supervisor. Twelve of the 70 selected interviewers were bilingual 

in English and Spanish. 

The selected interviewers had an intensive five-day training session. The supervisors received separate 

training for 1.5 days prior to the interviewer training in addition to participating in the interviewer 

training. The interviewer training session started with an in-depth explanation of the evaluation goals and 

methodology, concentrating on the site visit stage of the study. This introduction to the evaluation also 

included an overview of the E-Verify Program and a demonstration of the E-Verify online tutorial and 

Mastery Test.37

 The interview guides and observational protocols were carefully reviewed with the 

interviewers, and role-playing exercises gave them an opportunity to practice the interviewing techniques 

they would use and to prepare written sample summaries, which the research team reviewed and for 

which they provided written feedback. The interviewers also had opportunities to practice using the 

record review form. 

During the data collection period, interviewers were monitored in several ways. First, they had weekly 

conference calls with their supervisors to discuss productivity, problems finding workers, and contact 

strategies for maximizing response rates. The home office also had weekly calls with the supervisors, who 

provided status reports to update the team on potential problems and possible solutions to data collection 

and logistical issues. Supervisors reviewed all employer and worker case summaries as they were 

completed by each interviewer and provided general feedback to ensure that all the questions were 

answered. Supervisors also provided additional feedback and discussed problems and strategies through 

e-mail with interviewers. 

Research staff at Westat’s home office reviewed the first employer case summary for each interviewer 

and the first two worker summaries to ensure that the interviewers and supervisors understood what was 

37 Due to technical problems, most but not all interviewers and supervisors were able to complete the tutorial and Mastery Test prior to attending 

the training. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 23 
II RESEARCH METHODS


expected and that the summaries were complete. Any problems noted were shared with the interviewer 

and his/her supervisor, and the interviewer then revised the summary. If serious problems were 

encountered in the initial summaries, the next summaries for an interviewer were also reviewed to 

confirm that the interviewer understood what was needed. After the initial reviews of summaries, Westat 

home office staff reviewed approximately 95 and 80 percent of randomly selected employer and worker 

summaries, respectively, to determine if refresher training was required. 

2.3.5. Data Collection 

The site visits were conducted from March through July 2008. The first step in the site visit consisted of 

an interview with the primary contact person for E-Verify. The interviewee(s) also identified and invited 

other establishment staff members involved in the E-Verify process to participate in the interview as 

appropriate. The contact person(s) was asked questions about the verification process at the 

establishment. Once the interviewing of establishment staff was completed, the interviewers observed as 

much of the verification process as was feasible. They also determined whether the E-Verify notice was 

displayed in a prominent place that was clearly visible to prospective employees, as required by the 

E-Verify Program. The majority of the 109 interviews of establishment staff were conducted by both lead 

and co-interviewers. The lead interviewer conducted the interview and took notes while the cointerviewer also took notes and checked to ensure all questions were asked and clearly answered. 

Additionally, the interviewers shared responsibilities for conducting the record review and other aspects 

of the establishment portion of the site visit. This process ensured that the establishment data were 

collected as effectively and efficiently as possible. The lead interviewers also were responsible for writing 

the employer summaries while the co-interviewers reviewed and checked the summaries against their 

notes. 

During the initial establishment site visit, the interviewers reviewed the employment verification-related 

records38

 of the workers identified for the record review stage of the onsite study. Of the 1,407 records 

identified for review, 1,246 (89 percent) were reviewed. 

Subsequent visits to the establishment were made, as needed, to complete the record review, clarify 

information obtained during the record review or employer interviews, and/or interview employees still 

working for the establishment if the employer was willing and able to provide a suitable interviewing 

environment.39 

Initial locating of workers was done by a locating service on the basis of name, date of birth, and Social 

Security number (SSN). This service provided contact information for approximately half of the workers 

selected for record review and interview. During the record review, interviewers recorded available 

information from the Form I-9 and any other address sources, such as copies of driver’s licenses 

presented as proof of identity included in the workers’ Form I-9 files. Finally, while interviewers were in 

the field, they attempted to trace workers by talking to neighbors or landlords when feasible.40 

38 Records consisted of the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9) for the worker, as well as any attached photocopies of 

documents presented, E-Verify transaction records, copies of any notices of the worker’s intent to contest a TNC finding, and any referral 

letters in the file. 

39 Interviewers only asked about interviewing onsite at the close of the interview when employers seemed generally cooperative. 

40 The topic of the interview was not discussed with persons other than the respondent because of the confidential nature of the study. 

24 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

Once interviewers located workers, they contacted them either by telephone or stopped by in person to 

schedule an appointment. In the telephone introduction, interviewers identified themselves, described the 

purpose of the interview, established the interview’s legitimacy, and guaranteed confidentiality. To 

facilitate introduction at the door, interviewers wore an identification badge and handed out the study 

brochure to the person answering the door. To encourage participation, respondents were offered a $25 

incentive to complete the interview. 

Most interviews were conducted in the sampled workers’ homes, at the onsite study establishment, or in 

person at another agreed-upon site. Approximately 55 interviews were conducted in Spanish. A small 

number of interviews were conducted over the telephone, e.g., the worker lived in an area that the 

interviewer was not comfortable visiting and an alternative location could not be identified for the 

interview or the worker had moved. Telephone interviews also were conducted when a bilingual 

interviewer was not available to go to the worker’s home or when the worker refused an in-person visit 

but agreed to do a telephone interview. In some cases, when a worker had moved from the area and was 

living in an area in close proximity to another interviewer, the interview was transferred. 

An in-person interview was chosen as the primary data collection strategy for workers because of the 

complexity of some of the questions, the need to show examples of the I-9 and other forms, the low 

education level of a significant proportion of workers, and the limited English proficiency of some in the 

sample. Bilingual interviewers conducted the interviews with Spanish-speaking respondents whenever 

possible. During the in-person interview, a trained interviewer asked workers about their experience in 

applying for the job with the E-Verify employer, how their paperwork was processed, and how any 

problems encountered during employment verification were resolved. The workers’ demographic 

characteristics were also collected. The data collection followed procedures and management structures 

designed to ensure the highest quality data. 

2.3.6. Weighting 

The high nonresponse rates and small sample size for the employer sample did not permit development of 

weights that would permit reliable estimates of the population from which they were drawn. Since the 

record review and worker onsite samples were selected from the employer samples, these estimates must 

also be considered unreliable for population estimates. Therefore, unweighted counts are presented in the 

report. These results cannot be generalized to the entire population of E-Verify employers and workers 

and thus should be viewed as the results of qualitative case studies. 

2.3.7. Database Construction 

2.3.7.1. Interviews 

Interviewers summarized the interviews they conducted using the key evaluation questions to guide and 

organize their summaries. The research staff developed a codebook containing over 900 codes divided 

into six major categories. These summaries were coded using NVivo, a software package for use in 

coding qualitative data to allow quantitative as well as qualitative analyses. Data were cleaned prior to 

estimation. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 25 
II RESEARCH METHODS


2.3.7.2. Record Reviews 

During the record review process, interviewers entered review information for each case into a database 

on an encrypted laptop computer. The information obtained was then electronically communicated to the 

Westat home office over a secure Internet connection. The individual records were merged to create the 

record review file. These data were cleaned prior to conducting the analyses. 

2.3.8. Data Limitations 

As discussed above, the site visit information obtained in this study does not permit reliable estimation of 

population statistics due to the high nonresponse rates and small sample sizes. However, the onsite study 

provides more in-depth insights into employer behavior than the Web survey because it is based on a 

more intensive interviewing process and because additional input on employer behavior is obtained from 

record reviews and workers. The onsite studies are the only source of information about workers screened 

by E-Verify other than the information on the Form I-9, which is maintained by the employer and 

typically not reviewed externally unless reviewed as part of a Federal work-site audit or enforcement 

action. 

2.4. Data from the E-Verify System 

2.4.1. E-Verify Transaction Data 

The most important secondary data source for this report was the Transaction Database, which provides 

information on employer use of the E-Verify Program and verification outcomes derived from the actions 

of employers and the Federal government that are input into E-Verify during the verification process. 

Westat constructed two distinct databases from the data files provided by the E-Verify systems contractor. 

Both of these files are discussed here. 

2.4.1.1. Main Analytic Database 

Westat constructed a Transaction Database of all cases submitted to E-Verify from the start of the 

Program in June 2004 through June 2008.41

 Since the source database was designed to address 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative needs 

and program goals rather than for analytic purposes, the original Transaction Database required complex 

file manipulation and cleaning before it could be used for analysis.42 

The transaction data were subjected to extensive cleaning routines to delete cases that were transmitted in 

error (e.g., when the employer realized that a typographical error had been made or when the same case 

was mistakenly transmitted more than once) and to correct situations in which it appeared that the 

employer had improperly resubmitted cases to SSA as if they were new cases. Although not all errors can 

be detected by such cleaning programs, the resulting database is a truer reflection of actual case 

processing for analysis purposes than the original database was.43 

41 Since many analyses examine trends by quarter, these analyses are based on trends from July 2004 through June 2008 in order that data can be 

presented by quarters of the fiscal year. 

42 See Appendix A for a description of this process. 

43 The uncleaned Transaction Database is useful in that it captures overall query volume for workflow calculations, it reflects how employers 

used the system, and it will be helpful in monitoring and compliance activities. 

26 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

For the current evaluation, cleaning routines used in prior evaluations were revised to include additional 

routines based on increased understanding of transaction data obtained during analyses for the last 

evaluation, and discussions with USCIS Verification staff and the contractor responsible for the E-Verify 

database system. Data from employer files provided by the E-Verify systems contractor were also merged 

with information from the Transaction Database and the EV-STAR database provided by the same 

contractor to create the analytical transaction record files. 

The full E-Verify Transaction Database for July 2004 through June 2008 is based on approximately 9.4 

million cases. This extremely large sample constitutes the total population of cases submitted during this 

time. Although sampling error is not a concern, the possibility of measurement error exists because the 

USCIS and SSA data provided from employer verification transactions contained some errors due, for 

example, to employer input errors. Although the data were cleaned, it is not possible to rectify all errors.44 

To examine trends, cases on this file are broken into three-month intervals based on the quarter in which 

they were initially submitted. The number of cases available within each three-month period ranges from 

approximately 55,000 to 1.7 million. 

One limitation to the Transaction Database data for evaluation purposes is that E-Verify does not 

currently allow a USCIS Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) to be overridden if a worker or the employer 

requests further consideration of a case after the 10 Federal workday period has expired. If the worker 

was found to be work authorized after the 10 days, these cases would have already been changed to FNCs 

on the Transaction Database and could not be changed by the Immigration Status Verifier (ISV).45 

Although this would lead to an upward bias in the estimates of FNCs, there is no reason to believe that it 

would have more than a slight impact on the results. 

One of the primary uses of the transaction data in this report is for trend analyses. To ensure that the 

cleaning process did not introduce unwarranted changes into the data series, the entire database beginning 

with the June 2004 start of E-Verify was subject to the same revised cleaning process.46

 However, 

cleaning the historical data using updated cleaning routines does not avoid changes attributable to the 

introduction of EV-STAR. This process, introduced on October 1, 2007, allows SSA to enter processing 

information about cases referred to SSA into a new database (EV-STAR), which also serves as a 

communications conduit between SSA and the employer. This database indicates whether workers 

referred to SSA actually contacted SSA and records subsequent actions by SSA and the workers who had 

received TNCs. These new procedures, advocated in prior evaluations, increased the amount of 

information available to determine the outcome of the contesting process.47

 However, since the more 

complete information from the new system is not directly comparable with available information for the 

period of June 2004 through September 2007, the estimates for October 2007 through June 2008 are not 

strictly comparable to earlier estimates. 

44See Appendix A for additional information on the methodology used for cleaning the Transaction Database. 

45 If USCIS is made aware of such cases, staff will notify the employer that a worker is employment authorized; however, the final outcome 

shows up and is retained as an FNC in the system. 

46 Because of this process, estimates based on data presented in prior reports may be different than the estimated historical information in this 

report. 

47 See Chapter III for a discussion of the programmatic reasons for this change. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 27 
II RESEARCH METHODS


A second recent change with a possible impact on data comparability is the implementation of a pre-TNC 

employer check. Starting in September 2007, employers were asked to check and, if necessary, change 

their input information for cases prior to an SSA TNC finding being issued or a USCIS “Case in Process” 

response that is issued at the time a case goes to an ISV for possible resolution without the issuance of a 

TNC. 

2.4.1.2. Longitudinal Database 

In addition to developing the main database, the evaluation team constructed a longitudinal Transaction 

Database consisting of employers that had transmitted cases in every six-month period from October 2004 

through June 2008. This database was extracted from the main database. Limiting the database to 

employers with transactions throughout this period was done so that trends attributable to types of 

employers using the system were not confused with trends in the system itself. Examining these trends in 

addition to the trends in cross-sectional statistics provides two different perspectives on changes in the 

indicators of program success examined in this report. A total of 1,419,082 records for 523 employers 

were included in the final longitudinal Transaction Database. 

Since the characteristics of the employers in this longitudinal sample can be assumed to vary much less 

dramatically over time than the characteristics of all employers, examination of these trends permits 

making inferences about what the trends would have been without changes in employer characteristics. 

Even though the employers in the longitudinal Transaction Database are the same throughout the period 

examined, it is possible for the characteristics of the workers for whom cases are submitted to E-Verify to 

change over time. This could occur, for example, because of changes in the characteristics of workers 

hired or if the employers are not consistent over time on which type of cases they submit to E-Verify. To 

determine whether this is the case, the characteristics of the workers with cases submitted to E-Verify 

were examined to determine how stable these characteristics are. 

As seen in Exhibit II-3, there were some noticeable changes in the characteristics of workers in the 

longitudinal database over time. In particular, the percentage of workers who attested to being U.S. 

citizens or nationals increased between October 2004 through March 2005 and April through June 2008, 

from 81 percent of cases submitted to 84 percent, while the percentage of workers attesting to being 

lawful permanent residents declined from 15 percent to 12 percent and the percentage who attested to 

being aliens authorized to work declined from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent. Thus, although using the 

longitudinal database controls for employer characteristics, including characteristics that are not measured 

in this study, using the longitudinal database does not constitute a rigid control for worker characteristics 

over time. 

28 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
II RESEARCH METHODS 

Exhibit II-3. Changes in Types of Workers With Cases Submitted to E-Verify by Employers in the 

Longitudinal Database: October 2004–June 2008 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Worker characteristic Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr- Oct- AprMar Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept Mar June 

All Worker Cases 142,821 213,109 178,329 208,045 182,799 207,511 184,535 101,933 

Industry employed in 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

hunting 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 

Mining 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.7 3.6 4.4 3.7 4.6 

Food manufacturing 12.7 10.6 12.0 11.9 14.8 15.4 15.8 16.5 

Apparel manufacturing 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Wood, paper manufacturing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Petroleum, coal, chemical, 

mineral manufacturing 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 

Metal, machinery manufacturing 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 

Other manufacturing 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 

Wholesale/retail trade 4.3 3.9 2.4 3.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.0 

Transportation 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 

Information 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 

Financial, real estate 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Postal, couriers, warehousing 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Employment services 39.8 45.7 41.6 39.6 38.0 35.2 37.9 36.2 

Professional, education, health, 

arts services 12.8 9.5 10.3 10.3 9.8 10.3 10.2 10.8 

Accommodation/food services 14.2 12.4 14.2 14.1 13.9 14.5 12.8 13.1 

Other services 2.6 3.6 4.6 4.8 5.3 4.8 5.2 5.2 

Public administration 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.0 

Region employed in 

California 12.4 21.8 10.4 7.9 7.4 7.2 6.4 6.9 

Arizona or Texas 27.4 27.0 34.1 35.0 34.2 35.2 32.6 31.8 

Northeast 11.6 7.0 8.8 8.6 9.4 9.1 11.4 10.5 

Northern/Western 15.9 14.0 14.5 14.7 15.0 14.3 14.7 13.9 

Midwest 14.6 12.6 14.2 16.0 17.6 16.3 17.8 19.9 

Southern 10.5 9.8 10.3 10.0 9.3 10.5 9.9 10.3 

Florida 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.1 7.3 7.2 6.7 

U.S. territories 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Size of employer 

1-4 2.6 2.0 2.2 2.9 3.1 1.8 2.0 1.8 

5-9 3.6 4.5 5.2 5.0 5.1 4.3 4.5 4.4 

10-19 7.3 6.5 7.3 6.3 6.3 5.7 5.8 4.9 

20-99 5.8 5.3 5.3 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.2 

100-499 22.0 20.8 24.7 25.5 25.3 26.1 26.1 27.4 

500-999 11.9 11.2 11.7 12.2 11.3 10.6 9.8 10.1 

1,000-2,499 18.0 16.2 17.0 17.8 18.3 18.4 18.6 18.7 

2,500-4,999 14.5 9.0 11.5 11.8 13.9 15.0 17.7 16.4 

5,000-9,999 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.4 3.8 4.4 2.8 3.6 

10,000 and over 6.5 17.4 7.2 4.5 4.2 5.0 4.5 4.8 

Employer size not available 3.4 3.0 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 29 
Exhibit II-3. Changes in Types of Workers With Cases Submitted to E-Verify by Employers in the 

Longitudinal Database: October 2004–June 2008—continued 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Worker characteristic Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr- Oct- AprMar Sept Mar Sept Mar Sept Mar June 

Form I-9 Status 

U.S. citizen or national 80.9% 82.7% 83.1% 84.3% 83.4% 84.5% 84.4% 84.3% 

Lawful permanent resident 15.0 14.1 13.6 12.8 13.5 12.5 12.2 12.1 

Alien authorized to work 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.6 

II RESEARCH METHODS 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

2.4.2. Employer Registration Data 

At the time that employers register for E-Verify, they provide basic information about their 

characteristics, including industry, number of employees, location, and number of sites. The evaluation 

team cleaned the database of obvious errors such as employers that were identified as test employers and 

duplicates. Although the database consists of information about all the employers that have signed up for 

E-Verify and thus is not subject to sampling error, it is subject to measurement error. 

One concern about the employer registration data is that the definition of an employer is not the same as 

that used in national data sets. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) differentiates between establishments 

and firms, where an establishment refers to a particular site of a company and a firm refers to the entire 

company. Thus, if a company conducts business at 10 different sites, it consists of 10 establishments but 

only one firm. Of course, many companies have only one work site in which the establishment and firm 

are one and the same.48

 The unit of analysis used in many of the analyses in this report is the “employer” 

defined as the entity that signed the MOU with USCIS and SSA. However, in some multisite companies 

only one MOU was signed for the entire company, and in other multisite companies separate MOUs are 

signed by each participating establishment. In still other companies, one establishment may be 

responsible for screening a subset of the company’s establishments.49 

A second concern about the use of employer registration data for analysis is that there have been shifts 

over time in USCIS guidance about whether the company or its establishments should sign the MOU. 

Because of this, it is likely that observed trends in the number of registered employers may not accurately 

reflect the actual growth rate of the Program. Thus, program growth is probably better measured by the 

growth in the number of cases submitted to E-Verify than by the number of MOUs signed or by the 

number of employers submitting transactions. 

Another problem with the accuracy of information on the registration database is that there appears to be 

considerable confusion among employers about the access method they should sign up for when they 

register. This, in turn, affects the characterizations of employers by method of access. In the Web survey, 

48 It is likely that the number of company sites and the number of establishments are fairly comparable. However, when an employer signs an 

MOU for multiple sites, the only information about the sites that is collected is the states in which they are located. To use sites as the unit of 

analysis would, therefore, significantly limit the analyses that could be done based on employer characteristics. 

49 The E-Verify registration screen also asks for the number and location of sites from employers registering multiple sites; there is not adequate 

information to conclude that these sites are consistent with the BLS definition of establishment. 

30 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Access method reported in the Web survey 

Employer 

(regular) 

Designated 

Agent 

User of a 

Designated Agent 

Web 

Services 

All 

methods 

Access method on 

registration database 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Employer (regular) 1,724 99.7 1 0.1 4 0.2 0 0.0 1,729 100.0 

Designated Agent 80 41.0 88 45.1 3 1.5 24 12.3 195 100.0 

User of a Designated 

Agent 11 9.4 1 0.9 105 89.7 0 0.0 117 100.0 

Web Services 24 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 100.0 

All 1,839 89.1 90 4.4 112 5.4 24 1.2 2,065 100.0 

SOURCES: Registration database and E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

2.4.3. SSA E-Verify Data 

RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

employers were asked to confirm or modify the information about what access method they were using. 

As seen in Exhibit II-4, there appears to have been some confusion in this process, especially for 

Designated Agents. Among employers that had registered as Designated Agents, 41 percent should have 

registered as regular employers according to information provided in the Web survey. USCIS is aware of 

this problem and is taking steps to alleviate it. 

Exhibit II-4. Employer Access Method on the Registration Database Compared to Access Method 

Reported by Employers on the Web Survey 

SSA maintains a database created at the time it checks the employment-authorization status of workers 

with cases submitted to E-Verify. This SSA database contains information not included in the main 

E-Verify Transaction Database about the country of birth and citizenship status of workers at the time of 

the most recent E-Verify case submission. This information about birth/citizenship status is more detailed 

than the Form I-9 information about citizenship status; in particular, it permits differentiating foreign-born 

citizens from those who were born in the United States. 

Since individual-level SSA information was not available to the evaluation team, the evaluation team 

requested and received aggregated information.50

 The first step in this process was providing SSA with a 

set of files; each file contained SSNs for all individuals obtaining a given final outcome (e.g., immediate 

verification by SSA, found work authorized by SSA after a TNC, etc.) in a specified quarter. 

SSA then provided frequency distributions of birth/citizenship status for each of the files. This 

information was adequate to create the cross-tabulations of outcome by birth/citizenship status needed for 

calculating the erroneous TNC rate for each SSA birth/citizenship category of interest (Exhibit II-5). 

These erroneous TNC rates were then calculated as usual (i.e., the number of workers found to be work 

authorized after a TNC divided by the total number of workers ever found to be work authorized) for each 

SSA birth/citizenship category for each quarter. 

50 SSA and USCIS are exploring options for SSA to provide individual-level data in the future. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 31 
II RESEARCH METHODS 

Exhibit II-5. SSA Birth/Citizenship Status, by Final Case Outcome for Workers Found to Be 

Employment Authorized: April–June 2008 

Case outcome 

U.S.-born Citizen 

Foreign-born 

Lawful 

permanent 

resident 

Other 

noncitizen Total 

Total number of ever-authorized 1,417,953 97,226 141,141 3,751 1,660,071 

Authorized without an SSA or USCIS 

TNC 1,416,434 94,437 138,143 3,647 1,652,661 

Instantly authorized by SSA 1,416,434 94,437 0 0 1,510,871 

Instantly authorized by USCIS – – 119,856 3,175 123,031 

Authorized after an initial "in process" 

finding by USCIS – – 18,287 472 18,759 

Total authorized after a TNC 1,519 2,789 2,998 104 7,410 

Authorized after a TNC by SSA 1,519 2,789 548 23 4,879 

Authorized after a USCIS TNC without an 

SSA TNC – – 2,450 81 2,531 

Erroneous TNC rate for category 0.1% 2.9% 2.1% 2.8% 0.4% 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and SSA database. 

In the process of estimating erroneous TNC rates based on SSA birth/citizenship data for various 

outcomes, the evaluation team found that there were a considerable number of noncitizen cases that had 

been found to be work authorized by SSA. This seemingly anomalous situation was in large part because 

the E-Verify process was set up to allow SSA to verify as work authorized all persons attesting to be U.S. 

citizens on the Form I-9 who have permanent work-authorization status according to their SSA records.51 

These established procedures allow SSA to find as work authorized those workers who are lawful 

permanent residents (LPRs) according to prior information verified with USCIS.52

 The evaluation team, 

therefore, decided that it was reasonable to assume that all cases decided by SSA to be work authorized 

were, in fact, U.S. citizens even if the SSA data indicated that they were LPRs. 

In addition to the easily explicable situation in which SSA finds workers attesting to be U.S. citizens who 

appear in their records as LPRs to be work authorized, there were a few cases in which SSA found 

workers to be work authorized when their records showed them to be noncitizens without permanent 

work authorization or, conversely, USCIS determined the employment-authorization status of workers 

with SSA records indicating that they were U.S. citizens.53

 Without individual record data, it was not 

feasible for the evaluation team to obtain a complete understanding of why there were such discrepancies. 

51SSA confirms the accuracy of individuals’ attestations of having permanent work-authorization status with USCIS at the time that their workauthorization status is entered into the SSA database. When individuals previously verified as having permanent work-authorization status say 

on the Form I-9 that they are citizens, the discrepancy is assumed to be attributable to their SSA records not having been updated to reflect their 

becoming naturalized citizens. 

52 SSA has identified LPRs as a separate group in Numident since 1992 and verified all noncitizens it enumerates through the USCIS SAVE 

System since July 2002. Prior to that time SSA verified all noncitizens through the SAVE system or, if they had arrived too recently to be in 

Immigration and Naturalization Service/USCIS databases, SSA field staff used black lights, other tools, and field office staff expertise to verify 

the authenticity of documentation. The current practice of SSA verifying workers attesting to be citizens as work authorized if SSA records 

show that the person is an LPR was started in October 2005. Prior to October 2005, SSA TNCs were issued to these workers. 

53 When USCIS files were checked to determine whether workers attesting to being U.S. citizens were naturalized citizens, the cases were 

considered to have an SSA finding, so that the Naturalization Phase I process is not the reason for this discrepancy. 

32 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
54 Although the evaluation team believes that this alternate definition is more accurate than the original definition, this will not always be the 

case. In the worker interviews, it was clear that some workers did not know how to classify themselves when completing the Form I-9. 

55 http://www.bls.gov/jlt/home.htm#data. 

II RESEARCH METHODS 

However, it seemed reasonable to believe that the most likely reason for such discrepancies is that the 

matching process used by SSA for this study provides the birth/citizenship status information associated 

with a given SSN as of the most recent query to E-Verify. However, this method is not precise because an 

SSN may have been used in the E-Verify process by more than one worker. The evaluation team, 

therefore, decided that when there was a discrepancy between the SSA record and Form I-9 information 

on citizenship status, the assumption would be that the Form I-9 information was correct and the SSAprovided information was based on a different case than the one being examined.54 

In addition to readjusting the original SSA information based on Form I-9 status, data were adjusted for 

cases with missing birth/citizenship status. This adjustment was made using normal nonresponse 

adjustment techniques within outcome status categories. These adjustments resulted in estimates of the 

erroneous TNC rates that were, for the most part, similar to the original estimates (Exhibit II-6). The 

adjustments had the greatest impact on the erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens, which increased 

from 2.9 percent to 3.2 percent. 

Exhibit II-6. Adjusted Birth/Citizenship Status, by Final Case Outcome for Workers Found to Be 

Employment Authorized: April–June 2008 

Foreign-born 

Case outcome Other 

U.S.-born Citizen LPRs noncitizen Total 

Total number of ever-authorized 1,430,345 98,392 144,544 3,842 1,677,123 

Authorized without an SSA or USCIS 

TNC 1,428,634 95,250 141,474 3,735 1,669,093 

Instantly authorized by SSA 1,428,634 95,250 0 0 1,523,884 

Instantly authorized by USCIS – – 122,722 3,251 125,973 

Authorized after an initial "in process" 

finding by USCIS – – 18,752 484 19,236 

Total authorized after a TNC 1,711 3,142 3,070 107 8,030 

Authorized after a TNC by SSA 1,711 3,142 576 25 5,454 

Authorized after a USCIS TNC without 

an SSA TNC – – 2,494 82 2,576 

Erroneous TNC rate for category 0.1% 3.2% 2.1% 2.8% 0.5% 

NOTE: These calculations assume that when there is a discrepancy between SSA birth/citizenship status and Form I-9 status, the 

Form I-9 status is more reliable. Case outcomes have also been adjusted for nonresponse. 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and SSA database. 

2.5. Other Federal Data Sources 

To determine how E-Verify employers and the workers for whom they submit cases differ from national 

employers and workers, several Federal databases were used in the evaluation. Data sources used include 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey,

55

 the Census Bureau’s Current 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 33 
II RESEARCH METHODS


Population Survey,

56

 and the U.S. Census County Business Patterns 2006.57 Although these data are 

believed to provide valid indicators of the nation’s employers and labor force characteristics, these 

sources do not always collect data that are directly comparable with the data available for the E-Verify 

Program. For example, as discussed earlier, the definition of “employer” used in E-Verify differs from 

both the definitions of “establishment” and “firm” used by the Department of Labor. Because of these 

differences, it is necessary to use the comparative data cautiously. 

2.6. Interviews of Federal Officials and Contractors 

The evaluation team conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with Federal staff and contractors in 

May through November 2008. One of the primary goals of these interviews was for interviewees to 

update the evaluation team on what programmatic changes had been made since the last evaluation and to 

discuss future changes. A second goal was to assist in identifying the topics to be discussed in this report. 

These discussions also clarified some of the advantages and disadvantages of potential changes to the 

Program. Information was also obtained about any problems that may have arisen during the process of 

implementing the Program or other information of relevance to the evaluation. A total of 16 interviews 

with 36 persons were conducted during this time with representatives of the following: SSA offices 

including Income Security Programs, Public Services and Operations Support, Automated Support, 

Telephone Services, Systems, and Budget and Finance; the USCIS Verification Division including the 

Office of Monitoring and Compliance, Verification Operations, Immigration Status Verification staff, and 

Customer Services; the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel; the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties; the DHS Policy Directorate; the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel for 

Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices; and the USCIS contractor responsible for the 

E-Verify database system. Evaluation staff also attended a number of meetings of Federal staff and 

contractors on issues related to this report during the evaluation period. 

Although the interviews with Federal officials and contractors proved valuable in shaping this analysis, 

confidentiality concerns have generally precluded attribution of information to individuals or the 

organizations they represent. An exception was made in a small number of situations in which the 

evaluation team believed that knowing the source of a particular point of view was essential to 

understanding its credibility; in this situation, only the organization of the respondent is identified. 

2.7. System Testing 

The evaluation team tested the E-Verify system by registering for E-Verify as an employer, registering 

system users, completing the tutorial and Mastery Test, and using the system to verify employment 

eligibility. System testers reviewed the instructional and informational content provided by the system, 

including the MOU, the tutorial screens, mouse-over text, and other online E-Verify resources. They 

tested the functionality and usability of each feature of the online program. No attempt was made to hack 

5

into the system database. 

6 http://www.census.gov/cps/. 

57http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2006/usst06.xls. 

34 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

3. MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS 

3.1. Measurement 

3.1.1. Introduction 

Many of the quantitative variables used in analyzing the data in this report were measured in a 

straightforward fashion. These include continuous variables, such as the number of cases the employer 

transmitted in a three-month time period, and categorical variables, such as whether the employer agreed 

with the statement, “Contesting a Tentative Nonconfirmation is not encouraged because the process 

requires too much time.” When there were too few responses in some of the categories of a categorical 

variable to permit meaningful analysis, adjacent-ordered responses were combined (e.g., “agree” and 

“strongly agree”). Additional cell combinations were made during the writing process to simplify the 

presentation of study results. This section explains the measures and indicators used in the evaluation that 

were less straightforward. 

3.1.2. Indicators and Measures 

This section discusses those indicators and measures used in this report that are more complicated. Many 

of these measures were developed to use in trend analyses as indicators of program success in 

implementing the Program and in meeting the program goals. 

3.1.2.1. Scales 

For this report, employer satisfaction and employer compliance are the only variables measured with a 

scale derived using advanced statistical techniques. To systematically assess the employers’ overall 

satisfaction and compliance levels with E-Verify, confirmatory factor analysis technique was used to 

construct scales of employer satisfaction and employer compliance. The evaluation team revised the 

satisfaction and compliance scales from the scales used in the Web Basic Pilot evaluation report to be 

able to understand various aspects of employer satisfaction that were available from new survey questions 

in the Web survey. To construct the scales, a mixed-method approach was applied using both theorydriven and data-driven analysis to explore the item-scale relationship. The theory-driven model grouped 

the items relevant to each underlying construct and used these groupings to guide the analysis. The 

items

58

 used in the scales are as follows: 

3.1.2.1.1. Satisfaction Scale 

For the system registration and start-up process: 

• The online registration process was easy to complete. 

• The online registration process was too time-consuming. 

• The content of the online tutorial was easy to understand. 

58 See Appendix F for the E-Verify survey with complete question wording. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 35 
II RESEARCH METHODS 

• The tutorial adequately prepared us to use the online verification system. 

• The tutorial answers all of our questions about using the online verification system. 

• The tutorial takes too long to complete. 

• It is a burden to have to pass the Mastery Test before being allowed to use the online 

verification system. 

• The available E-Verify system reports cover all of our reporting needs. 

For financial burden: 

• Indirect costs for setting up the system; and 

• Indirect costs for maintaining the system.59 

For attitudes toward E-Verify procedures: 

• It is impossible to fulfill all the employer obligations required by the E-Verify verification 

process. 

• Overall, E-Verify is an effective tool for employment verification. 

• E-Verify reduces the chances of getting a mismatched SSA earnings letter. 

3.1.2.1.2. Compliance Scale 

For notifying TNC findings to employees: 

• Employees who fail initial verification are informed privately. 

• Written notification of a Tentative Nonconfirmation is given to employees. 

• In-person notification of Tentative Nonconfirmation is given to employees. 

• We don’t tell employees about the Tentative Nonconfirmations but let them continue to work 

for us. 

• We decide not to hire employees receiving Tentative Nonconfirmations without telling them 

about the finding. 

59 Direct costs were not included in the scale because the questions were not framed in a suitable way for incorporation. The employer was asked 

how burdensome indirect costs were, but more specifically, to provide estimates of the expenditures of the direct costs. 

36 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

• We decide to fire employees receiving Tentative Nonconfirmations without telling them about 

the finding. 

For practices related to contesting the TNC: 

• Contesting a Tentative Nonconfirmation is not encouraged because the process required too 

much time. 

• Providing assistance to employees who contest a Tentative Nonconfirmation is an excessive 

burden on staff. 

• Contesting a Tentative Nonconfirmation is not encouraged because employment authorization 

rarely results. 

• Establishing employment authorization has become a burden because there are so many 

Tentative Nonconfirmations. 

• Work assignments must be restricted until employment authorization is confirmed. 

• Pay is reduced until employment authorization is confirmed. 

• Training is delayed until after employment authorization is confirmed. 

3.1.2.2. Other Indicators 

Exhibit II-7 lists a set of indicators of key concepts other than the scales discussed above that were 

developed for measuring program success. The exhibit indicates the dimension being measured by each 

of the indicators or set of indicators. Each of these indicators or indicator sets is also described below. 

The indicators, other than the satisfaction score and the compliance score presented in Exhibit II-7, are as 

described here. 

• Dissimilarity Index. This index is defined as the mean of the absolute differences between 

E-Verify and the nation on a particular characteristic. This index is used to indicate how 

dissimilar E-Verify employers and the workers for whom they submit cases are to the entire 

U.S. population of employers and workers. The index, which theoretically ranges from 0 to 

100, should be considered as a rough indicator, especially when comparing differences 

between various characteristics, because they are sensitive to the often arbitrary categories used 

for comparisons. 

• Ratio of E-Verify cases to newly hired employees nationally. This indicator of 

E-Verify usage is calculated by dividing the number of cases entered into the E-Verify 

Program by the number of newly hired employees in the country (estimated from the Job 

Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)) for the same time period. This indicator does 

not suffer from changing definitions of employer; however, the workers with cases submitted 

to E-Verify are not strictly comparable to “new hires” according to the 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 37 
Exhibit II-7. Selected Indicators Used in Examining Program Success Indicator Aspect of program success indicator reflects 

RESEARCH METHODS 

38 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

Similarity of 

characteristics of 

E-Verify and 

national 

participants Usage Timeliness Accuracy 

Reduction of 

unauthorized 

employment 

Employer 

compliance 

s

Dissimilarity Index x Ratio of E-Verify cases to newly hired 

employees nationally x 

Number of employers transmitting cases to 

E-Verify x 

Percent of employers using E-Verify within 3 

months of signing the MOU x 

Mean number of days between case initiation 

and case resolution x 

Mean number of days between [action 1] and 

[action 2] x 

Estimated inaccuracy rate for authorized 

workers x 

Estimated inaccuracy rate for unauthorized 

workers x 

Estimated total inaccuracy rate x Erroneous TNC rate for ever-authorized 

workers x 

Satisfaction score Compliance score x Effectiveness rate x Worker costs for resolving TNCs Gap between [group1] and [group 2] Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 39 
60See Chapter VIII for a discussion of this issue. 

61 Downloaded from http://www.bls.gov/jlt/jltsampl.htm (March 23, 2009).

II RESEARCH METHODS 

definition used in national studies. Since there is evidence that some employers are screening 

job applicants and others are using a definition of “new hire” that is more inclusive than the 

definition used in the Federal survey,

60

 this indicator presumably overestimates the percentage 

of new employees entered into the E-Verify Program. Differences between the two groups of 

employers may also arise from differences in the in-scope definitions used by E-Verify versus 

JOLTS. Most importantly, “...JOLTS does not cover private households (NAICS 814110) or 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (NAICS 11). However, logging (NAICS 1133) is 

included.”61

 E-Verify is not restricted to employers in any NAICS code; however, private 

households do not tend to enroll in E-Verify. To the extent that discrepancies between the two 

measures change over time, they could also impact the size of observed changes. 

• Number of employers transmitting cases to E-Verify. This measure is based on transaction 

data; however, the identification of employers is based on the employer IDs assigned at 

registration. As discussed above, the definition of “employer” may not be constant over time. 

• Percent of employers using E-Verify within three months of signing the MOU. This 

indicator reflects usage among those employers actually registering for the system. Rates are 

calculated for this indicator based on when the MOU was signed. Since this rate cannot be 

calculated until three months after the end of the period of interest, the latest quarter that can be 

presented based on data from June 2004 through June 2008 is for employers signing the MOU 

in January through March 2008. Other time intervals could have been used for this indicator, 

e.g., the percentage transmitting cases within one year; however, these would have resulted in 

fewer time points for examination. This indicator is limited by changes in the definition of 

“employer,” resulting in values that may not be strictly comparable over time. 

• Mean number of days between case initiation and case resolution is the mean number of 

calendar days between when the employer transmits a case to the E-Verify database and its 

final resolution. For most cases, final resolution is calculated on the basis of the last date in 

which the Transaction Database has an entry for a Federal action, e.g., for issuing a workauthorization finding. However, for FNC cases, there is not always a date of the final finding 

captured in the Transaction Database. In this situation, the earlier of the case closure code and a 

default value of 14 days subsequent to issuance of the TNC is used as the resolution date. This 

overstates the amount of time from the employer’s perspective when the employer does not 

enter a closure code for workers who say they do not wish to contest the TNC or those quitting 

when they are told about the TNC finding. On the other hand, it understates the time for cases 

without closure codes when the employer refers a case to SSA or USCIS and the worker never 

contacts those agencies, since this does not include any time that may have elapsed between the 

initiated date and the referral date. 

• Mean number of days between [action 1] and [action 2] are the mean number of days 

between two events, such as hiring and entry of information into the E-Verify database. If not 

otherwise noted, these are calendar days. 

• Estimated inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is defined as the percentage of cases for 

workers with employment authorization who are not found to be work authorized either 

40 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

initially or at the end of the resolution period in the verification process. This inaccuracy rate, 

which is sometimes referred to as false negatives,62

 is subject to significant measurement error 

since there is not an easy way to determine those who are work authorized beyond the fact that 

they were so confirmed by the system. The inaccuracy rate itself does not provide information 

on the sources of inaccuracies (e.g., out-of-date or inaccurate Federal records, or employers’ 

inputting information incorrectly). 

• Estimated inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is defined as the percentage of 

workers without employment authorization who were incorrectly found to be work 

authorized. Worker identify fraud is believed to be the major source of these inaccuracies. 

This inaccuracy rate is subject to even greater measurement error than the estimated inaccuracy 

rate for authorized workers, since there is no information about unauthorized workers 

comparable to that obtained in the contesting process for those receiving TNCs.63 

• Estimated total inaccuracy rate is defined as the percentage of cases with an incorrect 

finding. Like the two preceding inaccuracy rates, it is subject to significant measurement error. 

This inaccuracy rate is not the sum of the two preceding rates but the sum of the number of the 

inaccuracies for authorized workers and the number of inaccuracies for unauthorized workers 

divided by the total number of cases submitted to E-Verify. Since there are assumed to be a 

much larger number of workers with employment authorization than workers without 

employment authorization, the total inaccuracy rate, which can be viewed as a weighted 

average of the two types of inaccuracy rates, is much closer to the inaccuracy rate for workers 

with employment authorization. 

• Erroneous TNC rate for ever-authorized workers (or erroneous TNC rate for workers ever 

found work authorized) is defined as the percentage of workers found to be work authorized at 

any point in the verification process who received a TNC prior to receiving a work-authorized 

finding. This measure is estimated directly from data on the Transaction Database and, thus, is 

likely to be more precise than the preceding inaccuracy rates, permitting comparisons between 

worker groups and over-time trends. However, it is lower than the inaccuracy rate for 

authorized workers because it does not include inaccuracies for employment-authorized 

workers who do not contest TNCs, including workers who are never properly informed of the 

TNC and workers who quit for reasons unrelated to the TNC. 

• Effectiveness rate is defined as the percentage of workers without employment authorization 

who were correctly not found to be employment authorized. This rate is equal to 100 percent 

minus the estimated inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers and is thus subject to the same 

measurement problems as the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. The primary reason to 

use this rate in addition to the inaccuracy rate is that the terminology emphasizes how well 

E-Verify is doing in meeting the considerable challenge of identifying workers without 

employment authorization. 

• Worker costs for resolving TNCs are estimated from the worker interviews. They are based 

on the responses of the 144 interviewed workers who contested TNCs. Of course, they may not 

62The evaluation team decided not to use the terms “false negatives” and “false positives” because not everyone uses them in the same way when 

discussing work-authorization status. 

63See also the effectiveness rate discussed below. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 41 
II RESEARCH METHODS


recall the costs accurately. It is also likely that workers are unaware of all of their costs, 

because they do not necessarily know why employers take certain actions (such as not hiring 

the worker, restricting training, etc.). It is possible, too, that some of the estimated costs were 

incorrectly attributed to the TNC. 

• Gap between [group1] and [group 2]. This set of indicators is used to describe whether 

intentional discrimination exists between a protected group (in this context, usually noncitizens 

or foreign-born workers) compared to the “dominant” group in the population (in this context, 

usually citizens or U.S.-born workers) and, if so, what trends, if any, are there in the gap of 

interest. The gap variables are simply the differences between group 1 and group 2 on the 

variable. For example, if workers attesting to being citizens have an erroneous TNC rate of 

0.3 percent compared to 2.1 percent for noncitizens, the gap is 1.8 percent. This gap can be 

compared to gaps for other time periods to get a sense of whether discrimination is increasing 

or decreasing. 

3.1.3. Time Periods for Analyzing Transaction Database 

Many of the analyses in this report focus on trends using data from the Transaction Database. There are 

numerous time intervals that could be used in examining these trends (e.g., annual, semiannual, quarterly, 

monthly). Earlier evaluation reports primarily focused on annual and semiannual data, since the number 

of transactions in the earliest time periods were unlikely to give highly stable estimates for some of the 

measures due to the limited numbers of employers and transactions. For the current report, the evaluation 

team selected quarters of the Federal fiscal year as the standard time period for use in examining the 

data.64

 This decision was based on the fact that the program growth has resulted in much more stable 

estimates of measures based on quarterly data and a desire to have additional data points for examining 

trend data. 

When the transaction data are used to examine the relationship between variables at a particular point of 

time, analyses are done for April through June 2008, the most recent quarter of data available, unless the 

analytic objectives require using a different time period. Not only are data from this quarter fairly recent, 

but limiting the time period examined results in the data being subject to less variability due to program 

changes that may affect data comparability over time. 

Since some of the trends examined in this report evidence considerable seasonality,65

 trend comparisons 

are typically made between the same two quarters in two or more years (e.g., April through June 2008 

versus April through June 2007 and April through June 2006). Although analyses of the reasons for the 

underlying trends and smoothing techniques are reasonable and would be interesting, time constraints 

prevented more sophisticated analyses of the seasonal fluctuations. 

3.1.4. Model-Based Estimates of Inaccuracy Rates 

This section provides an overview of how the model-based inaccuracy rate estimates used in this report 

were made. Readers wishing a more detailed technical explanation should read Appendix B in addition to 

this chapter. 

64Exceptions to this rule were made when there was a compelling reason to doing so, such as when examining the effects of programmatic 

changes that took place in the middle of a quarter. 

65See Chapter IV for an illustration of the seasonality in the number of transmissions. 

42 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

Two of the most basic questions addressed in this report are (1) how accurate is E-Verify,

66

 and (2) how 

effective is E-Verify in identifying workers without employment authorization (also referred to as work 

authorization in this report)?67

 Ideally, calculations of inaccuracy rates would be based on the true 

employment-authorization status of the workers with cases submitted to E-Verify, so that their true status 

can be compared with the E-Verify finding. If this information were available, estimating inaccuracy rates 

would be straightforward as illustrated in Exhibit II-8 and the following text. Since it is not available, it is 

necessary to use estimates of some of these numbers. 

Exhibit II-8. Information Needed to Calculate Inaccuracy Rates Used in This Report 

E-Verify finding 

True employment-authorization status 

Employment authorized Not employment Total 

authorized 

Employment authorized 

Correct finding for 

authorized workers 

(Na

...A) 

Unauthorized case found 

to be employment 

authorized (Nu

...A) 

 Total found by E-Verify to 

be employment authorized 

(Nt

...A) 

Not employment 

authorized 

Authorized case not found 

employment authorized 

(Na

...X) 

Correct finding for 

unauthorized workers 

(Nu

...X) 

Total not found 

by E-Verify to be 

employment authorized 

(Nt

...X) 

Total 

Total truly 

employment authorized 

(Na

) 

Total truly 

unauthorized 

(Nu

) 

All cases 

(Nt

) 

NOTES: Cases in which the true employment-authorization status and the E-Verify finding are inconsistent are highlighted in 

this exhibit. Explanation of the naming conventions used for variables in the report are available in Exhibit B-1. 

The following inaccuracy rates are used in this report: 

The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers (Ea

) is the percentage of workers with employment 

authorization who are not found by E-Verify to be employment authorized68 (in other words, they either 

received FNCs or unauthorized findings), i.e.: 

Ea

 = (Na...X)/Na 

The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers (Eu

) is the percentage of workers without employment 

authorization who are found to be employment authorized, i.e.: 

Eu

 = (Nu...A)/Nu 

66Discussed in Chapter VI. 

67Discussed in Chapter VII. 

68Explanation of the naming conventions used for variables in the report are available in Exhibit B-1.

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 43 
II RESEARCH METHODS


The total inaccuracy rate (Et

) is the percentage of workers who received a finding that is not consistent 

with their true employment-authorization status, i.e.: 

Et

 = [(Nu...A) + (Na...X)]/Nt 

Note that Et

 is not equal to the sum of the two inaccuracy rates above because the disproportionately large 

number of workers with employment authorization in the labor force results in the total inaccuracy rate 

being much closer to the inaccuracy rate for employment-authorized workers. 

In examining the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying workers without employment authorization, an 

effectiveness rate (F) is estimated. This rate is defined as 1.00 minus the E-Verify inaccuracy rate for 

unauthorized workers, i.e.: 

F = 1.00 - Eu 

Unfortunately, the true employment-authorization status of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify 

cannot be directly measured or easily determined. The major challenges in estimating the inaccuracy 

rates are as follows: 

• FNC cases from E-Verify include both persons without employment authorization who are 

unlikely to contest TNCs and employment-authorized workers who do not contest for a variety 

of reasons. For example, employment-authorized workers might not contest because they were 

not clearly informed of the TNC or because they decided to leave the job for reasons either 

related or unrelated to the TNC finding. 

• Some workers without employment authorization are found to be employment authorized by 

committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify. 

Because the inaccuracy rates cannot be directly determined from the information available, the evaluation 

team uses model-based estimates of these rates.69 Like any model-based estimates, these estimates are 

dependent upon the reasonableness of the assumptions underlying the model as well as the accuracy of 

the data used in constructing the model. As is typical of model-based estimates, the assumptions used in 

developing these estimates are based on the best data available from the evaluation and other reliable 

sources such as the Census Bureau, the Department of Labor, and recognized immigration experts. 

The following assumptions underlying the model are “built into” it: 

• The final work-authorization findings for workers who contest TNCs are correct, i.e.: 

Na

...U = 0 

Nu

RICA = 0 

Where Na

...U refers to authorized workers who are found to be unauthorized after contesting a 

TNC and Nu

RICA are unauthorized workers who contest a TNC and are found to be work 

authorized. 

69See Appendix B for more detailed information on the model. 

44 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

• When a TNC finding is issued, employer and worker behaviors may differ depending upon the 

person’s true work-authorization status, but those behaviors are not dependent upon the reason 

for the TNC. For example, workers not matched because of invalid SSNs were not more or less 

likely to have been informed of a TNC than were workers whose names did not match the SSA 

database. 

• The ratio (k) of employment-authorized workers who receive FNCs because they did not 

contest after being informed of their TNCs (Na

RID) to the number of employment-authorized 

workers who received FNCs because they were not informed of their TNCs (Na

RN) is 

approximately .183. This ratio is based on information from onsite worker interviews, i.e.: 

k = Na

RID/NaRN = .183 

The model also requires the model user to estimate two key parameters: 

• The percentage of all employment-authorized workers who were informed of their TNCs 

(Pa

RI). This value is assumed to be 70 percent with a plausible range from 60 to 80 percent. 

This range is based on information gathered during the evaluation: 

– On the employer Web survey, 98 percent of employers reported that they always 

informed their employees of TNCs. 

– Among the 100 onsite study employers that discussed their employee notification 

processes, 96 said that they always notify employees of TNCs. 

– However, there is good reason to believe that employers underreport noncompliance with 

E-Verify notification procedures. Among the 82 employers with two or more workers 

receiving TNCs, 37 had one or more employees who reported that they did not receive an 

explanation. This may be an overestimate of noncompliance because workers may not 

recall having the notice explained. 

– Among the 108 onsite study employers for which the evaluation team reviewed 

employment verification files of workers receiving TNCs, over half were missing copies 

of TNC notices for a majority of the workers for whom cases had been submitted to 

E-Verify. In some of these cases, it is likely that the employer provided the worker with 

the notice but did not correctly file it, as specified in E-Verify procedures. 

Based on the totality of the above information, the evaluation assumes that the actual percentage is 

between 60 percent and 80 percent, with 70 percent being a reasonable point estimate. 

• The estimated percentage of all cases submitted to E-Verify for workers who are not 

employment authorized (Pu

). For the purpose of this report, the percentage of unauthorized 

workers with cases submitted to E-Verify is estimated to be 6.2 percent with a plausible range 

from 4.7 to 7.5 percent. This range was based on the following information: The Pew Hispanic 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 45 
II 	 RESEARCH METHODS 

Center estimate of workers in the national labor force who were not work authorized in 2008 is 

5.4 percent.70 

– Standardizing the E-Verify transaction data to compensate for the state and industry 

differences between the national labor force and the Transaction Database cases provides 

an estimate that 6.7 percent of E-Verify cases are for unauthorized workers. 

– The 6.7 percent rate is further adjusted to take into account the fact that unauthorized 

workers tend to be more mobile than other workers due to a number of factors, including 

their lower educational attainment and disproportional employment in occupations with 

high turnover rates and in seasonal employment. According to Pew, the geographic 

mobility rate for immigrants between 2007 and 2008 was 18 percent for unauthorized 

immigrants compared to 11 percent for U.S.-born residents, meaning that unauthorized 

immigrants are 60 percent more mobile than U.S.-born workers. Assuming a correlation 

of geographic and job mobility, the estimated percentage of unauthorized workers among 

new hires would be 10.7 percent. 

– The 10.7 percent rate is adjusted to account for employment in the informal labor market 

(in which employees are paid “off the books”) since employers in the informal labor 

market would be unlikely to use E-Verify. The Immigration Policy Center estimates that 

between 25 percent and 50 percent of unauthorized workers are in the informal labor 

market. With this adjustment, it is estimated that between 5.4 and 8.0 percent of workers 

with cases submitted to E-Verify were unauthorized. 

– The Pew estimate of unauthorized workers in the labor force is most likely an 

underestimate according to the Director of the Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

– Based on the above information, a point estimate of 6.2 percent and a range of 4.7 to 

70Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Demographer, Pew Hispanic Center, and D'Vera Cohn, Senior Writer, Pew Research Center, A Portrait of 

Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, 4.14.2009 (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107). 

71The final inaccuracy rate for employment-authorized workers would be lower than that based on the initial finding and the final inaccuracy rate 

for non-employment-authorized workers would be approximately the same as the initial inaccuracy rate, since the contesting process permits 

some TNCs to be corrected, resulting in a final finding of work authorized. Although employers can ask for a reconsideration of a workauthorization finding, as discussed in Chapter VII, it is rare for an initial finding of work authorized to be changed, so that the initial and final 

inaccuracy rate for workers without employment authorization should be virtually the same. 

7.5 percent were used as the plausible range. 

Most inaccuracy rates in this report are based on the initial case findings (i.e., a TNC or an employmentauthorized finding without a TNC), because estimating final inaccuracy rates is generally more difficult 

than estimating the initial inaccuracy rates. If a final inaccuracy rate is estimated, it will be noted; 

otherwise, it can be assumed that the report is referring to initial inaccuracy rates.71 

46 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RESEARCH METHODS
 II 

3.2. Data Analysis 

3.2.1. Quantitative Analyses 

Quantitative data were collected from Web surveys of employers, reviews of worker verification records, 

coded information from onsite interviews, and secondary data (the Transaction Database, employer 

registration data, and Federal data sources). Most of the quantitative analyses of these data in this report 

consist of simple descriptive statistics (e.g., means and frequencies). WesVar was used for tests of 

significance when weighted data from the Web survey were examined. When comparing 2006 and 2008 

Web survey responses, t-tests for means were performed after adjusting for the unweighted 2006 survey 

responses and the weighted 2008 survey responses. For analyses using 2008 Web survey responses only, 

ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used. For the satisfaction and 

compliance scales, WesVar was used followed by t-tests with Bonferroni adjustment in Excel. 

When differences between the 2006 and 2008 Web surveys are not statistically significant, the lack of 

statistical significance is noted either by a direct statement to that effect or by describing the results of the 

two surveys as “similar” or approximately the same. Tests of statistical significance were not performed 

when analyzing Transaction Database data, because the large number of transactions ensured statistical 

significance even when differences are very small. 

3.2.2. Qualitative Analyses 

Most of the information collected from the onsite interviews was descriptive in nature. The information 

from these interviews was captured in summaries. These summaries highlighted information relevant to 

understanding discrimination against workers, especially information about the impacts of TNCs on 

workers and evidence of whether employers were following E-Verify procedures designed to minimize 

the negative impacts of TNCs. 

Qualitative information was also obtained from open-ended questions in the employer Web survey. These 

were used primarily to provide descriptive information and specific employer suggestions. 

As noted above, analysis of the qualitative data was facilitated through the use of NVivo, a software 

package for use in coding qualitative data. Interview summaries were coded in the program, and analysts 

reviewed the data for employers, workers, and subgroups of these populations. Some of the results of the 

NVivo coding were used in quantitative analyses, primarily as descriptive statistics. 

For questions on the onsite protocols, counts of employers and workers providing specified responses are 

presented along with the number of persons responding to the question. In some cases, employers or 

workers volunteered information of interest that was recorded; since there is no way of knowing how 

other employers would have responded if asked for the same information, the report can only provide the 

number of cases in which employers or workers made a specific statement or recommendation. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 47 
CHAPTER III. PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter examines several questions that help to place the remainder of the report into context: 

• What are the recent system outcomes? 

• What changes have there been in the characteristics of E-Verify employers and the workers for 

whom they submit cases since the start of the Program? 

• How do E-Verify employers and the workers with cases submitted to E-Verify differ from all 

employers and all new hires in the nation? 

• What legislative changes might have affected program outcomes? 

• What recent programmatic changes might have had an impact on program outcomes? 

Parts 2 and 3 of the report will use the answers to these questions to help in understanding past trends and 

likely future trends. 

The policy goals of E-Verify, as stated in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which originally authorized the E-Verify Program, are to create a system that is 

effective in minimizing the employment of unauthorized workers while being nondiscriminatory, 

protective of privacy, and nonburdensome for employers. One of the basic conundrums facing the 

E-Verify Program is that implementing procedures designed to move the Program closer to one goal may 

impede its ability to meet another goal. For example, procedures aimed at reducing unauthorized 

employment by making it harder for noncitizens without work authorization to avoid detection may 

increase the likelihood that work-authorized noncitizens will erroneously receive Tentative 

Nonconfirmations (TNCs), which may lead to discrimination against them. Although the evaluation team 

can provide information about the effects of E-Verify on multiple goals in this situation, deciding whether 

to keep or implement a new procedure must reflect the relative priority of the goals as well as the 

magnitude of the effects on the goals. Such judgments cannot appropriately be made by the evaluators. 

2. SYSTEM OUTCOMES 

2.1. Background 

To answer the evaluation questions discussed in Parts 2 and 3, it is necessary to have an understanding of 

recent system outcomes. This chapter first presents summary outcome information for April through June 

2008, the most recent period available for analysis at the time this report was written. It then discusses 

outcomes separately for persons attesting to be citizens on the Form I-9 and those stating they are 

noncitizens, because the verification processes differ for these two groups. Finally, trends in E-Verify 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 48 
2.3%

SSA final nonconfirmation

PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

outcomes are presented and briefly discussed. More information on these trends is contained in the later 

chapters. 

2.2. Findings 

2.2.1. Overview of Outcomes During April Through June 2008 

Most cases submitted to E-Verify are found to be work authorized. Between April and June 2008, 

employers submitted over 1.7 million cases to E-Verify. As shown in Exhibit III-1, 88 percent of cases 

were confirmed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to be work authorized, and 9 percent were 

verified by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as being individuals authorized to 

work. Only 0.01 percent (181 cases) were found to be unauthorized by USCIS. The remaining 3 percent 

of all cases were never resolved by the worker (2 percent received “Final Nonconfirmation by SSA” and 

1 percent received “Final Nonconfirmation by USCIS”). In these cases, workers did not contest TNC 

responses from SSA or USCIS because they were not work authorized, did not understand what they 

needed to do to contest, or their employers did not follow the proper notification procedures.72 

Exhibit III-1. Final E-Verify Outcome Findings: April–June 2008 

0.8% 

Final Nonconfirmation 

88.3% 

8.6% 

All work authorized by 

USCIS 

by USCIS 

0.01% Contested USCIS 

TNC and not found 

authorized to work 

2.3% 

SSA Final Nonconfirmation 

All work authorized by 

SSA 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Most workers are instantly found to be employment authorized. Exhibit III-2 reflects some of the 

intermediate steps in the verification process. In April through June 2008, 95 percent of workers were 

instantly found to be work authorized (88 percent by SSA and 7 percent by USCIS) and an additional 

1 percent (19,300 cases) were verified as work authorized after an initial “in process” finding and review 

72 See Appendix C for a more detailed table displaying case outcomes. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 49 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


by an Immigration Status Verifier (ISV) without a TNC being issued.73

 TNCs were issued for 

approximately 4 percent of all cases. Among all the cases receiving TNCs, 2 percent became Final 

Nonconfirmations (FNCs) because, according to information in the Transaction Database, they did not 

contest the initial finding. Another 1 percent of all cases submitted to the Transaction Database in April 

through June 2008 became FNCs because the workers failed to complete the TNC resolution process. 

Less than 1 percent of all cases were found to be work authorized after contesting a TNC (0.3 percent by 

SSA and 0.1 percent by USCIS).74 

Exhibit III-2. E-Verify Findings, Reflecting Intermediate Steps: April–June 2008 

by ISV without a TNC 

3.6% 

Received TNC 

1.1%

Verified work authorized 1.0% 

FNC (no show) 

0.01% 

Not work 

95.3% authorized 

Instantly verified after contesting as work 

authorized 

0.5% 

2.1% Verified work authorized 

FNC (not contested) after contesting 

NOTES: “Not contested” Final Nonconfirmations (FNCs) are ones issued when employers do not report through E-Verify that they have referred 

workers to SSA or USCIS to resolve Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs). Not contested TNCs occur when workers tell their employers that they 

do not wish to contest; however, they also occur when workers are not told about their TNCs. “No show” FNCs are those in which the employers 

report that they have referred workers to SSA or USCIS but workers do not contact the agency. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Only a small percentage of TNC cases are contested, and most of them are found to be work 

authorized. In April through June 2008, 62,000 cases received a TNC from SSA or USCIS. Among these 

TNC cases, approximately 8,200 (13 percent) were contested and 8,000 of the contested cases 

(98 percent) were found to be work authorized. 

2.2.2. Case Outcomes for Workers Attesting to Being U.S. Citizens 

From April through June 2008, employers submitted over 1.5 million cases to E-Verify for persons 

attesting to being U.S. citizens. As illustrated in Exhibit III-3, 98 percent of these cases were instantly 

confirmed as work authorized by SSA at the first verification attempt; the remaining 25,000 (2 percent) of 

the cases received TNCs. 

Among U.S. citizen cases receiving TNCs, approximately 20 percent (5,000) were contested and found to 

be work authorized. U.S. citizen cases found to be work authorized after a TNC constituted approximately 

0.3 percent of all transactions for persons attesting to being U.S. citizens. 

73 The title of the ISVs has recently been changed to Management and Program Assistants; however, the older title is retained here because it is 

more descriptive of the work they do. 

74The sum of these percents is not equal to the total because of rounding. 

50 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Employer enters new

employee Information is compared 

Form I-9 data with SSA database

(1,548,721)

Authorized 

(1,523,884 - 98.4%) 

Tentative Nonconfirmation issued 

(24,837) 

Citizenship status 

verified? 

(1,536,292) Matched (1,524,919) Yes 

(1,517,747) 

Pre-TNC check 

(23,802) 

Matched 

(11,373) Not matched 

 (23,802) 

Naturalization Phase I 

(11,426) 

Citizenship status verified 

(6,137) 

No 

(11,426) 

Citizenship status not verified 

(5,289) 

Cannot verify both 

identification and 

permanent 

work-authorization data 

(7,119) 

Not matched 

(12,429) 

Employee resolved TNC with SSA or USCIS

(under Naturalization Phase II)?

(24,837)

Final Nonconfirmation by SSA 

(19,985 - 1.3%) 

Authorized 

(4,852 - 0.3%) 

No (13,493) 

Citizenship status verified? (11,344) No (6,492) 

Yes (4,852) 

Yes (11,344) 

PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

For persons attesting to being U.S. citizens, 1 percent (20,000 cases) of all transactions represented FNC 

outcomes from SSA queries. In those cases, SSA was unable to confirm the individual’s authorization to 

work during its automated matching processes. For a variety of reasons, the original TNC findings were 

not contested and followed to completion. For instance, the Transaction Database records indicate that 

68 percent (14,000) of all SSA FNC cases related to workers who were not referred to SSA. In some of 

these cases, the workers were informed of problems but decided not to contest their TNCs, possibly 

because they were not work authorized and were fraudulently attesting to being U.S. citizens or for other 

reasons. In other cases, it is likely that the employer did not inform the worker or did not provide all the 

information needed to contest in a way that the worker could understand. 

Exhibit III-3. Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being U.S. Citizens on Form I-9: 

April–June 2008 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The remaining 6,000 SSA FNC cases for workers attesting to being U.S. citizens include workers who 

told their employers that they would contest but did not do so either because they had falsely attested U.S. 

citizenship and were not work authorized or for other reasons. For example, seven onsite study employers 

volunteered the information that they had had experiences with employees who stated they were going to 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 51 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


contest but never actually did.75

 Only one employer said that after indicating they would contest, 

employees worked until their contesting period was up (or the first pay day, whichever came first) and 

then did not return to work. The other six of these employers said that their employees had received TNC 

notices and indicated they were going to contest, but never returned to work after receiving the TNC. 

When a worker attesting to being a U.S. citizen decides to contest, the employer should refer the case in 

the system to SSA or, for cases that SSA data matches but citizenship cannot be confirmed, to SSA or 

USCIS. If a case was not instantly confirmed as employment authorized, the system captured the reason 

for the TNC. This SSA response code indicated that among these TNC cases for persons attesting to 

being U.S. citizens in April through June 2008: 

• 39 percent (approximately 7,700) were cases with Form I-9 data matched to SSA data for 

which SSA could not confirm citizenship status (Exhibit III-4); 

• 29 percent (5,800) occurred because either the date of birth (DOB) or the name disagreed with 

SSA database (15 percent and 14 percent, respectively); 

• 26 percent (5,200) were cases in which both name and DOB disagreed with the SSA database; 

• 5 percent (approximately 1,000 cases) had an invalid Social Security number (SSN) when 

compared to SSA data. 

• 2 percent (approximately 300 cases) had a matching SSN, but the number apparently belonged 

to a deceased person. 

Exhibit III-4. Citizen FNC Cases, by SSA Response Code: April–June 2008 

RESPONSE CODE NUMBER PERCENT 

Total 19,985 100.0 

Matched, but not work authorized 7,723 38.6 

DOB and name not matched 5,160 25.8 

DOB not matched 3,062 15.3 

Name not matched 2,704 13.5 

Invalid SSN 987 4.9 

Matched, but death indicator present 

SSN does not verify, other reason 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

342 

7 

1.7 

0.0 

2.2.3. Case Outcomes for Workers Attesting to Being Noncitizens 

From May 5 through June 2008, employers submitted cases for approximately 114,000 persons attesting 

to being work-authorized noncitizens on their Form I-9s. The outcomes of these cases are displayed in 

Exhibit III-5. 

75 This question was not in the interview protocol; however, interviewers were instructed to record relevant comments related to E-Verify even if 

the volunteered information did not relate to any of the questions. 

52 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

Exhibit III-5. Verification Process for Persons Attesting to Being Noncitizens on Form I-9: 

May 5–June 2008 

SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation issued Employer enters new

(113,665)

employee Form I-9 data Information is compared 

with SSA database 

(12,651) 

Final Nonconfirmation by 

SSA (12,274 - 10.8%) 

SSA refers to USCIS 

(101,391) 

Employee resolved TNC 

with SSA? 

Authorized 

(81,501 - 71.7%) 

USCIS status verifier checks other 

DHS databases 

(19,712) 

Authorized 

(9,791 - 8.6%) 

USCIS Tentative 

Nonconfirmation issued (10,099) Authorized 

(1,866 - 1.6%) 

Final Nonconfirmation by USCIS 

(8,126 - 7.1%) 

Unauthorized 

(107 - 0.1%) 

Matched 

No 

Not matched 

Work authorization 

verified? (1,973) 

Matched 

Yes 

No 

Employee resolved 

TNC with USCIS? 

(4,217) 

Contested 

(4,217) 

Not contested 

(5,882) No 

Yes 

Pre-TNC check 

Matched 

Not matched Not matched 

Work authorization 

verified? 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Information is compared with USCIS 

database (101,391 - 89.2%) 

Pre-TNC check 

(14,997) 

Not matched 

Not matched 

(9,784) 

Matched and 

verified 

(76,466) 

Matched and 

verified 

(5,213) 

Eligible for Photo 

Screening Tool? 

(81,679) 

Photo matched? 

(42,694) 

Yes (42,694) Photo 

matched 

(42,516) 

No (38,985) 

Photo not matched (178) 

Matched, but 

not verified (9,928) 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

In 11 percent (approximately 12,000) of the noncitizen cases, the information about name, SSN, and DOB 

on the SSA database did not match the information that the employer submitted, and SSA issued a TNC 

that later became an SSA FNC (Exhibit III-6). The initial SSA findings for these SSA FNCs are: 

• 66 percent (8,100 cases) used both a name and DOB that differed from the SSA database; 

• 18 percent (2,200) had an invalid DOB or name; 

• 16 percent (1,900) had invalid SSNs; and 

• Less than 1 percent (40 cases) used an SSN that matched but belonged to a person who was 

deceased. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 53 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

Exhibit III-6. Noncitizen SSA FNC Cases, by SSA Response Code: May 5–June 2008 

RESPONSE CODE NUMBER PERCENT 

Total 12,274 100.0 

DOB and name not matched 8,143 66.3 

Invalid SSN 1,912 15.6 

DOB not matched 1,349 11.0 

Name not matched 828 6.7 

Matched, but death indicator present 41 0.3 

Other reason 1 0.0 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Approximately 101,000 cases (89 percent of all noncitizen cases) in which the worker attested to being a 

noncitizen were forwarded to USCIS after SSA confirmed that the Form I-9 identifying information 

matched SSA’s database information. Although the SSA finding usually was made instantaneously, a few 

of these cases were forwarded to USCIS after a resolved SSA TNC. 

When noncitizens are able to resolve SSA TNCs, the resolved case information is forwarded to USCIS 

for verification of the work authorization. It is thus possible for noncitizens to resolve a TNC with SSA 

and then receive a TNC from USCIS. From May 5 through June 2008, there were 377 cases in which a 

noncitizen resolved a case with SSA after a TNC. All were authorized without a USCIS TNC. 

The employer-submitted information for noncitizen cases forwarded to USCIS is electronically matched 

against the USCIS database. Of those 101,000 USCIS-referred cases, 72 percent were instantly confirmed 

as work authorized by USCIS at the first attempt; an additional 9 percent of the cases were confirmed as 

work authorized after an ISV review or after the worker successfully contested a TNC. 

Similar to the SSA portion of the system, the USCIS portion captured the reason for the TNC when a case 

was not confirmed to be employment authorized. Among the 8,000 cases that received a USCIS FNC, the 

most frequent problem was an alien or receipt number that either was not found or there was a mismatch, 

the reason given in 4,100 (50 percent) of the cases (Exhibit III-7). In 1,900 cases (24 percent), there was 

no match on name and in 400 cases (5 percent) there was no match on the DOB. In the remaining 

20 percent of the cases, there was another reason for the TNC. 

Exhibit III-7. Reasons That USCIS FNC Cases Received TNCs: May 5–June 2008 

Alien/receipt number not found or receipt number mismatch 

No match on name 

No match on birth date 

Other 20.0 

5.4 

24.4 

50.2 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Percent 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

54 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 

60 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

2.2.4. Trends in Outcomes 

III 

There have been significant increases in the number of cases processed by both SSA and USCIS 

since the start of the Program. In July through September 2004, when the Web-based version of EVerify was first made operational, final outcomes were provided by SSA for approximately 51,000 cases 

and by USCIS for 4,000 cases (Exhibit III-8). By April through June 2008, the number of SSA final 

outcomes had grown to approximately 1.6 million (a 30-fold increase) while the number for USCIS had 

grown to 162,000 (a 40-fold increase). The difference in growth rates for SSA and USCIS are 

attributable, at least in part, to a change in procedures in October 2005 that required all noncitizen cases to 

go to USCIS for determination of work-authorization status even if SSA records showed the noncitizens 

to have permanent work authorization. The increase in growth rate since October 2005 has been a sevenfold increase for SSA and a six-fold increase for USCIS. 

Exhibit III-8. Total Number of E-Verify Cases, by Agency Issuing the Final Outcome: 

July 2004–June 2008 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1,800,000 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

N

u

m

ber of cases 

Transactions decided by SSA 

Transactions decided by USCIS 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The percentage of cases found to be work authorized instantly and the percentage found work 

authorized without a TNC have increased considerably since the start of the Program. In July 

through September 2004, 91.6 percent of the cases were instantly found to be work authorized compared 

to 95.3 percent in April through June 2008 (Exhibit III-9). During the same time period, the percentage of 

cases found work authorized without a TNC also increased substantially—from 92.3 percent to 

96.4 percent. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 55 
80

100

98

91.6 91.3 91.1 92.5 92.6 91.9 92.3 92.8 92.9 

93.4 93.2 

94.3 94.3 94.5 94.0 

92.3 92.1 92.3 95.3 

93.5 93.4 

92.7 93.2 

94.0 94.2 94.6 94.5 

95.6 

95.8 95.9 95.7 96.4 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Instantly verified 

\\ 

Verified without a TNC 

96 

94 

92 

90 

88 

86 

84 

82 

0 

Percent 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


Exhibit III-9. Trends in E-Verify Outcomes: July 2004–June 2008 

Percent of cases instantly found work authorized and 

percent found work authorized without a TNC 

Percent 

10 

0.80 0.86 0.93 0.84 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.77 0.70 0.76 0.69 0.69 0.56 0.64 0.46 

6.91 7.08 6.82 

5.60 5.75 

6.44 

5.89 

5.19 5.01 4.70 4.73 

3.73 3.54 3.50 3.68 3.11 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Work authorized after a TNC 

Not found work authorized 8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Percent of cases found work authorized after a TNC and 

percent not found work authorized 

56 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
76Westat, Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation, September 2007 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf). 

77 This is the date that the Photo Screening Tool was implemented on a large-scale basis. Prior to that, it was piloted with a small number of 

employers that volunteered to test it. 

78 See Chapter VI for a flow diagram of this process. 

79 This is the date that the USCIS pre-TNC check was implemented on a large-scale basis. Prior to that, it was available to employers that were 

piloting the Photo Screening Tool. 

80 Prior to the pre-TNC changes, employers were asked to verify the information for all cases (potential TNC and non-TNC cases alike). 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

Both the percentage of cases found work authorized after a TNC and the percentage not found 

work authorized have declined over time. In July through September 2004, 0.8 percent of cases were 

found to be work authorized after a TNC; by April through June 2008, this figure had declined to 

0.5 percent (Exhibit III-9). During the same time period, the percentage of cases not found work 

authorized (i.e., received an FNC or a not authorized finding) declined from 6.9 percent to 3.1 percent. 

3. PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES 

Many of the research questions in this report ask about the impacts of program changes on indicators of 

program success such as usage, timeliness, and accuracy. It is, therefore, important to understand the 

program changes that have been made to E-Verify and when they were made. This report primarily 

discusses the impacts of changes in E-Verify that occurred after March 2007, because earlier changes 

were discussed in the previous evaluation report.76

 The major changes to E-Verify discussed in this 

report include the following: 

• Photo Screening Tool (September 2007).77 The Photo Screening Tool permits employers to 

compare photographs on worker documents with digital photographs stored in government 

systems. The purpose of this comparison is to detect existing valid documents that have a new 

photograph substituted for the original document photograph or that are counterfeit documents 

created with valid information but a new photograph. As of the time that the report was being 

written, the only documents available on the Photo Screening Tool were Permanent Resident 

(“green”) cards and Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).78 

• SSA pre-TNC check and USCIS pre-TNC checks (September 2007).79 The SSA pre-TNC 

check immediately prompts employers to review their input and correct any detected 

inaccuracies prior to the issuance of a TNC. For USCIS, the pre-TNC check prompts 

employers to review their input prior to the case being sent to secondary verification in which 

ISVs manually check additional DHS databases.80 

• EV-STAR (E-Verify SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation Automated Response System) 

(October 2007). This change automates the tracking process for SSA referrals and actions to 

resolve contested SSA TNCs. The goals of this change are to improve tracking of SSA TNC 

cases and the communication between employers and SSA on the status and final outcome of 

SSA TNC cases. The SSA TNC tracking process instituted with EV-STAR more closely 

mirrors the USCIS TNC tracking process than was the case prior to EV-STAR. 

• Naturalization Phase I (May 2008). This change added an automated DHS database-checking 

process for workers attesting to be U.S. citizens when SSA records are consistent with the 

information submitted on SSN, name, and DOB, but cannot confirm work-authorization status. 

The new automated check compares the employer-submitted information with USCIS 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 57 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

naturalization databases to determine whether the information submitted belongs to a 

naturalized citizen. The goal of this change is to avoid erroneously issuing TNCs to naturalized 

citizens who did not update their SSA records after naturalization to reflect their new 

citizenship status. It is a response to prior evaluations that indicated that the erroneous TNC 

rate for naturalized citizens was considerably higher than both the rate for U.S.-born workers 

and the rate for noncitizens. 

• Naturalization Phase II (May 2008). This change provides a special referral letter for workers 

attesting to being U.S. citizens when their SSA records are consistent with the information 

submitted on SSN, name, and DOB but neither SSA nor USCIS records can confirm that they 

are U.S. citizens. The letter provides them with an opportunity to voluntarily contact USCIS by 

phone or fax to resolve the problem by providing their former alien or “A” number rather than 

going in person to an SSA field office. While all U.S. citizen cases are handled by SSA, this 

process, which allows foreign-born U.S. citizens to choose to contact USCIS to resolve a TNC, 

was developed to help reduce TNCs among U.S. citizens who had naturalized or derived U.S. 

citizenship and therefore had USCIS records that might resolve the citizenship issue without a 

trip to an SSA office. 

In addition to these major changes, USCIS reported additional changes implemented between March 2007 

and June 2008: 

• Establishment of a Monitoring and Compliance unit; however, as of June 2008, its focus had 

primarily been on developing operating procedures and other preparatory tasks, so that little 

impact on the Program could have been expected at the time of the evaluation. 

• Establishment of a Privacy Branch to respect and uphold the privacy of individuals subject to 

the immigration verification process. 

• Establishment of a new Customer Call Center. 

• Revision of the E-Verify Web site to make it easier for employers to locate online resources 

and updating of the online User Manual. 

• Inclusion of material on EV-STAR and the Photo Screening Tool in the tutorial. 

• Updating of the Designated Agent tutorial. 

• Addition of announcement banners to the E-Verify screen to notify employers of upcoming 

program changes or other matters of interest. 

• Provision of forgotten passwords through an automated system instead of requiring users to 

call the Help Desk. 

• Institution of a new link to a Web page for State Workforce Agencies. This Web page 

includes the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a quick reference guide, a poster, and a 

tutorial; however, there was no specialized user manual prepared as of June 2008. 

58 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

• Institution of a link to automated nonimmigrant arrival information to obtain real-time arrival 

information for newly arrived nonimmigrants. The link was added on May 5, 2008. 

• Expansion of outreach efforts, by both the Outreach and the Monitoring and Compliance 

Divisions aimed at recruiting new employers and educating existing employers about their 

responsibilities and, to a lesser extent, educating workers of their rights. These efforts consisted 

of: 

– Advertising; 

– Conducting over 100 information sessions with business associations and state groups; 

– Conducting monthly Webinars; 

– Meeting with state and Federal legislators; 

– Changing and updating the USCIS Web site, including adding a page with an overview of 

E-Verify statistics; 

– Developing means of reaching out to small businesses, including partnering with the 

Small Business Administration; and 

– Attending relevant conferences (e.g., the American Payroll Association) and staffing 

resource tables, booths, and handing out brochures at these conferences. 

USCIS also continues to work on system and programmatic enhancements to the E-Verify system. 

Changes scheduled for implementation include: 

• Combining the general and the Photo Screening Tool TNC notices and referral letters; 

• Revising EV-STAR system procedures to make it possible for SSA field staff to create 

EV-STAR records for workers receiving TNCs from SSA when the employer does not indicate 

on the E-Verify database that the worker wishes to contest the TNC; 

• Improving the case alert system to provide employers with more information about their 

E-Verify cases that need action; 

• Modifying the employer registration process to make it easier for employers to understand 

which user type is appropriate for their needs; 

• Rewording the TNC and referral letters to make them easier to understand; 

• Instituting a regulatory requirement that employers hiring certain F-1 Students for Optional 

Practical Training (OPT) must participate in E-Verify; and 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 59 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

• Preparing a special MOU for State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) to explicitly permit them to 

start the E-Verify verification process prior to referring workers for employment, even though 

the state is not expected to be the employer. 

Other future changes expected are: 

• An update of the system to accommodate anticipated regulatory changes to the lists of 

documents acceptable for use with the Form I-9; 

• Modification of E-Verify to handle cases for Federal contractors who will be required to 

participate in E-Verify by regulation in mid-2009; 

• Implementation of institutionalized monitoring and compliance activities; 

• Implementation of additional modifications to the system to make it more user-friendly, 

including changes to case notification and navigation usability; 

• Implementation of recommendations based on an ongoing plain language initiative to make 

written material (e.g., tutorial, manual, notices, Web sites) clearer; 

• Preparation of new or revised tutorials on worker privacy issues, monitoring and compliance, 

and other employer functions (e.g., legal or head of Human Resources); 

• Improvements in the registration process to make it more secure and also to clarify information 

needed from the employer; and 

• Additional outreach efforts, including 

– More advertising, 

– A Web site designed for workers, 

– Translating workers’ rights document into nine languages, 

– Speaking at events for groups concerned with workers’ rights, 

– Distributing posters and brochures to workers and their representatives, and 

– Outreach to small businesses. 

Other possible future changes include the following: 

• Increasing use of an electronic Form I-9. However, there are security and privacy issues that 

must be resolved for this to be accomplished, and ways to help those with no access to a 

computer also must be found. 

60 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

• Developing ways to help employers with no access to a computer who would like or are 

required to participate in E-Verify. 

• Making the Photo Screening Tool available to Designated Agents and Web Services providers. 

There are privacy and security concerns about doing this because they would need to store 

digital photographs provided by the government in order to provide them to their clients.81 

• Providing USCIS information to SSA automatically when noncitizens become naturalized, so 

that SSA can update its records. 

• Verifying cases based on visa number; however, this could lead to increased numbers of TNCs 

because of data entry errors and could create more burden for users because the visa number 

would need to be written on the Form I-9, if used in the verification process. 

• Possibly putting the tutorial on the Web site along with the MOU and manual that are currently 

available, so that employers can have a clearer idea of E-Verify procedures prior to registering. 

4. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES 

In numerous cases, state legislatures have proposed or enacted legislation to require or prohibit E-Verify 

usage by some or all of its employers. Exhibit III-10 summarizes the situation as of March 31, 2008. 

Although there were additional changes in proposed legislation after this date, the last date for which 

trend data are presented in this report were for April through June 2008. Using the March cut-off permits 

examination of quarterly trends, including those for the April through June 2008 period. 

States were grouped into categories for analysis purposes based on the information in Exhibit III-10. 

Exhibit III-10. State Legislation Related to E-Verify 

Legislative status as of 3/31/08 State(s) 

State that had implemented a mandate requiring all Arizona 

employers to use E-Verify 

States that had implemented a mandate requiring some 

Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, but not all employers to use E-Verify and Utah 

Other Remaining states 

SOURCE: National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13127#table), downloaded 6/30/09. 

81 In the current system, the photograph appears on the user’s screen; however, Designated Agents would need to have an ability to transmit 

photographs to their clients unless clients were required to provide their Designated Agents with copies of certain documents used for I-9 

verification. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 61 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


5. CHARACTERISTICS OF EMPLOYERS USING THE PROGRAM AND THE 

WORKERS FOR WHOM THEY SUBMIT CASES 

5.1. Background 

This section examines trends in the representation of different types of employers in E-Verify and the 

workers for whom they submit cases. This information provides a context for understanding what factors 

underlie the observed changes in the measures of program success discussed in Part 2 of the report and 

employers’ satisfaction and burdens discussed in Part 3. Employer characteristics discussed include size, 

industry, the E-Verify access method82

 that the employer uses, and the reported percentage of the 

employer’s workers who are immigrants. Three primary sources of data are available to measure the 

characteristics of employers participating in E-Verify: the Transaction Database, the Web survey, and 

onsite employer interviews. These sources may not provide identical information about an employer 

because of differences in the information available, the questions asked, or measurement errors, or with 

the Web survey, sampling variability. Information about national distributions on the same variables is 

obtained from Federal data sources when available and may not be strictly comparable. 

There are two sources of information about the citizenship status and place of birth of persons with 

information submitted to E-Verify, both of which have advantages and disadvantages. First, there is 

information provided by the person on the Form I-9. This information distinguishes persons attesting to 

being U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or other work-authorized noncitizens. The strength of this 

data source is that it is available for all cases submitted to E-Verify. Its weaknesses are that it does not 

distinguish between foreign-born and U.S.-born citizens and, of course, does not indicate the correct 

citizenship and place of birth category of persons without work authorization. Additionally, this 

information is self-reported, and the interviewers conducting the onsite interviews of workers noted that 

some workers do not understand the categories and are, therefore, misclassified.83

 Although the 

interviewers did not precisely track what percentage of workers had trouble identifying their status, 

anecdotal information indicates that this problem was not rare. Furthermore, a few employers reported 

that some employees indicated that they were citizens or nationals so that they would not have to provide 

a document that would trigger the Photo Screening Tool. 

The second source of information about citizenship status and place of birth of workers is data maintained 

by SSA. This data source does differentiate between foreign-born and U.S.-born citizens. However, no 

information is available if SSA data cannot be matched with employer-provided data, which is the case 

for most SSA FNC cases. Furthermore, SSA records about the citizenship status of foreign-born workers 

are often not up to date.84 

Since some types of employers transmit a disproportionately high or low number of cases, the 

distributions of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify will not completely parallel the employer 

distributions, even when a variable such as industry that refers to the characteristics of the worker’s 

employer is examined. This section, therefore, examines trends in the characteristics of workers with 

cases submitted to E-Verify, by their employers’ size, industry, and access method between July 2004 and 

82Employer, Designated Agent, User of Designated Agent, or Web Services provider. 

83This was not an item that interviewers were asked to record formally; however, interviewers estimated that as many as one-quarter of the 

interviewees have trouble understanding these categories. 

84See Chapter II for information about how the evaluation compensated for the latter problem. 

62 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

June 2008. It also examines changes in the distribution of workers characterized by their reported 

citizenship status on the Form I-9. The trend in the Form I-9 citizenship status and place of birth of 

workers found to be work authorized is also examined.

85 

5.2. Findings 

5.2.1. Employer Size 

Large employers are much more likely to be enrolled in E-Verify than are small employers.

Exhibit III-11 shows that 12 percent of employers responding to the Web survey and 14 percent of 

employers transmitting cases in April through June 2008 had fewer than 10 employees compared to 

approximately 73 percent of the employers in the nation.86 

Exhibit III-11. Distribution of E-Verify and National Employers, by Employer Size Employer size by number of employees 

1,000 and over 

500-999 

100-499 

20-99 

10-19 

Less than 10 

11.7 

5.7 

28.7 

35.3 

8.0 

10.6 

13.8 

10.4 

32.4 

29.1 

6.4 

7.9 

73.3 

12.7 

11.7 

2.1 

0.2 

0.1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Nation 

Transaction Database 

Web Survey 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: National employer size is based on establishment size and E-Verify transaction data are for all employers transmitting 

cases or having cases transmitted for them. 

SOURCES: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008, E-Verify Transaction Database: April–June 2008, and U.S. Census County Business 

Patterns: 2006. 

85As discussed in Chapter II and above, information on place of birth is only available when SSA is able to match the employer-submitted 

information on SSN, name, and DOB to the information available in SSA records. Since most workers not found to be work authorized at some 

point in the verification process could not be matched with SSN records, the place of birth of these workers cannot be determined. 

86As discussed in Chapter II, the definition of employer in E-Verify results in the number of employers being between the number of 

establishments and firms as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 63 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


Small employers are more likely to be enrolled in E-Verify than was true at the start of the 

Program. According to the Transaction Database information, at the start of the Web-based program in 

July through September 2004, 5 percent of employers transmitting cases had fewer than 10 employees, 

1 percent had 10 to 19 employees, and 16 percent had 20 to 99 employees (Exhibit III-12). By April 

through June 2008, these percentages had grown to 14, 10, and 32 percent, respectively, but the numbers 

were still well below the nation, in which 73 percent of establishments have less than 10 employees. This 

growth in representation of small employers was also reflected in the Web survey. The percentage of 

employers reporting in the 2006 survey that they had fewer than 10 employees was 4 percent compared to 

12 percent in the 2008 survey. For employers with 10 to 99 employees, the corresponding increase was 

from 14 percent to 34 percent. The Dissimilarity Index comparing E-Verify employers transmitting cases 

to the Transaction Database to national employers based on employer size decreased from 26.6 to 20.6 

between July 2004 and June 200887

 (Exhibit III-13). 

Exhibit III-12. Trend in Percent of All Small E-Verify Employers Transmitting Cases, 

by Employer Size: July 2004–June 2008 Percent of employers 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

5.0 5.5 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.9 

8.2 

12.6 

17.3 17.3 15.7 14.5 13.4 12.6 

14.6 13.8 

1.2 1.1 1.9 2.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 6.2 

8.2 7.5 7.8 7.7 

7.6 7.1 

10.7 10.4 

15.8 15.9 16.8 

19.8 20.6 

17.9 19.1 

23.6 23.3 22.4 

24.4 25.5 26.3 

27.0 

32.4 32.3 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

April-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Less than 10 

10 to 19 

20 to 99 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

87 The Dissimilarity Index, which ranges from 0, indicating the two distributions are exactly the same, to 100, indicating complete disagreement, 

is discussed in Chapter II. 

64 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

Exhibit III-13. Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Size for Employers Transmitting at Least One Case 

to the E-Verify Transaction Database: July 2004–June 2008 

30 

26.3 26.3 

26.1 25.2 

22.4 

20.2 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.7 22.1 20.2 20.6 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Dissimilarity Index (compared 

to national establishments) 

Percent 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

26.6 26.5 26.2 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and U.S. Census County Business Patterns: 2006. 

The growth in the representation of small employers in E-Verify is not simply explained by the 

existence of new access methods that may make it easier for small employers to participate. Based 

on employer information provided at registration, the representation of employers with fewer than 100 

employees has increased among employers in the long-standing employer access category as well as the 

newer categories of Designated Agents, Users of Designated Agents,88

 and Web Services providers 

between April through June 2007 and April through June 2008 (Exhibit III-14). 

88 Access type is based on employer registration type. Users of Designated Agents are employers that have cases transmitted by Designated 

Agents. Designated Agents are only included if they have transmitted cases for themselves. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 65 
30

Exhibit III-14. Trend in Percent of Active E-Verify Employers Having Fewer Than 100 Employees, 

by Access Method: April 2007–June 2008 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

0 

47.5 47.2 46.4 

56.8 

55.9 

52.6 

42.7 43.5 

66.2 64.1 

57.5 

54.1 55.1 

69.4 66.5 

57.9 

54.3 

58.7 

70.4 68.9 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 2007 FY 2008 

Regular employers 

Web Services 

Designated Agent 

User of a Designated Agent 

\\ 

Percent 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


NOTE: Access type is based on employer registration type. Users of Designated Agents are employers that have cases 

transmitted by Designated Agents. Designated Agents are only included if they have transmitted cases for themselves. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The percentage of cases submitted to E-Verify by employers with fewer than 10 employees and 

employers with 20 to 99 employees has increased since the start of the Program; however, the 

percentage of those transmitted by employers with 10 to 19 employees has not. The percentage of 

cases transmitted to E-Verify by employers with fewer than 10 employees increased by approximately 

80 percent between July through September 2004 and April through June 2008 (from 7 percent to 

13 percent) (Exhibit III-15); however, this increase was not steady over this time period. The rate 

increased from the start of the Program until July through September 2006, when the rate rose to 

approximately 23 percent before declining to the 13 percent rate in April through June 2008. During this 

time, the number of cases for employers with 10 to 19 employees decreased from 6 to 3 percent and the 

representation of employers with 20 to 99 employees increased from 8 to 11 percent. Overall, the 

Dissimilarity Index for cases by employer size between July through September 2004 and April through 

June 2008 based on national data for establishments has decreased slightly from 14 to 12 percent 

(Exhibit III-16). 

66 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

Exhibit III-15. Trend in Percent of All Cases Transmitted to E-Verify, by Size of Employer 

Transmitting Cases (Small Employers Only): July 2004–June 2008 Percent of verifications 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Less than 10 

10 to 19 

20 to 99 

III 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Exhibit III-16. Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Employer Size for Workers: July 2004–June 2008 

16 

13.5 13.0 

12.7 12.7 12.4 12.3 12.1 12.2 

10.5 

10.1 10.3 10.5 10.8 

11.1 11.6 11.7 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Percent 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

NOTE: National data are based on establishments. 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and U.S. Census County Business Patterns: 2006. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 67 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


5.2.2. Industry 

There have been marked shifts in the distribution of establishments by industry over time. As seen 

in Exhibit III-17, establishments in technical/education/arts/entertainment have increased their 

representation among employers transmitting cases to E-Verify from 10 percent in July through 

September 2004 to 23 percent in April through June 2008. Other industries with increasing representation 

in E-Verify include mining/utilities/construction (from 6 to 15 percent), wholesale/retail trade (5 to 

9 percent), and public administration/social services (less than 1 percent to 5 percent), and other industries 

(10 to 14 percent). During this same time period, manufacturing has decreased its representation from 

30 percent to 13 percent. Other industries with declining representation are accommodation/food services 

(23 to 11 percent), employment services (14 to 9 percent), and agriculture/forestry/fishing/hunting (3 to 

2 percent). It is interesting to note that some industries that tend to have a high concentration of foreignborn workers like mining/utilities/construction have increased in representation and others like 

accommodation/food services have decreased.89

 These changes over time in the industry mix of 

employers may explain some of the changes in other E-Verify statistics. 

89 It is, of course, possible that analysis at a more detailed classification of industries would help clarify what is happening. 

68 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
0 

Percent 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Industries with decreased representation in E-Verify 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, hunting 

Manufacturing 

Employment services 

Accommodation/food 

services 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 

Exhibit III-17. Percent of All Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify, by Industry: 

July 2004–June 2008 

Industries with increased representation in E-Verify 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Mining, utilities, 

construction 

Wholesale/retail 

trade 

Technical/education/ 

arts/entertainment 

Public administration/ 

social services 

Percent 

Other industries 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 69 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


Information on the change in distribution by industry between the 2006 and 2008 Web surveys is 

generally consistent with the information from the Transaction Database. The percentage of 

employers engaged in manufacturing declined from 37 percent of employers that responded to the 2006 

survey to 16 percent in 2008, as shown in Exhibit III-18. This change is the largest among the industries 

between the 2006 and 2008 Web surveys. The second largest change is in the technical/education/arts/ 

entertainment industry, where 5 percent of 2006 Web survey employers were from this group compared 

to 18 percent in 2008. There were a few other smaller industry changes, including a 5 to 6 percentage 

point increase in employers from the three categories mining, utilities, construction; employment services; 

and other industries. 

Exhibit III-18. Industry of All Active E-Verify Employers Responding to the 2006 and 2008 Web 

Surveys 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 

Accommodation/food services 

Public administration/social services 

Employment services 

Technical/education/arts/entertainment 

Wholesale/retail trade 

Manufacturing 

Mining, utilities, construction 

Other industries 4.2 

4.9 

37.1 

4.4 

4.5 

11.1 

11.6 

18.4 

4.0 

9.9 

10.7 

15.8 

8.2 

18.0 

16.3 

4.7 

14.4 

2.0 

0 10 20 30 40

2008 

2006 

Percent 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Surveys. 

Employers transmitting cases to E-Verify have become increasingly similar to the nation’s 

employers in terms of industry. As seen in Exhibit III-19, the Dissimilarity Index was 7.7 in April 

through June 2008 compared to 9.9 in April through June 2007, 11.9 in April through June 2006, and 11.4 

in April through June 2005. 

70 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Percent 

Exhibit III-19. Trend in Dissimilarity Index for Industry for Employers Transmitting Cases to the 

E-Verify Transaction Database: July 2004–June 2008 July-Sept

14 

13.1 Oct-Dec

12 12.4 12.9 

11.9 12.0 11.6 11.4 

JanMar

11.1 11.4 11.5 

10 

10.1 9.9 

9.2 

Apr-June

8 8.5 

7.7 7.7 

July-Sept

6 

Oct-Dec

4 

JanMar

2 

Apr-June

0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

2004 

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and County Business Patterns of 2006. 

5.2.3. Access Method 

Since the start of the Program, the most frequently used E-Verify access method has been the 

regular employer access method; however, use of alternate access methods is increasing. Prior to 

April 2007, less than 1 percent of employers used any access method other than the employer access 

method. However, use of these other methods has been increasing, and approximately 7 percent of 

employers submitting cases to E-Verify in April through June 2008 used one of the alternate methods 

(Exhibit III-20). Approximately half of the employers using an alternate method were Designated Agents, 

representing 3.8 percent of employers transmitting cases in April through June 2008. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 71 
Percent of employers 

Exhibit III-20. Trend in Percent of Employers Transmitting Cases to the E-Verify Transaction 

Database, by Alternate Access Methods: April 2007–June 2008 

5 

Web Services 

Designated Agent 3.9 Apr-June

3.8 4 

User of a Designated Agent 3.1 

3 

2.3 2.2 2.1 

2 1.6 1.5 

1.2 

1 

July-Sept

0.5 0.4 1.0 1.0 

0.2 0.6 0 

FY 2007 FY2008 Oct Dec - Oct-Dec JanMar

Apr-June 

Percent 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

Web Services 16.2 

16 

Designated Agent 13.2 14 

User of a Designated Agent 

12 

10 

7.4 

8 6.7 

6 

3.6 3.2 3.2 4 2.3 1.7 

2 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.1 0 

FY 2007 FY 2008 

III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The increase in cases submitted to E-Verify by employers using alternate access methods has 

increased at an even faster pace than has the number of employers using these alternate methods. 

Between April 2007 and June 2008, the percentage of cases submitted by employers using alternate 

access methods increased from 5 percent to 21 percent (Exhibit III-21). Most of the increase in cases by 

alternate access method providers has been for Users of Designated Agents, which accounted for 

approximately 16 percent of all cases submitted in April through June 2008. 

Exhibit III-21. Trend in Percent of Cases Submitted to E-Verify, by Access Method: 

April 2007–June 2008 

18 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

72 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

5.2.4. Citizenship Status 

E-Verify survey respondents in 2008 were much more likely than comparable respondents in 2006 

to report having a small percentage of immigrant employees. The percentage of employers that 

reported that 5 percent or fewer of their employees are immigrants was 49 percent for the 2008 survey 

compared to 19 percent for the 2006 survey respondents (Exhibit III-22).90 

Exhibit III-22. Reported Percent of Employees Who Are Immigrants: 2006 and 2008 Percent of employees 

≥ 81% 

41-80% 

21-40% 

6-20% 

≤ 5% 

18.8 

23.4 

24.0 

27.1 

6.6 

49.4 

22.0 

12.2 

13.7 

2.7 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

2008 Active E-Verify Employers 

2006 Active E-Verify Employers 

Percent 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Surveys. 

There has been an increase in the percentage of workers attesting to being U.S. citizens on the Form 

I-9 and a decrease in the percentage of persons saying that they are “lawful permanent residents” 

or “aliens authorized to work.” The percentage of workers attesting to being citizens increased from 

82.3 percent to 89.5 percent between July through September 2004 and April through June 2008 

(Exhibit III-23). At the same time, the percentage of lawful permanent residents decreased from 

14.0 percent to 8.5 percent and the percentage of other “aliens authorized to work” decreased from 

3.7 percent to 2.0 percent. 

The increase in the percentage of workers attesting to being citizens is not unexpected, given that the 

original Basic Pilot Program targeted states with high immigrant populations and was originally seen as 

most advantageous by employers with sizable noncitizen workforces. However, since the Program has 

subsequently expanded on a voluntary basis to the entire nation, has been made mandatory for some 

employers, and been publicized more widely, it is not surprising that the citizenship status of workers 

90 The evaluation team is unaware of a national estimate that can be used for comparison purposes for newly hired employees. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 73 
III PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT 


with cases submitted to E-Verify has changed. This trend does require caution to be taken in examining 

other trends likely to be associated with citizenship status. 

Exhibit III-23. Trend in Distribution of Form I-9 Citizenship Status: July 2004–June 2008 

100 

Percent 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

82.3 81.3 80.0 82.9 82.8 84.5 85.1 85.9 86.4 87.7 86.6 88.4 88.9 89.4 88.8 89.5 

14.0 14.8 15.8 13.8 13.9 12.5 12.1 11.4 11.1 10.2 11.1 9.5 9.1 8.7 9.2 8.5 

3.7 4.0 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

U.S. citizen or national 

Lawful permanent resident 

Alien authorized to work 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Among workers ever found to be work authorized, the percentage of E-Verify cases for foreignborn workers has decreased over time. The estimated percentage of foreign-born persons among 

workers found to be employment authorized by E-Verify was 15 percent in April through June 2008 

compared to 20 percent in January through March 2006 (Exhibit III-24). 

74 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
15

10

5

0

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

Percent 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

Exhibit III-24. Trend in Percent of Foreign-Born Workers Among Workers Found to Be Work 

Authorized: January 2006–June 2008 

25

20

19.8 18.7 17.6 

16.5 16.5 15.4 14.5 15.1 14.7 

17.6 

PUTTING CHANGES IN CONTEXT
 III 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and data provided by SSA. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 75

PART 2. MEASURES OF PROGRAM SUCCESS 

The goal of Part 2 is to provide findings that relate to how successfully the Program has been 

implemented and how well it is meeting its goals. It includes five chapters. 

• Chapter IV provides information on the extent to which employers use E-Verify, since usage is 

a basic factor in assessing how well the Program has been implemented and also directly 

affects the ability of the Program to meet its primary goal of reducing unauthorized 

employment. 

• Chapter V discusses the timeliness of the Federal government in processing cases submitted to 

E-Verify and the timeliness of employers in implementing their responsibilities for submitting 

cases, notifying employees of Tentative Nonconfirmations, referring employees to the Social 

Security Administration or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resolve Tentative 

Nonconfirmations, and terminating employees who received Final Nonconfirmation findings or 

were not found work authorized. Like usage, timeliness is an indicator of how well the 

Program has been implemented and is also a factor affecting its effectiveness in reducing 

unauthorized employment. 

• Chapter VI presents basic information about program accuracy. Both inaccuracies in which 

Tentative Nonconfirmations are issued to workers with work authorization and inaccuracies in 

which persons without work authorization do not receive Tentative Nonconfirmations are 

discussed. 

• Chapter VII examines the effectiveness of E-Verify in meeting its primary goal of reducing 

unauthorized employment. It builds on information about the inaccuracy rate for 

unauthorized workers discussed in Chapter VI. 

• Chapter VIII discusses the extent of employer compliance with E-Verify requirements. 

Noncompliance is a potential source of program ineffectiveness in meeting the goal of 

reducing unauthorized employment and may lead to discrimination against foreign-born 

persons. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 76 
E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 77

CHAPTER IV. E-VERIFY USAGE 

1. BACKGROUND 

This chapter focuses on E-Verify usage by employers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) has long viewed increasing the use of E-Verify to be an important measure of program success, 

both because it is an indicator of how well the Program has been implemented and because extensive use 

of E-Verify is required if the Program is to achieve its primary goal of reducing unauthorized 

employment. If the use of E-Verify is limited to a small group of employers and the workers for whom 

they submit cases, unauthorized workers who have their employment terminated by one employer will 

have a large number of alternate employment options.91 

This chapter includes information not only on whether employers are enrolling in E-Verify, but also on 

the extent to which those employers that have enrolled in the Program are actually using it. It also 

presents information on the reasons employers do or do not use the system. Three primary indicators92

 of 

usage are examined in this chapter: 

• Number of cases transmitted to E-Verify; 

• Number of employers transmitting cases to E-Verify; and 

• Percent of employers using E-Verify within three months of signing the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). 

Although none of these indicators are free of measurement error, they constitute the best information 

about employer usage that is currently available to the evaluation team. Information from these indicators 

is supplemented by information from national data, the E-Verify Web survey, and onsite employer 

interviews.93 

When feasible, results from the current evaluation are contrasted with results from earlier time period(s). 

The results of the 2008 Web survey are compared to the 2006 Web survey results,94

 and findings from the 

Transaction Database reflect quarterly information for the period from July 2004 through June 2008. 

This chapter also discusses changes attributable to legislative changes since the last evaluation report. The 

focus of this discussion is on state legislation changes, since new state laws mandating that all or some 

employers in the state use E-Verify are expected to have a major impact on E-Verify usage. Other factors 

that are likely to impact usage include the expansion of outreach efforts aimed at recruiting new 

employers such as radio and print advertisements, informational seminars, and Webinars; revision of the 

91See Chapter VII for a more complete discussion of E-Verify’s impact on unauthorized employment. 

92See Chapter II for information on how these indicators were calculated and what their strengths and weaknesses are. 

93See Chapter II for additional information on the methodology of the study. 

94Because the 2006 Web survey was only administered to active E-Verify employers, the comparisons between the two surveys are based on the 

subset of 2008 respondents that meet the criteria for participation in the 2006 survey. Comparisons are only done when comparable questions 

were asked in the two surveys. Relevant findings based on the 2008 Web survey are presented when comparable 2006 and 2008 data are not 

available. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 78 
95 Estimated from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics data in Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) 

(http://www.bls.gov/jlt/home.htm#data) and Business Patterns 2006. 

96 Ideally, the evaluation team would estimate the percentage of all newly hired employees screened by E-Verify. The reported ratio is 

presumably higher than the percentage of all new hires screened by E-Verify to all new hires in the nation, because the national data reported 

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for JOLTS do not include some newly hired employees (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.tn.htm, June 

30, 2007) and because, as discussed in Chapter VIII, some cases submitted are for job applicants rather than newly hired employees. Thus, it is 

reasonable to assume that the percentage of newly hired workers is no more than 12 percent. 

97 This does not hold for the difference between July through September 2004 and October through December 2004; however, this may be 

attributable to issues related to start up of the national program. 

E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

E-Verify Web site to make it easier for employers to locate online resources and the online User Manual; 

and changes designed to make the E-Verify system more user-friendly. Since there have been so many 

potentially relevant changes in the E-Verify Program over time, it is not possible to estimate how much of 

the observed changes in E-Verify usage can be attributed to any one programmatic change. 

2. FINDINGS 

2.1. General Findings 

There has been a strong upward trend in the number of cases submitted to E-Verify since its 

inception in June 2004. As seen in Exhibit IV-1, the 1.7 million cases submitted to E-Verify in April 

through June 2008 represents an increase of over 200 percent since April through June 2007, when there 

were approximately 800,000 cases, a four-fold increase since April through June 2006 (416,000 cases) 

and an 800 percent increase since April through June 2005, when there were 217,000 cases. In other 

words, the number of cases transmitted has approximately doubled every year. Since there has not been a 

similar upturn in the number of new hires nationally, there is an increase in the ratio of E-Verify cases to 

the number of newly hired employees nationally.

95

 In April through June 2008, this ratio was 0.117 to 1 

compared to 0.013 to 1 in April through June 2005—a 10-fold increase. 96 

The observed seasonality in the number of cases submitted to E-Verify is similar to the seasonality 

in the number of new hires nationally. Although the trend in the number of E-Verify cases is clearly 

increasing over time, there is some seasonality in the data that, as seen in Exhibit IV-1, reflects 

seasonality in the national data for new hires. For example, the number of cases transmitted from October 

through December of the preceding calendar year tends to be lower than the last quarter of the preceding 

fiscal year,97

 such as the decrease from 998,000 in July through September 2007 to 985,000 in October 

through December 2007. The number of national new hires also decreases between July through 

September and October through December every year. This seasonality needs to be taken into account in 

interpreting trends in the number of cases transmitted. For this reason, information from one quarter is 

compared with the same quarter in preceding years. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 79 
Exhibit IV-1. Number of Cases Transmitted to E-Verify and Number of New Hires Nationally: 

July 2004–June 2008 

2,000 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

-0 

Number of E-Verify cases (in thousands) 

55 83 133 217 282 257 329 416 

550 528 

636 

799 

998 985 

1,437 

1,731 

\

\

t r t r t r t r c e c e c e c e p e a n p e a n p e a n p e a n e D M u e D M u e D M u e D M u S - J S - J S - J S - J - t - - - t - - - t - - - t - - c n r c n r c n r c n r l

y l

y ly ly a p a p a p a p u O J u O J u O J u O J J A J A J A J A

FY FY 2005 

2004 

FY 2006 FY2007 FY 2008 

9,000

NOTE: April–June 2008 national data were estimated by the evaluation team. 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) 

(http://www.bls.gov/jlt/home.htm#data). 

The number of employers using E-Verify has also increased markedly over time. In April through 

June 2008, 28,854 employers transmitted cases using E-Verify (Exhibit IV-2), an increase of 343 percent 

from April through June 2007 when 8,408 employers transmitted cases and a 1,318 percent increase since 

April through June 2005 when 2,188 employers transmitted cases using E-Verify. 

14,875 

12,709 

12,798 

16,106 15,860 

12,727 13,157 

16,576 

16,345 

13,080 12,979 

16,356 

15,780 

15,653 

12,123 

14,748 

J

u 

l

y 

-

S

e

p 

O

c

t -

D

e

J

a

n 

-

M 

a

A

p 

r -

J

u

n 

J

u 

l

y 

-

S

e

p 

O

c

t -

D

e

J

a

n 

-

M 

a

A

p 

r -

J

u

n 

J

u 

l

y 

-

S

e

p 

O

c

t -

D

e

J

a

n 

-

M 

a

A

p 

r -

J

u

n 

J

u 

l

y 

-

S

e

p 

O

c

t -

D

e

J

a

n 

-

M 

a

A

p 

r -

J

u

n 

FY 

2004 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

0 

\

\

18,000 

17,000 

16,000 

15,000 

14,000 

13,000 

12,000 

11,000 

10,000 

t c r e t c r e t c r e t c r e

IV E-VERIFY USAGE 

New hires nationally 

80 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
98 This estimate is based on the estimate of 7.5 million establishments in the United States from 2005 County Business Patterns (see 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/introusb.htm and http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/defterm.html) and an estimate from Steven J. Davis, 

University of Chicago and NBER; R. Jason Faberman, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and John C. Haltiwanger, University of Maryland and 

NBER, The Establishment-Level Behavior of Vacancies and Hiring: November 2006 downloaded from 

http://www.aeaWeb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_0800_0101.pdf) on October 1, 2008, that 18 percent of establishments have new hires 

in a month. To compare E-Verify with the available national data, the number of employers that transmitted in June 2008 (22,643) was 

calculated. This number of employers is smaller than the number that transmitted cases in April through June 2008 (28,854), since the latter 

number includes the employers that transmitted cases in June plus employers that transmitted cases in April or May but not June. 

99 One possible reason for this confusion was that, at this time, Federal contractors were being encouraged strongly to participate. 

E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

Exhibit IV-2. Trend in the Number of Employers Transmitting Cases to the E-Verify Program: 

April 2005–June 2008 

N

u

m

ber of em

ployers 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

-0 

2,188 

2,485 2,577 2,691 4,368 5,439 5,727 

7,219 8,408 

10,495 12,883 

25,706 

28,854 

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

FY 2005 

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

FY 2006 

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

FY 2007 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

FY 2008 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Most U.S. employers are still not using E-Verify. In the month of June 2008, 22,643 employers 

transmitted cases to E-Verify compared to an estimated 1.3 million employers that hired new workers in 

the month.98

 Thus, fewer than 2 percent of all employers hiring new workers transmitted cases to 

E-Verify. 

Almost half of employers that signed up for E-Verify reported that they did so to improve their 

ability to verify work authorization. As seen in Exhibit IV-3, 46 percent of E-Verify employers 

reported in the Web survey that they signed up for E-Verify to improve their ability to verify work 

authorization. Over a third of employers reported they signed up for E-Verify to satisfy corporate or 

government requirements. They said their participation was required by their parent company (19 

percent), by their state or local government (11 percent), or by the Federal government (5 percent). The 

latter was presumably a misunderstanding, given the absence of Federal legislation requiring mandatory 

use of E-Verify.

99 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 81 
Exhibit IV-3. Reasons Employers Reported for Enrolling in the E-Verify Program: 2008 

To improve ability to verify work authorization 45.9 

Parent company required participation 19.3 

State or local government required participation 10.8 

To satisfy a client’s request 5.2 

Federal government required participation 5.0 

To avoid U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ...To avoid U.S. Immigration and Customs 4.1 (ICE) audit, raid, or fine 

BBelieved it would make us more competitive with ... elieved it would make us more competitive with 2.7 

others in our industry 

Other 7.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent of employers 

Exhibit IV-4. Ways Employers Learned About E-Verify: 2008 

Information from company headquarters or other ...Information from company headquarters or other 27.7 establishments of this company 

USCIS or SSA materials or publications 14.0 

Information from a professional association 10.9 

Informed of a legal requirement to participate 10.7 

Request from client to participate 8.5 

Media coverage 8.5 

USCIS Web site 8.3 

Heard about it from other employers not in this company 7.0 

USCIS or SSApresentation 1.7 

ICE audit or visit 1.5 

Other 19.8 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Percent of employers 

IV E-VERIFY USAGE


SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

The most common way employers found out about the E-Verify Program was through their 

companies. As Exhibit IV-4 indicates, the most frequently mentioned way of learning about E-Verify 

was through company-disseminated information (28 percent). Some employers (14 percent) learned about 

E-Verify from USCIS or Social Security Administration (SSA) materials or publications or through a 

professional association (11 percent). Another 20 percent found out about the Program through other 

means, including that the system had already been established at their organization, the employer 

previously used the Basic Pilot Program, it was mandated by their corporate office or some other entity, 

or upon being asked to complete the E-Verify Web survey of employers. 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one response. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

82 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

There is a slight decrease in the percentage of employers first using the Program to verify cases 

within three months after enrolling in the Program. Among employers signing an MOU between 

January and March 2008, 47 percent started using E-Verify within three months of signing the MOU 

compared to 49 percent between January and March 2007, 55 percent between January and March 2006, 

and 61 percent between January and March 2005 (Exhibit IV-5). This change may be attributable to 

changes in employer characteristics, especially by the increase in the number of small employers, since 

small employers presumably hire fewer new employees in any period and, therefore, may not have had as 

many opportunities to use the system as larger employers. 

Percent of em

ployers 

JanMar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Exhibit IV-5. Percent of Employers That Used the E-Verify System Within Three Months of 

Signing an MOU: January 2005–March 2008 

Oct-Dec 

70 

JanMar

61.5 55.1 

60 54.1 53.1 52.7 

49.2 43.7 47.2 Apr-June

46.6 46.8 50 

40.1 39.6 40.4 

40 

Jul

y-Sept

30 

20 

Oct-Dec

10 

JanMar

0 

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

When signed MOU 

Oct-Dec 

JanMar 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Few employers enroll in E-Verify and then formally terminate using it within one year of signing. 

Among those employers that had signed up for E-Verify between April and June 2007, 3 percent (81 out 

of 2,495) of employers formally terminated their use of the system before July 2008 (Exhibit IV-6). 

Examination of the trend data shows considerable fluctuations in this rate. In April through June 2007, 

3 percent of employers terminated using E-Verify within one year of signing an MOU compared to 

7 percent in April through June 2006 and 4 percent in April through June 2005. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 83 
Perce

nt of em

ployers 

Exhibit IV-6. Percent of Employers Formally Terminating E-Verify Within One Year of Enrolling: 

July 2004–June 2007 

16 

Jul

y-Sept

13.6 

14 

12 

9.7 Oct-Dec

10 8.2 6.6 7.3 8 6.3 6.0 JanMar

4.3 6 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.2 4 

2 

Apr-June

0 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

NOTE: April through June 2007 is the most recent quarter for which the percent of employers terminating use of E-Verify within JanMar

a year can be accurately calculated. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

Exhibit IV-7. Reasons Employers Give for Never Using or Stopping Use of E-Verify: 2008 

We have had no new hires in the past 6 months 32.5 

We decided it would be too burdensome to use the system 24.0 

The pers

Tohne pwheros oornig winhaolly or wigi

annatelldy t woa untseed thte

o pursoe tgrahe pm hroags leram ft 9.0 the company has left the company 

We decided to have another company do our verifications for us 8.1 

We deWce idecid dthaedt t thheatr teh werae ws a be as att beret wteray t wo i ay mto pirmovper ovure 6.8 verification poroucre vsesrification process 

VVeerification is now being done for us by another establishment rification is now being done for us by another establishment 0.6 (business loca(btiouns) oinef oss ulor cocamtiopna) onyf our company Other

Other 27.6 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one response. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

IV E-VERIFY USAGE


One-quarter of employers that registered but never started using E-Verify or that started and then 

stopped using it claimed that the system was too burdensome. Although the most frequently given 

reason (provided by 33 percent) for not using E-Verify among employers that had enrolled in the Program 

but had stopped using it or had never used it at the time of the 2008 survey was the lack of employees 

hired in the past six months, approximately one-quarter (24 percent) said that it was because it would be 

too burdensome to use the system (Exhibit IV-7). 

84 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

A large majority of those currently active E-Verify employers that had temporarily stopped using 

E-Verify suspended use simply because they did not have any newly hired employees. Among active 

employers, the most commonly reported reason for temporarily not using E-Verify, regardless of 

employer size, was a lack of newly hired employees. As Exhibit IV-8 shows, 87 percent of all employers 

that temporarily discontinued using E-Verify for their employment verification did so because of a lack of 

new hires. 

Exhibit IV-8. Reasons Active Employers Give for Temporarily Not Using E-Verify: 2008 

Hired no new employees 87.4 

System is burdensome and time-consuming 4.3 

Decided to use employees of temporary help or other 

3.9 contract agencies 

Experienced technical difficulties 3.7 

No trained staff available to conduct verifications 3.4 

Developed other ways to ensure work eligibility of 2.7 

newly hired employees 

Lack of confidence in database 2.0 

Decided to have a Designated Agent verify employees 0.8 for this establishment 

Other 8.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent 

NOTE: Exhibit includes employers that reported that they had stopped using E-Verify for a month or more since starting use of 

E-Verify. Sum does not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one response. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey.

2.2. Impact of Legislative Changes 

Employers in Arizona were somewhat more likely to transmit cases within three months of 

enrolling in E-Verify than were employers in other states. In Arizona, the only state that mandated the 

use of E-Verify by all employers, 50 percent of the employers signing an MOU in January through March 

2008 transmitted cases within three months of signing the MOU (Exhibit IV-9). The rates for the states in 

other State Legislation Groups were 43 percent or less. It may be that the mandatory nature of the 

participation results in employers implementing the Program promptly or that Arizona employers are 

more likely to sign up for E-Verify only after they hire or are about to hire new employees. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 85 
Exhibit IV-9. Percent of Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify Within Three Months of 

Signing an MOU, by State Legislation Group: Employers Signing MOU in January–March 2008 

All states 46.8 

Implemented a mandate requiring all employers to use 49.6 Implemented a mandate requirinE- g a

Vll employers to useE-Verify erify

Implemented a mandate requiring some but not all Implemented a mandate requiring some but not all employers 40.9 

employers to useE-Verify to use E-Verify 

Other 42.8 

0 20 40 60

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

N

u

m

ber of em

ployers 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

Exhibit IV-10. Number of Employers Transmitting Cases to E-Verify, Arizona and Other States: 

July 2004–June 2008 

Jul

y-Sept

25,000 

Total (not including Arizona) 

Oct-Dec

Arizona 

20,000 

Jan-Mar

15,000 

Apr-June 

10,000 

Legislation 5,000 Enacted in 

Arizona 

- 0 

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

2004 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

IV E-VERIFY USAGE


Not surprisingly, growth in employer participation in E-Verify increases dramatically when 

E-Verify participation is mandated. In Arizona, the only state that mandated participation of all 

employers in the state prior to June 2008, the number of employers transmitting cases to E-Verify had a 

50-fold increase between January through March 2007 when their mandatory participation law first took 

effect, to April through June 2008 (from 277 transmitting in January through March 2007 to 14,116 in 

April through June 2008). During the same time period, the increase in the remaining states increased 

from 10,193 to 23,373—between a two-fold and a three-fold increase (Exhibit IV-10). 

86 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Implemented a mandate requiring some but not all

employers to use E Verify

All states

E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

Among employers in the Web survey, there was an increase in the percentage of responding 

employers from states with a mandate requiring some or all employers to use E-Verify between 

2006 and 2008. The employers in Arizona, which required all employers to register, increased from 2 to 

5 percent between 2006 and 2008, while the percentage of employers from states where some employers 

were mandated to participate rose from 14 percent in 2006 to 31 percent in 2008, as shown in 

Exhibit IV-11. Correspondingly, employers from states that did not implement a mandate requiring 

employers to use E-Verify constituted 63 percent of 2008 respondents compared to 84 percent of 

respondents in 2006. 

Exhibit IV-11. Percent of Active E-Verify Employers Responding to the 2006 and 2008 Web 

Surveys, by State Legislation Group at Time of Survey 

Implemented a mandate requiring 

all employers to use E-Verify 

Implemented a mandate requiring some 

but not all employers to use E-Verify -

Other 84.1 

13.9 

2.0 

63.2 

31.3 

5.4 

2008 

2006 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

Most Arizona employers had not enrolled in E-Verify as of June 2008. According to information from 

the U.S. Census Bureau, there were approximately 138,000 employers in Arizona in 2006.100 Assuming 

that 18 percent of these employers had new hires in June 2008,101 approximately 25,000 Arizona 

employers had new hires in that month. Since there were only approximately 8,000 Arizona employers 

that transmitted cases to E-Verify in June 2008,102

 approximately one-third of Arizona employers that 

should have been using E-Verify in Arizona were doing so, though some Arizona employers may have 

had cases transmitted from other sites or from Designated Agents not located in Arizona; similarly, some 

cases for Arizona workers may be submitted by establishments or Designated Agents not located in 

Arizona. 

E-Verify participation in states with laws requiring some but not all employers to participate 

increased only slightly less quickly than in states with no laws mandating E-Verify participation. 

Although the overall participation of employers in states other than Arizona increased dramatically 

between April through June 2005 and April through June 2008, the differences between the other two 

State Legislation Groups were quite modest. There was a nine-fold increase for states that had enacted 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 87 

100The 2006 County Business Patterns (http://www2.census.gov/csd/susb/2006/usst06.xls). 

101See Steven J. Davis (http://www.aeaWeb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_0800_0101.pdf) for information on the percentage of U.S. 

employers with new hires. The percentage of employers in Arizona with new hires may, of course, differ from this; however, the evaluation 

team was unable to locate state-specific estimates. 

102There are also undoubtedly some additional Arizona employers that are establishments of a larger company that has signed an MOU covering 

their establishments in Arizona and elsewhere. 
390

Implemented a mandate requiring all 

employers to use E Verify

Exhibit IV-12. Increase in the Number of Employers Transmitting Cases From 

April–June 2005 to April–June 2008, by State Legislation Group 

All states 

Implemented a mandate requiring all 

employers to -use E-Verify 

Implemented a mandate requiring some 

but not all employers to use E-Verify 

Other 2,351 

390 

89 

2,830 

16,195 

7,160 

14,116 

37,471 

2008 

2005 

-

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 

Number of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

IV E-VERIFY USAGE


legislation requiring some employers to participate in E-Verify and a seven-fold increase in the states that 

had not enacted any legislation mandating participation (Exhibit IV-12).103 

103See Chapter III for information on this classification, including a list of which states are included in each category. 

88 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY USAGE
 IV 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 89

CHAPTER V. TIMELINESS 

1. BACKGROUND 

An effective and efficient employment verification program requires results to be provided to employers, 

workers, and the Federal government in a timely manner. Not only is timeliness an important aspect of 

understanding how well the Program has been implemented, but timeliness strongly affects how well the 

Program meets its goals. Specifically, timely results help reduce discrimination during the time workers 

are resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs), reduce burdens for employers that must terminate the 

employment of employees whose work authorization is not confirmed after they have invested in training 

them, and make the Program more effective by reducing unauthorized employment while workers are 

contesting their TNCs.104 

E-Verify timeliness is a shared responsibility of the Federal government and employers. Federal 

responsibilities include providing employers with initial findings in a timely manner and determining the 

employment-authorization status of workers who contest TNCs in a timely fashion. The only explicit 

employer responsibility with respect to timeliness is to transmit cases within three workdays of hiring a 

new employee. However, there are implicit employer requirements to perform the following additional 

tasks in a timely fashion: inform workers of TNCs; refer workers to the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when they wish to contest TNCs; and 

terminate the employment of workers who do not contest or who are not found to be employment 

authorized. Worker conduct also influences the total time taken to resolve TNCs; although workers have 

eight Federal working days to contact the government, earlier contact helps to speed up the process. 

Section 2 of this chapter first examines a general measure of timeliness for all cases, that is, the time from 

case initiation to final resolution. This measure reflects the timeliness of the Federal government, 

employers, and workers in completing those steps of the E-Verify process that are recorded on the 

Transaction Database.

105 It then examines how long it currently takes cases with different final findings 

to be completed and the trends in timeliness related to each of these findings except the finding of 

instantly found work authorized, which has remained constant at less than one minute since the Program 

was first initiated.106 

Next, Section 2 addresses the following measures of employer timeliness: 

• Time from hiring to initiating the E-Verify case; 

• Time from TNC issuance to referral; 

104 These issues are discussed in Chapters X, IX, and VII. 

105It does not reflect the time between hiring and case initiation or between case resolution and employee termination for employees who are not 

found to be employment authorized, since reliable measures of these aspects of case hiring are not in the Transaction Database. However, other 

available information about these time frames is presented. 

106The approach to examining timeliness by focusing on time from case initiation to final finding rather than measuring timeliness from the start 

to the end of each step are taken because some of the data needed to determine the time from the start to finish of some of the key steps are not 

available. For example, good information on when the worker contacted SSA or USCIS is often not available. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 90 
TIMELINESS
 V 

• Time from TNC issuance to the worker’s signing the TNC; and 

• Time from Final Nonconfirmation (FNC)/unauthorized finding to termination of employment. 

Finally, Section 2 looks at worker timeliness in contacting SSA to resolve TNCs. Similar information is 

not available for USCIS. 

The following changes related to E-Verify, described in Chapter III, which have the potential to impact 

the timeliness of E-Verify case processing, are examined in Section 3: 

• State legislative changes; 

• The Photo Screening Tool; 

• The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC data entry checks; 

• EV-STAR; 

• Naturalization Phase I; and 

• Naturalization Phase II. 

Most of the measures examined in this chapter are based on information from the E-Verify Transaction 

Database and the record reviews. Additional information from the Web survey and the onsite interviews 

are used to supplement this information. The limitations of these data and the analyses based on them are 

discussed in Chapter II. In addition to examining trends for the full Transaction Database, trends for 

employers consistently using E-Verify between October 2005 and June 2008 are examined. Since the 

characteristics of the employers in this longitudinal sample can be assumed to vary much less 

dramatically than the characteristics of all employers, examination of these trends allows inferences to be 

made about what the trends would have been without the changes in employer characteristics that have 

occurred due to growth in the Program.

107 

2. FINDINGS 

2.1. Time From Case Initiation to Final Resolution 

Average (mean) time from case initiation to final case resolution in April through June 2008 was 

less than a half day; however, not surprisingly, the mean time varies considerably based on the case 

finding. The mean number of calendar days to resolve an E-Verify case in April through June 2008 was 

0.4 calendar days. However, the mean times from case initiation to case resolution ranged from less than 

one minute for cases that are resolved instantly to 12.5 days for cases found work authorized after TNCs 

with SSA and 12.6 days for cases receiving FNCs from USCIS (Exhibit V-1). 

107 See Chapter II for a discussion of the longitudinal Transaction Database. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 91 
V TIMELINESS 


Exhibit V-1. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Case Resolution, by Case 

Outcome: April–June 2008 

All cases 

Instantly verified 

Work authorized at secondary review 

Work authorized after TNC 

FNC 

Unauthorized 

10.6 

12.5 

0 

0.4 

10.1 

12.6 

7.6 

0.7 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

USCIS 

SSA 

Number of days 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The time between case initiation and final resolution for cases found work authorized after a TNC 

appears to be longer for SSA than USCIS. The average time from case initiation to completion for 

cases found work authorized after a TNC was 7.6 calendar days for USCIS cases and 12.5 days for SSA 

cases. This difference could be because workers receiving TNCs from SSA must visit a local SSA office 

to contest the TNC finding and provide further documentation, whereas workers receiving TNCs from 

USCIS are able to call USCIS to contest and to fax further documentation to the agency when necessary. 

The time from case initiation to final resolution for FNC cases appears to be longer for USCIS than 

SSA; however, this may be a function of the lack of an accurate measurement of final case 

resolution for many FNC cases. The mean number of calendar days from case initiation to case 

resolution is 12.6 days for USCIS and 10.6 days for SSA. However, the final resolution date for workers 

receiving FNCs is not very accurate because of limitations on the data captured in the Transaction 

Database for these workers.108 For example, although employers are required to close cases, they do not 

necessarily do so. In this situation, the evaluation assumes that two weeks elapsed between issuance of the 

TNC and final resolution. Furthermore, there is no record of when workers decide whether or not to 

contest a TNC in the Transaction Database. The estimate of time for case completion for FNC cases is 

thus overestimated for these cases. 

The mean number of calendar days from case initiation to final resolution has declined steadily 

over time. As seen in Exhibit V-2, the mean time for case resolution has declined steadily from 0.9 days 

in October through December 2004 to 0.4 days in April through June 2008 both for all employers and for 

employers in the longitudinal sample. 

108See Chapter II for a discussion of how case initiation to final resolution is measured. 

92 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
TIMELINESS V

N

u

m

ber of days 

Exhibit V-2. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution, for All 

Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 Oct-Dec

1.0 0.91 0.85 0.9 0.81 Ja

n-Mar

0.73 0.74 0.8 0.87 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.80 0.79 0.7 Apr-June

0.72 0.73 0.72 0.58 0.54 0.6 0.67 0.52 0.64 0.52 0.59 0.57 0.42 0.5 July-Sept

0.48 0.4 0.47 0.46 0.47 Oct-Dec

0.41 0.3 

0.2 

Ja

n-Mar

All employers 

0.1 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

0.0 

Apr-June

July-Sept

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Oct-Dec

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June 

2.2. Federal Timeliness 

2.2.1. Percent Instantly Verified as Work Authorized 

One major reason for the decrease in average time from case initiation to final resolution is that the 

percentage of all cases instantly verified as work authorized increased steadily between the start of 

the Program and June 2008. E-Verify instantly confirmed the work-authorization status of 95 percent 

(1.6 million cases) of the 1.7 million cases electronically processed in April through June 2008 compared 

to 91 percent in October through December 2004 (Exhibit V-3). Similarly, the percentage of cases 

instantly verified as work authorized for the longitudinal sample of employers that consistently used 

E-Verify between October 2004 and June 2008 increased over time. In October through December 2004, 

92 percent of workers in the longitudinal sample were instantly verified as work authorized compared to 

95 percent in April through June 2008—an increase of 3.1 percentage points compared to the increase of 

3.6 percentage points for all employers during the same time period. This observation increases the 

likelihood that the noted improvement is not simply attributable to changes in the types of employers 

transmitting cases. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 93 
Percent 

Exhibit V-3. Trend in Percent of Workers Who Were Verified Instantly as Work Authorized, for \\ 

All Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 

Oct-Dec 

96 

JanMar

95.0 95 Apr-June

94.3 94.5 94.3 94.1 94.8 

94 93.4 93.3 July-Sept

93.0 92.9 92.9 93.8 93.5 92.8 93 93.4 93.3 92.3 Oct-Dec

92.0 91.9 92.0 91.7 91.9 91.7 92.5 92.7 

92 91 92.2 .4 

91.5 

JanMar

91.2 91 91.4 All employers Apr-June

Employers in longitudinal sample 90 July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Jan-Mar

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

JanMar

0 

Apr-June 

V TIMELINESS 


Although employers almost always obtain prompt responses from E-Verify when entering cases, 

there are occasional times when the system is down and employers cannot obtain immediate 

information on the results of their queries. During the year prior to the end of data collection for this 

study, July 2007 through June 2008, the E-Verify systems contractor documented 13 cases of the system 

being unavailable due to systems-related problems (or approximately once per month), ranging in length 

from less than 10 minutes to almost 11 hours. The system is closed to data entry every Sunday from 6:00 

p.m. to midnight for routine maintenance. In addition, there are approximately 30 hours a week that the 

SSA system is unavailable. Even though E-Verify can be used, in these situations, the user will not 

receive an E-Verify response from the system instantly. Since these scheduled times are all over night, 

disruptions would only affect employers using E-Verify on night shifts. 

The Customer Contact center and ISVs are not available around the clock, which may be an 

inconvenience for some employers. The Customer Contact center is operational during normal East 

Coast business hours with special hours for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

Guam; thus, employers entering cases over night would have trouble getting assistance on a timely basis. 

ISVs are available to resolve DHS TNCs from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. West Coast time. 

2.2.2. Time to Resolve SSA TNCs for Workers Found Work Authorized by SSA 

The mean number of calendar days from case initiation to case resolution for cases found work 

authorized after a TNC by SSA has remained fairly constant over time. As seen in Exhibit V-4, the 

number of days from case initiation to resolution for cases that SSA finds to be work authorized after a 

94 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
V TIMELINESS 

TNC varies between October through December 2004 and April through June 2008 from 11.2 to 14.1 for 

all employers and from 12.3 to 14.7 for employers in the longitudinal sample. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 95 
V TIMELINESS 


N

u

m

ber of 

days 

Exhibit V-4. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for Cases 

Found Employment Authorized by SSA After a TNC, All Employers and Employers in the 

Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 Oct-Dec

18 

14.7 

Jan-Mar

16 14.1 14.2 14.4 13.7 13.3 12.7 13.6 12.8 13.1 13.3 14 12.4 12.4 12.4 Apr-June

12.3 13.7 12.5 

12 13.5 12.5 13.4 12.7 13.5 11.5 12.2 12.4 12.4 12.2 11.5 11.6 10 Jul

y-Sept

11.2 

8 

Oct-Dec

6 

4 

Jan-Mar

All employers 2 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

Apr-June

0 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Jan-Mar

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

Resolving TNCs with SSA usually requires a single trip to SSA; however, it sometimes requires the 

worker to visit SSA multiple times. Among the 126 workers who talked about how long it took them to 

resolve an SSA TNC, 103 said they resolved their TNCs in one trip to SSA, eight reported that they had 

to make two or more trips to SSA but were able to resolve the TNC in a single day, two said they resolved 

the TNC in two days, and two took eight to 14 days to resolve their problems. An additional 11 workers 

said that they had to make multiple trips to SSA but did not specify how long it took to resolve their 

problems. 

2.2.3. Time to Resolve SSA TNCs for SSA FNC Cases 

The mean number of calendar days from case initiation to case resolution for workers receiving 

SSA FNCs has fluctuated over time without showing a steady decrease or increase. As seen in 

Exhibit V-5, the mean number of days between case initiation and final resolution has fluctuated between 

9.2 and 10.6 for all employers and between 8.3 and 11.4 for employers in the longitudinal sample. As 

noted above, the final resolution date for workers receiving FNCs is not very accurate because of 

limitations on the data captured in the Transaction Database for these workers, which may be obscuring 

trends that would have been observable if better data were available. 

96 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
14 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

10.5 10.0 10.1 10.0 

9.6 

8.3 

9.6 9.1 9.5 

8.6 

9.2 

10.3 10.5 10.3 10.6 

10.5 10.5 11.0 

10.2 

9.1 

9.3 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.2 9.6 

10.7 

11.1 11.4 11.4 

All employers 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

Exhibit V-5. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for SSA 

FNC Cases, All Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008 

N

u

m

ber of days 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

TIMELINESS
 V 

2.2.4. Time to Complete USCIS Secondary Reviews for USCIS Cases Not Instantly Found Work 

Authorized109 

There has been a significant decrease in the time it takes Immigration Status Verifiers (ISVs) to 

complete secondary verifications for cases found work authorized. In April through June 2008, the 

mean number of calendar days from case initiation to final resolution was 0.7 days for all cases resolved 

as work authorized during the second level USCIS review compared to 1.6 days in October through 

December 2004 (Exhibit V-6). There was also a decline in the mean number of days for cases transmitted 

by employers in the longitudinal sample from 1.5 to 0.7 days. Thus, it appears that USCIS has become 

more efficient in conducting the secondary verification process. Specifically, USCIS reports that cases are 

now assigned on a flow basis rather than being batched for assignment to ISVs on the following day. 

109 This measure is of less interest than the other timeliness measures, because it is difficult to distinguish differences in the efficiency of 

processing these cases from differences that could arise because of changes in the thoroughness of these reviews. However, it is included here 

for completeness. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 97 
Nu

m

ber of days 

Exhibit V-6. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for Cases 

Found Work Authorized by USCIS After a Secondary Review, All Employers and Employers in the 

Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 Oct-Dec

2.0 

All employers 

1.8 1.7 Jan-Mar

1.7 Employers in longitudinal sample 1.6 1.6 

1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 Apr-June

1.4 

1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 July-Sept

1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 

1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 Oct-Dec

0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 Jan-Mar

0.6 0.4 

0.2 

Apr-June

0.0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY2008 Jan-Mar

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

V TIMELINESS 


2.2.5. Time to Resolve USCIS TNCs for USCIS Cases Found Work Authorized After Contesting a 

TNC 

There has also been a significant decrease in the time from case initiation to final resolution for 

USCIS cases found work authorized after a TNC. In April through June 2008, the mean days from 

case initiation to final resolution was 7.6 calendar days for all USCIS cases found to be work authorized 

after a TNC compared to 13.0 days in October through December 2004 (Exhibit V-7). There was a 

similar decline for cases transmitted by employers in the longitudinal sample from 13.8 to 7.3 days. 

98 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
N

u

m

ber of days 

Exhibit V-7. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for Cases 

Found Work Authorized by USCIS After a TNC, All Employers and Employers in the 

Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 Oct-Dec

22

20

Jan-Mar

18

14.4 

16 

Apr-June

13.8 12.6 12.4 12.7 12.4 13.0 14 11.9 10.7 12.1 11.8 10.9 July-Sept

10.5 12 13.0 13.2 9.4 12.2 12.0 10 11.0 11.5 11.7 10.3 7.6 Oct-Dec

9.6 10.4 8 9.3 9.1 9.6 7.9 6 7.3 Jan-Mar

4 All employers 

2 Employers in longitudinal sample 

Apr-June

0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Jan-Mar

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

TIMELINESS
 V 

The prompt resolution of USCIS cases is confirmed by data from the onsite study. Among workers 

interviewed, all 12 who discussed the length of time it took for them to resolve a USCIS TNC said that it 

took one day. 

2.2.6. Time to Resolve USCIS TNCs for USCIS Cases Receiving FNCs 

The mean number of days from case initiation to case resolution for workers receiving USCIS 

FNCs has decreased over time. As seen in Exhibit V-8, the mean number of calendar days between case 

initiation and final resolution decreased from 14.6 days in October through December 2004 to 12.6 days 

in April through June 2008. The decline for cases transmitted by employers in the longitudinal sample 

was from 14.7 to 13.5. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 99 
V TIMELINESS 


N

u

m

ber of days 

Exhibit V-8. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for USCIS 

FNC Cases, All Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 Oct-Dec

18 

15.7 15.3 16 14.7 JanMar

14.5 13.9 13.7 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.5 13.2 13.3 14 15.2 12.9 12.9 15.0 14.6 12.5 Apr-June

14.4 

13.6 13.4 12 13.2 13.4 13.4 12.9 12.7 12.8 12.7 12.6 12.2 July-Sept

10 

8 

Oct-Dec

6 

JanMar

4 

Apr-June

2 All employers 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

0 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 JanMar

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

2.2.7. Time to Resolve USCIS TNCs for USCIS Cases Not Receiving a Finding of Work Authorized 

The mean number of calendar days from case initiation to case resolution for workers who are not 

found work authorized by USCIS has fluctuated over time. As seen in Exhibit V-9, the mean number 

of days between case initiation and final resolution jumped from 10.5 in January through March 2005 to 

12.7 in April through June 2005 and 15.4 in July through September 2005. The mean remained steady 

through October through December 2005 and then decreased to 11.4 days in January through March 

2006. Cases transmitted by employers in the longitudinal sample showed greater fluctuation over time 

but had a similar spike of 16.8 days in October through December 2005. 

100 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
TIMELINESS
 V 

Exhibit V-9. Mean Number of Calendar Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution for USCIS 

Cases Found Not Work Authorized, All Employers and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: 

October 2004–June 2008 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

9.8 10.5 10.0 10.0 10.5 

12.7 15.3 13.5 

15.4 

11.4 11.4 10.8 11.3 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.6 

8.3 

10.4 

10.0 10.1 

10.6 

12.7 

11.1 10.7 

16.8 

7.2 8.5 

10.5 

7.5 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

All employers 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

2.3. Employer Timeliness 

2.3.1. Time From Hiring to Initiating an E-Verify Case 

Most employers reported using E-Verify to verify work authorization promptly; however, record 

reviews indicate that employers tend to overstate the timeliness of their initial case submissions. 

Overall, 96 percent of employers responding to the Web survey reported using E-Verify within three 

workdays of an employee starting to work. Among employers that responded to this question, 43 percent 

reported using E-Verify to transmit cases on the first day of employment (Exhibit V-10). Some employers 

(29 percent) used E-Verify after the job offer but prior to the first workday. Another 20 percent used 

E-Verify by either the second or third workday. The response to the onsite interview was similar—of the 

66 employers that commented on this aspect of E-Verify, 41 reported that they always enter information 

into E-Verify within three days of hire. Thus, the vast majority of employers reported that they entered 

data into E-Verify on a timely basis.110 However, the record reviews indicated that the Transaction 

Database record may overstate the promptness of these inputs because some employers input dates that 

are later than the actual hire dates (42 of the 108 onsite study employers had one or more cases in which 

the hire date entered was later than the hire date on the Form I-9). 

110See Chapter VIII for a discussion of the more general implications of these responses for employer compliance. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 101 
After a job offer but before the employee's first day of

paid work

Exhibit V-10. When Employer Reports Using E-Verify to Verify Work Authorization 

More than 3 days after starting paid work 

On the second or third day of paid work 

On the first day of paid work 

After a job offer but before the employee's first 

day of paid work 

Before a job offer 3.9 

29.2 

42.9 

19.5 

4.5 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

V TIMELINESS 


Information from the Transaction Database is consistent with employers’ claims that they were generally 

inputting worker information into the E-Verify system promptly. According to the information input by 

employers between April and June 2008, 51 percent of cases were entered on the date the employee was 

hired and another 39 percent were entered within one week of hire.111 However, 10 percent of the 

transactions were for employees that had been hired more than a week before the transaction was 

submitted. The accuracy of this information, however, is dependent upon the employer’s entering the 

correct hiring dates for their employees, which is not always the case.112 

There has been little change over time in the percentage of cases transmitted to E-Verify promptly. 

In April through June 2008, 90 percent of all cases were transmitted within one week of hire according to 

Transaction Database data compared to October through December 2004 when 88 percent of cases were 

transmitted within one week of hire (Exhibit V-11). Between these dates, the percentage varied from a 

low of 87 percent to a high of 91 percent. The trend for employers in the longitudinal sample between 

October 2004 and June 2008 was similar to that for all employers. 

111 The distribution is based on calendar days, which means that some of the cases entered within a week were entered more than three Federal 

workdays after the hire date. 

112 See Chapter VIII for a discussion of the reliability of employer response compared to the responses of workers and the record review. 

102 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Percent 

Exhibit V-11. Trend in Percent of Cases Entered Within One Week of Hire Date, for All Employers 

and Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 \\ Oct-Dec

100 

JanMar

95 92.2 91.2 91.0 91.4 90.3 90.4 90.6 Apr-June

89 90.0 .6 89 90.3 .5 89.3 87.8 88.4 88.7 90 

90.7 90.0 90.2 89.7 89.8 90.0 Jul

y-Sept

89.1 88.3 87.8 88.8 88.9 89.0 87.6 87.9 85 86.6 Oct-Dec

80 

All employers 

JanMar

Employers in longitudinal sample 750 Apr-June Jul

y-Sept 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Oct-Dec

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

JanMar

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

TIMELINESS
 V 

Employers could not always enter new employees’ information into E-Verify within three workdays of hire. Onsite study employers provided a variety of reasons for not being able to input employee 

information into E-Verify promptly. Some employers could not keep up with entering cases during peak 

hiring times, such as seasonal times and after job fairs. Several employers reported that with a large 

number of employees and/or multiple sites, the three-day time period for entering employee information 

was difficult to meet. These employers stated that apart from the large number of employees being hired 

making it difficult to enter information promptly, there may also have been a delay in receiving 

paperwork from sites. A few employers reported that they had specific days for completing cases, which 

may have resulted in cases for some newly hired employees being entered into the system more than three 

days after they were hired. For example, one employer explained that the company did payroll on 

Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, so the staff member who submitted cases to E-Verify could not enter 

information until Thursday and Friday. A few employers reported having to wait to enter information for 

employees who had not yet been issued Social Security numbers, such as workers with H-2B or J-1 visas. 

Other reasons for not entering employee information promptly included not being able to keep up with 

entering cases when staff were out of the office, or simply forgetting to do so within three days of hire. 

2.3.2. Time From TNC to Referral 

2.3.2.1. Total Time From Issuance of TNC to Referral 

The elapsed time between issuance of a TNC and referral has fluctuated over time, with a possible 

recent downward trend. As noted earlier there are no time requirements for employers to notify 

workers of TNCs or to refer those wishing to contest TNCs to USCIS or SSA other than the expectation 

that it be done expeditiously. As seen in Exhibit V-12, the mean number of calendar days between 

issuance of a TNC until the employer enters the fact that the worker is being referred has ranged from 3.7 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 103 
N

u

m

ber of d

a

ys 

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Exhibit V-12. Trend in Number of Calendar Days Between Issuance of a TNC and Referral: 

October 2004–June 2008 Apr-June

10 

July-Sept 

8 6.9 6.7 Oct-Dec

6.3 6.2 

5.4 6 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.8 Ja

n-Mar

4.4 

5.2 4.1 5.7 4.1 4.9 5.0 3.9 3.8 5.2 

4 4.5 

Apr-June

4.1 4.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.7 

3.2 

2 

July-Sept 

All employers 2.7 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

0 

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

NOTE: Based on cases with an employer referral.

July-Sept 

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Apr-June 

V TIMELINESS 


2.3.2.2. Time From TNC Issuance to Workers’ Signing TNC Notices 

Most workers receiving TNCs received their TNC notices on the same day they were issued; 

however, it sometimes took a week or longer from the time a TNC notice was issued until it was 

signed. Among the 352 record review cases that included a signed TNC notice, 320 were signed by the 

worker within a week of the issuance of the TNC (Exhibit V-13). 

to 6.9 days for all employers and from 2.7 days to 5.7 days for employers in the longitudinal sample. 

Although the number of days for employers in the longitudinal sample was lower in January through June 

2008 than at any preceding time (2.7 in April through June and 3.2 for January through March compared 

to a low of 3.6 in the preceding quarters), a similar statement cannot be made about all employers. 

104 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
TIMELINESS
 V 

Exhibit V-13. Number of Days Between Receiving and Signing TNC Notice 

More than 7 days after receiving TNC notice 32 

1-7 days after receiving TNC notice 99 

Same day as received TNC notice 221 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Number of workers 

SOURCE: Record review of Form I-9 and related records. 

Employers reported that it was sometimes difficult to provide information to their employees about 

TNCs promptly. Employer interviews provided a variety of reasons why there might be a delay in 

delivering TNC notices to employees, including the need to mail the document between office locations, 

human resources employees going on vacation, and difficulty in locating employees who might work at 

different worksites or during different shifts. 

2.3.2.3. Time From Worker Notification to Referral 

Almost all of the records reviewed for workers with both referral dates and TNC notices indicating 

that they wanted to contest the TNC had been referred within a week of signing the TNC notice. 

Among the 191 record review cases with a signed TNC notice indicating that the worker wanted to 

contest the TNC and a referral date in E-Verify, 183 were referred to SSA or USCIS within a week of the 

date the worker signed the TNC notice. 

2.3.3. Time From FNC/Unauthorized Finding to Termination 

Employers do not always promptly terminate employment when E-Verify is not able to confirm 

that an employee is work authorized. Most Web survey respondents (87 percent) who had employees 

who received FNC or unauthorized findings reported terminating their employment within a week of 

receiving the FNC or unauthorized finding, while 8 percent reported that they had never terminated any of 

these employees and 5 percent had taken more than one week to terminate their employment 

(Exhibit V-14). Among the 85 onsite study employers commenting on their termination procedures, 68 

reported promptly terminating employment for those who decided not to contest, 67 reported promptly 

terminating employment for those who received unauthorized findings, and 26 reported terminating 

employment for those who did not resolve their TNC in eight workdays. Seven employers terminated 

employment one to two weeks after an FNC or unauthorized finding, and only one employer said they 

never terminated employment after an FNC or unauthorized finding. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 105 
V TIMELINESS 


Exhibit V-14. Amount of Time for Employer to Terminate Employment After Employee Receives 

an FNC or Unauthorized Finding 

Never terminated 7.9 

Within a month 4.9 

Within a week 18.2 

2-3 days 19.4 

1 day 49.6 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

2.4. Worker Timeliness 

Most workers contesting SSA TNCs do so shortly after they are referred to SSA. Workers receiving 

TNCs who wish to contest have eight Federal workdays to contact USCIS or SSA. Almost half of 

workers contesting SSA TNCs since the implementation of EV-STAR in October 2007 did so within one 

day of the referral date input into E-Verify by their employers; however, 6 percent took 11 or more 

calendar days to contact SSA (Exhibit V-15). 

Percent of workers 

Exhibit V-15. Number of Calendar Days Between Employer Referral and Worker Contacting SSA: 

October 2007–June 2008 

60 

48.0 

50 

40 

30 

17.9 

20 

12.4 10.0 6.1 

10 4.0 1.6 

0 

0-1 days 2-3 days 4-5 days 6-7 days 8-10 days 11-15 days 16 or more 

days 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database, including EV-STAR data. 

106 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit V-16. Mean Number of Calendar Days Between Hire Date and Case Initiation, 

by State Legislation Group: April–June 2008 

All states 8.8 

Implemented a mandate requiring all Implemented a mandate requiring all employers to use E- employers to use E-Verify 4.8 Verify

ImplemenItmedp a mlemaenndtat ed ae r meqaunri

dngat soe reqmeu buirintg nosot al me bl emut pnloyot earlsl 8.2 to use E-Veerimfpyloyers to use E-Verify 

Other 9.8 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Number of days 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Exhibit V-17. Mean Number of Calendar Days Between TNC Issuance and Referral, by State 

Legislation Group: April–June 2008 

All states 4.1 

Implemented a mandat Impel remequi enrti

ed a ng al ml eamndpalt

oye e reqrsutio us ringea Ell - 3.6 Veriefmy ployers to use E-Verify 

ImplementedIma mplemandat entee rd ea mquraningda stome reque but iring notsomalle embupt nloye ot all rs 4.0 to useE-Veriemfyployers to use E-Verify 

Other 4.3 

\\ 

3.0 2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 

Number of days 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

TIMELINESS
 V 

3. IMPACTS OF LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM CHANGES ON TIMELINESS 

3.1. Legislative Changes 

Employers in Arizona are among the fastest in the nation to submit cases to E-Verify after hiring 

workers. The average time from hire date to case initiation was 4.8 calendar days for employers in 

Arizona in April through June 2008 compared to 8.2 days for states requiring some employers to use 

E-Verify and 9.8 days for other employers (Exhibit V-16). 

The time from issuance of TNCs to referral appears to be shorter for employers in states that 

require some or all employers to register for E-Verify. The average time from TNC issuance to 

referral for Arizona was 3.6 days, compared to 4.0 days for employers requiring some but not all 

employers to register and 4.3 days for employers in other states (Exhibit V-17). 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 107 
V TIMELINESS 

3.2. Photo Screening Tool 

There was a slight decrease in the percentage of noncitizen cases instantly verified as work 

authorized attributable to the institution of the Photo Screening Tool. The Photo Screening Tool 

process, implemented in mid-September 2007 and revised on May 5, 2008, requires employers to verify 

the consistency of photographs returned by the Photo Screening Tool with photocopies of photographs on 

certain immigration documents (Permanent Resident “green” card and Employment Authorization 

Document (EAD)) provided by the worker. This comparison is made whenever the USCIS electronic 

matching process indicates that the worker is employment authorized. Of the approximately 93,900 

noncitizen cases transmitted by regular employers113 between May 5 and June 30, 2008, there were 177 

cases submitted that received a TNC attributable to the Photo Screening Tool and one additional case 

found work authorized during the ISV review. If the Photo Screening Tool had not been operating during 

that time, these 178 Photo Screening Tool cases would have been found to be instantly work authorized. 

The percentage of noncitizen cases submitted by regular employers found work authorized instantly 

would have been 73.6 percent instead of 73.4 (see Exhibit V-18). The Photo Screening Tool change also 

presumably explains the 0.1 percentage point decrease for noncitizen cases instantly verified as work 

authorized (from 83.0 to 82.9 percent) between July through September 2007 and October through 

December 2007.114 

Exhibit V-18. Observed Case Outcomes and Case Outcomes Without the Photo Screening Tool: 

May 5–June 30, 2008 

Observed Outcome All Photo Tool Cases Non-Photo Tool Cases 

Total transactions 93,866 100.0 42,694 100.0 51,172 100.0 

FNC by SSA 9,775 10.4 0 0.0 9,775 19.1 

Instantly Verified as Work Authorized by USCIS 69,190 73.7 42,516 99.6 26,674 52.1 

With SSA TNC 284 0.3 170 0.4 114 0.2 

Without SSA TNC 68,906 73.4 42,346 99.2 26,560 51.9 

Second Stage Work Authorization by USCIS 6,947 7.4 1 0.0 6,946 13.6 

With SSA TNC 35 0.0 0 0.0 35 0.1 

Without SSA TNC 6,912 7.4 1 0.0 6,911 13.5 

Third Stage Work Authorization by USCIS 1,383 1.5 1 0.0 1,382 2.7 

FNC by USCIS 6,486 6.9 176 0.4 6,310 12.3 

Unauthorized by USCIS 85 0.1 0 0.0 85 0.2 

Outcomes Without Photo Screening Tool All Photo Tool Cases Non-Photo Tool Cases 

Total transactions 93,866 100.0 42,694 100.0 51,172 100.0 

FNC by SSA 9,775 10.4 0 0.0 9,775 19.1 

Instantly Verified as Work Authorized by USCIS 69,368 73.9 42,694 100.0 26,674 52.1 

With SSA TNC 284 0.3 170 0.4 114 0.2 

Without SSA TNC 69,084 73.6 42,524 99.6 26,560 51.9 

Second Stage Work Authorization by USCIS 6,946 7.4 0 0.0 6,946 13.6 

With SSA TNC 35 0.0 0 0.0 35 0.1 

Without SSA TNC 6,911 7.4 0 0.0 6,911 13.5 

Third Stage Work Authorization by USCIS 1,382 1.5 0 0.0 1,382 2.7 

FNC by USCIS 6,310 6.7 0 0.0 6,310 12.3 

Unauthorized by USCIS 85 0.1 0 0.0 85 0.2 

NOTE: Designated Agent and Web Services cases that are not processed through the Photo Screening Tool are not included in 

these numbers. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

113Designated Agent and Web Services cases that are not processed through the Photo Screening Tool are not included in these numbers. 

114See Chapter VI for a flow diagram of the Photo Screening Tool with additional details about this process. 

108 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
84

Perce

nt 98 

96 

94 

92 

90 

88 

86 

0 

91.4 91.2 

92.5 92.7 

91.9 92.3 92.9 92.9 93.4 93.3 

94.3 94.3 94.5 94.1 

95.0 

91.7 92.0 

93.0 

92.8 

91.5 91.4 

92.2 91.9 92.0 91.7 

93.4 93.3 93.8 93.5 

94.8 

Oct-Dec 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

All employers 

Employers in longitudinal sample 

X - - - X Pre-TNC check begins 

\\ 

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases. 

TIMELINESS 

3.3. SSA and USCIS Pre-TNC Checks 

V 

The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks (begun in September 2007) were designed to reduce the number of 

data input errors creating erroneous TNCs. This should improve timeliness by increasing the number of 

cases resolved immediately.115 

The pre-TNC checks may have led to a slight increase in the percentage of E-Verify cases instantly 

verified as work authorized. The percentage of cases instantly found to be work authorized increased 

0.2 percentage points (from 94.3 to 94.5) between July through September 2007 and October through 

December 2007, which was less than the increase of 0.5 percentage points (92.9 to 93.4) between July 

through September 2006 and October through December 2006 but well above the decrease of 0.8 

percentage points (92.7 to 91.9) between July through September 2005 and October through December 

2005 (Exhibit V-19).116 However, data from the longitudinal database suggest an increase in the 

percentage of cases instantly verified as work authorized attributable to the pre-TNC check. There was an 

increase between July through September 2007 and October through December 2007 of 0.5 percentage 

points (93.3 to 93.8) compared to an increase of 0.1 between July through September 2006 and October 

through December 2006 (91.9 to 92.0) and a decrease of 1.3 percentage points between July through 

September 2005 and October through December 2005 (92.8 to 91.5). 

Exhibit V-19. Trend in Percent of Workers Who Were Verified Instantly as Work Authorized, for 

All Employers and for Employers in the Longitudinal Sample: October 2004–June 2008 

115The impact of pre-TNC checks on erroneous TNC rates is discussed in Chapter VI. 

116The SSA pre-TNC check was instituted on September 16, 2007. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 109 
V TIMELINESS 

3.4. EV-STAR 

Employers had mixed views on the impact of EV-STAR on SSA response time. Some employers 

commented that the change in SSA procedures that occurred when EV-STAR was implemented117 has 

had a positive impact on SSA response time, stating that there appeared to be a “tremendous improvement 

in turnaround time and efficiency” due to the changed SSA procedures, saving the employer time, effort, 

and money. One employer commented that the employer no longer has to wait and “wonder what's going 

on” when the employee is not prompt in returning the stamped letter from SSA. However, several other 

employers reported dissatisfaction with changed procedures because the change has made the process 

more time consuming.118 These employers indicated delays in response times from SSA or sometimes no 

response at all, and increased burden on employer staff that must check the system multiple times for SSA 

responses. These employers reported extreme frustration with the lack of communication from SSA and 

the inability to get an explanation for delays. These employers also reported that it took several days for 

the database to be updated once their employees had visited an SSA office and resolved their issues. 

These negative views may result from employer misunderstanding of the changes in the procedures. 

3.5. Naturalization Phase I 

The institution of Naturalization Phase I led to an increase in the percentage of those persons 

attesting to being citizens who were instantly found to be work authorized. From May 5 through June 

30, 2008, approximately 6,100 persons were found to be work authorized instantly during the 

Naturalization Phase I check who would not have instantly been found to be work authorized prior to the 

implementation of Naturalization Phase I (Exhibit V-20). These cases constituted over half of the 11,100 

cases checked during the Naturalization Phase I process and were 0.6 percent of all cases in which 

persons attested to being U.S. citizens on the Form I-9 during this time. This explains the observed 

0.6 percent increase in the percentage of citizen cases instantly found work authorized (from 98.0 to 

98.6 percent) between the start of Naturalization Phase I on May 5, 2008, and June 30, 2008, compared to 

cases verified in April 1 through May 4, 2008. 

Exhibit V-20. Case Outcomes for Workers Attesting to Being Citizens in April–June 2008 

Outcome 

April 1– 

May 4, 2008 

 May 5– 

June 30, 2008 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Total transactions 539,890 100.0 1,008,829 100.0 

Instantly verified as work authorized 528,937 98.0 994,947 98.6 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 0 0.0 6,137 0.6 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 528,937 98.0 988,810 98.0 

Verified as work authorized after a TNC 2,748 0.5 2,102 0.2 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 1,951 0.4 744 0.1 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 797 0.1 1,358 0.1 

FNC 8,205 1.5 11,780 1.2 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 3,454 0.6 4,190 0.4 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 4,751 0.9 7,590 0.8 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

117Because a number of employers at the stakeholders meeting did not know EV-STAR by name, the interviewers asked about the new SSA 

procedures and provided additional information about EV-STAR as needed. 

118 SSA says that EV-STAR should not have increased the time between worker referral and final system response from SSA. 

110 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
TIMELINESS
 V 

3.6. Naturalization Phase II 

Naturalization Phase II has presumably reduced the time to resolve TNCs for many naturalized 

citizens; however, the long-term impact may prove to be less than the initial impact. Naturalization 

Phase II, implemented on May 5, 2008, allows naturalized citizens to avail themselves of the opportunity 

to resolve erroneous TNCs by contacting USCIS by phone rather than by making a trip to an SSA office. 

Over half (57 percent) of the eligible workers who contacted either agency took advantage of the option 

to contact USCIS (Exhibit V-21), presumably reducing the time employers need to spend to resolve their 

TNCs. However, 4 percent of workers eligible for participating in Naturalization Phase II had to contact 

both SSA and USCIS, presumably increasing the workers’ time to resolve their TNCs. Furthermore, 

contacting USCIS rather than SSA means that the worker’s SSA record is not updated, making it more 

likely that similar problems may occur in the future if the worker moves to another participating 

employer, unless the worker independently visits SSA to correct the problem. 

Exhibit V-21. Extent to Which Naturalized Citizens Availed Themselves of the Opportunity to 

Contact USCIS Instead of SSA: May 5–June 30, 2008 

57.4% 

Contacted USCIS 

53.0% 

Contacted USCIS only 

42.6% 

Contacted 

SSA only 

4.4% 

Contacted USCIS 

and SSA 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 111 
V TIMELINESS 


112 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
TIMELINESS
 V 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 113

CHAPTER VI. ACCURACY

1. BACKGROUND 

The overall success of E-Verify is closely tied to the accuracy of its findings. Issues related to program 

accuracy are frequently raised by groups opposed to E-Verify and its expansion. Not only do accurate 

data constitute a measure of successful implementation, but inaccurate findings create burdens for 

employers, workers, and the Federal government; increase the possibility of actions prohibited by the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and dilute the ability of the Program to detect workers who are 

not employment authorized. Ensuring program accuracy is, therefore, of paramount importance in gaining 

widespread acceptance of E-Verify. 

In previous evaluations estimates have been made of the erroneous Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) 

rate, i.e., the percentage of workers found employment authorized by E-Verify who receive TNCs prior to 

being found employment authorized. While this provides an indicator of the accuracy of E-Verify in 

finding authorized workers to be employment authorized, stakeholders have also sought an estimate of the 

percentage of workers found employment authorized who, through identity fraud or misrepresentation, 

have been incorrectly found to be employment authorized. Therefore, this evaluation has estimated both 

factors, which are referred to in this report as inaccuracy rates.119 

The following inaccuracy rates are estimated in this report: 

• The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is the percentage of workers with employment 

authorization who are not found to be work authorized.120 These inaccuracies are attributable 

primarily to Federal records that are not current or are otherwise inaccurate and to data input 

errors. 

• The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is the percentage of workers without 

employment authorization found to be employment authorized. These inaccuracies are 

primarily due to identity fraud that occurs when workers without employment authorization 

provide employers with identity information for work-authorized persons. 

• The total inaccuracy rate is the percentage of workers who received findings that were 

inconsistent with their true employment-authorization status. Note that this is not equal to the 

sum of the preceding inaccuracy rates because the disproportionately large number of workers 

with employment authorization in the labor force results in the total inaccuracy rate being 

much closer to the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. This can be seen in Exhibit VI-1, 

which shows that the estimated initial total inaccuracy rate for April through June 2008 was 

approximately 4.1 percent (i.e., 3.3 percent of all E-Verify case findings were for unauthorized 

workers found employment authorized and 0.7 percent were for authorized workers who were 

not found to be work authorized initially121). However, approximately half of the small 

119 Researchers often refer to these as error rates. 

120 In this report, “authorized” and “unauthorized” refer to the work-authorization status of the workers. 

121 The total inaccuracy rate (4.1 percent) is not equal to the sum of the two component parts (4.0 percent) because of rounding. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 114 
ACCURACY
 VI 

population of unauthorized workers (3.3/(3.3+2.9)) were inaccurately found to be work 

authorized by E-Verify. 

Exhibit VI-1. Estimated Consistency Between Initial E-Verify Finding and True 

Work-Authorization Status 

6.2% 

93.1% 

Authorized workers 

found authorized 

initially 

0.7% 

Authorized workers 

not found 

authorized initially 

3.3% 

Unauthorized 

workers 

found work 

authorized 

2.9% 

Unauthorized 

Unauthorized workers 

workers not found 

work authorized 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Since it is not possible to accurately determine the true employment-authorization status of workers at the 

time that their cases were submitted to E-Verify, this report uses a model to obtain approximate estimates 

of these rates. Like any model-based estimates, these estimates are dependent upon the reasonableness of 

the assumptions underlying the model as well as the accuracy of the data used in constructing the 

model.122 As is typical of model-based assumptions, the assumptions used in developing these estimates 

are based on the best data available from the evaluation and other reliable sources. 

Most inaccuracy rates in this report are based on the initial case findings (i.e., a TNC or an employmentauthorized finding without a TNC), because estimating final inaccuracy rates is generally more difficult 

than estimating the initial inaccuracy rates. If a final inaccuracy rate is estimated, it will be noted; 

otherwise, it can be assumed that the report is referring to initial inaccuracy rates.123 

Given the broad plausible ranges of these model-based estimates, it is not possible to use them for 

meaningful trend analyses. Therefore, model-based estimates are made only for the April through June 

2008 period. An alternate measure, the erroneous TNC rate for workers ever found work authorized, i.e., 

the percentage of all workers found to be employment authorized at any stage of the verification process 

who are verified as work authorized after receiving a TNC, is used to examine trends. The erroneous TNC 

rate has the advantage that it is not model-based and, therefore, can be estimated more precisely than the 

122See Chapter II and Appendix B for a discussion of the model and the assumptions made in calculating inaccuracy rates. See Chapter X for a 

discussion of the role that accuracy plays in discrimination and Chapter VII for information about accuracy related to detecting unauthorized 

employment. 

123The final inaccuracy rate for employment-authorized workers would be lower than that based on the initial finding and the final inaccuracy rate 

for unauthorized workers would be approximately the same as the initial inaccuracy rate, since the contesting process permits some TNCs to be 

corrected, resulting in a final finding of work authorized. Although employers can ask for a reconsideration of a work-authorization finding, as 

discussed in Chapter VII, it is rare for an initial finding of work authorized to be changed, so the initial and final inaccuracy rate for workers 

without employment authorization should be virtually the same. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 115 
VI ACCURACY 


inaccuracy rate for all authorized workers, making trend analyses possible. It also has the advantage that it 

can be estimated separately by citizenship and place of birth status as indicated in Social Security 

Administration (SSA) records.124 However, as discussed in Chapter II, the erroneous TNC rate is an 

imperfect measure of program success because it underestimates the inaccuracy rate for authorized 

workers and because it is not possible to produce an estimate of an analogous inaccuracy rate for nonemployment-authorized workers. 

Most of the measures examined in this chapter are based on information from the E-Verify Transaction 

Database. Additional information from the Web survey and the site visits provide a more in-depth 

understanding of changes in the accuracy of E-Verify. The limitations of these data and the analyses 

based on them are discussed in Chapter II. In addition to examining trends for the full Transaction 

Database, trends for employers consistently using E-Verify between October 2004 and June 2008 are 

examined. Since the characteristics of the employers in this longitudinal sample can be assumed to vary 

less dramatically than the characteristics of all employers, examination of these trends permits making 

inferences about what the trends would have been without changes in the characteristics of participating 

employers. 

Legislative changes and the following program changes that have an impact on the accuracy of E-Verify 

findings are also examined:125 

• The Photo Screening Tool; 

• The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks; 

• EV-STAR; and 

• Naturalization Phase I. 

A number of other modifications taken to improve the Program, such as changes in the tutorial, may also 

affect accuracy. However, since these changes have been implemented incrementally, it is not possible to 

disentangle the impact of any particular change on trends. To the extent that these changes were 

successful, they would have led overall to downward trends in inaccuracy rates. 

2. FINDINGS 

2.1. General Findings 

The model-based estimate of the total inaccuracy rate was 4.1 percent with a plausible range of 2.3 

to 5.7 percent in April through June 2008.126 Among the 1.73 million initial findings during April 

through June 2008, there were an estimated 12,500 workers who received TNCs who should have been 

found work authorized and approximately 58,000 workers without employment authorization who were 

124This information is not normally available for workers not found employment authorized. 

125See Chapter III for a description of these changes. 

126See the Addendum to the Executive Summary for additional information and Chapters II and VI and Appendix B in the full report for an 

explanation of total inaccuracy rate estimation procedures. 

116 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
VI 

Exhibit VI-2. Estimated Total Inaccuracy Rates, Using Alternate Assumptions: April–June 2008 

Assumed percent of cases Assumed percent of workers informed of their TNCs 

submitted to E-Verify that are for 

unauthorized workers 60 percent 70 percent 80 percent 

4.7 2.9 2.6 2.3 

6.2 4.4 4.1 3.8 

7.5 5.7 5.4 5.1 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Exhibit VI-3. Estimated Inaccuracy Rate for Authorized Workers, Using Alternate Assumptions: 

April–June 2008 

Assumed percent of cases 

submitted to E-Verify that are for 

unauthorized workers 

Assumed percent of workers informed of their TNCs 

60 percent 70 percent 80 percent 

4.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 

6.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 

7.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Exhibit VI-4. Estimated Inaccuracy Rate for Unauthorized Workers, Using Alternate Assumptions: 

April–June 2008 

Assumed percent of cases Assumed percent of workers informed of their TNCs 

submitted to E-Verify that are for 

unauthorized workers 60 percent 70 percent 80 percent 

4.7 43 39 37 

6.2 57 54 52 

7.5 64 62 60 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

ACCURACY 

found to be work authorized. Thus, the estimated total number of inaccurate responses is approximately 

70,500 out of the 1.73 million cases submitted to E-Verify (4.1 percent) (Exhibit VI-2).127 

The estimated inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is 0.8 percent with a plausible range from 0.6 

to 1.0 percent, and the estimated inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is 54 percent with a 

plausible range of 37 to 64 percent. Exhibit VI-3 presents information on the model-based estimated 

inaccuracy rate for authorized workers under alternate assumptions and Exhibit VI-4 presents similar 

information for the estimated inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. The substantial estimated 

inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is not surprising, given that since the inception of E-Verify it 

has been clear that many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that 

cannot be detected by E-Verify.

128 

The initial inaccuracy rate for all authorized workers is larger than the erroneous TNC rate for 

ever-authorized workers. The initial inaccuracy rate for authorized workers is estimated to be 

127An overview of the model used in this evaluation is presented in Chapter II and additional information is provided in Appendix B. 

128 For additional information, see the Addendum to the Executive Summary and Chapters II and VI and Appendix B in the full report. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 117 
Exhibit VI-5. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rate for Ever-Authorized Workers, for All Employers and 

Employers in Longitudinal Sample 

1.6 

FY2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCES: Total and Longitudinal E-Verify Transaction Databases: October 2004–June 2008. Oct-Dec JanMar Apr-June July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec 

JanMar

Apr-June 

Percent erro

neous T

N

C

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 

0.7 

0.8 

0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 

0.5 

0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 

1.1 1.2 1.2 

1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 

0.7 0.7 

0.5 

All Employers 

Employers in Longitudinal Sample 

VI ACCURACY 


0.8 percent compared to the erroneous TNC rate for workers ever found authorized of 0.5 percent (see 

Exhibit VI-5). The difference between these two rates is attributable to the fact that the model-based 

estimate includes an estimate for employment-authorized workers who do not contest TNCs. 

The accuracy of the E-Verify Program, as measured by the erroneous TNC rate for workers ever 

found authorized, continues to improve. According to the transaction data, the erroneous TNC rate has 

been declining since April through June 2006. In April through June 2008, an overall TNC finding was 

initially issued in 0.5 percent of all E-Verify cases found to be work authorized at some point in the 

verification process (Exhibit VI-5).129 This contrasts with a rate of 0.7 percent for April through June 

2007 and 0.9 percent for April through June 2006.130 The erroneous TNC rate for the longitudinal sample 

of employers (i.e., employers consistently using E-Verify between October 2004 and June 2008) shows a 

similar decline in the erroneous TNC rate, indicating that the change is unlikely to be attributable to 

changes in employer characteristics. 

The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers far exceeds the inaccuracy rate for authorized 

workers. The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers in April through June 2008 was estimated to be 

roughly 54 percent of workers without employment authorization for whom cases were transmitted to 

E-Verify compared to the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers of 0.8 percent. Given that many 

unauthorized workers are highly motivated to avoid having their work-authorization status detected and 

the fact that, as prior evaluations have pointed out, E-Verify cannot identify most types of identity fraud, 

this difference is not surprising. 

129When appropriate, comparisons over time are made from a single quarter to the same calendar quarter in preceding years to avoid spurious 

trends attributable to seasonality. 

130As noted in the last report, there was an increase in the erroneous TNC rate between July through September 2005 and October through 

December 2005 that is presumably attributable to the changed verification processing procedures for some noncitizens implemented in October 

2005. 

118 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
ACCURACY
 VI 

Employer input errors continue to be a source of inaccuracies for employment-authorized workers. 

Among the 1,147 records reviewed in the onsite study that initially received TNCs, 245 (21.4 percent) 

were found to have input errors when the transaction data were compared to the Form I-9 data in one or 

more of the following fields: date of birth, Social Security number (SSN), alien number, or citizenship 

status (Exhibit VI-6). Among these 245 cases, 72 (29.4 percent) were eventually found to be work 

authorized.131 

Exhibit VI-6. Consistency Between Form I-9 and Transaction Database Information for 

Discrepancies Likely to be Attributable to Input Errors in Cases Receiving TNCs 

902 

Consistent 

72 

Work authorized 

173 

Not work 

authorized 

245 

Inconsistent 

NOTE: The name match was not checked in the record reviews since the criteria for name match are less straightforward than

those for other matches. 

SOURCES: Record review of Form I-9 and related records and E-Verify Transaction Database. 

131The name match was not checked since criteria for the name match are less straightforward than those for the other matches. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 119 
VI ACCURACY 


Employers report fewer input errors causing TNCs. According to the employers completing the 2008 

Web employer survey, 42 percent had received at least one TNC finding that was due to data entry 

mistakes compared to 52 percent of employers responding to the 2006 survey (Exhibit VI-7). 

Percent of em

ployers 

Exhibit VI-7. Percent of Employers Reporting at Least One TNC Due to Data Entry Error 

60 

2008 

52.4 2006 50 44.9 

42.0 38.6 

40 

30 

20 

13.1 

9.0 10 

0 

Yes No Don't know 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

120 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit VI-8. Employer-Reported Information About Finding Data Entry Errors 

2008 

18.9 2006 EEmmpplloyoyeeee co cont nteesstteded t thhe e ffiindi ndinngg/s U/USSCCIISS 

or SSAor fo SSA und t fhoun e err

d otrhe error* 23.2 

Employee found the error/ Employee found error/ employer 19.0 employer corrected/employee did corrected/ employee did not have to not have to contest* contest 28.2 

83.6 

EEmmpployer found error/corrected it loyer found error/corrected it wwiti

htohouut tt eltelilnlign tgh te heem empplolyoyeeee* 88.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of employers 

*Statistically significant difference between 2008 and 2006 E-Verify users at p < 0.05. 

NOTE: Sums do not add to 100 percent because some respondents chose multiple responses. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

ACCURACY
 VI 

Employers reported that they found and corrected most of the data entry errors they were aware of 

themselves; however, some of these errors were resolved only after the worker contacted SSA or 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Of those employers that had TNC findings for 

their employees, 84 percent of 2008 respondents had TNCs due to errors that they discovered themselves 

compared to 88 percent in the 2006 survey (Exhibit VI-8). Nineteen percent of employers completing the 

2008 Web survey compared to 23 percent of employers completing the 2006 survey reported that they 

also had data entry errors discovered by SSA or USCIS. Nineteen percent of E-Verify evaluation Web 

survey respondents compared to 28 percent of 2006 respondents reported having a case in which the 

employee found the error. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 121 
Exhibit VI-9. Employer Opinions on Whether They Believe E-Verify is Highly Accurate 

0.8%

7.8% S0.tr8% ongly disagree

Disagree Strongly 7.8% 

disagree Disagree 

29.6%

S29tro.6% ngly agree

61.8% 61.8% Agree Agree 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Strongly agree 

VI ACCURACY 


The majority of employers perceive E-Verify to be a highly accurate system for verifying work 

authorization. When asked for their views on the accuracy of E-Verify in the 2008 Web survey, 

92 percent of employers expressing an opinion agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “We believe 

E-Verify is highly accurate” (Exhibit VI-9). 

2.2. Impacts of Legislative and Program Changes on Accuracy 

2.2.1. Legislative Changes 

Employers in states that require the use of E-Verify for all or some of their employees have higher 

erroneous TNC rates than employers in states with no requirement to use E-Verify. The erroneous 

TNC rate for Arizona is 0.56 percent, while the erroneous TNC rate for employers in states requiring 

some employers to implement E-Verify is 0.50 percent, and the erroneous TNC rate for other employers 

is 0.49 percent (Exhibit VI-10). It is possible to hypothesize that employers required to implement 

E-Verify are less careful when they input and check their data entries than are other employers. However, 

there are other plausible reasons to explain this difference, e.g., it may be attributable to differences in the 

types of employers or the workers with cases submitted to E-Verify among states or perhaps a higher 

percentage of workers with employment authorization decide to contest the TNCs since it is harder for 

them to find alternate employment. 

122 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Other

Implemented a mandate requiring some but not all

employers to use E-Verify

Implemented a mandate requiring all employers to use EVerify

Exhibit VI-10. Erroneous TNC Rates for Ever-Authorized Workers, by State Legislation Group: 

April–June 2008 

0.49 

0.50 

0.56 

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 

Percent erroneous TNCs 

Implemented a mandate requiring all employers 

to use E-Verify 

Implemented a mandate requiring some 

but not all employers to use E-Verify 

Other 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

ACCURACY
 VI 

2.2.2. The Photo Screening Tool 

The Photo Screening Tool slightly decreased the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. The 

Photo Screening Tool, implemented in September 2007, was designed to identify situations in which 

workers without employment authorization substitute their photographs for photographs on documents 

belonging to someone else or use counterfeit documents with their own photograph but information about 

someone with work authorization. As illustrated in Exhibit VI-11, almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the 

93,900 cases submitted by regular employers for persons attesting to being noncitizens in May 5 through 

June 30, 2008, were processed with an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) or a green card, the 

only documents available in the Photo Screening Tool. Photographs were available for 42,700 of these 

workers (45 percent of all cases and 72 percent of the 59,000 cases using an EAD or green card). 

Among the 42,700 cases in which employers responded that they had attempted to match the photo 

presented by E-Verify with the document photo, almost all (42,500) were found to match and then were 

instantly verified as work authorized. In the remaining 200 cases, the employer either said that the 

photographs did not match or they could not determine if they matched. Given the low rate of 

successfully contested Photo Screening Tool TNC cases (0.6 percent) compared to all noncitizen TNC 

cases (19 percent), it is likely that almost all of these cases are workers who are not work authorized. 

Since the Photo Screening Tool increased the number of FNC cases by approximately 0.2 percent of the 

estimated number of unauthorized workers, it is reasonable to estimate that the April through June 2008 

inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers would have been 54.2 percent without the Photo Screening Tool 

compared to the estimated 54.0 percent inaccuracy rate with the Photo Screening Tool.132 

132See Chapter VII for additional discussion of the effectiveness of the Photo Screening Tool in identifying workers without employment 

authorization. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 123 
Exhibit VI-11. Flow Diagram of the Photo Screening Tool Process for Noncitizens: 

May 5–June 30, 2008 

Other documents were 

93,866 

Verification 

attempt 

EAD/green card 

were presented 

(59,305 - 63.2%) 

presented (34,561 - 36.8%) 

Photo available 

(42,694 - 45.5%) 

No photo available 

(16,611 - 17.7%) 

Photo matched Cannot be determined Photo not matched 

(42,516 - 45.3%) (23 - 0.0%) (155 - 0.2%) 

42,516 

Instantly verified as Work authorized at second Final Nonconfirmation by Work authorized after a work authorized 

(42,516 - 45.3%) stage (1 - 0.0%) USCIS (176 - 0.2%) TNC (1 - 0.0%) 

Employee contested 

Photo Screening Tool 

TNC (24) 

23 1

153 

1 

23 1

(No show) 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

VI ACCURACY 


The Photo Screening Tool had an extremely small impact on the inaccuracy rate for authorized 

workers. By introducing another requirement for verification of work-authorization status, the Photo 

Screening Tool has the potential for contributing to inaccurate findings for noncitizens with employment 

authorization. This could occur if a system or database error resulted in the employer receiving the wrong 

picture or could occur if the employer does not properly compare the picture returned from E-Verify with 

the appropriate document. However, given the extremely small number of successfully contested TNCs in 

this group, the impact of the Photo Screening Tool as implemented to date on the inaccuracy rate for 

workers with employment authorization is estimated to be well under 0.01 percent. 

2.2.3. Pre-TNC Checks 

The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks appear to have significantly decreased the erroneous TNC 

rate. The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks that were fully implemented in September 2007133 were 

designed to reduce the number of employer input errors contributing to erroneous TNCs for workers with 

employment authorization by letting employers know that there might be an input error in a case and then 

allowing employers to correct any input errors before issuing a TNC. The erroneous TNC rate for all 

133USCIS implemented pre-TNC checks earlier in 2007 for a small group of employers on a pilot basis. 

124 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
ACCURACY
 VI 

ever-authorized workers declined from 0.72 to 0.58 (a decline of 0.14 percent) between July through 

September 2007 and October through December 2007 (see Exhibit VI-5); during the same time, the 

erroneous TNC rate for authorized workers in the longitudinal sample declined 0.17 percentage points 

(from 0.85 percent in July through September 2007 to 0.68 percent in October through December 2007). 

The observed erroneous TNC rate declines are larger than declines observed between July through 

September 2006 and October through December 2006. In 2006, the erroneous TNC rate decline was 

0.07 percentage points for both the sample of all employers and the longitudinal sample (from 

0.81 percent in July through September 2006 to 0.74 percent in October through December 2006 for all 

employers and from 0.99 percent to 0.92 percent for the longitudinal sample).134 It also seems plausible 

that the decline in data input errors resulting in TNCs noticed by employers (from 52 percent to 

42 percent reporting having had such errors) between the 2006 and 2008 Web surveys (see Exhibit VI-7) 

can also be attributed, at least in part, to the pre-TNC checks. 

It is possible that some of the impact of the pre-TNC checks was obscured by the implementation of 

EV-STAR so soon after the implementation of the pre-TNC checks. The implementation of 

EV-STAR only two weeks after the implementation of the pre-TNC checks prevented the evaluation team 

from disentangling effects from the two program changes. However, as discussed in the next section, 

implementation of EV-STAR may have led to an increase in the erroneous TNC rate for ever-authorized 

workers. If it did have such an effect, the impact of the pre-TNC checks on the erroneous TNC rate is 

greater than what was observed. 

2.2.4. EV-STAR 

EV-STAR probably led to a decrease in the final inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. Two 

features of EV-STAR are particularly relevant to data accuracy: 

1. EV-STAR permits SSA to track cases automatically, including those in which workers receiving 

TNCs need to obtain documents that cannot reasonably be obtained within the 10 Federal 

workday time frame normally allowed for resolving TNCs. In this situation, E-Verify notifies the 

employer that the case is in continuance. Prior to EV-STAR, the SSA field office was supposed to 

advise the employer by phone that SSA’s action was still pending and to defer resubmitting the 

case. However, if the SSA office did not contact the employer, then the employer would 

resubmit the case and receive a premature and possibly inaccurate FNC. 

2. The pre-FNC check was implemented along with EV-STAR. The pre-FNC check automatically 

resubmits all SSA TNC cases to E-Verify except those that EV-STAR indicates have been 

resolved. This check should avoid FNCs attributable to employers’ not correctly resubmitting 

cases after workers have visited SSA to resolve their TNCs. 

Implementation of both the EV-STAR case-tracking feature and the pre-FNC check presumably led to 

decreases in the final inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. However, these changes could contribute to 

an observed increase in the erroneous TNC rate, because cases that would have been classified as FNCs 

in the past would now be classified as work authorized after a TNC. 

134Because of procedural changes between July through September 2005 and October through December 2005, the erroneous TNC rates were not 

considered comparable to the 2006 and 2007 rates. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 125 
Exhibit VI-12. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for Foreign-Born Citizens: January 2006–June 2008 

12 

X----X 

Naturalization 9.9 

10 Phase I begins 

8.2 

8 

t 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 n 6.6 7.0 

e 6.2 c

r

e 6 P

4 

3.2 

2 

0 r t c r t c r a e p e a e p e a e n e n e n M u D M u D M u - J S S - - - t - J - t - J n - - - r l

y c n r ly c n r a a a J p u O J p u O J p A J A J A

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and SSA data on birth/citizenship status. 

VI ACCURACY 


2.2.5. Naturalization Phase I 

Naturalization Phase I led to a dramatic decrease in the erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born 

citizens. Naturalization Phase I, implemented on May 5, 2008, was designed to reduce erroneous TNC 

findings for naturalized citizens by checking USCIS data files with information about naturalized citizens 

when SSA can confirm the identity but not the citizenship status of workers attesting to be citizens. The 

erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens dropped from 7.0 percent to 3.2 percent between January 

through March 2008 and April through June 2008, even though Naturalization Phase I did not take effect 

until May 5, 2008 (Exhibit VI-12). 

The institution of Naturalization Phase I also led to a dramatic reduction in the erroneous TNC 

rate for all citizens. The erroneous TNC rate for ever-authorized workers attesting to being citizens fell 

from 0.5 percent to 0.2 percent between the periods immediately before and after the implementation of 

Naturalization Phase I. As discussed in Chapter V, from May 5 through June 30, 2008, there were 

approximately 6,100 workers attesting to being citizens who were instantly found to be work authorized 

during the Naturalization Phase I check. Previously these workers would have received TNCs and would 

have had to visit an SSA office if they wished to resolve them. The cases cleared by the Naturalization 

Phase I check constituted a little over half (55 percent) of the 11,100 cases checked during the 

Naturalization Phase I process and 0.6 percent of all cases in which persons attested to being U.S. citizens 

on the Form I-9. 

Exhibit VI-13 provides additional information that helps explain why Naturalization Phase I had such a 

dramatic impact on the erroneous TNC rate of all citizens. There were approximately 700 cases eligible 

for Naturalization Phase I that were successfully contested between May 5 and June 30, 2008, and an 

126 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
VI 

Exhibit VI-13. Observed E-Verify Outcomes for Citizens and Estimated Outcomes if 

Naturalization Phase I Had Not been Implemented: May 5–June 30, 2008 

Estimated without 

Type of outcome Observed Naturalization 

Phase I 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Total transactions 1,008,829 100.0 1,008,829 100.0 

Automatically verified as work authorized 994,947 98.6 988,810 98.0 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 6,137 0.6 0 0.0 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 988,810 98.0 988,810 98.0 

Verified as work authorized after a TNC 2,102 0.2 5,354 0.5 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 744 0.1 3,996 0.4 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 1,358 0.1 1,358 0.1 

FNC 11,780 1.2 14,665 1.5 

Cases meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 4,190 0.4 7,075 0.7 

Cases NOT meeting criteria for Naturalization Phase I 7,590 0.8 7,590 0.8 

Erroneous TNC 0.21% 0.54% 

NOTE: The estimates of case outcomes in the absence of Naturalization Phase I assumes that the distribution of case outcomes

was the same as the observed outcomes between April 1 and May 4, 2008. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

ACCURACY 

additional 1,400 successfully contested cases for U.S. citizens not meeting the Naturalization Phase I 

criteria for a total of 2,100 successfully contested cases. Assuming that in the absence of Naturalization 

Phase I, the distribution of case outcomes in May 5 and June 30, 2008, would have been the same as was 

observed between April 1 and May 4, 2008, it is estimated that if Naturalization Phase I had not been 

implemented, there would have been approximately 4,000 successfully contested cases among those 

eligible for Naturalization Phase I between May 5 and June 30, 2008, and approximately 5,400 

successfully contested cases for all U.S. citizens. Therefore, the reduction in successfully contested TNC 

cases of approximately 3,300 represents not only a substantial reduction in successfully contested TNC 

cases for cases eligible for Naturalization Phase I, it also represents a substantial reduction in the total 

number of successfully contested cases for all citizens. This drop led to an estimated reduction of 0.3 

percentage points in the erroneous TNC rate for all citizens from 0.5 percent to 0.2 percent. 

There was an unintended increase in the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers under 

Naturalization Phase I. Since workers providing valid information about naturalized U.S. citizens 

would be more likely to be found work authorized under Naturalization Phase I, those unauthorized 

workers who committed identity fraud by providing valid information about naturalized citizens were also 

more likely to be found work authorized under Naturalization Phase I. Using the work-authorized model, 

it is estimated that between 300 and 1,900 (5 to 31 percent) of the 6,100 workers found employment 

authorized during the checks instituted by Naturalization Phase I had committed identity fraud and were, 

in fact, not work authorized.135 The increase in the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers attributable 

to Naturalization Phase I is estimated to be 2.3 percent with a plausible range between 0.4 and 4.0 

percent. 

135These estimates are based on the part of the work-authorization model using the estimated percentage of workers informed of a TNC but not 

the estimate of the total E-Verify population who are, in fact, unauthorized. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 127 
VI ACCURACY 


Naturalization Phase I led to a significant decrease in the total E-Verify inaccuracy rate. Since in 

all of the model-based estimates, the number of TNCs for authorized workers averted by Naturalization 

Phase I was larger than the number of inaccuracies for unauthorized workers attributable to Naturalization 

Phase I, the net impact of the program was to decrease the total inaccuracy rate. The estimated reduction 

was 0.4 percent with a plausible range of 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent for May 5 through June 30, 2008. 

The accuracy of information about naturalized citizens checked during Naturalization Phase I is 

likely to improve over time as data on more newly naturalized citizens are added to USCIS 

databases and are available for checking. As SSNs for newly naturalized citizens are captured and 

added to the USCIS databases and older workers without electronically searchable records leave the work 

force, the percentage of naturalized citizens that can be verified as work authorized through 

Naturalization Phase I is expected to increase. 

128 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
ACCURACY
 VI 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 129

CHAPTER VII. EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING 

UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 

1. BACKGROUND 

One of the primary goals of E-Verify is to reduce unauthorized employment. This chapter addresses the 

question of how well E-Verify is meeting this goal. Underlying the analyses in this chapter is the 

assumption that the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment depends upon its 

ability to identify workers without employment authorization, the length of time unauthorized workers 

identified by E-Verify are permitted to work, and the time lag between the employee’s termination and 

any re-reemployment, which, in turn, is strongly influenced by how widespread the use of E-Verify is. 

This section will present background information for the discussion. The remainder of the chapter will 

look at the general findings related to unauthorized employment and to the impacts of recent E-Verify 

changes likely to affect unauthorized employment. 

This chapter relies on information from the Web survey of employers, the onsite study, the Transaction 

Database, and other secondary data. These data sources are discussed in Chapter II. In addition, it presents 

model-based estimates of the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying workers without employment 

authorization.136 

1.1. Ways Noncitizens Without Work Authorization Can Obtain Employment 

In discussing the employment of persons without employment authorization, it is important to understand 

that not all workers without employment authorization entered the country illegally. In addition to illegal 

entrants, there are many persons in this country who entered legally but have overstayed their admission 

period. There are also persons, such as international tourists, who are in the United States legally but are 

not authorized to work. 

As discussed in Chapter I, in accordance with Form I-9 requirements, all newly hired employees should 

provide their employers with valid documents to prove their identity and to demonstrate that they are 

authorized to work in the United States; however, there are many noncitizens who are currently employed 

without work authorization. To understand the impact of E-Verify on the employment of unauthorized137 

workers, it is useful to understand the methods commonly used to obtain such employment. Specific 

methods include obtaining valid identification documents by using fraudulent “breeder” documents; using 

altered or counterfeit documents; buying, borrowing, or stealing valid documents; and looking for 

alternative employment where employers do not check documents or will provide employees with 

fraudulent documents containing information for workers with employment authorization. This section 

discusses these methods and how E-Verify is likely to impact obtaining unauthorized employment using 

the methods. 

136See Chapter II and Appendix B for a discussion of how these estimates are made. 

137“Unauthorized” and “authorized” in this report refer to work-authorization status. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 130 
138For example, an online article by Lisa Myers and the NBC News Investigative Unit (June 20, 2007) reports that “for about $500 [in Juarez, 

Mexico], we could rent what is known as a look-alike document—a real ‘green card’—with a photo of someone resembling our undercover 

producer. Because the document is authentic, it will pass inspection unless a customs officer notices the photo doesn’t match the person....U.S. 

officials say so far this year, some 15,000 bogus documents have been confiscated along the southern border. There are no numbers on how 

many people actually entered the U.S. using fraudulent documents. ...There’s also a problem on this side of the border. Near downtown Los 

Angeles, fake documents are sold openly.” How easy is it to cross the U.S.-Mexico border? Fraudulent documents easy to obtain, NBC News 

investigation reveals (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19337264/, downloaded August 30, 2007). 

139Form I-9 is included in Appendix E. 

140Indeed, if employers are too zealous in questioning reasonable-looking documents, they may leave themselves open to discrimination claims. 

EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

1.1.1. Using Documents Obtained Through the Use of Fraudulent Breeder Documents 

Breeder documents are fraudulent documents that are used to obtain other official identification 

documents. For example, easily counterfeited documents such as birth certificates may be used to obtain 

relatively secure documents such as drivers’ licenses. It is, of course, virtually impossible for employers 

to differentiate these fraudulently obtained documents from other documents issued by the same source. 

E-Verify will only detect this type of fraud if the person obtains the “valid” document using information 

about a fictitious person or alters the data about a real person that the E-Verify system checks, such as 

date of birth. 

1.1.2. Using Counterfeit or Altered Documents 

Individuals without work authorization sometimes obtain work by presenting counterfeit or altered 

documents. These documents are reported to be readily available for purchase in immigrant 

communities.138 Current employment verification procedures require the employer to certify on the Form 

I-9 that the documents presented by the newly hired employee “appear to be genuine.”139 In this situation, 

the likelihood of employers detecting counterfeit documents depends on the quality of the documents, the 

employers’ familiarity with immigration and other documents, and their expertise in detecting fraudulent 

documents. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expects employers to exercise reasonable 

diligence in reviewing documents but does not expect them to be experts or to question reasonableappearing documents.140 

The E-Verify Program adds the extra step of checking whether the information on the documents 

presented by newly hired employees is consistent with information in the SSA database and, for 

noncitizens, with DHS records. These checks are designed to assist employers in detecting counterfeit 

documents containing information about nonexistent persons or incorrect information about real people. 

Starting in September 2007, a Photo Screening Tool feature was added to E-Verify that permits the 

employer to compare digital photographs stored in an electronic U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) database with the photographs on the documents provided by workers during the Form 

I-9 process. The purpose of this step is to detect identity fraud arising from the substitution of 

photographs on the original document or the use of a counterfeit document with information about a real 

person and a photograph of the unauthorized worker. At the time this report was being written, only two 

USCIS-issued documents were available from the Photo Screening Tool (the green card and the 

Employment Authorization Document (EAD)). 

Except for situations of identity fraud detectable by the Photo Screening Tool, if the counterfeit 

documents are of reasonable quality and contain information about actual work-authorized persons who 

resemble the worker providing the documentation, the Form I-9 process and the E-Verify system will 

incorrectly confirm the bearer as work authorized. It should be noted that in the future, even if the worker 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 131 
141According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 7 percent of all workers were self-employed in 2006 

(http://www.bls.gov/cps/labor2006/chart3-1.pdf). 

142Judith Gans, Arizona’s Economy and the Legal Arizona Workers Act, December 11, 2008, (downloaded from 

http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/2008_GANS_lawa.pdf on February 8, 2009) cites an article in the November 30, 2008, 

edition of The Arizona Republic that a move toward underground employment has indeed occurred in Arizona in response to their mandating 

that all employers use E-Verify. 

VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


had to provide a document with a photograph available through the system, not all identity fraud would be 

prevented because workers would still be able to obtain “valid documents” using less secure fraudulent 

breeder documents as discussed above. Furthermore, it could be argued that to the extent that employers 

rely on E-Verify to detect fraudulent documents, they may be less vigilant in screening documents 

themselves to detect types of identity fraud that are not detectable through the use of E-Verify. 

1.1.3. Borrowing, Buying, or Stealing Valid Documents 

Another way for unauthorized workers to obtain employment is to use valid documents belonging to 

another person. For example, individuals may borrow documents belonging to relatives or friends, use 

stolen documents, or purchase valid documents that have been sold by the owner. To decrease the 

probability of this happening, employers are required to certify on the Form I-9 that the documents 

“...relate to the employee named....” However, E-Verify cannot identify these documents as fraudulent 

since they are, in fact, genuine. Employers can only rely on the extent to which the document information, 

such as a photograph, date of birth, and/or signature or other biometric identifiers, resembles the worker 

and matches any other documents presented in the verification process, as well as information on the 

employment application. Since some documents are valid for many years, it is often difficult to make the 

comparison as the person presenting the documents may have changed in appearance over time. Thus, 

the E-Verify system as currently designed and the Form I-9 process cannot be effective in detecting 

fraudulent activity involving valid documents. Indeed, as is true for the use of counterfeit documents, it 

could be argued that to the extent that E-Verify employers trust E-Verify to detect workers without 

authorization, they may reduce their diligence in screening documents and may not question some 

discrepancies between the individual’s appearance and the documents used in the verification process. 

1.1.4. Finding Alternative Employment 

Unauthorized workers can also obtain employment in jobs where employment verification is not rigorous 

because the employer is either ignorant of or knowingly violating the law. Undocumented immigrants 

who are self-employed141 are also able to avoid the employment verification system since they are not 

required to complete the Form I-9 for themselves. Other possible sources of alternative employment 

include the underground economy,

142 casual labor, and criminal activities, which are unlikely to require 

any type of document review. There is no reason to believe that E-Verify or any employment verification 

system can prevent unauthorized employment when employers do not want to verify work authorization, 

unless there is strict monitoring and enforcement of the verification requirements. 

1.2. Expected Impact of E-Verify Versus the Form I-9 Paper Process in Reducing the 

Employment of Noncitizens Without Work Authorization 

E-Verify is designed to be more effective than the paper Form I-9 process in detecting counterfeit fraud in 

which the workers’ documents contain information about nonexistent persons. However, E-Verify is 

expected to have a more limited impact on employers’ ability to detect fraud when documents with 

132 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

information about work-authorized persons are used to prove work authorization, and is, of course, totally 

ineffective when employers do not use the system to check work-authorization documents of all or 

selected groups of workers likely to be unauthorized. Thus, the E-Verify Program should decrease the 

ease with which noncitizens without work authorization can obtain employment but cannot totally 

eliminate the employment of such workers. 

Furthermore, as unauthorized workers learn more about how E-Verify works, it is likely that they will 

more frequently obtain counterfeit, borrowed, or stolen documents with information about persons who 

are work authorized or will use easily counterfeited breeder documents to obtain legitimate documents. 

Employers using E-Verify but wishing to use unauthorized workers may also be slow to terminate 

employment when required to do so and may go as far as providing employees with documents 

containing information about work-authorized individuals. It is also of concern that a likely unintended 

consequence of E-Verify would be an increase in alternative employment in response to making 

legitimate employment harder to obtain.143 

As it becomes harder to obtain fraudulent documents that will not be detected by E-Verify, the cost of 

such documents will presumably increase. Therefore, an important deterrent value of the Program 

ultimately may be to increase the cost of obtaining unauthorized employment, which, in turn, would cause 

some reduction in unauthorized employment; however, the amount of such reduction cannot be easily 

determined. 

In this chapter, the available evaluation information is used to provide insight into how the Program is 

operating to reduce unauthorized employment within the context of the preceding discussion. 

The chapter will also examine the impact on unauthorized employment of the Photo Screening Tool, the 

only major program change since the last evaluation report that is likely to have an immediate significant 

impact on unauthorized employment. It will also discuss the potential long-term impact of EV-STAR on 

unauthorized employment. 

2. FINDINGS 

2.1. General Findings 

2.1.1. Estimating the Effectiveness of E-Verify in Identifying Workers Without 

Employment Authorization 

Given the complexity of estimating the total impact of E-Verify on unauthorized employment, it is not 

feasible to estimate that total impact. However, it is feasible to explore several factors that provide 

insights into the effectiveness of E-Verify: 

• The ability to identify unauthorized workers. Obviously, to be effective, E-Verify must 

identify workers without employment authorization. 

• The impact of being identified as an unauthorized worker on the length of the worker’s 

employment. The role of the length of time of unauthorized employment may not be 

143See Gans, op cit. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 133 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


intuitively obvious and is perhaps best explained by an example. If an employee who would 

otherwise be continually employed repeatedly works for three workdays and then searches for 

a new job for three workdays, the employee would be working for only 50 percent of the 

available workdays. If this were the pattern for all unauthorized workers and if all employers 

(including employers in the informal market) used E-Verify, the result would be a 50 percent 

reduction in unauthorized employment at any point in time. If some employees decide that 

working 50 percent of the time is not preferable to returning home (and/or if potential 

employees decide not to come to the United States because of this situation), there would be an 

even greater decrease in unauthorized employment. On the other hand, if the informal market 

were to expand to provide additional employment opportunities for undocumented workers or 

if not all employers used E-Verify, the decrease would be less than 50 percent. 

• The restriction of available jobs for unauthorized workers who avoid applying to 

E-Verify employers because they are concerned about being identified as an 

unauthorized worker. Workers without employment authorization may decide not to apply to 

employers participating in E-Verify, presumably making it harder for these workers to obtain 

work. The impact of this outcome on unauthorized employment depends upon the length of the 

additional time it takes the unauthorized worker to find employment, as well as the length of 

employment after finding work. If, for example, the average person without work authorization 

had a 10 percent decrease in the number of weeks worked per year as a result of the Program, 

there would be a 10 percent decrease in unauthorized employment at any point in time. 

• E-Verify usage. As discussed in Chapter IV, the impact of E-Verify on unauthorized 

employment is a function of how extensively the Program is used. If the Program is not used 

extensively, few unauthorized workers will be identified and it will not have an extensive 

impact on the ability of those identified in obtaining other employment. Conversely, if 

E-Verify is widely used, the impact on unauthorized employment is likely to be greater. Since 

findings related to program usage were presented in Chapter IV, there is no need to reiterate 

these findings here other than to note that no more than 12 percent of all new hires were 

processed through E-Verify in April through June 2008. 

2.1.2. Identifying Unauthorized Workers 

2.1.2.1. Introduction 

At the heart of E-Verify’s ability to reduce unauthorized employment is its ability to identify which 

transactions submitted are for unauthorized workers. This report estimates E-Verify’s ability to identify 

unauthorized workers by using a work-authorization model to estimate the percentage of unauthorized 

workers who receive Final Nonconfirmations (FNCs) or unauthorized findings.144 As discussed in the 

Background section of this chapter, it has long been clear that the current design of E-Verify would not be 

effective in identifying unauthorized workers who present documents with information about workers 

who do have work authorization (other than possibly workers subject to the recently instituted Photo 

Screening Tool that applies to only a small group of workers).145 

144This measure is referred to as the E-Verify effectiveness rate and is equal to 100 minus the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. 

145In some situations, employers may identify a worker as being unauthorized (e.g., if a worker provided information about someone who was 

much younger or older than the worker); however, this detection cannot be attributed to E-Verify, since it is a function of the Form I-9 process. 

134 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

2.1.2.2. Model-Based Estimates 

The effectiveness of E-Verify in correctly identifying unauthorized workers in April through June 

2008 was estimated to be 46 percent with a plausible range of 36 to 63 percent. The workauthorization model used in this evaluation estimates that approximately 107,000 cases for unauthorized 

workers were submitted to E-Verify in April through June 2008. Of those cases, it is estimated that close 

to half (49,000) were correctly found to have received FNC or unauthorized findings; the other cases for 

unauthorized workers (58,000) were estimated to have been incorrectly found to be work authorized146 

(Exhib

Ex

it VII-1). 

hibit VII-1. Estimated Effectiveness Rates, Using Alternative Assumptions: April–June 2008 

Assumed percent of cases 

submitted to E-Verify that are for 

unauthorized workers 

Assumed percent of workers informed of their TNCs 

60 percent 70 percent 80 percent 

4.7 57 61 63 

6.2 43 46 48 

7.5 36 38 40 

TNC = Tentative Nonconfirmation. 

SOURCE: Model-based estimates using data from the E-Verify Transaction Database. 

2.1.2.3. Cases Having a High Probability of Being for Unauthorized Workers 

This section examines two groups of E-Verify cases that are likely to include fairly high numbers of 

unauthorized workers: (a) cases in which workers who attest to being noncitizens but present documents 

indicating that they are U.S.-born workers, and (b) cases in which workers use SSNs or A-numbers that 

appear frequently on the Transaction Database. Also discussed are cases in which the employer appeals a 

work-authorized finding from the E-Verify system. 

2.1.2.3.1. Noncitizens Providing Information About U.S.-Born Workers 

Nearly all cases (95 percent) in which workers attesting to being noncitizens present identification 

information belonging to persons born in the United States receive FNC or unauthorized findings. 

Assuming that workers born in the United States generally know that they are U.S. citizens, cases in 

which workers attesting to be noncitizens on their Form I-9 but use Social Security numbers (SSNs) 

belonging to U.S.-born persons are highly likely to include a high number of identity fraud cases. In April 

through June 2008, there were approximately 3,400 cases (0.2 percent of all cases) in which this 

combination occurred. In 95 percent of these cases, the final E-Verify finding was either an FNC or an 

unauthorized finding, indicating that the Program is highly effective in identifying unauthorized workers 

among these cases. 

2.1.2.3.2. Duplicate SSNs and A-Numbers 

There are a number of possible reasons for duplicate SSNs or A-numbers existing on the Transaction 

Database: 

146The effectiveness rate is 100 minus the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers discussed in Chapter VI. See Chapter II and Appendix B for a 

discussion of the methodology and assumptions related to this model, including empirical evidence used to inform the assumptions. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 135 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


• A worker may have had more than one job with E-Verify employer(s) during the time covered 

by the data analysis (July 2004 through June 2008), because the worker held multiple jobs with 

different employers at one point in time and/or because the worker moved between several 

different jobs with E-Verify employers during this time;147 

• The worker may have been a temporary worker whose employment authorization was 

repeatedly verified for multiple hiring actions by his or her employer; 

• An employer may have made a data entry or other mistake that was not detected as an obvious 

duplicate case during the cleaning process; 

• A worker may have applied to multiple employment or temporary help agencies that use 

E-Verify to prescreen job applicants; or 

• A worker may have borrowed or purchased documents with identity information that has also 

been borrowed or purchased by others. 

Although there are legitimate reasons for there being duplicate SSNs and A-numbers on the Transaction 

Database, it is reasonable to believe that the larger the incidence of duplicate SSNs or A-numbers 

associated with a particular SSN or A-number, the more likely the workers using these numbers are to be 

unauthorized. 

E-Verify is not currently successful in identifying most cases in which workers present 

identification belonging to employment-authorized workers. As expected, for cases using SSNs or Anumbers with more than two duplicate SSNs or A-numbers on the July 2004 through June 2008 

Transaction Database, the percentage of cases not found work authorized in April through June 2008 

increases with the number of times the associated SSN/A-number appears (Exhibit VII-2) on the July 

2004 through June 2008 Transaction Database (from 3 percent for cases using SSN/A-numbers appearing 

on the Transaction Database three times to 9 percent for those transmissions using SSN/A-numbers 

appearing nine or more times). However, the percentage of cases with FNCs or unauthorized findings for 

cases in which workers used SSNs or A-numbers frequently on the Transaction Database is much lower 

than one might expect. For example, it does not seem plausible to the evaluation team that only 9 percent 

of the cases in which workers used SSNs or A-numbers on the Transaction Database nine or more times 

were for unauthorized workers. This result is not surprising, given that E-Verify is generally now limited 

to verifying the consistency of the data provided by workers on the Form I-9 with information on SSA 

and DHS databases. 

147Given that no more than 12 percent of new hires are by employers participating in E-Verify, not very many job changes would involve two or 

more E-Verify employers. 

136 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 

Exhibit VII-2. April–June 2008 Case Outcomes by Number of Times Associated SSNs or 

A-Numbers Appear on the July 2004–June 2008 Transaction Database 

VII 

Outcomes for cases submitted in April–June 2008 cases 

Number of cases submitted to the Transaction Percent of 

Database in April–June 2008 cases cases receiving 

Number of times an SSN or FNCs or 

A-number was used in E-Verify cases Work Not work unauthorized 

between July 2004 and June 2008 Total authorized authorized findings 

1 1,211,758 1,174,164 37,594 3.1 

2 328,206 318,777 9,429 2.9 

3 109,220 105,942 3,278 3.0 

4 42,277 40,770 1,507 3.6 

5 18,355 17,644 711 3.9 

6 8,984 8,541 443 4.9 

7 4,614 4,358 256 5.5 

8 2,651 2,479 172 6.5 

9 or more 4,878 4,447 431 8.8 

All Transactions 1,730,943 1,677,122 53,821 3.1 

NOTE: This table refers to cases submitted in April through June 2008 with SSNs or A-numbers appearing on the full 

Transaction Database for July 2004 and June 2008. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The percentage of cases involving frequently used SSNs or A-numbers has been decreasing over 

time. In July through September 2004, the percentage of cases involving SSNs or A-numbers used six or 

more times was 1.9 percent compared to 1.2 percent in April through June 2008 (Exhibit VII-3). It is not 

known whether this is attributable to changes in the type of identity fraud, the types of employers using 

E-Verify, or a general decrease in identity fraud. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 137 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


Percent 

Exhibit VII-3. Trend in Percent of Cases Involving an SSN or A-Number Used Six or More Times: 

July 2004–June 2008 

2.5 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 

1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 Jan-Mar

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 

1.6 1.5 1.5 

Apr-June

1.4 

1.0 

1.2 

July-Sept

0.5 

Oct-Dec

0.0 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 July-Sept

2004 

Oct-Dec

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

2.1.2.3.3. Employers Requesting Additional Verification 

There have been a few cases in which employers have requested additional verification after initial 

work-authorized findings. An indirect indicator of the ability of E-Verify to detect unauthorized 

workers is the extent to which cases initially found work authorized are reversed and not found work 

authorized after an employer requests additional verification. Although the USCIS second-level review is 

normally instituted for workers attesting to being noncitizens when there is a mismatch or lack of 

information on current work-authorization status, it is possible for an employer to initiate a case review 

through the E-Verify system. This might happen, for example, when a case passes the E-Verify name 

check but the employer does not think that the match is close enough—a situation that occurs because the 

name-matching routines do not require exact matching of the full name to avoid an excessive number of 

erroneous Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) attributable to minor variations in names. 

Between April and June 2008, approximately 130,000 noncitizen cases were initially found to be work 

authorized. In approximately 3,700 of these cases (3 percent), employers requested additional verification 

of the work-authorized decision through the E-Verify system. Among these questionable cases, 135 cases 

had a final finding of FNC or unauthorized to work. These 135 cases represent 0.1 percent of all cases 

initially found work authorized by E-Verify. These cases were presumably erroneously determined to be 

work authorized initially, but their final finding was correct. However, given the amount of employer lack 

of familiarity and/or noncompliance with procedures that are more widely publicized than this one, it is 

reasonable to believe that for each case in which the employer requests additional verification, there are 

several similar cases in which employers did not request additional verification when it would have been 

reasonable to do so. 

138 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

2.1.3. Percentage of Time Employed 

2.1.3.1 Introduction 

For E-Verify to reduce unauthorized employment, it is necessary not only for it to identify workers 

without employment authorization, but also for the Program to reduce the length of time that the 

identified workers are employed. The effectiveness of E-Verify in this regard is a function of the average 

amount of time that unauthorized workers identified by E-Verify are permitted to work for E-Verify 

employers and the amount of time it takes for unauthorized workers who are not hired or who have their 

employment terminated to find new jobs. Both of these topics are discussed in this section. 

2.1.3.2. Time Working for E-Verify Employer 

The amount of time that unauthorized workers are employed by an E-Verify employer depends both upon 

the program requirements and how employers follow or do not follow them. Under the E-Verify 

Program, as currently formulated, newly hired employees without work authorization who say they plan 

to contest may work during the three-workday time period allowed for the employer to enter the case, an 

unspecified number of days between the worker’s receiving a TNC and when the employer enters the fact 

that the worker wishes to contest, the 10-workday period allowed for contesting the TNC plus another 

unspecified time between issuance of the E-Verify FNC finding, and the time that the employer actually 

terminates the worker’s employment. Although the evaluation does not have good data on the total 

number of days that the worker is permitted to work in this situation, the amount of time could easily add 

up to a month, even when the employer adheres to the explicit and implicit E-Verify requirements. When 

employers do not closely adhere to E-Verify requirements, the elapsed time between hiring and 

employment termination may extend well beyond a month. 

However, the actual employment period is presumably shorter than a month when the employer is very 

prompt in inputting information into E-Verify and in notifying the worker of actions, and/or when 

workers say that they do not wish to contest—indeed, this could all occur within a single day. 

Furthermore, the worker may never be employed if the employer submits cases prior to the start of work 

and does not permit workers to start work unless they are found to be work authorized. 

Although accurate information about the length of time unauthorized workers are employed is not 

available, it appears that a rough estimate of approximately two weeks is reasonable. There is 

limited information discussed in Chapter V that permits a rough estimate of this time period: 

• Approximately 43 percent of Web survey respondents reported using E-Verify to transmit 

cases on the first day of employment, 29 percent used E-Verify after the job offer but prior to 

the first workday, and another 20 percent used E-Verify by either the second or third workday. 

• The average time from case initiation to case resolution for cases with FNCs or unauthorized 

findings is approximately 11.5 calendar days. 

• Although most employers reported terminating workers promptly, 8 percent of Web survey 

respondents reported that they never terminated respondents who received FNCs or 

unauthorized findings and another 5 percent reported that they took more than a week. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 139 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


2.1.3.3 Time Between Jobs 

The average amount of time it took workers with TNCs who were not offered jobs to find another 

job was approximately three weeks. As discussed in the Background section of this chapter, the ability 

of E-Verify to reduce unauthorized employment is closely linked to the time it takes unauthorized 

workers to find alternate employment after they are not hired or have their employment terminated. 

Among the 38 workers reporting in the onsite interview that they had been prescreened and not been 

offered a job, and who also discussed how long it took them to find an alternate job, 11 said it took them 

one to two weeks or less, nine said three weeks to one month, and the remaining 18 said two months or 

longer148 (Exhibit VII-4). The number of days between jobs would presumably increase if E-Verify usage 

was more widespread. As noted in Chapter IV, no more than 12 percent of all newly hired employees 

were processed through E-Verify between April through June 2008,149 making it likely that workers who 

know they will not be confirmed by E-Verify can easily avoid other E-Verify employers. 

Exhibit VII-4. Time to Obtain an Alternate Job for Workers Receiving TNCs Who Reported That 

They Had Been Prescreened and Had Not Been Offered a Job 

Four months or more 

Two to three months 

Three weeks to one month 

One to two weeks 

Three to four work days 

Two work days or less 1 

0 

10 

9 

11 

7 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Number of workers 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Workers. 

2.1.4. Avoiding E-Verify Employers 

As discussed in the Background section of this chapter, unauthorized workers who are aware of which 

employers are using E-Verify may avoid these employers, thereby making it more difficult for these 

workers to find employment. The limited information from the evaluation on the extent to which this is 

happening is presented in this section. 

148Workers believed to be not work authorized as well as workers believed to be work authorized were included in this estimate. 

149The ratio of the number of E-Verify verifications cases to the number of newly hired employees was approximately 12 to 1. However, the fact 

that many employers are using the program to prescreen job applicants makes it likely that the percentage of newly hired employees with cases 

submitted to E-Verify is lower than this estimate. 

140 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit VII-5. Opinions of Employers Registered for E-Verify But Not Using It About the Likely 

Impact of E-Verify on Items Related to Recruitment of Workers and Competitiveness 

Number of work-authorized workers who apply for jobs Number of unauthorized workers who apply for jobs would would decrease 69 decrease 

NNuummbbeerr ooff w woorrkk--aauutthohorriizzeedd pwoersroknesr ws who ap ho applpylyf foor jr ojobbss 17 would decrease would decrease

Would result in the resignation of existing employees 11 

Qualified workers would be difficult to recruit 7 

Would cause this establishment to be less competitive 5 

Would damage the employee/management relationship 3 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Percent that strongly agree/agree 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

There is some evidence from the onsite study employer interviews that some workers may avoid 

E-Verify employers. A few employers in the onsite interviews reported word-of-mouth communication 

among unauthorized workers to learn about which companies would allow them to work and/or would not 

check work authorization rigorously. Furthermore, 69 percent of employers that had registered for 

E-Verify but had not recently used it agreed or strongly agreed with a statement that the number of 

unauthorized workers who apply for jobs would decrease if E-Verify was used (Exhibit VII-5). 

Onsite interviews of workers indicated most workers interviewed were unaware that their 

employers were using E-Verify prior to the job interview. Of the 396 workers who commented on 

whether or not they were aware of their employer’s use of E-Verify, 298 stated that they were unaware 

that the employer was using a program to verify their work authorization prior to the job interview (or 

completing an application if there was no job interview). Furthermore, it is likely that some of the 

workers who reported knowing about E-Verify prior to the job interview learned about the Program from 

the required notice posted at the employer’s establishment. This evidence implies that knowledge of the 

E-Verify Program was not sufficiently widespread that it would lead large numbers of unauthorized 

workers to avoid E-Verify employers. 

2.2. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes on the Ability of the E-Verify Program 

to Reduce Unauthorized Employment 

2.2.1. Legislative Changes 

Mandating the use of E-Verify is expected to make the Program more effective in preventing 

unauthorized employment. As discussed in the Background section of this chapter, it is clear that the 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 141 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


ability of E-Verify to reduce unauthorized employment depends upon the extent to which it is used. 

However, the evaluation team did not have adequate data for estimating the impact of E-Verify on 

unauthorized employment in Arizona, the only state that has implemented E-Verify for all employers. 

2.2.2. Photo Screening Tool 

The Photo Screening Tool increased the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying workers without 

employment authorization; however, its impact was small. If the Photo Screening Tool had not been 

available for use in April through June 2008, the estimated effectiveness rate in identifying workers 

without employment authorization would have been approximately 45.8 percent instead of 46.0 percent 

with the Photo Screening Tool. Thus, although the Photo Screening Tool increased the estimated 

E-Verify effectiveness rate for identifying persons without work authorization, the increase was quite 

modest. 

One reason that the Photo Screening Tool’s ability to detect unauthorized employment is currently 

limited is that it is not available to Designated Agents and may not be available to them in the 

future because of privacy rules and logistical challenges. The cases submitted by Designated Agents 

and Web Services providers constituted 21 percent of all cases submitted in April through June 2008. 

Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter III, the percentage of cases submitted by these employers has been 

increasing rapidly (only 5 percent of the cases transmitted in April through June 2007 were transmitted by 

Designated Agents and Web Services providers). Assuming that the use of Web Services providers and 

Designated Agents continues to increase as more employers become aware of this option, this limitation 

will become even more problematic in the future unless the Photo Screening Tool is made available to 

Designated Agents, as USCIS is planning to do. 

A second reason for the small impact of the Photo Screening Tool is that the types of documents 

available in the Photo Screening Tool are quite limited. The only photographs that activated the Photo 

Screening Tool at the time of writing of this report were recent Permanent Resident (“green” cards) and 

Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). These immigration documents were provided by workers 

in 5.3 percent of all cases according to the Transaction Database in May 5 through June 30, 2008; 

however, the Photo Screening Tool could only be activated in 3.8 percent of the cases transmitted during 

this time period. In the other 1.5 percent of the cases transmitted in which these documents were used, 

the Photo Screening Tool was not activated either because the documents were older documents without 

stored photographs or because the cases were submitted by Designated Agents. As workers using older 

EADs and green cards without photographs obtain newer cards and/or are replaced by labor force 

members with newer cards, the lack of stored photographs will become less of a problem. However, even 

if all EADs and green cards, including those for workers with cases submitted to E-Verify by Designated 

Agents and Web Services providers, activated the Photo Screening Tool, only a minor improvement in 

effectiveness would result. 

To improve the effectiveness of the Photo Screening Tool, assuming the allowable documents used 

for verification do not change, it would be necessary to expand its use to include driver’s licenses. 

As seen in Exhibit VII-6, driver’s licenses were presented in 53 percent of the cases resulting in TNCs 

that were reviewed in the onsite site visits. The only other document used by at least half of the workers 

were SSN cards, which were presented in 72 percent of cases; however, SSN cards do not contain 

photographs, so they are not suitable for the Photo Screening Tool.150 It is thus reasonable to believe that 

150Transaction data do not differentiate between many of the different types of documents. 

142 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

the Photo Screening Tool cannot be highly effective in identifying unauthorized workers unless driver’s 

licenses were to be incorporated into it, which does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. 

Exhibit VII-6. Percent of Workers Providing Specified Types of Documents Among Workers 

Screened by E-Verify: October 2007–June 2008 

Social Security card 

Driver's license/state ID 

U.S. passport 

I-688, I-688-A, or I-688B 

Form I-766 

Form I-551 or Form I-551 stamp 

Foreign passport 

Other document 1 

Other document 2 1.1 

6.9 

2.5 

3.7 

3.9 

4.6 

6.5 

52.7 

71.7 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Percent of employees 

SOURCE: Onsite record reviews: 2008. 

A third reason for the limited impact of the Photo Screening Tool in detecting workers without 

employment authorization is that the immigration documents used with E-Verify are designed to be 

highly tamper-proof. USCIS immigration documents issued in recent years use a number of techniques 

to safeguard against photo substitution—the primary type of identity fraud that the Photo Screening Tool 

is designed to detect.151 It, therefore, seems relatively unlikely that individuals producing fraudulent 

documents or altering real ones would choose these particular documents for use in the employment 

verification process. 

Another limitation to the effectiveness of the Photo Screening Tool in detecting workers without 

employment authorization is that workers committing fraud may increase their use of identification 

documents that do not activate the Photo Screening Tool. Prior to the start of the Photo Screening 

Tool in July 1 through September 16, 2007, 72 percent of noncitizen cases used an EAD or green card 

compared to 66 percent immediately after the introduction of the Photo Screening Tool (September 17 

through December 31, 2007). Of 90 onsite study employers that discussed whether the Photo Screening 

Tool increased the probability of workers using documents that could not be used with the Photo 

Screening Tool, 80 employers said they had not noticed a change in the types of work documents 

noncitizen employees submitted since they began using the Photo Screening Tool. (One of these 

employers had altered their policies to require employees to submit work documents that would appear in 

the Photo Screening Tool, a prohibited practice). The remaining 10 employers said they did notice a 

change in the types of work documents employees submitted. Employers stated that workers were now 

presenting driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, or other forms of identification that would not require 

use of the Photo Screening Tool. They also stated that noncitizen workers sometimes attest on the Form 

151USCIS Permanent Resident Cards and Employment Authorization Cards have been made increasingly counterfeit resistant and tamper-proof 

and currently include digital photographs imbedded in the document to make photo substitution difficult. Cards also include features such as 

fingerprints, holograms, barcodes, and optical memory strips. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 143 
VII EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 


I-9 that they are U.S. citizens so that they will not be required to show identification that will trigger the 

Photo Screening Tool. 

The use of the Photo Screening Tool may lead to employers’ being less likely to compare documents 

presented as part of the Form I-9 process, because they rely on E-Verify to do all the necessary 

document verification. E-Verify is supposed to supplement rather than replace the Form I-9 process that 

requires employers to verify that documents presented by the worker appear to be genuine and to belong 

to the individual presenting them. This Form I-9 requirement should permit the employer to detect some 

cases in which the worker is using borrowed, stolen, or counterfeit documents that will not be detected by 

E-Verify. The Photo Screening Tool may make employers less likely to check worker documents. Among 

Web survey employers using the Photo Screening Tool, 43 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement, “Using the Photo Tool reduces our responsibility to compare employees to the documents they 

present.” However, 48 of the 52 onsite study employers that discussed the impact of the Photo Screening 

Tool on whether they were less careful in comparing the document photo to the person since the start of 

Photo Screening Tool use said that the Photo Screening Tool has had no effect on whether they make this 

comparison. The other four onsite study employers said that since they began using the Photo Screening 

Tool, they are less likely to compare the photograph on the document to the person presenting it. 

Furthermore, since states vary in the extent to which they make driver’s licenses tamper-proof, it is highly 

likely that driver’s licenses will be used more frequently for the purpose of photo substitution and 

production of counterfeit documents with information about real people. DHS and USCIS have discussed 

the feasibility of sharing driver’s license data and/or photographs with a few states, but they have been 

unsuccessful at entering into an agreement for such a process on a test basis. Some states that originally 

expressed interest in working on such an agreement discovered that it was not possible under their laws. 

Additionally, for such a matching program to be effective, it would require DHS to work with and enter 

into agreements with some 54 jurisdictions to obtain the information in a common electronic format and 

would require determining how mismatches of driver’s license information would be resolved in the 

E-Verify context. Although a single link to many or all State Departments of Motor Vehicles through the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) may eventually be possible, many of 

the same barriers would be likely to persist. Therefore, it appears unlikely that driver’s license 

photographs will be added to the Photo Screening Tool in the foreseeable future. 

2.2.3. EV-STAR 

Automatic employer notification of “SSA Verification in Process” by EV-STAR may, in the long 

run, lead unauthorized workers to prolong the time they can work by telling SSA that they need to 

obtain a document that is likely to take a long time to obtain. As workers without employment 

authorization become more knowledgeable about how the verification system works, it is more likely that 

they will attempt to prolong the time they can work by telling SSA that they need to obtain documents 

such as birth certificates from states known to be slow in processing requests. In this situation, SSA now 

extends the time that the worker has to resolve the TNC. Prior to the implementation of EV-STAR, this 

strategy would only have worked if SSA had contacted the employer and told the employer to disregard 

the FNC that would be automatically issued by E-Verify after 10 days. 

2.2.4. Naturalization Phase I 

Naturalization Phase I reduced the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying workers without work 

authorization. As discussed in Chapter VI, an unintended consequence of Naturalization Phase I was that 

144 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EFFECTIVENESS IN REDUCING UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT
 VII 

while it resulted in a noticeable reduction in erroneous TNCs, it also resulted in an increase in the 

percentage of workers without employment authorization who were found to be work authorized because 

they were involved in identity fraud. It is estimated152 that between 300 and 1,900 (5 to 31 percent) of the 

6,100 cases found work authorized by the Naturalization Phase I check concerned workers without 

employment authorization who falsely attested to U.S. citizenship and used documents with valid 

information about U.S. citizens. These cases represent approximately 2.0 percent of the cases for workers 

without employment authorization submitted to E-Verify between the start of Naturalization Phase I on 

May 5, 2008, and June 30, 2008. Thus, while having the desired effect of expediting the verification of 

work authorization for many naturalized citizens, the implementation of Naturalization Phase I 

inadvertently decreased the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying non-work-authorized workers by 

approximately 2.3 percentage points. If Naturalization Phase I had not been in effect, the estimated 

effectiveness rate for identifying workers without employment authorization would have been 

approximately 48 percent instead of the estimated 46 percent. 

152Based on the work-authorization model. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 145 
CHAPTER VIII. EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE 

1. BACKGROUND 

This chapter explores the extent to which employers are complying with the E-Verify program 

requirements. Understanding the extent of employer compliance is important because high employer 

compliance strengthens the overall program, and lack of compliance with requirements can reduce the 

Program’s effectiveness in reaching such key goals as reducing unauthorized employment and avoiding 

discrimination. Furthermore, to the extent that noncompliance is the result of employers not 

understanding the Program’s requirements, noncompliance may also point to weaknesses in the 

Program’s implementation and the need for specific program improvements. 

Much of the information presented in this chapter is based on employers’ self-reported behavior in the 

Web surveys and onsite interviews. Even though employers were given assurances that information 

provided would be kept confidential, it is likely that noncompliant employers were especially unlikely to 

cooperate with the evaluation.153 Furthermore, some employers were probably not totally candid and, at 

least for some employers, the central office respondent may not have been aware of what was actually 

happening in field offices where procedures were implemented. 

Because of the likely bias in employer self-reports about their compliance with E-Verify procedures, the 

evaluation also examines information from record reviews and worker interviews conducted during the 

site visits and information from the Transaction Database, where feasible.154 This multimodal approach 

permits obtaining a clearer picture of employer compliance than can be obtained from employer selfreports alone; however, since all site visit information about workers is obtained from employers 

cooperating with the evaluation and because transaction data are input by employers, these sources may 

underestimate noncompliance, though presumably not as much as the self-reported data. 

Noncompliance with the following procedures established prior to the last evaluation is explored in this 

chapter: 

• Training procedures; 

• What types of cases should be submitted to E-Verify; 

• TNC procedures; 

• Taking adverse actions against workers; and 

• Other verification procedures. 

Also examined in this chapter is whether employers are complying with procedures related to two 

recently implemented program changes: the Photo Screening Tool and EV-STAR. The chapter also 

153See Chapter II for a discussion of the differences between responding and nonresponding employers. 

154The strengths and limitations of these data sources are discussed in Chapter II. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 146 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

discusses the impact of recent legislation, program outreach, and program monitoring and compliance 

units on employer compliance. In examining the impact of recent legislation, the evaluation team uses a 

summary scale for compliance.155 

2. FINDINGS 

The findings related to compliance are organized into two sections: 

• General findings examining how much noncompliance exists, whether the amount of 

noncompliance has changed over time, and how employer understanding of procedures affect 

compliance; and 

• Examination of the impacts of recent legislative and programmatic changes on compliance. 

It should be emphasized that although employer compliance for the various employer behaviors discussed 

is generally much higher than noncompliance, as is standard evaluation practice, the findings and 

descriptions focus on the noncompliant behaviors of interest. 

2.1. General Findings 

2.1.1. Compliance With Ongoing E-Verify Procedures 

2.1.1.1. Training Procedures 

Most but not all employers followed E-Verify procedures with respect to training workers on the 

E-Verify system. Even though E-Verify users must, in theory, complete the tutorial before using the 

system, it is possible for employer staff members who have not completed the tutorial to use the user 

name and password of a coworker who has completed the tutorial, resulting in some employer staff not 

having completed training prior to using E-Verify. When asked how many staff had completed the 

E-Verify online tutorial in the 2008 Web survey, 90 percent of employers indicated that all staff that 

currently used the system for verification had completed the tutorial and 4 percent of employers indicated 

that no current system users had completed it (Exhibit VIII-1). In the 2006 survey, 84 percent of 

employers reported that all staff had completed the tutorial and 1 percent had no staff having completed 

the tutorial. Although the onsite study employer protocol did not specifically ask about E-Verify training 

procedures, 61 onsite study employers commented on their training procedures, with 58 reporting that 

they follow the required procedures for those staff members using the system. Almost all (39 of the 41 

employers describing their understanding of the training procedures) reported that they understood the 

training procedures and the need to require staff using E-Verify to complete the tutorial and test. 

155See Chapter II for a discussion of how this scale was constructed. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 147 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


Exhibit VIII-1. How Many Staff Completed the Online Tutorial 

None of the current users completed the 

tutorial 

Some current users completed the 

tutorial 

All current users completed the 

tutorial 84.3 

14.4 

1.3 

89.7 

6.5 

3.8 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers 

2008 

2006 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

2.1.1.2. What Types of Cases Should be Submitted to E-Verify? 

2.1.1.2.1. Newly Hired Employees 

Almost all employers that used E-Verify reported that they used it for all of their newly hired 

employees. The majority of employers (98 percent) responding to the Web survey reported that they used 

E-Verify for all new employees—including workers who attested to being U.S. citizens and workers who 

attested to being noncitizens (Exhibit VIII-2 ).156 Of the 85 onsite study employers who responded to the 

question, all 85 stated that they used E-Verify for all newly hired employees. 

The transaction data were consistent with the claim that employers generally do not single out 

either citizens or noncitizens for verification. Of the 8,646 employers that had submitted cases to 

E-Verify for at least 100 workers between July 2004 and June 2008, 0.1 percent (five employers) did not 

submit cases for any workers attesting to being citizens. Additionally, 4.2 percent (365 employers) did not 

submit any noncitizen cases. These numbers are small enough that it is reasonable to believe that few, if 

any, of these employers are selectively submitting cases for either citizens or noncitizens among their new 

hires. 

156The other 2 percent of the respondents answered “no” to the question of whether they use E-Verify for all new employees. 

148 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Employees who worked at establishment

prior to institution of E-Verify

Exhibit VIII-2. Percent of Employers Reporting Using E-Verify for Different Types of Workers 

0.7 

2.5 

4.5 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

New h 98.1 ires 

Job applicants 

Employees who worked at establishment 

prior to institution of E-Verify 

Other employees 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because employers could check more than one response. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

2.1.1.2.2. Job Applicants 

Some employers report using E-Verify for job applicants. On the Web survey, 5 percent of employers 

reported submitting cases for job applicants (see Exhibit VIII-2). Of the 86 onsite study employers who 

reported on their screening procedures, 11 said they used E-Verify for all job applicants. One other onsite 

study employer reported using E-Verify only for the applicants who passed a verbal interview, and 

another only used E-Verify for applicants when a client specifically requested it. 

However, the incidence of prescreening based on worker information appears to be much greater 

than that reported by employers. According to the record review information, at least 27 of the 108 

onsite study employers had submitted at least one case for a job applicant. Of the 42 onsite study 

employers who said they did not screen job applicants as a general practice, 35 had one or more workers 

who reported their work authorization status was determined through E-Verify when they were job 

applicants (Exhibit VIII-3). Some of the workers’ reports of being prescreened may be inaccurate because 

of confusion about the job being referred to,157 the definition of new hire, or another reason. However, it 

seems reasonable to believe that many of these were cases in which the employer did, in fact, prescreen at 

least some of their workers but failed to report such behavior in an interview. In addition, five of the nine 

onsite study employers not indicating whether they prescreened had at least one job applicant prescreened 

according to the worker interviews, as, not surprisingly, did all 12 of the employers saying that they did 

screen job applicants. Furthermore, of the 396 workers who reported on their employment status at the 

time their work authorization was determined, 114 were job applicants, 123 indicated that they were new 

hires, and 139 were unsure of their employment status. The remaining workers said they were existing 

employees or rehires. Thus, assuming it is unlikely that more than one worker of an employer misreported 

being prescreened, the worker interviews suggest that between 12 and 25 employers on the onsite survey 

of the 63 that could be examined did, in fact, prescreen. 

157Some of the workers interviewed changed jobs frequently or used multiple employment services, making it difficult for them to report on a 

specific employment experience. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 149 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


N

u

m

ber of a

p

plica

nts in st

u

dy prescreened 

Exhibit VIII-3. Number of Employers Whose Workers Report Being Job Applicants When Their 

Work-Authorization Status Was Determined and Whether the Employer Reported Using E-Verify 

for Job Applicants 

Employer did not report whether they 

verify job applicants 

4 or more 1 3 5 

Employer said they did verify job 

applicants 

Employer said they did not verify job 

applicants 

2-3 4 5 7 

1 0 4 23 

0 4 0 7 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Number of employers 

NOTE: The table excludes employers with no workers reporting prescreening when a determination could not be made whether 

some of their interviewed workers were prescreened; the total number of employer respondents was 63. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers and Workers.

The majority of onsite study employers that reported prescreening apparently did not understand 

that prescreening is not allowed by E-Verify. Of the 12 onsite study employers that reported 

prescreening some or all of their job applicants, eight did not appear to understand that prescreening is not 

allowed by E-Verify. 

Furthermore, of the 30 employment or temporary help agencies that reported that they do not screen job 

applicants, eight submitted information for workers who were conditionally hired—a term that is not 

defined by E-Verify procedures. Among these eight employers, five had one or more workers reporting 

that their work authorization was determined through E-Verify when they were job applicants. 

In addition to confusion about whether prescreening is allowed, there was considerable confusion 

about how to define prescreening. Whether or not it is acceptable to verify workers prior to the start of 

work depends upon the definition of new hire. Although USCIS staff have reported clarifying the 

definition of “new hire” as the time at which a job offer has been made and accepted, the evaluation found 

no evidence of a major effort to educate employers about this clarification. Furthermore, the definition of 

new hire differs among Federal agencies, making it even more confusing for employers. Most of the 105 

employers in the onsite survey defined hire date in a way that was the same as or more restrictive than the 

date specified by E-Verify (Exhibit VIII-4)—30 respondents defined hire date as “the date the job offer 

was accepted,” which is the same as the E-Verify definition, and another 45 defined it as the first day of 

150 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
A person who has been offered a job whether or not they have

accepted it

A person who has been offered a job, has accepted it, but

hasn’t started to work yet

A person who has started work 

A person who has been offered a job, has accepted it, 

but hasn't started to work yet 

A person who has been offered a job 

whether or not he/she accepted it 4.2 

42.3 

53.5 

34.9 

46.4 

18.7 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Employment 

services 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

paid work. The remaining 30 employers used a definition that is less restrictive than the E-Verify 

definition: the date the application was completed (14), the date the workers completed paperwork, e.g., 

Form I-9 (10), and the date the worker was placed with a client (1).158 

Exhibit VIII-4. Employer Definition of Hire Date 

First day of paid work 

Date job offer was accepted 

Date application was completed 

Date employee’s paperwork was completed 

Date employee was placed with client 

Other 5 

1 

10 

14 

30 

45 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Number of employers 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

Employers involved in providing employment services are especially likely to define “new hire” to 

include some or all job applicants. Among Web survey employers, 35 percent of employment services 

employers defined “new hire” to include job applicants compared to 4 percent of other employers 

(Exhibit VIII-5). A similar difference was found in the onsite interviews—13 of the 43 temporary help or 

staffing agencies in the sample defined new hires as including workers who would be classified as job 

applicants by E-Verify, compared to six of the 66 general employers in the sample (Exhibit VIII-6). 

Exhibit VIII-5. Percent of Web Survey Employers, by Definition of New Hire Used and Industry 

158Some employment or temporary help agencies used the term “conditional job offer” to indicate that an individual was hired and his or her work 

authorization could therefore be determined using E-Verify. In this case, the job offer was contingent upon the person being verified as work 

authorized by E-Verify. Using this definition is not consistent with the general E-Verify prohibition against taking adverse action while the 

worker is contesting a TNC. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 151 
A person who has been offered a job, accepted it, and has

started job training

A person who has been offered a job, has accepted it, and has

begun paid work

Exhibit VIII-6. Number of Onsite Study Employers, by Definition of New Hire Used and Industry 

A person who has been offered a job, has accepted it, 

and has begun paid work 

A person who has been offered a job, has accepted it, 

and has started job training 

A person who has been offered a job and has accepted it 

A person who has been offered a job but has not yet accepted it 

A person who has not been offered a job 10 

3 

13 

1 

2 

2 

4 

24 

1 

6 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

General employers using 

definition 

Temporary help/placement 

services using definition 

Number of employers 

NOTE: Numbers do not total to the actual number of employers interviewed because some definitions were omitted from the

chart.

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers.

VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


Employer confusion about the meaning of “new hire” has apparently contributed to employer 

violations of the E-Verify requirement to not verify job applicants. Exhibit VIII-7 compares 

responses of Web survey employers to a question on how they define new hire with their responses to the 

question of whether they screen job applicants. Of the employers saying that they screen job applicants, 

19 percent use a definition of new hire that includes job applicants compared to 8 percent of employers 

that do not screen job applicants. 

Exhibit VIII-7. Employers’ Definition of New Hire, by Whether They Prescreen Job Applicants 

44.0 

A person who has started work 49.2 

A person who has been offered a job, has 37.1 

accepted it, but hasn't started to work yet 43.0 

18.9 Employers that prescreen A person who has been offered a job 

7.8 whether or not he/she has accepted it Employers that do not prescreen 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Tests of significance were done to compare employers that prescreen and do not prescreen, and there were no significant 

differences. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

152 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

A small number of onsite study employers defined hire as “offer and accept” and also postponed 

the start of work until after the TNC was resolved. Of the 37 employers who defined hire as “offer and 

accept,” seven did not allow workers to work while contesting a TNC. However, five of these seven 

employers allowed workers to begin job training. 

2.1.1.2.3. Existing Employees 

Very few employers report using E-Verify for existing employees. Among Web survey respondents, 

4 percent of employers reported that they had used E-Verify for employees who “worked at this 

establishment prior to the institution of E-Verify.” Similarly, only six of the onsite study employers 

reported submitting cases for some existing employees. Of these six onsite study employers, three did not 

seem to understand that E-Verify does not allow employers to use the program for their current 

workforce. There was an additional employer who had one worker interviewed for this evaluation who 

said he was a pre-existing employee when his information was submitted to E-Verify, though the 

employer did not report using E-Verify for existing employees. Examples given by employers of reasons 

for using E-Verify for existing employees included workers who received promotions or whose names 

changed, for example, due to marriage. These inaccuracies are likely to be due to misunderstanding of the 

correct procedures. 

Record review information indicates the incidence of using E-Verify for existing employees is likely 

to be much higher than that reported by the employers. Of the 108 employers for which record 

reviews were done, 45 had at least one worker who had a hire date on his paperwork more than 30 days 

before the case initiated date entered into the E-Verify system. 

The Transaction Database confirms that a substantial percentage of employers were using E-Verify 

for at least some existing employees. Of the 37,521 employers that used E-Verify between July 2004 

and June 2008, 34 percent had at least one employee who was hired more than 30 days before the initiated 

date. Among these 12,612 employers, the mean number of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify 

more than 30 days before the hire date was 24.5. 

Reported employer compliance with E-Verify procedures on types of cases to be submitted to 

E-Verify increased from 2006 to 2008. Among 2008 Web survey respondents, 93 percent indicated that 

they submitted cases for newly hired employees and only newly hired employees. In 2006, the percentage 

of employers reporting submitting cases for newly hired employees and only newly hired employees was 

85; however, the wording of the questions were slightly different, which may account for some or all of 

this difference. 

2.1.1.3. TNC Procedures 

Almost all employers reported consistently notifying their workers of TNCs. On the employer Web 

survey, 98 percent of employers reported that they always informed their employees of TNCs. Of the 100 

onsite study employers who commented on their notification procedures, 96 reported that they always 

notified employees of TNCs, although 24 of them said that workers sometimes quit before the employer 

had an opportunity to notify them. The employers said that this was the only circumstance under which 

they would not notify workers of TNCs. Four employers reported that they do not notify some or all of 

their employees who receive TNCs; one of them, a temporary help agency, said they do not notify 

workers who are hired permanently by the placement company about their TNCs. Of the 12 employers 

that prescreened job applicants, 10 reported notifying job applicants of TNC findings. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 153 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


Interviews of workers indicated that employers significantly overestimated the frequency with 

which they notified workers of TNCs. Of the 96 onsite study employers who said they always notified 

employees of TNCs, 41 had one or more workers who said they were not notified of a problem with their 

documents. Among the 403 workers who commented on whether they were notified of a TNC, 233 said 

they were notified by their employers. Of course, it is likely that some of these workers do not remember 

being notified or were notified but did not understand what the employer meant, and others may be 

workers who quit before being notified. 

Even though most employers reported notifying workers of TNC findings, they did not always 

explain the meaning of the TNC or the workers’ options. There were 82 onsite study employers 

reporting that they explained the meaning of the TNC notice to workers. However, of these 82 employers, 

37 had one or more employees who reported that they did not receive an explanation. Two employers 

reported sometimes explaining the notice and two employers said that they never explained the notice. 

Among the 225 workers who commented on whether the notice was explained to them, 104 said they 

received an explanation of the TNC notice. Among the employers reporting that they explained the TNC 

notices to their employees, 25 specifically reported explaining to employees that they would lose their 

jobs if they did not contest the TNC. Of these 25 employers, eight had one or more employees who said 

that the employer did not explain that they would lose their jobs if they did not contest. 

Some employers did not provide workers with the proper notice informing them of TNC findings. 

The TNC notice provides workers with critical information about their right to contest the finding and the 

implications of not contesting. Many employers (86 percent) reported in the Web survey that they always 

provide written notification of TNC findings, compared to 84 percent of employers reporting the same 

thing in the 2006 survey. Although not required, 86 percent of employers in 2008 also reported that they 

always provide in-person notification of TNC findings compared to 81 percent in the 2006 survey. All but 

one onsite study employer of the 101 who responded said that they always provided the written TNC 

notice. However, of the 100 onsite study employers that said that they always provided the TNC notice, 

63 had one or more workers who reported that they did not receive a notice. 

There was evidence that a small number of E-Verify employers discouraged workers with TNCs 

from contesting. On the employer Web survey, only 4 percent of employers indicated that they did not 

encourage workers to contest TNCs because the process required too much time, and 3 percent indicated 

that they did not do so because the workers that contest rarely get a work-authorized result. This finding is 

similar to that in the 2006 evaluation159. There was no evidence from the onsite studies that employers 

actively discouraged the contesting process; however, of the 96 employers responding to the question, 32 

said that they did not discourage or encourage workers to contest and 20 of these employers said that it is 

“up to the worker to decide for themselves what they want to do” after they receive the information about 

contesting. 

The majority of onsite study employers that discussed contesting time frames with their employees 

said that they correctly informed them that they had eight Federal business days to contest. Among 

the 98 onsite study employers that reported on what they told workers about contesting time frames, 60 

reported that they properly explained to workers that they had eight Federal business days to contest the 

TNC finding with SSA or USCIS. However, 38 employers did not follow E-Verify procedures for 

159 The term “similar” is used when comparing the 2006 and 2008 Web surveys to indicate that the difference between the two percentages is not 

statistically significant at the .05 level. 

154 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

explaining the contesting time frame to workers, with 22 telling workers that they had more than eight 

Federal business days to contest, 14 telling workers they had less than eight Federal business days to 

contest, and two never telling workers how long they had to contest. Some employers that were not 

correctly explaining contesting time frames thought that the number of days to contest a TNC was 10 

Federal business days, which is the length of time that the Federal government has to resolve contested 

TNCs rather than the number of days the worker has to contact SSA or USCIS.160 Of the 60 employers 

who reported that they told workers the accurate contesting time frame, 24 had one or more workers who 

said that they were told an inaccurate time frame. In total, of the 142 workers who responded to this 

question, 35 said that they were told they had eight Federal business days to contest the TNCs, 48 

workers were told an inaccurate time frame, and 59 workers were never told how long they had to contest. 

Some employers did not inform workers wishing to contest TNCs that they would lose their jobs if 

they did not contact SSA or USCIS within eight Federal business days. Although 63 onsite study 

employers said that they tell employees who want to contest that they would lose their jobs if they did not 

contact SSA or USCIS within eight Federal business days, 11 said that they never told workers this. Of 

the 63 employers who reported telling employees they would lose their jobs if they did not contact SSA 

or USCIS within eight Federal business days, 12 had one or more workers who said that they were not so 

informed. Out of 117 workers who responded to the question about what they were told after they said 

they wanted to contest, 76 were told they would lose their jobs if they did not contact SSA or USCIS. The 

remaining workers said that they had not been told this; however, it is possible that some had been told 

and forgotten. 

Some employers did not provide workers with the required referral form for workers who wish to 

contest TNCs. Workers deciding to contest are supposed to be given a referral form that explains the 

procedures for resolving TNC findings with SSA or USCIS.161 Both SSA and USCIS referral notices also 

explain to workers that employers cannot take adverse actions against them while they are contesting the 

TNC. Among the 86 employers who responded to this question in the onsite interview, 83 said that they 

always provided the written referral letter to workers. However, of these employers, 21 had one or more 

workers who reported that they had not received a written referral letter. Overall, 94 workers reported that 

they received a written referral letter, while 48 said that they had not received a letter. SSA reports that 

another concern with the referral notification process is whether the worker received the correct version 

of the SSA referral letter. They have learned anecdotally that some Web Services users are giving new 

hires obsolete versions of the letters that lack the evidence requirements, legal rights, and Naturalization 

Phase II options. 

Almost all of the onsite study employers who responded to the question about referral procedures 

reported that they informed workers of the referral process. Out of the 77 onsite study employers that 

responded to the question about informing workers of the referral process, 73 said that they notified 

workers of the SSA or USCIS referral process. The remaining four employers did not notify workers of 

the referral process, stating that they often forgot to inform workers. One employer did not seem to 

understand that they were required to explain the referral process to workers. Only seven of the 73 

employers that reported informing workers of the referral process had one or more workers who said that 

they were not informed of it. Out of the 119 workers who reported on whether they were informed of the 

referral process, 103 said that they were notified. 

160If a worker contacts SSA or USCIS on the ninth or 10th Federal business day after referral, the government will still work with the worker to 

resolve the TNC. 

161Refer to Appendices K and L for copies of the TNC and referral forms. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 155 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


Of the 52 onsite study employers discussing how promptly they informed contesting workers of the 

referral requirements, 50 said that they did it promptly. Only one employer consistently did not inform 

workers promptly, stating that workers were typically notified of the referral process one to two weeks 

after the workers indicated they were going to contest the finding. 

The majority of worker files did not contain the appropriate TNC and referral forms, even when 

employers indicated that they provided workers with the forms. Among the 108 onsite study 

employers for which the evaluation team reviewed employment verification files, 56 were missing TNC 

notices for half or more of the workers in their files (Exhibit VIII-8). Similarly, among the 87 employers 

that should have included SSA referral letters in their files, 39 were missing referral forms for half or 

more of their workers that had been referred to SSA. System problems may account for at least some of 

the missing referral letters;162 however, they do not explain the noncompliance with the requirement to 

retain TNC notices. It is possible that the high level of noncompliance results from many employers not 

feeling obligated to keep hardcopy records of the forms. Anecdotal evidence from employer interviews 

also indicated that some employers disposed of the paperwork for workers who chose not to contest the 

TNC and whose cases were therefore resolved as Final Nonconfirmations (FNCs). 

Exhibit VIII-8. Number of Onsite Study Employers, by Approximate Percent of Their Workers 

With TNC Notices in Their Files 

Percent of workers

with 

T

NC 

notices in their files 

100 

75-99 

50-74 

1-49 

None 24 

32 

18 

26 

8 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Number of employers 

SOURCE: Record review of Form I-9 and related records. 

Most employers correctly referred cases through E-Verify when workers said they wished to 

contest TNC findings. When workers inform employers that they will contest TNC findings, employers 

are required to refer the case to SSA or USCIS through the E-Verify system. The referral date is 

automatically recorded in the system and becomes the starting date for the 10 Federal-working-day period 

for resolution of TNCs. Of the 48 employers that discussed whether they initiated referrals through the 

E-Verify system when appropriate to do so, only three said that they did not follow the correct 

procedures. A review of the employer records indicated that of the 203 workers who contested and signed 

an SSA TNC notice, only one did not have a referral date entered into the E-Verify system. All of the 55 

workers who contested and signed a USCIS TNC notice had a referral date in the E-Verify system. Thus, 

it appears that for the most part, these employers are correctly initiating referrals. 

162Pop-up blockers on employers’ computers did not always permit printing the referral letter. USCIS is currently addressing this problem. 

156 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

2.1.1.4. Taking Adverse Actions Against Workers 

Some Web survey employers reported taking adverse actions against workers contesting TNCs. 

Among Web survey employers, 17 percent reported restricting work assignments until employment 

authorization was confirmed (Exhibit VIII-9), 15 percent reported delaying training until employment 

authorization was confirmed, and 2 percent reported reducing pay during the verification process. These 

results are similar to what was reported in the Web survey in 2006, where the corresponding results were 

22, 16, and 2 percent. All of these adverse actions are prohibited by the statute behind the E-Verify 

Program. 

Exhibit VIII-9. Reported Incidence of Noncompliance With E-Verify Procedures for Handling 

TNCs 

80.0 No adverse actions taken 72.9 

17.1 

Work assignments are restricted 21.7 

15.4 Training is delayed 16.2 

2008 2.4 Pay is reduced 2.4 2006 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Total does not add to 100 percent because employers could check more than one response. Twenty percent of employers 

took one or more adverse actions. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey.

Taking adverse actions against workers was also reported by employers in the onsite survey. 

Among the 99 onsite study employers that commented on the action they took after workers received 

TNCs, 37 reported taking some type of adverse action against workers who received TNCs, such as not 

allowing workers to work while contesting, delaying training, not hiring the worker (when the employer 

had screened job applicants), or assigning different work tasks (Exhibit VIII-10). Furthermore, 29 of the 

62 employers that said they took no adverse actions against workers receiving TNCs had one or more 

workers who reported such adverse actions being taken against them by their employers. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 157 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


Exhibit VIII-10. One or More Types of Adverse Actions Taken as Reported by Onsite Study 

Employers 

Did not allow worker to work while contesting 28 

Delayed training 13 

Did not hire worker 6 

Assigned different work tasks 2 

Other adverse action 2 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Number of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to total (number of employers reporting) because some employers reported taking more than one type

of adverse action. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

There was also evidence that some onsite study employers took adverse actions against workers 

who initially received a “DHS verification in process” finding. Of the 21 onsite study employers that 

reported taking some type of adverse action against workers who received a “verification in process” 

finding, 12 did not understand the E-Verify procedures for dealing with that finding. Adverse actions 

included not allowing workers to work while waiting for a response from E-Verify and not hiring workers 

because of the “verification in process” finding. 

2.1.1.5 Other E-Verify Procedures 

Employers usually input information about new hires into E-Verify within three workdays of hire. 

As discussed in Chapter V, most employers transmitted cases within the required three days; however, a 

few employers reported that they were unable to do so. 

Employers sometimes do not input information into the system that is consistent with information 

on the Form I-9 and accompanying documents. A number of discrepancies were found between the 

employer records that were reviewed and the Form I-9 information entered into the Transaction Database. 

In addition to the discrepancies that could affect case findings discussed in Chapter VI, 214 of 1,147 of 

the TNC cases reviewed had discrepancies between the hire date on the I-9 Form and the hire date entered 

into the Transaction Database (Exhibit VIII-11). Of these 214 cases, 128 had a hire date on the 

Transaction Database that was later than the hire date on the I-9 Form. Of these 128 cases, 24 differed by 

more than 100 days between the two hire dates. Although some of these were due to entry errors, others 

may represent cases in which the employer is screening existing employees and trying to mask that fact 

by inputting incorrect information into the Transaction Database. 

158 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE 

Exhibit VIII-11. Discrepancies Between Information in Reviewed Records and Transaction 

Database Information Related to Processing Dates 

Number of Type of information reviewed records 

Cases checked for Form I-9 consistency with Transaction Database information 1,147 

Cases with Form I-9 and database hire dates consistent 933 

Cases with Form I-9 and database hire dates inconsistent 214 

Form I-9 earlier than database 128 

Form I-9 later than database 86 

Cases checked record file for consistency with Transaction Database information and 

record review referral dates for SSA TNC cases 266 

Referral dates consistent 230 

Referral dates inconsistent 36 

Cases checked record file for consistency with Transaction Database information and 

record review referral dates for USCIS TNC cases 64 

USCIS referral dates consistent 62 

USCIS referral dates inconsistent 2 

NOTE: Only cases that include the indicated form were used for these analyses. 

SOURCES: Record review of Form I-9 and related records and E-Verify Transaction Database. 

There were also 86 cases with a hire date on the Transaction Database prior to the hire date on the 

Form I-9. Of these 86 cases, nine differed by more than 100 days between the two hire dates. Although 

some of these were probably due to data entry errors, others are likely cases in which employers were 

prescreening job applicants.

163 Of the 266 TNC records containing SSA referral letters, 36 were found to 

have a discrepant referral letter date entered into the Transaction Database. Of the 64 TNC cases that 

received a USCIS referral letter, two were found to have a discrepant date entered into the Transaction 

Database. 

Few workers were aware that their employers were using E-Verify prior to their job interviews. Of 

the 396 workers who commented on whether they were aware of the employer’s use of E-Verify, 298 

stated that, prior to their job interviews, they were unaware the employer was using a program to verify 

their work authorization. Though it is possible that some of the locations where these workers applied did 

have the E-Verify poster properly placed, it may be an indication that more needs to be done to 

adequately notify applicants of a company’s use of E-Verify. 

Employers did not consistently post the E-Verify notice in an area where it was likely to be noticed 

by job applicants. Onsite interviewers attempted to observe whether the E-Verify poster was displayed 

where prospective employees are likely to see it. When they were unable to observe the poster, they asked 

the employer whether it was displayed. Information about the placement of the poster was available for 

82 employers. For 49 of these employers, interviewers observed the E-Verify poster in a location where 

it could be noticed by applicants, and an additional 10 employers reported displaying it (Exhibit VIII-12). 

Six employers had the poster placed where applicants were unlikely to notice it (as observed by 

interviewers) and one additional employer reported such placement. For 13 employers, interviewers 

observed that the poster was not placed anywhere in the establishment, and an additional three employers 

reported that the poster was not placed anywhere in the establishment. Some employers attached the 

163E-Verify will not let an employer enter a future hire date in the event that the employer prescreens. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 159 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


E-Verify poster to the job application—this was observed at the site of one employer and five additional 

employers reported this behavior.164 Interviewers observed 41 employers that displayed both the English 

and Spanish versions of the poster, and seven additional employers reported this behavior. 

Exhibit VIII-12. Employer Compliance With Requirement to Display E-Verify Participation 

Poster displayed-easily visible to applicants 

Poster displayed-not easily visible to applicants 

Poster attached to application 

No poster displayed 16 

6 

7 

59 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Number of employers 

NOTES: Information on the placement of the poster was available for 82 employers. Some employers were included in more than

one category, e.g., adding the notice to the job application and also displaying it. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

Employers do not always follow the requirement to promptly terminate employment when E-Verify 

is not able to confirm that an employee is work authorized. As discussed in Chapter V, a small 

number of employers reported that they never terminated employees receiving unauthorized or FNC 

findings (8 percent of Web survey respondents and 1 of 85 onsite study employers commenting on their 

termination procedures). Another small group reported taking more than a week to terminate the 

employment of these workers (5 percent of Web survey respondents and 7 of the 85 onsite study 

employers). 

Many employers did not comply with the E-Verify procedural requirement of entering closure 

codes for all cases. Although the Web-based E-Verify procedures require that employers input closure 

codes that explain the final outcome of each case, the E-Verify system does not force the user to enter 

such codes. When a data entry error is found, 71 percent of the active Web survey respondents in 2008 

reported that they closed the original case as an error case (i.e., Invalid Query or IQ code) and entered the 

corrected information as a new case as required by E-Verify procedures.165 Of the 34 onsite study 

employers who commented on closing cases, 28 seemed to understand the proper procedures for closing 

cases, including when to close cases and what codes to use for each final outcome. 

Although failure to input codes has little consequence for workers, it reduces available information about 

case outcomes in the Transaction Database and therefore impedes evaluation and monitoring of the 

Program. Although this issue has been raised in previous evaluation reports, it is becoming more critical 

now than in the past, since there is now a Monitoring and Compliance Unit that is expected to perform 

employer monitoring, primarily using the transaction data. 

164Some employers were included in more than one category, e.g., adding the notice to the job application and also displaying it. 

165Since the E-Verify system automatically enters closure codes based on the final case finding when employers fail to do so, it is difficult to 

determine what percentage of employers are correctly entering closure codes based on the transaction data. 

160 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

Some employers did not fully cooperate with the evaluation, as required by the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). As discussed in Chapter II, some employers participating in E-Verify declined 

to complete Web surveys or participate in onsite studies as they had agreed to do when they signed the 

MOU. Although the reasons for nonparticipation were sometimes understandable (e.g., the primary user 

was on leave during the data collection period), in other cases this failure may indicate a more general 

lack of cooperation with MOU requirements. 

2.1.2. Compliance With Recently Instituted and Changed E-Verify Program Procedures 

2.1.2.1. Procedures Related to the Photo Screening Tool 

The Photo Screening Tool requires employers other than Designated Agents or Web Services providers to 

compare a stored digital photograph, when available,166 to the document photograph provided by the 

worker. When the photograph is displayed by E-Verify, the employer is required to compare the 

downloaded photograph with the photograph on the document (or a photocopy of the document) and 

select the correct answer to the question of whether the two pictures match from three possible responses 

(yes, no, and cannot determine). The employer is also required to retain a photocopy of the document in 

the worker’s file and, if the two photographs do not match, or the employer cannot determine whether 

they match and the worker wishes to contest the resulting TNC, the employer is required to send a 

photocopy of the document to USCIS for additional review. By adding additional steps to the procedures 

that employers must take in verifying some workers, the Photo Screening Tool provided new 

opportunities for noncompliance. 

Most onsite study employers reported having used the Photo Screening Tool. Of the 105 employers 

who commented on their Photo Screening Tool use, 92 had used it at least once. At one employer site, the 

Photo Screening Tool was sometimes not used because it was the employer’s understanding that the tool 

could be used at the employer’s discretion.167 

Most employers reported comparing the photograph from the Photo Screening Tool with the 

documents that workers present, as required; however, many employers did not completely follow 

the Photo Screening Tool requirements. Procedures for using the Photo Screening Tool require the 

employer to compare a photocopy of the photograph on the document submitted with the photograph 

returned from the system. Among Web survey respondents that had used the Photo Screening Tool, 

70 percent reported they made this comparison; 59 percent compared the Photo Screening Tool 

photograph to the person presenting it (58 percent compared the Photo Screening Tool to both the 

document and the person, and 1 percent compared it to the person only). This finding is consistent with 

the onsite finding that 42 of the 92 onsite study employers that had used the Photo Screening Tool 

reported comparing the photograph in the system to the person being verified. Interestingly, 29 percent of 

Web survey respondents and one onsite participant reported that they did not compare the Photo 

Screening Tool photograph to the document or the person. 

166 Currently, as discussed in Chapter VII, photographs are only available for approximately 4 percent of E-Verify cases. 

167Although USCIS stored document photographs were always provided to regular employers when available, the employer may not actually 

compare the photograph downloaded to the document photograph. In this case, the employer may select “cannot determine” when requested to 

provide the outcome of the match. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 161 
VIII EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE


It appears that a few employers asked workers to submit documents that would trigger the Photo 

Screening Tool, even though employers are prohibited from asking for specific documents in the 

Form I-9 process. The Form I-9 procedures prohibit employers from asking for specific documents if 

workers present acceptable documents. However, the use of the Photo Screening Tool appears to have led 

some employers to ask for documents that are available for screening with the Photo Screening Tool. 

According to the Web survey, 10 percent of employers that used the Photo Screening Tool indicated that 

they have been more likely to ask for immigration documents since the start of the tool use and another 

40 percent indicated that they do not know whether the Photo Screening Tool made them more likely to 

ask for immigration documents. In the onsite study, one of the employers reported requiring noncitizen 

workers to provide immigration documents. 

None of the very small number of record review cases that had activated the Photo Screening Tool 

had included photocopies of the immigration documents with photographs as required by E-Verify. 

Only three onsite study employers had Photo Screening Tool cases that had activated the Photo Screening 

Tool, and none of them retained copies of the document in the workers’ files. 

Some employers did not submit the document photographs to USCIS when required to do so. 

According to the E-Verify User Manual, the employer is supposed to send a copy of the worker’s 

document to USCIS if the employer is unsure whether the document photograph matches the photograph 

returned by the Photo Screening Tool or if the employer believes they do not match. USCIS staff 

interviewed indicated that this does not seem to be consistently done. 

2.1.2.2. Procedures Related to EV-STAR 

Employers often continued to ask workers to obtain signed SSA letters, even though automated 

SSA procedures under EV-STAR do not require SSA to provide such letters. Employer procedures 

under EV-STAR make the handling of SSA TNC cases more similar to procedures used by USCIS than 

was true in the past. In the long run, it is reasonable to expect that this change will make it easier for 

employers to understand the proper procedures for handling TNCs; however, in the short run, employers 

may not be aware of the changed procedures or may not understand how they are supposed to implement 

the new procedures. Among the 101 onsite study employers commenting on whether they were aware of a 

change in the way SSA TNCs were handled, 48 reported that they had noticed a change in the process.

168 

Of the 91 employers in the onsite survey that reported on their use of the new EV-STAR process, 48 still 

required workers to bring back a signed letter from SSA. One of the other employers did not check case 

statuses in the system and another re-entered worker information if they did not get an update in the 

E-Verify system within 24 hours of submitting the case. SSA Operations staff corroborate this finding 

that many employers still request a letter from SSA as provided under the old manual procedure that was 

replaced by EV-STAR. 

2.1.3. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes 

2.1.3.1. Legislative Changes 

Mandating the use of E-Verify may lead to reduced compliance with E-Verify procedures. State 

legislation requiring employers to use the E-Verify system may decrease voluntary compliance with 

program procedures and tempt some employers to bypass E-Verify procedures that they do not like. To 

168Employers that had not transmitted data prior to the implementation of EV-STAR were excluded from this analysis. 

162 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE
 VIII 

determine whether this appears to be the case in Arizona, the evaluation team compared Arizona 

employers responding to the Web survey with other employers based on a general measure of compliance 

with E-Verify procedures on a measure that has a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100.169 The 

analysis indicated that Arizona employers were slightly less compliant than other employers, with an 

average score of 474 compared to 510 for employers in other states.170 It is, of course, possible that the 

difference arises from factors other than the states’ legislative status, including the possibility that the 

lower compliance of employers in Arizona can be attributable to their having a disproportionately high 

number of employers newly enrolled in E-Verify. 

The impact of the mandatory use of E-Verify on compliance is presumably a function of the extent to 

which there are penalties associated with noncompliance. While the Arizona State legislation does not 

include specific penalties for not enrolling in E-Verify, failing to sign up deprives the employer of an 

affirmative defense argument if the employer is charged with hiring employees without work 

authorization. 

2.1.3.2. Outreach Efforts 

Ongoing USCIS outreach efforts and efforts to improve the tools, such as the tutorial designed to explain 

E-Verify procedures, should help reduce employer noncompliance attributable to a lack of understanding 

of the program. However, the impacts of such changes cannot be easily evaluated because there is not a 

single date that can be isolated to examine compliance before and after the event. Furthermore, the 

evolving nature of E-Verify makes it difficult to obtain a consistent metric for use in measuring trends. 

2.1.3.3. Monitoring and Compliance Units 

USCIS has implemented monitoring and compliance units that are expected to be a step forward in 

reducing both intentional and unintentional violations of program requirements. However, the units were 

not, for the most part, operational during the data collection time, making it unlikely that they had a 

noticeable impact on compliance during the time period covered by this evaluation. 

169See Chapter II for additional information on the Compliance Scale.

170This difference is statistically significant at the .05 level, using a one-tail test, but not using a two-tail test.

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 163 
PART 3. STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

Part 3 focuses on the distinctive perspectives of the three major stakeholder groups about E-Verify: 

• Chapter IX focuses on employer satisfaction with E-Verify. 

• Chapter X examines the effects of E-Verify on workers. It includes discussions of the 

Program’s impact on worker rights, the financial and nonfinancial burdens of the Program, and 

its impact on discrimination against foreign-born workers. 

• Chapter XI examines issues not discussed in previous chapters that are related to E-Verify from 

the Federal perspective. These include Federal costs and nonfinancial burdens associated with 

this rapidly growing program. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 164 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 165

CHAPTER IX. E-VERIFY 

FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 

1. BACKGROUND 

This chapter discusses two closely linked topics: employer satisfaction with E-Verify and employer 

burden in implementing and operating the Program. Information from the onsite study employer visits 

and from the 2008 Web survey of E-Verify employers and employers enrolled in E-Verify but not using it 

at the time of data collection are presented.171 Where feasible, the Web survey responses from the 2008 

and 2006 E-Verify users are compared.172 Strengths and limitations of these data sources are discussed in 

Chapter II. 

This chapter also summarizes employer recommendations for improving E-Verify and discusses how well 

E-Verify does in meeting the unique needs of different types of employers. The Federal government is 

aware that under a mandatory program, types of employers currently underrepresented in E-Verify would 

be required to enroll in the Program. In part to provide for this contingency, as E-Verify has expanded, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has increased efforts to provide features needed to 

accommodate the unique needs of different types of employers that may not have been contemplated 

when the Program was originally designed. For example: 

• Verification staff have for a long time been aware that employment service providers, 

especially staffing agencies (i.e., employers that refer job applicants to their client companies 

for possible hire), have unique needs because their clients often expect them to screen potential 

employees before placing them. There is, therefore, a long-standing USCIS policy that staffing 

agencies may use E-Verify for potential employees who can be placed immediately in an actual 

position or, if one is not available, placed in a “hiring pool,” as long as all potential employees 

are treated the same. However, this is an informal policy and is not articulated in current 

training or resource materials. The Verification Division is working to address this deficiency 

and will be adding guidance to the Customer Guide E-4, How Do I Use E-Verify? 

• The increased popularity of E-Verify has provided business opportunities for service 

companies to assist employers that want to use E-Verify but either prefer not to do all of the 

work themselves, do not have Internet service, or want to have specialized software to facilitate 

their use of E-Verify. Service providers that provide specialized software are referred to as 

Web Services providers, while those that provide more general verification services, which 

may or may not include Web services, are referred to as Designated Agents. Companies using 

the services of Designated Agents are referred to as Users of Designated Agents.173 

171The 2006 Web survey did not include employers not currently using E-Verify, so there is no comparable 2006 information for these employers. 

172Comparisons are made when the two surveys ask the same question. 

173At the time of data collection for this report, E-Verify employers were classified according to the type of access they wanted to use as they 

specified when they registered. Since the distinctions between the categories were not clear to many employers, USCIS was working on a 

better classification system at the time this report was drafted. Employers responding to the Web survey and the onsite interviews were 

reclassified as appropriate based on their Web or interview responses. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 166 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

This chapter discusses both financial and nonfinancial burdens. The financial cost information provided 

by employers in the Web survey was sometimes based on actual records and sometimes on their best 

estimates.174 Almost three-quarters of employers reported no direct costs for setting up E-Verify and 

77 percent reported no direct costs for maintenance of E-Verify, which may be true or may simply 

indicate that the employer found it easier to say so than to estimate the costs, especially if the costs were 

minor. Since the cost questions were significantly modified from those used in the 2006 survey, it is not 

possible to compare the costs reported in this evaluation with those of the earlier evaluation.175 

In addition to discussing legislative changes likely to affect employers, the following recent E-Verify 

Program changes176 that would be expected to have a significant impact on employer satisfaction and 

burden are discussed: 

• The Social Security Administration (SSA) and USCIS pre-Tentative Nonconfirmation (preTNC) checks; 

• The Photo Screening Tool; 

• EV-STAR; 

• Naturalization Phase I; and 

• Naturalization Phase II. 

Changes in the tutorial and employer resources available on the Web and other outreach efforts to 

employers are designed to address some of the confusion about E-Verify procedures that employers have 

expressed in previous evaluations. However, these clarifications may also raise concern on the part of 

some employers, especially those that need to modify their procedures as a result of the changes. Most of 

these changes have been made incrementally, which prevents isolating their effects for evaluation 

purposes. 

As discussed below, employer satisfaction with E-Verify was generally quite high, although some 

E-Verify users reported being dissatisfied with aspects of E-Verify. They also had a variety of 

recommendations for how the Program could either address areas of dissatisfaction or otherwise improve 

the Program. These recommendations are important, because they point to possible changes that USCIS 

and SSA may want to implement in the future. These recommendations are, therefore, taken into account 

in developing the report recommendations in Chapter XIII. However, since the report recommendations 

include a variety of perspectives and E-Verify goals, not all employer recommendations are included in 

the final recommendations. 

174See Chapter II for a discussion of this issue. 

175However, given that the current program eliminated the need for employers to use a dedicated PC and phone line and a special modem, lower 

implementation costs could be anticipated. 

176See Chapter III for a description of these changes. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 167 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


2. FINDINGS 

The findings in this chapter are organized into four sections: 

• Employer satisfaction with E-Verify, including recommendations for changes; 

• Financial costs; 

• Variation in the needs of different types of employers; and 

• Impacts of recent programmatic and legislative changes on employer satisfaction and costs. 

2.1. Satisfaction and Burden 

This section of the chapter examines information employers provided about how satisfied they are with 

E-Verify and their views of the burden of the Program. The section is divided into the following 

somewhat overlapping topics: 

• General satisfaction and burden; 

• Registration and start-up procedures; 

• Resources; 

• User-friendliness of the E-Verify system; 

• Communication with USCIS and SSA; and 

• Other issues and recommendations. 

2.1.1. General Satisfaction and Burden 

Employers generally expressed satisfaction with E-Verify in the Web survey. Most Web survey 

employers reported that E-Verify is an effective tool (95 percent) and that they believe it is highly 

accurate (92 percent) (Exhibit IX-1). In addition, 95 percent agreed or strongly agreed that E-Verify 

reduces the chances of getting a mismatched SSA earnings letter. These figures are similar to results 

obtained in the 2006 survey in which 91 percent agreed or strongly agreed that E-Verify is an effective 

tool for employment verification and 88 percent agreed or strongly agreed that E-Verify reduces the 

chances of getting a mismatched SSA earnings letter. 

Onsite study employers were also generally satisfied with E-Verify. Of the 104 onsite study employers 

discussing their overall satisfaction with E-Verify, 99 reported being generally satisfied. Employers stated 

that E-Verify “takes the guesswork out of the hiring process” and “simplifies the process,” and one said 

that the question of whether a person was authorized to work could be “immediately resolved.” 

Employers also mentioned that the Program saved them time because they no longer had to examine work 

168 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

documents and determine work authorization on their own, as E-Verify did this for them.

177 Finally, 

several employers mentioned that they were pleased with E-Verify because it “ensures that they are 

operating without employing persons that are not authorized to work.” 

Exhibit IX-1. Percent of Employers Agreeing With Statements About the Overall Functioning of 

E-Verify 

90.7 

87.6 

95.3 

95.3 

91.5 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers 

2008 

W 2006 e believe that E-Verify is highly accurate** 

E-Verify reduces the chances of getting a 

mismatched SSA earnings letter* 

Overall, E-Verify is an effective tool 

for employment verification* 

*Statistically significant difference between 2008 and 2006 E-Verify users at p < 0.05. 

**There was not a comparable question asked in the 2006 survey. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey.

Employers also generally indicated that E-Verify was not burdensome. A large majority of employers 

completing the Web survey (80 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “it is 

impossible to fulfill all the employer obligations required by the E-Verify process.” This is lower than the 

95 percent of employers surveyed in 2006 who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. Of 84 

onsite study employers who discussed the burden of using E-Verify, only one felt that E-Verify was very 

burdensome, 70 reported that E-Verify was not at all burdensome, and 13 reported it was somewhat 

burdensome. 

Although dissatisfaction and burden were often cited as reasons for terminating use of E-Verify, 

many former users reported other reasons for terminating their use of the system. As discussed in 

Chapter IV, only 24 percent of employers had terminated system use or decided not to use the system 

because they decided that the system “would be too burdensome to use.” 

2.1.2. Registration and Start-Up Procedures 

2.1.2.1. Satisfaction Level 

Most employers responding to the Web survey expressed satisfaction with the E-Verify registration 

and start-up procedures. When E-Verify users were asked in 2008 to rate their experiences with the 

E-Verify system registration and start-up process, almost all (94 percent) reported the online registration 

process was easy to complete—quite comparable to the 99 percent in 2006 (Exhibit IX-2). However, 

177Note that E-Verify employers still have responsibility for examining work documents as discussed in Chapter VIII; this response may, 

therefore, be due to misunderstanding the proper methods for verifying employment under E-Verify. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 169 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


there was a 16 percentage point drop in users who indicated that the registration did not consume much of 

their time (from 87 percent in 2006 to 71 percent in 2008). This difference between 2006 and 2008 may 

be attributable to the greater complexity entailed in registration, as the number of access types had 

increased. 

Exhibit IX-2. Employer Views of E-Verify Registration and Start-Up Procedures: 2006 and 2008 

Percent agreeing with positive statements about E-Verify 

2008 

93.8 2006 Online registration process easy to complete* 98.6 

89.3 Tutorial answers all our questions about using 

online verification system* 85.1 

95.0 Tutorial adequately prepared us to use online 96.3 verification system 

94.1 

Content of online tutorial easy to understand* 97.8 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers 

Percent disagreeing with negative statements about E-Verify 

2008 

O 70.8 nline registration process was too time 2006 

consuming* 

86.5 

73.2 Burden to have to pass the Mastery Test 

before being allowed to use the 84.2 online verification system* 

59.4 

Tutorial takes too long to complete* 

78.4 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers 

*Significant difference between 2008 and 2006 surveys at the .05 level. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

170 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

Most Web survey respondents also expressed considerable satisfaction with the online tutorial. 

Almost all Web survey respondents reported that the online tutorial provided adequate information about 

the use of the system (95 percent) and was easy to understand (94 percent). This was not substantially 

different from 2006, when 96 percent of employers reported that the online tutorial adequately prepared 

them to use the system and 98 percent said it was easy to understand. 

Most onsite study employers were also satisfied with the registration procedures. Of the 90 

employers who reported on their satisfaction level with registration and start-up procedures, 79 were 

generally satisfied, saying that they had no problems registering for E-Verify (Exhibit IX-3). However, 11 

employers described the registration/start-up procedures as “lengthy” and “confusing.” A few of these 

employers had to make several calls to the E-Verify helpline before they successfully registered for 

E-Verify. 

Exhibit IX-3. Number of Onsite Study Employers That Reported Being Satisfied or Dissatisfied 

With Registration Procedures 

Dissatisfied 

Satisfied 11 

Registration/set-up 

79 

25 

Tutorial/Mastery Test 

70 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Number of employers 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

Most onsite respondents also reported being satisfied with the online tutorial and Mastery Test. A 

total of 95 onsite study employers commented on the tutorial and Mastery Test, with 70 employers 

reporting they were satisfied with them. They felt the tutorial and test were easy to use and they had no 

problems with either. One employer stated that the tutorial “gave her a base of knowledge that she didn’t 

have before.” The remaining 25 onsite study employers were dissatisfied with the tutorial and test, citing 

the length of the tutorial and technical problems, such as timeouts during sessions. Employers felt the 

tutorial was too long, and several mentioned that there was too much information about the technical 

aspects of the Web site (pointing and clicking buttons, navigating the site, etc.) and not enough 

information on the more difficult concepts. Some onsite study employers found the tutorial instructions 

unclear. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 171 
Exhibit IX-4. Percent of E-Verify Users Reporting E-Verify Resources Are Helpful or Very Helpful 

2008 88.0 Obtaining technical help from the Help desk 93.8 2006 

97.9 

Mouse-over features on data entry fields 95.5 

RRepepoorrtts ts too m moonniittoorr es esttaabblliisshmhmenentt'’s us usse oe off t thhe se syyssttem em 91.1 

and t and t heheus ue of se of indiinvdiidua vidual usl userse irn e s in estasbltaiblshmishmentent 92.0 

95.2 

Reports to monitor the status of employee cases 97.1 

89.9 Other online resources 84.1 

95.6 

The online tutorial 97.9 

93.0 

The online E-Verify User Manual 94.6 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Tests of significance were done to compare 2006 and 2008 E-Verify users, and there were no significant differences. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


2.1.2.2. Employer Recommendations 

Employers made the following suggestions for improving start-up procedures: 

• Additional information in the tutorial to better explain why an employee may receive a TNC; 

• Regular Web seminars that could assist new users, especially when they are going through the 

tutorial and Mastery Test; and 

• A way to easily print out the tutorial so that it can be used as a reference. 

2.1.3. Resources 

2.1.3.1. Satisfaction Level 

Employer views of the resources provided to E-Verify participants were generally positive. As 

Exhibit IX-4 shows, more than 90 percent of employers in the Web survey reported that most resources 

available to them were “very helpful” or “helpful.” The ratings of the helpfulness of resources were 

similar for the 2006 and 2008 surveys. 

172 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

Although most employers were satisfied with the help desk, some employers expressed considerable 

dissatisfaction with the information they obtained from it. Among Web survey respondents, 

88 percent of employers reported that obtaining technical help from the help desk was very helpful or 

helpful. Problems reported by employers included difficulty in reaching someone who could answer their 

questions, representatives who could not provide answers, answers that were inconsistent with E-Verify 

written or online information, and a lack of response to answers that required a return call from USCIS. 

Several employers in the onsite study said that the answers they received from the help line were not 

sufficient to meet their needs.178 Examples of employer frustrations related to obtaining information from 

the help line include the following: 

• “[G]etting a decent answer from the technical support team is nearly impossible...Answers are 

rarely if ever known by those answering the phones. Questioners are told they will be 

contacted. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes the answers are helpful - 

sometimes not. Some e-mail responses are ignored entirely. Not answering questions posed is 

a disservice to both the employer and employee.” 

• “When I called the help line with a specific question, I was left on hold at least 2 times for 

approximately 20 minutes each time.” The director of Human Resources was then routed to 

another help line representative who spoke only Spanish (which the caller did not speak). 

“Both times I needed assistance I was given to someone that could not help me.” 

2.1.3.2. Employer Recommendations 

Employers made the following suggestions for new or improved resources: 

• More detailed explanation of the TNC process and time frame for contesting TNCs; 

• Additional information or training on accurately completing the I-9 Form along with E-Verify; 

• More information on various work documents and how to spot fraudulent documents; 

• A document section on the Web site that would show photographs of various work documents 

with the numbers to enter circled or somehow demonstrated; and 

• A “demo” section where new users could practice entering employees’ information and 

receiving results, especially TNCs. 

2.1.4. User-Friendliness of the E-Verify System 

2.1.4.1. Satisfaction Level 

Most E-Verify employers thought that the system navigation and data entry for E-Verify were 

user-friendly. When asked how user-friendly the E-Verify system navigation and data entry were, 

178It is not clear whether these comments related to the technical and/or program help lines. Indeed, some of the employers in the onsite study did 

not realize that there were two separate help lines. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 173 
0.0

1.0

29.0

70.0

1.0

2.2

32.8

64.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not at all user friendly

Not very user-friendly

Somewhat user-friendly

Very user-friendly

Percent of employers

2008

2006

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


64 percent of Web survey employers said that they were very user-friendly, 33 percent said they were 

somewhat user-friendly, and only 3 percent said they were not very user-friendly or not at all userfriendly (Exhibit IX-5). These results are similar to what was reported in the Web survey in 2006, where 

the corresponding results were 70, 29, and 1 percent. Almost all Web survey employers disagreed or 

strongly disagreed that frequent technical help is required to use E-Verify (94 percent), a finding that 

closely matches the one for 2006 (97 percent). Among the 105 onsite study employers responding to 

questions about the user-friendliness of E-Verify, 49 employers reported being dissatisfied with userfriendliness, with several of the more dissatisfied employers specifically citing system unavailability as 

being an issue. 

Exhibit IX-5. Employer Views of the User-Friendliness of E-Verify System Navigation and Data 

Entry 

-

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

Some employers in both the Web and onsite surveys said that data entry errors were a reason for 

their dissatisfaction with the user-friendliness of E-Verify. When the Web survey employers using 

E-Verify were asked about the E-Verify computer system, 29 percent of 2008 respondents indicated that 

it is easy to make errors when entering employee information into the system. Some employers said that it 

was easy to make data entry errors, specifically when entering information from employees with multiple 

last names. One Web survey respondent said they “....had issues when entering information for 

immigrants who are authorized to work in the U.S.” About a quarter of the onsite study employers 

reported that it was easy to make errors entering employee information and that system time outs179 

require previously entered information to be reentered. 

Some employers reported difficulty with the process for having their passwords reset, even though 

this process has been simplified since the last evaluation. Even with a simplified online system for 

obtaining new passwords, 19 percent of Web survey employers reported that the process of calling the 

telephone number to get their passwords reset is time consuming, particularly when the office is closed 

and the employer has to wait until the next day to get a new password. This result is no different from 

what was reported in 2006, when 19 percent of employers reported difficulty having their passwords 

reset. Seven onsite study employers recommended that the system require password changes less 

179A system time out occurs if the user does not use the online system for 15 minutes or more; at that point the user’s session is automatically 

terminated. 

174 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

frequently when asked for their recommendations to improve E-Verify. One of the employers responding 

to the Web survey said that if state legislation requiring E-Verify continues to expand, some employers 

may have difficulty maintaining multiple passwords. 

2.1.4.2. Employer Recommendations 

Employers made the following suggestions for improving the user-friendliness of the E-Verify 

system: 

• Instead of requiring users to navigate through two screens to enter closure codes for cases that 

were not found work authorized, the system could automatically resolve the cases. 

• Initially authorized cases could be immediately resolved rather than requiring an extra step for 

the employer to close the case. 

• The system could alert the employer to which cases have received new resolutions from USCIS 

and require action (currently the system only alerts the employer to the number of cases with 

new resolutions from USCIS). For example, one employer said, “the system would 

automatically send you an e-mail reminder of a pending case instead of you having to log-in 

and look yourself.” 

• Cases properly closed for data entry errors could be removed from the system to avoid the 

extra work of scrolling through multiple cases for the same person. 

• An after-hours phone line or a text e-mail system could be instituted that could provide users 

with their user names and passwords if the office is closed.180 

• More help could be located on the data entry screen to aid the user in finding the needed 

information on the documents provided by the employee. 

• Data entry should be more user-friendly and consistent. Fields where Social Security numbers 

(SSNs) and/or alien numbers are entered should automatically format the information without 

user intervention. 

2.1.5. Communication With SSA and USCIS 

2.1.5.1. Satisfaction Level 

Most onsite study employers were satisfied with the communication they had with SSA, although 

some reported communication problems. Of the 74 employers that commented on their communication 

with SSA, 57 were satisfied (Exhibit IX-6). These employers reported having no problems dealing with 

SSA, and one employer reported that any time they call SSA with a question, “they have found the 

personnel very helpful and knowledgeable.” The remaining 17 employers were dissatisfied with the 

communication they had with SSA. Some of these employers felt that SSA offices did not understand or 

180The system did have procedures for providing users with this information automatically at the time of the data collection; this comment implies 

that not all employers were aware of these functions. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 175 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


even know about E-Verify, while a few others were frustrated that SSA could not provide an explanation 

as to why some cases took longer than 10 days. One employer reported that they have had employees quit 

when cases took longer than 10 days because they were aggravated with having to wait for a resolution 

from SSA. Other employers said that they would have liked the staff at SSA offices to be better informed 

about E-Verify and its procedures and better able to answer their questions about specific employee 

181 cases.

Exhibit IX-6. Employer Satisfaction With Communication With SSA and USCIS 

SSA 

USCIS 

27 

17 

84 

57 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Satisfied 

Dissatisfied 

Number of employers 

NOTE: For USCIS, eight of the 103 respondents reported being both satisfied and dissatisfied with different aspects of 

communication. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

Although most employers were also satisfied with the communication they had with USCIS, some 

employers mentioned problems. Of the 103 onsite study employers commenting on their 

communication with USCIS, 84 reported they were satisfied, 27 said that they were dissatisfied, and eight 

were both satisfied and dissatisfied. Among the 84 satisfied employers, 60 reported that USCIS had 

communicated well with employers about changes to E-Verify, 20 said they were pleased with their 

communication with the help line, and four were generally satisfied with their communication with 

USCIS. Of the 27 dissatisfied employers, 15 were dissatisfied with the way changes were communicated, 

eight were dissatisfied with their communication with the help line, and four were generally dissatisfied 

with their communication with USCIS. 

Some employers wanted clearer communication from both USCIS and SSA. There were 13 onsite 

study employers that volunteered the information that they wanted clearer communication from USCIS, 

specifically for staffing agencies (procedures are not spelled out clearly), the tutorial (unclear 

instructions), changes to the system (notice about changes was not prominent enough), and seasonal 

workers (whether or not they should be reentered into E-Verify when they return). Another two 

employers said that they would have liked the staff at SSA offices to be better informed about E-Verify 

and its procedures and better able to answer their questions about specific employee cases. 

181SSA reports that at least part of the problem is that most of SSA’s 1,300 field offices have never encountered an E-Verify case. They also 

report that they plan to provide refresher training for field offices during FY 2009–10 to heighten awareness of E-Verify among SSA 

Operations personnel. 

176 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

Some employers expressed dissatisfaction with how USCIS communicated the change in SSA 

procedures to them when starting EV-STAR. Many of the employers attending the stakeholder 

meeting held six weeks after the start of EV-STAR said that they had never heard of either EV-STAR or 

the change in SSA procedures implemented as part of EV-STAR. They considered this to be a 

communications problem. Of the 101 onsite study employers that began using E-Verify before EV-STAR 

was implemented, 53 were not aware of the changed SSA procedures approximately seven months after it 

had been implemented. 

Perceived lack of communication and data sharing between USCIS and SSA were seen by some 

employers as creating problems. As explained by one employer, “The data for married people, 

naturalized citizens, and permanent residents is very inconsistent. The data held in the SSA and USCIS 

needs to be reconciled. We frequently receive ID cards and Social Security or SSN cards with different 

spellings, hyphenations or naming order that causes false nonconfirmation.” Some employers suggested 

that E-Verify should be more closely linked with the SSA system. Specifically, one employer said, “We 

would like to see the system somehow be able to tie into the SSA system, which may provide information 

if an SSN provided is currently being used at another place of employment/state. This should ‘red flag’ 

the SSN and should require the individual to satisfy SSA questions so that SSA can let the employer 

know if he/she can be employed at this time.” 

SSA and USCIS are aware of some of the reasons behind this apparent lack of communication and 

sharing of data and are working to ameliorate the problems. For example, SSA and USCIS are 

looking into building an automated process for updating SSA’s NUMIDENT record and issuing 

replacement SSN cards to certain categories of foreign-born individuals, including naturalized individuals 

and those nonimmigrants who adjust to lawful permanent residence status. They are also working 

together with the Department of State to reconcile name discrepancies among the three agencies. SSA 

also notes that it would be helpful if USCIS advised employers and employees to be consistent when 

entering names on the Form I-9, E-Verify, and application for an SSN to the extent possible. 

2.1.5.2. Employer Recommendations 

When asked about mode of communication with E-Verify, most onsite study employers requested 

that E-Verify staff communicate with them by email either in addition to or instead of the system 

alerts. Of the 105 employers that responded with one or more preferences, 78 requested e-mail as the 

method of communication, 56 preferred alerts on the E-Verify Web site (as E-Verify currently 

communicates), 11 preferred regular mail, eight preferred phone calls, and five preferred some other 

method of communication, such as from the employer’s headquarters (which communicates directly with 

E-Verify) or through a newsletter (Exhibit IX-7). Most employers that preferred e-mail communication 

mentioned that they would like to be notified by e-mail when cases are updated and when cases need to 

be closed, in addition to when changes are made to the system. USCIS reports that they are in the process 

of developing an e-mail alert system that should be fully operational by the end of 2009. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 177 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 

Exhibit IX-7. Employer Preferences for Modes of Communication From E-Verify 

5 

8 

11 

56 

78 

Other 

Phone 

Regular mail 

Alerts on E-Verify Web site 

E-mail 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of employers (N=105) 

NOTE: Sum does not add to total number reporting because respondents could choose more than one response. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

Employers made the following additional suggestions for new or improved communication 

procedures, some of which are in the process of being implemented. 

• More timely updates about employees who recently obtained citizenship to reduce the 

possibility of having erroneous TNCs. Specifically, one respondent said, “The system does not 

show passport photos and the INS and SSA should be linked (when employee becomes U.S. 

citizen it should transfer to SSA automatically).” Another said, “I had an applicant who has 

been a citizen for a year, but came up with a nonconfirmation. It said that she was not 

recognized as a citizen. She was blown away by the results and was worried that something 

had happened with her citizenship. When she went to the SSA office, they gave her a copy of 

her SSN card and said that her citizenship was fine. This whole mess made her extremely 

worried when everything was really ok.” 

• Communicate online, through e-mail, or over the phone to both clarify questions and expedite 

their responses to TNCs. 

• More timely communication regarding TNCs. 

• An e-mail confirmation to inform them of the days remaining to resolve the TNC. For 

example, one employer said, “some sort of e-mail confirmation stating that the 10-day grace 

period has expired and the case needs to be closed” would be helpful. 

• More frequent updates of E-Verify changes, possibly in the form of Webcasts or e-mail 

notifications. 

• Provide E-Verify training for SSA staff.182 

182SSA reports that additional staff training is planned. 

178 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

• Simplify the language in the TNC notice and referral letters so that more employees can 

understand them.

183 

• Add TNC notices and referral letters in additional languages. 

2.1.6. Other Issues and Recommendations 

2.1.6.1. Satisfaction Level 

Most onsite study employers reported that providing assistance to employees who contest a TNC 

was not burdensome for them. There were 74 onsite study employers that said they were not at all 

burdened by having employees who contested and 13 employers that said they were somewhat burdened 

by this process. Among the 35 employers reporting on specific negative impacts of having employees 

contest, 22 said they had to give employees time off to contest, six said they lost staff while workers were 

contesting, four said that they paid employees for the time they were contesting, and 10 reported some 

other impact, such as finding workers to cover the shifts of the person who was contesting or spending 

time checking the case statuses in E-Verify.184 

Employers were more likely to find losing unauthorized workers a burden than the process of 

contesting TNCs. Of 64 onsite study employers that talked about the burden of losing unauthorized 

workers, 34 said that losing unauthorized workers was not at all burdensome, 24 said that it was 

somewhat burdensome, and six said that it was very burdensome. Some employers that felt that losing 

unauthorized workers was not at all burdensome were happy to know that they were employing only 

work-authorized individuals, while employers that felt that it was somewhat or very burdensome reported 

that they lost time and money on interviewing, hiring, and training unauthorized workers. Of 48 

employers that commented on the specific type of impact of losing unauthorized workers, 41 reported 

additional hiring costs, 36 reported additional training costs, and 18 reported additional overtime costs 

(Exhibit IX-8). 

Exhibit IX-8. Reasons That Losing Unauthorized Workers Was Burdensome for Some Employers 

3 

18 

36 

41 

Changed hiring practices 

Additional overtime costs 

Additional training costs 

Additional hiring costs 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 

Number of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to total number reporting because respondents could choose more than one reason. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Employers. 

183SSA and USCIS report that they are working on making the language simpler. 

184Seven employers reported more than one impact of contesting. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 179 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


Some employers expressed confusion on E-Verify procedures. Areas of confusion reported included 

the following: 

• Several employers reported that there were either no instructions or insufficient instructions 

from the system on the fact that the stamped referral letter would not be coming back from 

SSA, leading to confusion about why employees were not returning their stamped referral 

letters from SSA to the Human Resources office, when EV-STAR was initially implemented. 

• Several onsite study employers mentioned that they were sometimes confused about which 

numbers to enter into E-Verify from work documents. 

• A number of employers were confused about how to decide what name(s) should be entered. 

One Web survey employer commented, “Some cultures use a multitude of surnames. Some 

new hires have two last names and when entering name data sometimes the employer is unsure 

if they are getting a TNC because the names do not agree, or because the person is not legally 

eligible to work, but because there is no way to try to enter a different name combination and 

see if an authorization is provided based on a different last name combination. Some new hires 

have hyphenated last names (such as Gomez-Herrera) and there is no way to enter such names 

accurately.” 

• Another source of confusion is determining an employee's hire date and what should be entered 

into E-Verify. 

• One employer said that the difference between a TNC and a Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Verification in Process was not clear. 

2.1.6.2. Employer Recommendations 

There were some additional recommendations made by employers that were not closely linked to the 

questions on satisfaction discussed above. These are loosely grouped into the following categories in this 

section: 

• What types of cases should be submitted to E-Verify; 

• Which employers should use E-Verify; 

• Time deadlines for performing E-Verify tasks; and 

• Other miscellaneous recommendations. 

Many of the recommendations in this section are related to practices discussed in Chapter VIII. 

180 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

2.1.6.2.1. What Types of Cases Should be Submitted to E-Verify? 

2.1.6.2.1.1. Job Applicants 

Most employers recommended that prescreening be permitted. This is the most frequently mentioned 

employer recommendation. When asked for their opinion about changing the E-Verify statute to allow the 

verification of job applicants, 66 percent of the E-Verify employers responding to the Web survey 

supported this change, 17 percent opposed the change, and 17 percent had no opinion. These results are 

similar to what was reported in the Web survey in 2006, where the corresponding results were 64, 22, and 

14 percent. 

There were also 26 onsite study employers that volunteered the information that they wanted the E-Verify 

system to be used by all employers to prescreen applicants before they are hired or start working. Among 

these onsite study employers, 12 were temporary help or staffing agencies. The reason most often cited 

for allowing employers to screen job applicants is that it would save the employers time and money in the 

hiring and training processes. Some employment and temporary help agencies reported that they feel 

pressure from clients to offer only work-authorized employees, which would require them to screen job 

applicants before they are placed. Another employer stated that allowing employers to screen job 

applicants would make E-Verify “more practical for the company.” An additional suggestion was that the 

employers provide job applicants with a consent form that informed them of the company’s use of 

E-Verify and, when signed by applicants, would allow the company to screen them before offering them a 

job. 

2.1.6.2.1.2. Existing Employees 

Many employers would also like to use the system for existing employees, i.e., employees hired 

before they signed up to participate in E-Verify. When asked for their opinion about changing the 

E-Verify statute to allow the verification of employees hired before E-Verify was started, 61 percent of 

the employers responding to this question on the Web survey supported the change, 18 percent opposed 

the change, and 21 percent had no opinion. In contrast, the corresponding percentages in 2006 were 50, 

25, and 25 percent, respectively. Two onsite study employers volunteered the information that they would 

have liked to use the system for employees hired before they started using the system. Several Web 

survey respondents suggested permitting the reverification of employees whose work authorization 

expires while they are employed. 

2.1.6.2.2. Which Employers Should Use E-Verify? 

Several onsite study employers mentioned that they would like all employers to use E-Verify. Some 

onsite study employers volunteered that they wanted all employers in their industry, their state, or the 

entire country to use E-Verify. One employer, a staffing agency, said that they felt they were at a 

disadvantage compared to employers who were not using E-Verify because those employers “could pay 

unauthorized workers low wages and therefore keep their operation costs low.” One Web respondent also 

suggested using E-Verify to authorize contract staff as well as employees. 

2.1.6.2.3. Time to Perform E-Verify Tasks 

Several employers recommended that the requirement to enter employees’ information into the 

E-Verify system within three workdays be lengthened. There were 26 onsite study employers that 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 181 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


volunteered the information that they would like to see the requirement to enter employees’ information 

within three workdays lengthened to one or two weeks. An additional two employers, both of which were 

staffing agencies, believed that three workdays was not enough time to enter employees’ information 

when their agency had taken over the payroll services of another company and needed to verify the new 

employees’ work authorization. These two employers also recommended lengthening the time to enter 

data to a week in this situation. Examples of why some employers say that the additional time is needed 

follow: 

• “I would like to see the three day verification rule be changed to a week. Because I am the 

owner of the company, sometimes I am just too busy with my regular job and miss the 

deadline.” 

• “I would like to see some improvement in the time frame within which data must be entered 

into the system after an employee is hired. Because of the transmission of employee records 

from California to Arizona, and because, as Controller of the company, I have many other 

demands on my time and attention that may compete with my responsibilities for E-Verify.” 

Employers were split over the desirability of changing the number of days an employee has to contest. 

When asked for their recommendations to improve E-Verify, a few onsite study and Web survey 

respondents said that they recommended increasing the number of days an employee has to contest, while 

a few others would rather see a decrease in that number of days. 

2.1.6.2.4. Miscellaneous 

There was some interest in having a certificate showing completion of the tutorial and Mastery 

Test. Three onsite study employers responded that they would have liked to receive a certificate after they 

had passed the tutorial and Mastery Test. A staffing agency said that they could show such a certificate to 

potential clients to prove that they were authorized and trained to use E-Verify. 

2.2. Financial Costs 

The majority of participating E-Verify employers reported no direct costs for initial set-up of 

E-Verify. Seventy-four percent of Web survey employers that used E-Verify reported no direct set-up 

costs in the Web survey (Exhibit IX-9). The average (median) total cost reported by employers having 

direct set-up costs was $100.185 However, 10 percent of respondents said that they spent $1,000 or more. 

185Because of the high costs reported by a small minority of employers, the mean costs were higher than the median costs. 

182 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 

Exhibit IX-9. Costs for Setting up E-Verify for Employers Reporting Costs, by Type of Cost for 

2008 Users 

Percent Cost 

Type of cost reporting 

cost 

10th 

Percentile Median 

90th 

Percentile 

All costs 17.4 $50 $100 $1,000 

Training 17.3 45 100 500 

Filing cabinets or other office equipment 2.5 80 200 600 

Other type of cost 12.4 35 130 3,300 

No direct costs for set-up 73.8 NA NA NA 

NA = not applicable. 

NOTES: Percentiles are based on employers reporting specific type of cost. Sum does not add to 100 percent because employers 

could report more than one type of cost. Some cost categories were combined with other types of cost to avoid small sample 

sizes. The most common other set-up costs reported by employers were computer hardware, telephone line to access the Internet, 

Internet connection and access charges, remodeling or restructuring of the physical plant, and obtaining the services of a 

Designated Agent.

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey.

It does not appear that the costs of setting up the system were especially high for those employers 

that had set up the system but no longer used it. Of the employers that had signed up for E-Verify but 

had stopped using it, 71 percent reported no set-up costs, which is similar to the 74 percent of active 

E-Verify users reporting no direct set-up costs. The average (median) total cost reported by employers 

that stopped using E-Verify and had direct set-up costs was $50—only half the average (median) total 

cost for active E-Verify users ($100). 

The most frequently mentioned specific set-up cost was for training. Of the E-Verify employers that 

responded to the Web survey, 17 percent reported set-up costs for training. Another 2 percent of 

employers reported purchasing filing cabinets and other office equipment and 12 percent reported other 

costs (including purchasing computer hardware, telephone lines to access the Internet, Internet connection 

and access charges, remodeling or restructuring of the physical plant, and obtaining the services of a 

Designated Agent).186 

The majority of participating E-Verify employers reported no annual direct costs to maintain 

E-Verify; however, some employers reported substantial costs. Among those employers responding to 

the Web survey, 77 percent reported no direct maintenance costs for E-Verify (Exhibit IX-10). The 

average (median) total cost reported by employers having annual direct costs was $400.

187 However, 

10 percent of respondents with maintenance costs said that they spent $5,000 or more. 

186Some employers reported expenses in more than one of these categories. 

187Because of the high costs reported by a small number of employers, the mean costs were higher than the median costs. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 183 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 

Exhibit IX-10. Annual Costs for Maintaining E-Verify, by Type of Cost: 2008 

Percent Cost 

Type of cost reporting 

cost 

10th 

Percentile Median 

90th 

Percentile 

All Costs 15.1 $50 $400 $5,000 

Computer maintenance 4.4 50 200 1,100 

Telephone fees for Internet access 2.0 25 240 1,500 

Internet access fees 4.2 25 360 1,200 

Training of replacement staff 9.3 50 150 1,000 

Wages for the verification specialist(s) 7.9 120 500 5,000 

Costs for using a Designated Agent 1.5 100 1,000 5,000 

Other Costs 6.6 10 400 5,000 

No direct costs for maintenance 76.5 NA NA NA 

NA = not applicable. 

NOTES: Percentiles are based on employers reporting specific type of cost. Sum does not add to 100 percent because employers 

could report more than one type of cost. The most common other maintenance costs were labor time for verification and 

document handling, material costs for paper and document storage, and for larger employers, the continued maintenance of 

computer hardware and software. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey.

The most frequently mentioned operating costs for E-Verify users were for training of replacement 

staff. Of the E-Verify employers responding to the Web survey, 9 percent reported costs for training of 

replacement staff and 8 percent reported costs for wages of verification specialists. 

Employers reported few indirect costs in using E-Verify. Not all financial costs associated with setting 

up and maintaining a program can be easily quantified. Employers may also incur indirect costs for setup, such as reassignment of workers, additional recruitment, and delayed production.188 Approximately 

94 percent of E-Verify users reported that the indirect set-up costs were either no burden or only a slight 

burden, and 95 percent of the employers said that indirect costs associated with maintaining the system 

were either no burden or only a slight burden. This is very similar to what was reported in the 2006 

evaluation of the Web Basic Pilot when 97 percent of employers reported indirect set-up costs were no 

more than a slight burden and 97 percent reported the same for indirect maintenance costs. 

2.3. How Well is E-Verify Meeting the Unique Needs of Different Types of Employers? 

As discussed in the background section, a number of modifications have been made over time with the 

goal of better meeting the needs of employers with different characteristics. To better understand the 

unique needs of certain types of employers, the evaluation has examined overall employer satisfaction 

among different types of employers. 

188Delayed production occurs when employers have to slow production for some reason. For example, it could occur with E-Verify if employers 

fired someone because of a final nonconfirmation (FNC) and production slowed while the employer looked for a replacement. 

184 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

The evaluation found no statistically significant differences in the level of employer satisfaction by 

industry, employer size, reported employer type (Designated Agent, temporary help, employment 

agencies, and other), or reported percentage of immigrants employed by the employer. Using a 

scale to measure overall satisfaction of employers in the Web survey with a mean score of 500 and a 

standard deviation of 100, no statistically significant relationships with satisfaction were found when 

employers were grouped as follows: 

• Industry: the mean scores varied from 468 for employers engaged in agriculture to 515 for 

employers in the accommodation industries.189 

• Employer size: the mean scores varied from 492 for employers with 1,000 or more workers to 

514 for employers with one to nine workers. 

• Reported employer type (Designated Agent, temporary help, employment agencies, and 

other): the mean scores varied from 490 for temporary help agencies to 524 for staffing 

agencies. 

• Reported percent of immigrants employed by the employer: the mean scores varied from 

473 for those reporting 81 percent or more immigrant workers to 516 for employers reporting 

41–80 percent immigrant workers. 

Employers registering for E-Verify in order to improve their ability to verify that their workers are 

employment authorized are significantly more likely to be satisfied with E-Verify than are 

employers registering because they are required to do so by a state or local government or because 

of a client request. As seen in Exhibit IX-11, employers signing up for E-Verify to improve their ability 

to verify that their workers are work authorized have a mean satisfaction scale score of 515 compared to 

the score of 463 for employers required to register by their state or local government and the score of 462 

for those signing up at a client request. 

189This scale was selected to make it similar to the SAT scale scores familiar to many users. Variables with no statistically significant differences 

between any two types of employer groups are not displayed here, but are included in the appendix tables. See Chapter II for additional 

information about the scaling methodology and the statistical tests used. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 185 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


Exhibit IX-11. Satisfaction Scores of Employers, by Reason for Registering for E-Verify 

Federal government 

Improve ability to verify workers 

Avoid ICE audit, raid, or fine 

More competitive with others 

Parent company requirement 

State/local government* 

Client request* 

Other 512 

462 

463 

488 

496 

507 

515 

527 

420 440 460 480 500 520 540 

Satisfaction score 

*Statistically significant difference between employers reporting this reason for registration and employers reporting they

registered to improve their ability to verify that their workers are work authorized at p < 0.05. 

NOTES: Statistical significance is a function not only of the size of two means but also the number of cases in each category,

because estimates based on small numbers of cases are quite unreliable. Satisfaction is measured using an item response theory

scale score standardized to a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Most staffing and temporary help agencies reported in the onsite study that E-Verify met their 

unique needs. Of the 21 staffing agencies that discussed their unique needs in the onsite interviews, 14 

believed that E-Verify met their needs well as a staffing agency. For example, one employer said that 

E-Verify “helped put the company on a different level with customers” and “promoted a legal 

workforce.” Of the 19 temporary help agencies that responded, 15 said that E-Verify met their needs well 

as a temporary help agency, stating that their clients appreciated that all placed employees were work 

authorized.190 However, nine staffing agencies and six temporary help agencies (including two staffing 

agencies and three temporary help agencies that said E-Verify met their needs well) felt that E-Verify 

caused problems with their clients, stating that some clients were upset when they lost (either temporarily 

or permanently) workers that the staffing agency had placed or referred to them because of the E-Verify 

Program. A few temporary help agencies said that they have lost clients because the clients wanted to hire 

unauthorized workers and could not do so while the temporary help agency was using E-Verify. There 

was also one temporary help agency that felt that E-Verify did not meet their needs well, stating that 

“E-Verify is not temp-friendly” and that “temp agencies cycle through in a month what other companies 

might do in a year.” 

190It appears that these agencies were verifying work authorization before placing workers with clients, either before they were hired or after they 

were hired but before they were placed. 

186 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

For employers reporting set-up and maintenance costs, neither set-up nor maintenance cost is 

significantly related to industry, employer size, region of the country, whether employer is a single 

or multiple-site company, whether verification was conducted in-house, definition of “new hire” 

used, or percentage of cases receiving TNCs in April through June 2008. 

Designated Agents have above-average set-up costs. Not surprisingly, set-up costs for Designated 

Agents ($2,500) tend to be high, in part because those Designated Agents that provide Web Services need 

to invest in developing software and having it certified by USCIS (Exhibit IX-12).191 Set-up costs for 

other types of users range from $600 to $1,800, with an average of $626 for all employers. 

Exhibit IX-12. Employer Set-Up Costs, by Type of Employer 

Designated Agent* 

User of a Designated Agent 

Staffing agency 

Other user 554 

592 

1,831 

2,476 

-0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

Set-up costs ($) 

*The difference between Designated Agents and other users was statistically significant at the .05 level.

NOTE: Two categories (employment agency and temporary help agency) were combined into the staffing agency category to

avoid small sample sizes.

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

As would be expected, employers with a large number of cases have above-average set-up and 

maintenance costs. Mean set-up costs for employers submitting 1,000 or more cases to E-Verify in 

September through November 2007 when the Web survey was conducted were $4,300 compared to $400 

to $800 for employers submitting fewer than 1,000 cases (Exhibit IX-13). The maintenance costs for 

employers with 1,000 or more cases were $14,700 compared to $1,100 to $3,000 for employers 

submitting fewer than 1,000 cases. 

191The average cost for the 11 Web Services providers in the sample was $5,100 compared to $1,600 for the 23 other Designated Agents in the 

sample. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 187 
Exhibit IX-13. Employer Set-Up and Maintenance Costs, by Number of Cases Submitted to 

E-Verify in September–November 2007 

1,000 or more * 

s

e

s 500-999 

a

c

f

o

r 100-499 e

b

m

u

N 30-99 

10-29 

1-9 602 

376 

527 

765 

796 

4,294 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 

Mean set-up costs ($) 

1,000 or more* 

s

e

s 500-999 

a

c

f

o

r 100-499 e

b

m

u

N 30-99 

10-29 

1-9 1,617 

1,262 

1,129 

1,400 

3,010 

14,691 

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 

Mean maintenance costs ($) 

*Costs differ significantly at p < 0.05. 

NOTE: Employers reporting no costs are excluded from this table. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 

Employers decided to use Designated Agents for a variety of reasons. The two reasons most 

frequently given were “wanting assistance with explaining what to do after a TNC was issued” and 

“avoiding excess paperwork.” Out of 11 employers that reported using Designated Agents, five 

switched to Designated Agents because they explain how to handle TNCs, four switched to avoid excess 

paperwork, three switched to reduce the number of electronic errors, and another three switched to reduce 

the amount of copies that need to be made (Exhibit IX-14). In addition, two switched for the purpose of 

188 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

reducing their cycle time, i.e., the time it takes from the point the worker is hired to the time the case is 

finally resolved.192 

Exhibit IX-14. User-Reported Reasons for Deciding to Use a Designated Agent 

Designated agent explains what to do next after a TNC 

Avoid excess paperwork 

Reduce the number of electronic errors 

Reduce amount of copies that need to be made 

Reduce cycle time (from hire to verify) 2 

3 

3 

4 

5 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Number of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to total number reporting because respondents could choose more than one reason. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

The most commonly reported advantage of using Designated Agents for E-Verify is that they 

provide assurance that employers are complying with Federal laws. Among employers using 

Designated Agents, 77 percent reported on the Web survey that it provides assurance that they are 

complying with Federal laws (Exhibit IX-15). Another 43 percent of users considered some Designated 

Agents’ conversion of the paper Form I-9 to an electronic version to be an advantage. In addition, 

41 percent of Users of Designated Agents reported that their use is beneficial for reducing the employer’s 

liability for not using the system correctly. In response to an open-ended question about suggestions for 

improving E-Verify, one User of Designated Agents mentioned “offering more Designated Agents for use 

by small employers. Maybe a listing available in each state for small business to pull from.” 

192Since there is no reason to think that the time it takes SSA and/or USCIS to resolve a query is dependent upon whether it was run through a 

Designated Agent or by a company, it is reasonable to believe that this statement may refer to how long it takes before a case is entered into the 

system. It is also possible that Designated Agents are more careful in entering case information from the Form I-9 and, therefore, have a lower 

rate of TNCs than regular employers. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 189 
IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


Exhibit IX-15. User-Reported Advantages of Using a Designated Agent 

7.9 

16.0 

19.7 

30.4 

36.6 

41.2 

43.1 

77.1 

Saves us the burden of acquiring an Internet connection 

We don't have to input the same information to 

E-Verify and to our own HR system 

Provides help during large seasonal hiring periods 

Provides additional reporting capabilities 

We don't need to learn how to use the E-Verify system 

Reduces our liability for not using the system correctly 

Converts paper Form I-9 to electronic version 

Provides us with assurance that we are 

complying with Federal laws 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of users 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one advantage. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Designated Agents want USCIS to do a better job of informing them of changes in advance and to 

establish better communication with them. Several Designated Agents attended the stakeholders 

meeting in November 2007, a month after the implementation of the Photo Screening Tool and EV-STAR 

for general employers. Many of the Designated Agents and Web Services providers in attendance 

complained that they were not given adequate notice of the implementation of these programs to get ready 

for the changes; furthermore, the Photo Screening Tool was not available to Designated Agents or Web 

Services employers at that time.193 They said that a one-month notice of a change is often inadequate. It 

was also clear that attendees at the stakeholder meeting were often not aware of information about 

E-Verify provided to employers through a broadcast notice on the E-Verify Web page, perhaps because 

the clerical staff that use the system and receive the broadcast messages do not necessarily know what 

needs to be communicated to their bosses or other units of the company. 

2.4. Impacts of Legislative and Program Changes on Employer Satisfaction and Costs 

2.4.1. Legislative 

Arizona employers were not less likely to be satisfied with E-Verify than employers in other states. 

The evaluation team hypothesized that employers in Arizona would be less satisfied than employers in 

other State Legislation Groups because they were mandated to use the Program, but that does not appear 

to be the case (Exhibit IX-16). Arizona employers had a score of 512 on the satisfaction scale compared 

to approximately 500 for other employers. Although this difference is not statistically significant, it is the 

opposite of what was hypothesized. 

193As of the time of this writing, Designated Agents and Web Services providers were still unable to access the Photo Screening Tool, and 

USCIS, because of privacy concerns with transferring the photographs, was unable to say whether they would ever be allowed to do so. 

190 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit IX-16. Mean Satisfaction Scale Scores, by State Legislation Group 

ArizonCau (mrreanntdlya rtoerqyu fioresr aall ell emmpploloyyeerrs)s 512 

to use E-Verify (Arizona) 

Requires some employers to Required for some types of employers 494 use E-Verify 

Does not require employers No enacted legislation/executive order 501 

to use E-Verify 

485 490 495 500 505 510 515 

Satisfaction scale 

NOTES: Satisfaction is measured using an item response theory scale score standardized to a mean of 500 and a standard 

deviation of 100. Tests of significance were done comparing the three State Legislation Groups and showed no significant 

differences at p<.05. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX

Although Arizona employers had costs that were somewhat below the average of all employers, the 

difference was not statistically significant. Employers in Arizona reported an average of $400 for set-up 

costs and $1,300 for annual maintenance costs compared to set-up costs of $700 and $1,700 for states in 

which E-Verify is not required for employers (Exhibit IX-17). States in which E-Verify is required for 

some employers, mean costs were $500 for set-up and $1,500 for maintenance. These differences were 

not statistically significant. 

Exhibit IX-17. Employer Set-Up and Maintenance Costs, by State Legislation Group 

1,265 

Mean maintenance costs 1,696 

1,374 

376 

Currently requires all employers 

Mean set-up costs 696 to use E-Verify (Arizona) 

Requires some employers 

517 to use E-Verify 

Does not require employers 

to use E-Verify 

-

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 

Costs ($) 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 191 
Exhibit IX-18. Responses of E-Verify Users to Questions Related to Satisfaction With the Photo 

Screening Tool: 2008 

MakesM itamkoesr it e likme

olyre lik thaetly weth caat

nw idee cnat

nify id penet

risfyon pse urssinongs 96.9 fraudulent dusi ocnug

m ferauntsdulent documents 

Easy to use 96.7 

Training provided by USCIS was adequate 96.7 

Adequate notice to iAmdpeqlemuaente t ntohte nice ewto ipmropcedlemuenres wtthiet nhoewut 85.6 difficpulrotycedures without difficulty

UsinUgs PinhgoPtohoTtoo oTl,oito il,s itst isll sptoill sspiboslestibole n ttoe ern Ftoer FmoI-r9m 85.5 I-9 iinnffoormrmatatiioonni innttoo t thhee sysyststeemm w wiitthhiinn 3 w 3 woorrkk day da s of hire

Is notIas nn aotd adn itaiodndailtibounralden bufordren em foprl emoyerps bloyeca ers ubseca e of

u tse o he nf teedhe 83.1 to photocneopeyd otro s pca

hno dotoccoupmy or sc ents. an documents

Would be more useful if it were available for more employees 77.4 

UUssiinng Pg Phhoottoo T Toooollrreedduuces ces ouourr rreesspoponsnsiibbililiittyy ttoo co commpparare e 42.5 employemeespto the documents they present loyees to the documents they present

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of employers agreeing 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


2.4.2. SSA and USCIS Pre-TNC Checks 

As discussed in Chapter VI, the SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks implemented in September 2007 have 

reduced erroneous TNC rates. Since notifying workers of TNCs and related tasks constitute a major part 

of the E-Verify burden for many employers, it is likely that this check has also reduced the burden of the 

Program for employers. 

2.4.3. Photo Screening Tool 

Most employers expressed considerable satisfaction with how the Photo Screening Tool was 

implemented and had no significant problems in using it. Among employers that had used the Photo 

Screening Tool (42 percent of Web survey employers), 97 percent reported that they agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement, “The training provided by USCIS for the Photo Tool was adequate” 

(Exhibit IX-18), and 86 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that “It was difficult to implement the 

Photo Tool procedures because there was inadequate notice that there would be new procedures.” 

Additionally, 97 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “The Photo Tool is easy to use.” 

Among onsite study employers interviewed, 64 out of the 69 that discussed their views on the effect of 

the Photo Screening Tool said that it improved the verification process. Furthermore, 34 of the 37 

employers that responded said that the Photo Screening Tool was effective in detecting fraudulent 

192 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

documents. Only one employer reported that the Photo Screening Tool created a new burden for 

employers. 

Though most onsite study employers had a favorable opinion of the Photo Screening Tool, many 

believed USCIS could improve it. In talking about the Photo Screening Tool, 37 employers mentioned 

improvements to it they would like to see. Several employers requested expansion of the Photo Screening 

Tool to include all documents with photographs. One employer commented that they were generally 

satisfied with the E-Verify process, though they think that “it will only be truly effective when the Photo 

Screening Tool is expanded to identify all applicants.” A few employers mentioned that they would like 

to be allowed to compare the photograph in the Photo Screening Tool to the actual employee rather than 

just comparing it to the photograph on the document, as required by E-Verify. 

The USCIS Customer Service Office reported that there were problems in how the Photo Screening 

Tool was rolled out. The E-Verify Customer Service Office reported that they received a large number of 

calls in the two days following the rollout. Some of the specific questions included Designated Agents not 

being able to use the Photo Screening Tool, people wondering why they did not have pictures for citizens, 

and employers not understanding that they need to compare the Photo Screening Tool photograph with 

the document photograph rather than with the person presenting it. The number of calls dropped 

significantly as more information was released and employers became more familiar with the Photo 

Screening Tool. 

Many employers not using the Photo Screening Tool claimed that they were not using it because 

they had never heard about it. Among the 45 percent of active employers in the Web survey not using 

the Photo Screening Tool, 44 percent indicated that they had not done so because they had never heard 

about it, 16 percent had never taken the Photo Screening Tool tutorial, and 26 percent had never had 

someone present the documents requiring its use (Exhibit IX-19). Another 10 percent reported another 

reason for not using it, such as they thought it would be burdensome, had experienced technical 

difficulties with using it, or did not have a photocopier or fax capability at the hiring site. Among the 

onsite study employers, 92 of 109 (84 percent) had used the Photo Screening Tool. The large difference in 

usage between employers that responded to the Web survey and those that provided onsite interviews is 

presumably related to the restriction of the onsite study employers to those that were large enough to have 

had four or more TNCs in a three-month period, which effectively excluded most smaller employers from 

the onsite study. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 193 
Exhibit IX-19. Employers’ Reasons for Not Using the Photo Screening Tool 

Have never heard about it 44.3 

Have never had someone present document required Have never had someone present document required ... 25.5 

to use it 

Have not taken the Photo Screening Tool tutorial 15.5 

Does not fit our business practices 8.2 

D Don't have a photocopier or fax capability on' t have a photocopier or fax capability at the... 5.3 

at the hiring site 

Thought it would be burdensome to use 4.2 

Experienced technical difficulties with using it 0.8 

Other 9.6 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Percent of employers 

NOTE: Sum does not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one response. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

IX E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE 


2.4.4. EV-STAR 

Although EV-STAR is designed to automate communication between employers and SSA, initial 

implementation procedures created some problems. The implementation of EV-STAR in October 

2007 should result in improved communication between SSA and employers in the long run, since it 

automates the communication process and makes it more similar to the USCIS process. However, initial 

confusion over the changed procedures for handling SSA TNCs discussed earlier and the extension of the 

resolution period for some workers may contribute to initial employer dissatisfaction. 

Many of the onsite study employers expressed satisfaction with EV-STAR. Out of 45 onsite study 

employers that talked about their satisfaction with EV-STAR, 30 were generally satisfied with it, saying 

that they always received automatic responses from SSA and that it required less work on the part of the 

employer. However, 15 employers were dissatisfied with EV-STAR, reporting that they did not always 

receive automatic responses about SSA TNCs. One employer stated that after the change, it took “longer 

for SSA to respond than if the employee were to return the signed form himself.” 

2.4.5. Naturalization Phase I 

As discussed in Chapter VI, Naturalization Phase I significantly reduced the erroneous TNC rate for 

foreign-born citizens without any additional effort on the employer’s part. It is, therefore, reasonable to 

assume that it has decreased employer burden related to the TNC process. 

2.4.6. Naturalization Phase II 

The evaluation did not collect data allowing an assessment of the impact of Naturalization Phase II 

on employers. It is possible that the change in procedures may create a slight burden for employers that 

are required to learn the procedures in order to explain the new process to naturalized citizens who decide 

194 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE
 IX 

to contest a TNC. On the other hand, by facilitating the process of contesting erroneous TNCs, the 

procedures might increase slightly the number of their workers who decide it is worth contesting a TNC 

at least in the short run; however, since Naturalization Phase II does not result in SSA changing its 

records, the longer term reduction may well be less unless workers independently contact SSA to resolve 

any problems with their records or if E-Verify system procedures are changed so that the information is 

sent from USCIS to SSA. There is no reason to think that any of these impacts on employers would be 

large. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 195 
CHAPTER X. E-VERIFY FROM THE 

PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 

1. BACKGROUND 

This chapter explores the impacts of E-Verify on citizens and work-authorized noncitizens. Because the 

primary goal of the Program is to prevent the employment of non-work-authorized persons, the negative 

effects of E-Verify on unauthorized members of the labor force are not discussed in this chapter; 

however, information from them about employer practices is included. 

The major issues discussed in this chapter are (1) protection of worker rights, including the right to due 

process and protection of privacy, (2) the financial and nonfinancial burdens of E-Verify for workers, and 

(3) verification-related discrimination. This section provides background information helpful in 

understanding each of these issues and in understanding the likely impact of recent programmatic changes 

on workers. The chapter also discusses the impact of recent legislative and program changes on workers. 

Analyses of the effects of E-Verify on those workers with employment authorization are based on 

information from the onsite study, the Web survey of employers, and analyses of transaction data.194 

1.1. Protection of Worker Rights 

The primary worker rights related to E-Verify are to: 

• Be notified of their rights through posting the E-Verify poster where it is clearly visible to 

workers; 

• Be notified of any Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) received; 

• Be provided an opportunity to contest any TNCs received; and 

• Have their privacy rights protected during the E-Verify process. 

1.2. Financial and Nonfinancial Burdens 

Workers at E-Verify participating employers are the most knowledgeable respondents for determining the 

extent of any burdens E-Verify places on work-authorized members of the U.S. labor force. Worker 

responses to the onsite interviews, therefore, constitute the primary source of information about worker 

experiences. The cost information provided by workers related to their E-Verify verification is subject to 

significant limitations in addition to the general data limitations discussed in Chapter II. First, workers do 

not necessarily keep cost records, resulting in their having to rely on their memories in responding to 

questions. Second, workers may not be aware of all the costs they have incurred. For example, persons 

who have not been hired because they received TNCs when an employer prescreened them using 

E-Verify may never be told why they were not hired. Because the worker onsite visits done in previous 

evaluations are not directly comparable to those in the current evaluation, there is little opportunity to 

track worker burden over time except for those measures that can be derived from the Transaction 

Database. 

194Information about these data sources is contained in Chapter II. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 196 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

1.3. Verification-Related Discrimination 

One of the important provisions in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explored in this chapter is 

that employers should not discriminate “unlawfully against any individual in hiring, firing, or recruitment 

practices because of his or her national origin, or in the case of an individual protected by law...because 

of his or her citizenship status.” However, this provision does not impose new restrictions on E-Verify 

employers; it simply reiterates laws applicable to both E-Verify and non-E-Verify employers. This 

chapter focuses on the issue of whether E-Verify has had an impact on the level of discrimination against 

work-authorized foreign-born workers. 

Employment discrimination can occur at all stages and in all aspects of employment, including 

recruitment, hiring, placement, compensation, training, evaluation, disciplinary action, treatment on the 

job, and dismissal. Since the E-Verify procedures primarily affect recruitment, hiring, and the initial posthiring period, this section of the report discusses the effect of the E-Verify Program during these initial 

employment and pre-employment stages. Discrimination can be intentional or unintentional. In both 

types of discrimination, members of a protected group are treated less favorably than others. Intentional 

discrimination occurs if the employer knowingly treats members of the protected group less favorably 

than members of other groups (e.g., by refusing to hire anyone who is foreign born). Unintentional 

employment discrimination occurs if the unfavorable treatment results without the employer realizing that 

his actions may harm members of the protected group (e.g., since foreign-born workers are more likely to 

receive TNCs than are U.S.-born workers, not hiring anyone who receives a TNC constitutes 

unintentional discrimination). 

This report discusses differences in the impacts of the E-Verify Program on work-authorized foreign-born 

workers and U.S.-born workers. The implicit assumption is that foreign-born workers are more likely than 

U.S.-born workers to be subject to discrimination based on one or more of the following characteristics 

that might lead employers to question whether the workers have employment authorization: citizenship, 

ethnic identity, spoken accent, and surname. This does not mean that all workers within the foreign-born 

category have traits that would lead employers to characterize them as belonging to one or more of the 

protected groups. It also does not mean that all U.S.-born workers are excluded from the protected groups. 

However, it is likely that there is a strong correlation between place of birth and being in one of the 

protected groups of interest. The evaluation team uses this approach because it is easier to measure 

whether the worker was of U.S. or foreign birth than to determine whether the worker has any of the other 

indicated characteristics. 

One goal of automated employment verification, as envisioned by the framers of the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), was to reduce discrimination introduced by 

the Form I-9 verification process; however, there has not been consensus among stakeholders about the 

potential impact of the electronic employment programs on discrimination. The General Accountability 

Office (GAO—then known as the General Accounting Office) and others had reported that the 

employment verification procedures specified by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 led to 

an increase in discrimination, in large part because employers were unsure of their ability to correctly 

identify individuals without work authorization.195 In this situation, some employers found it easier not to 

recruit and hire noncitizens and/or individuals who appeared to be foreign born. From this perspective, 

giving employers a better employment verification tool should make them more comfortable with their 

ability to verify workers’ employment eligibility and, therefore, make them more likely to recruit and hire 

individuals who appear to be foreign born. 

195General Accounting Office, 1990a. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 197 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


A solid understanding of the impact of E-Verify on employers’ willingness to hire foreign-born 

individuals would require a carefully controlled experiment using testers or resumes during the hiring 

process. To date, such an approach has not been considered feasible in the electronic employment 

verification program evaluations, for political and practical reasons. It is, therefore, necessary to rely upon 

employer self-reported behavior for information about this key question. 

Advocates for foreign-born workers’ rights have pointed out that the degree of harm engendered by 

electronic employment verification could be considerable, even if employers completely follow the 

procedures designed to protect worker rights. They contend that work-authorized individuals born outside 

of the United States are more likely than U.S.-born workers to need to straighten out their Social Security 

Administration (SSA) and/or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records, which could 

result in missed time at work or other inconveniences. Further, some employment-authorized foreign-born 

workers may be more likely to quit their jobs rather than contact USCIS because they are afraid that such 

contact could create immigration problems for them or a family member, or because they believe it is 

easier to find another job elsewhere than to contest their cases with SSA or USCIS. Even greater harm to 

authorized workers is likely when employers fail to follow the E-Verify procedures designed to protect 

their rights. For example, employers may fail to hire or may fire someone who receives a TNC without 

providing an opportunity to contest the finding. 

The impact of discrimination against foreign-born workers after hiring is a function of the burden on 

workers of receiving a TNC as well as the differences in likelihood of receiving an erroneous TNC 

between foreign-born persons authorized to work and workers born in the United States. The smaller the 

burden of resolving a TNC is, and the lower the erroneous TNC rate is, the less the resulting 

discrimination will be.196 

Ideally, the evaluation would compare work-authorized noncitizens, foreign-born citizens, and U.S.-born 

workers by calculating the percentage of each group receiving TNCs. However, there is not an easy way 

to determine which workers are, in fact, authorized to work since some unauthorized workers appear to be 

work authorized by presenting valid documents or documents with valid information about employmentauthorized workers. This report, therefore, uses the erroneous TNC rate (i.e., the number of TNCs 

received by workers determined to be work authorized at some point in the verification process) as an 

imperfect indicator of the “true” rates for each of these groups, even though, as discussed in Chapter II, 

this rate underestimates the rates that would be obtained if the true work-authorization status were known 

for these workers. 

1.4. Potential Impacts of Recent Program Changes 

Recent program changes in E-Verify that, along with legislative changes, could potentially affect worker 

rights, the burdens and costs of the Program to persons with work authorization, and discrimination 

include: 

• The Photo Screening Tool (September 2007); 

• The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks (September 2007); 

• EV-STAR (October 2007): 

196This chapter focuses on differences between protected groups and U.S.-born individuals. This information is closely related to general 

information on accuracy discussed in Chapter VI. 

198 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

• Naturalization Phase I (May 2008); and 

• Naturalization Phase II (May 2008). 

2. FINDINGS 

2.1. General Findings 

2.1.1. Protection of Worker Rights 

Employers did not always notify job applicants of their participation in E-Verify. As discussed in 

Chapter VIII, the site visits revealed that many of the onsite study employers had not posted the notice of 

participation in E-Verify in a prominent place where job applicants could be expected to see it. Although 

some employers used alternate means of informing their workers of their participation in E-Verify or 

placed the notice where some workers could see it, a large number of workers reported being unaware of 

the employer’s use of E-Verify. Of the 396 workers who commented on whether they were aware of the 

employer’s use of E-Verify, 298 stated that they were unaware the employer was using a program to 

verify their work authorization prior to their job interview (or job application if there was no interview). 

These 298 workers represented 79 unique employers (34 employers had no workers who reported being 

aware of the Program and 45 employers had some workers who reported being aware and others who 

reported being unaware). 

The result of noncompliance with the E-Verify requirement to inform workers of TNCs is that 

some workers are denied their due process rights. As discussed in Chapter VIII, 2 percent of 

employers in the Web survey reported that they do not always tell their employees about TNCs (Exhibit 

X-1). Similarly, only 4 of the 100 onsite study employers who commented on their notification 

procedures reported that they did not always notify employees of TNCs. However, of the 96 employers 

who said they always notified employees of TNCs, 41 had one or more workers who said that they had 

not been notified of a problem with their work documents (although 24 of these employers said that 

employees sometimes quit before the employer is able to notify them). Overall, out of the 403 workers 

who commented on whether they were notified of a TNC, 170 said they were not notified by their 

employer. The result of these employer practices is the denial of their workers’ right to contest the 

findings.197 

197Among the 93 employees receiving FNCs for whom we have information on whether the employee was still working for the employer, 44 

were still working for the employers. There are three plausible reasons for this occurring: (1) the employee was not notified because the 

employer corrected a typographical error without informing the employee and the employer did not correctly close the original case as an 

invalid query; (2) as noted elsewhere, a small number of employers do not terminate the employee’s work as required when the employee 

receives an FNC, and in this situation, the employer may feel there is little reason for informing the employee; and (3) the employee was 

properly notified but did not remember being informed. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 199 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


Exhibit X-1. Percent of Web Survey Employers, by Whether They Report Informing Employees of 

TNCs 

97.9% 

Always informs 

0.8% 

Never informs 

0.4% 

Often does not inform 

0.9% 

Sometimes does not 

inform 

NOTE: Worker-reported and record review information indicates that employers underreport noncompliance with this 

requirement. 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Many of the materials produced by SSA and USCIS for workers do not currently take into account 

the reading abilities of many TNC recipients, potentially limiting these workers’ ability to obtain 

their due process rights. The only language besides English used in producing E-Verify materials for 

workers at the time the report was written was Spanish. Furthermore, the high literacy level of the 

documents limits understanding by persons with fairly limited reading and/or language skills.198 Of the 

126 workers that commented on their understanding of the TNC notice, 26 reported that they did not 

understand the content. Among these 26 workers, 10 specified that the terminology in the notice was too 

difficult to understand, and seven said that they did not understand the notice because it was not in the 

language they primarily spoke (six of them specified Spanish as their primary language, meaning that 

their employers were not using the Spanish TNC notice that is provided by the system). Of the 72 workers 

that reported on their understanding of the referral letter, five said that they did not understand the 

content. SSA reports that they have revised these letters within the past year, but that as the processes 

have become more complicated, so have the referral letters. 

Sixty-two onsite study employers volunteered the information that they always provided the TNC notice 

in the applicant’s language, and 48 employers said that they always provided the referral letter in the 

applicant’s language. However, 14 employers sometimes or never provided the TNC letter in the worker’s 

language, and five employers sometimes or never provided the referral letter in the worker’s language. 

This lack of clear communication may result in many workers not understanding their due process rights. 

USCIS and SSA are aware of this problem and are working on lowering the reading level of the letters 

and providing the letters in more languages. 

There is little increased risk of misuse of E-Verify information by Federal workers and contractors 

or external “hackers.” Use of E-Verify increases the risk of improper disclosure or use at the Federal 

level only to the extent that it increases the number of SSA and USCIS workers and contractors that have 

access to systems information containing personally identifiable information. The security procedures that 

SSA and USCIS use to protect all of their databases continue to be in effect when their personnel and 

198See Appendices K and L for copies of notices in use at the time of this report. 

200 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

contractors use E-Verify data. These security procedures limit access and safeguard worker and employer 

information provided by E-Verify users.199 More specifically: 

• Federal privacy procedures. Federal government safeguards protect access to SSA and 

USCIS databases by limiting their use to authorized SSA and USCIS personnel and contractors 

and further limiting how they can use the information. In addition, the Federal government 

processes queries only for employers that have signed an MOU. These employers are identified 

through establishment access and user identification codes. 

• Passwords. Each person using the system is expected to have an individual user identification 

number and password. The passwords must be changed every 45 days. The employer is 

required to notify USCIS and remove old user identification numbers and passwords from the 

system when program users leave employment or no longer perform verifications as part of 

their job responsibilities. 

One weakness of the system from a privacy perspective is that someone wishing to access it may 

pose as an employer and obtain access by signing an MOU. There are no safeguards in place to 

prevent this misuse by alleged employers; however, USCIS and SSA are exploring ways to implement 

such safeguards as the system expands. One possibility, under discussion, would be to validate the 

authenticity of Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) against an official list of such numbers; however, 

given the ease with which an EIN can be obtained, it is not clear that this action would provide sufficient 

insurance against the use of E-Verify by unauthorized users to warrant the expense of creating and 

operating such a system. 

A second potential weakness is that persons who are not authorized E-Verify users may use the 

system without the employer’s consent. Determining whether the registered users are, in fact, employed 

by the registered employer with a specific EIN and should have access to E-Verify would be even more 

difficult, given that Federal databases with information about the employer’s staff are not available for 

use. The alternative of writing employers and having them provide written authentication of approved 

users as is done in SSA’s Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) would be costly and 

time-consuming. 

A third potential privacy-related weakness of E-Verify is that authorized users may use it for 

purposes other than employment eligibility verification; however, no evidence has been found that 

this is happening. E-Verify is designed for use only when verifying whether workers are authorized to 

work in the United States. However, it could, at least in theory, be used for other purposes, such as 

providing input into whether a mortgage or credit applicant is likely to be a poor credit risk. Since 

mortgage and credit companies are employers, they have the right to access the system; however, they do 

not have the right to use it in processing mortgage or credit applications. The Transaction Database 

includes transactions from nine employers (less than 0.1 percent) out of a total of 38,000 employers 

nationally in the industries of commercial banking, credit card issuing, consumer lending, real estate 

credit, and mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers, which represent 2 percent of employers nationally. 

These employers submitted 2,267 cases to E-Verify from June 2004 to June 2008. This does not confirm 

misuse of E-Verify by companies engaged in this type of work. Furthermore, there have not been any 

reported violations by registered employers either in the E-Verify Program or in the SSNVS program, 

199As is clear from cases in which Federal databases have been stolen, Federal safeguards are not always adequate to ensure privacy and the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded by increasing their security procedures surrounding data use. Furthermore, given that 

the data in the databases used by E-Verify are already available in other SSA and DHS databases, it is unlikely that the Program substantially 

increases the likelihood of misuse of the system by Federal workers and contractors. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 201 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


which provides employers with an opportunity to verify that workers’ names and Social Security numbers 

(SSNs) match SSA records. 

Employers did not consistently convey information about E-Verify TNCs in a private setting. 

Employers may violate workers’ privacy by not being discreet in discussing verification problems with 

their employees. Almost all employers (94 percent of 2006 Web survey employers and 91 percent of 2008 

Web survey employers) reported that they always inform employees of TNC findings in private 

(Exhibit X-2). Of the 81 onsite study employers who commented on privacy, 76 said that they notify 

their employees in private. Two employers sometimes notified employees in private and three employers 

never notified employees in private; these employers reported notifying employees in the reception/lobby 

area or in an open area with several desks. Among the 76 employers who said that they notified 

employees in private, 21 had one or more workers who reported being notified in an area that was not 

private. Of the 140 workers who commented on whether they were notified of the TNC in private, 107 

reported that they had been notified in private. It should be noted that the need to discuss verification 

issues in private has not been specified in any employer training materials, making it more likely that 

employers would not be aware of the need to follow this procedure. 

Exhibit X-2. Percent of Web Survey Employers, by How Often They Report Informing Employees 

of TNCs Privately 

90.7 Always 94.3 

3.9 Often 2.9 

2008 

3.7 2006 Sometimes 1.7 

1.7 Never 1.1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey. 

2.1.2. Financial and Nonfinancial Burdens 

Employer noncompliance with E-Verify procedures has cost and burden implications for some U.S. 

citizens and work-authorized noncitizens. Types of noncompliance that have cost implications for 

workers include firing or not hiring workers receiving TNCs, delaying hiring of workers until they resolve 

their TNCs, restricting work assignments, denying or delaying workers’ training, and reducing 

employees’ pay during the contesting period. As discussed in Chapter VIII, employers typically report 

that they comply with E-Verify procedures designed to protect worker rights; however, information from 

the record reviews and onsite worker interviews indicate that employers may be significantly 

underreporting noncompliant behavior. For example, 98 percent of employers reported in the Web survey 

that they use E-Verify only for new employees. However, information from the record reviews indicated 

that approximately 26 of the 108 onsite study employers had submitted information for at least one job 

applicant to E-Verify and a sizable number of workers interviewed in the onsite interviews said that they 

had been job applicants at the time their work authorization was determined through E-Verify (of the 257 

202 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

workers who reported being sure of their status at the time their work authorization status was 

determined, 114 said that they had been job applicants). Furthermore, failure to enter information into 

E-Verify carefully or the improper use of the Photo Screening Tool, such as comparing the photograph 

returned by E-Verify to the person instead of to the document, may increase the chances of a worker 

receiving an erroneous TNC, thereby potentially increasing workers’ burden. 

Many interviewed workers who resolved TNCs reported minimal financial costs associated with 

resolving the TNC finding; however, some workers reported costs of $50 or more. Of the 115 

workers who reported information about costs, 47 reported that there were no costs to contesting the 

TNC, 28 workers spent $50 or less, and 25 workers spent more than $50 (Exhibit X-3). Another 15 

workers were not specific about the total amount of costs to resolve the TNC. The costs for workers 

reporting at least some costs ranged from $1 (for a worker who had to pay for parking outside of an SSA 

office) to $6,700 (for a worker who lost almost seven months of work and had to pay legal fees to get his 

paperwork corrected). It should also be noted that the worker responses to this question may 

underestimate the actual costs because in many cases of noncompliance, the worker is unaware of the 

employer’s practice; for example, workers may be unaware of not being hired or having a delayed start 

date because of a TNC. Workers may also be unable to estimate the financial costs of such practices. On 

the other hand, some workers may be reporting expenses for getting an extension of their employment 

authorization documents as part of E-Verify expenses. This finding suggests there are negative 

consequences for at least some workers receiving TNCs, thus potentially contributing to a discriminatory 

impact since foreign-born workers are considerably more likely to receive TNCs than are U.S.-born 

workers. 

Exhibit X-3. Total Cost to Workers to Resolve TNCs 

$1,000 or more 2 

$500-1000 1 

$250-499 6 

$101-249 6 

$51-100 10 

$1-50 28 

No costs 47 

Unclear amount 15 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Number of workers 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Workers. 

The types of costs reported by workers included: 

• Lost wages, mostly due to taking time off to contest the TNC, reported by 29 workers; 

• Transportation costs, usually $10 or less, reported by 45 workers; 

• Babysitting costs between $5 and $10, reported by one worker; and 

• Paperwork or other costs, reported by seven workers. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 203 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


In addition, 99 workers reported information about lost work (Exhibit X-4). Of these workers, 50 reported 

that they lost no days at work and 49 reported that they lost partial or complete days at work in order to 

resolve their TNC. Most of the 49 workers who reported lost work lost one day or less.200 

Exhibit X-4. Days of Work Lost in Order to Resolve TNCs 

More than a week 

4-5 days 

2-3 days 

Half to a full day 

Less than a half day 

None 

Unclear number of days 1 

50 

15 

19 

7 

3 

4 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Number of workers 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Workers. 

In addition to financial costs attributable to E-Verify procedures, some workers reported 

nonfinancial burdens. Examples of nonfinancial burdens for workers include training delays and being 

given less desirable assignments. Of the 161 workers that reported on adverse actions, 102 workers 

reported that no adverse actions were taken against them by employers as a result of their TNCs, while 59 

workers reported that adverse actions were taken against them. Workers who had no adverse actions taken 

against them were allowed to keep working while they contested the TNC, their wages remained the 

same, and they received the same work assignments. Workers who had adverse actions taken against 

them reported not being hired by the employer, not being allowed to work while contesting the TNC, and 

experiencing a delay in training for the job201 (Exhibit X-5). 

200If the worker reported wages lost from lost work, the cost of lost wages is included in the above estimates for the total cost of contesting a 

TNC. 

201Of the 14 workers who reported the adverse action of not being hired by the employer, eight had applied at employment services/temporary 

agency. 

204 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 

Exhibit X-5. Types of Adverse Action Reported by Workers 

Not allowed to work while contesting 36 

Not hired 14 

Training delayed 8 

Terminated from job 4 

Not paid for work already completed 3 

Other adverse action 6 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Number of workers 

NOTE: Workers could report more than one type of adverse action. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Workers. 

X 

Workers experienced a variety of emotions, ranging from no reaction to being angry or scared 

upon being notified of TNCs. Of the 181 workers who commented on their reaction to receiving a TNC, 

50 workers had no reaction to it; most of these workers reported that they either knew the problem could 

be resolved easily or already knew they were not authorized to work and/or had had similar experiences at 

other companies (Exhibit X-6). Of the remaining 131 workers, 54 reported that they were scared, nervous, 

or tense, and 29 workers were angry, irritated, or annoyed. Other reactions included being hesitant to 

contact either SSA or USCIS, feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable at work, and being confused. 

Exhibit X-6. Workers’ Reactions to Receiving TNCs 

Scared, nervous, or tense 54 

No reaction 50 

Angry, irritated, or annoyed 29 

Concerned 17 

Hesitant to go to SSA or call USCIS 17 

Felt bad 15 

Embarrassed 11 

Confused 10 

Surprised, shocked 10 

Felt uncomfortable at work 8 

Other reaction 12 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Number of workers 

NOTE: Workers could be included in more than one category. 

SOURCE: Onsite Interviews of Workers. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 205 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


2.2. Discrimination 

2.2.1. Willingness to Hire Foreign-Born Workers 

Most users reported that E-Verify made them neither more nor less willing to hire foreign-born 

workers. However, when change was reported, it was almost always in the direction of making 

employers more willing to hire foreign-born workers. Approximately 81 percent of E-Verify users in 

2008 reported that using E-Verify neither increased nor decreased their willingness to hire foreign-born 

workers (Exhibit X-7). Others said that the use of E-Verify is a change in process, not a change in hiring 

practices, and another 17 percent said that E-Verify makes the establishment more willing to hire foreignborn workers. Only 2 percent of E-Verify users reported a decreased willingness to hire foreign-born 

workers.202 These results are similar to what was reported in the Web survey in 2006, where the 

corresponding percents were 73, 22, and 5 percent. 

Exhibit X-7. Employers’ Willingness to Hire Foreign-Born Workers 

72.8 

22.3 

4.9 

80.8 

16.8 

2.4 

Neither 

More willing 

Less willing 

2008 

2006 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

Percent of employers 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

Since considerably more employers indicated an increased willingness to hire foreign-born workers than 

indicated a decreased willingness to hire such workers, it is reasonable to conclude that the net effect of 

the change is an increase in employers’ willingness to hire foreign-born workers. This conclusion is 

consistent with the GAO premise that a better employment verification system is likely to make 

employers more comfortable in hiring foreign-born workers. 

2.2.2. Erroneous TNC Rates 

2.2.2.1. Noncitizens Compared to Citizens 

There are two sources of information about the citizenship status of workers having cases submitted to 

E-Verify: 

• The citizenship status that the worker attests to on the Form I-9; and 

202Respondents indicating that they didn’t know (12 percent of all respondents) were excluded from these calculations. 

206 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
203See Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation, September 2007 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf) for a 

more detailed discussion of how the changed procedures for submitting cases for workers attesting to being noncitizens in October 2005 

affected the error rates. 

Exhibit X-8. Trends in Erroneous TNC Rates, by Form I-9 Citizenship Status: July 2004–June 2008 

Percent 3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.6 

2.2 

0.8 0.8 0.7 

1.8 

1.9 1.9 

0.8 0.7 

1.8 

2.6 

0.6 0.6 

2.9 2.9 

0.6 0.6 

2.2 

2.0 

0.6 0.6 

2.3 

2.0 

0.6 

2.1 

0.5 0.6 

0.3 

1.5 

1.7 

2.1 

Citizen 

Noncitizen 

Jul

y-Sept FY 

2004 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

FY 2005 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

FY 2006 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

FY 2007 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

FY 2008 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

• The citizenship status in the SSA database as of the last time E-Verify was queried. 

As discussed in Chapter II, both of these sources have limitations; this report, therefore, examines 

information from both sources. 

Workers attesting to U.S. citizenship status on the Form I-9 are much less likely to receive 

erroneous TNCs than are workers attesting to being noncitizens. Not surprisingly, there are large 

differences between the erroneous TNC rates by Form I-9 citizenship status (Exhibit X-8). In April 

through June 2008, 0.3 percent of workers attesting to being U.S. citizens who were found to be work 

authorized had received a TNC prior to being found work authorized compared to 2.1 percent of 

noncitizens who were later found to be work authorized. Thus, the erroneous TNC rate for workers 

attesting to being noncitizens was approximately seven times the rate for citizens. 

At least some of the difference in the erroneous TNC rates between those attesting to being citizens 

and noncitizens occurs because noncitizens have their information verified against both the SSA 

and USCIS databases. Noncitizens have two opportunities to receive TNCs—one based on the SSA 

check whether the Form I-9 SSN is consistent with its information on name and date of birth and the other 

based on the USCIS check comparing the Form I-9 information for A-number against its information on 

name and date of birth, as well as its information on work authorization.203 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 207 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


The erroneous TNC rate for workers attesting on their Form I-9s to having temporary 

authorization to work was considerably higher than the rate for either lawful permanent residents 

or U.S. citizens. In April through June 2008, the erroneous TNC rate for newly hired employees was 0.3 

for employees attesting to being U.S. citizens compared to 1.0 for lawful permanent residents and 5.3 for 

those indicating that they were “other aliens authorized to work” (Exhibit X-9). Similar differences were 

found throughout the time periods examined. 

Percent 

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Ja

n-Mar

Exhibit X-9. Trends in Erroneous TNC Rates, by Form I-9 Work Status: July 2004–June 2008 Apr-June

9 

Citizens 

Jul

y-Sept

7.7 8 Lawful Permanent Residents 7.6 Oct-Dec

Aliens Authorized to Work 7 

6.2 

Ja

n-Mar

5.7 6 5.5 5.3 

5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 

5 

Apr-June

4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 

4 

Jul

y-Sept

3.4 3 Oct-Dec

1.7 2 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 Ja

n-Mar

1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 

1 

Apr-June

0.3 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0 Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Ja

n-Mar

2004 

Apr-June 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

The gap between the citizen and noncitizen erroneous TNC rates has not exhibited a clear upward 

or downward trend. As seen in Exhibit X-10, the gap in erroneous TNC rates has fluctuated over time, 

from a low of 1.0 to a high of 2.3 percentage points. However, there is not an overall trend. For example, 

in July through September 2004, the gap was 1.6 percentage points—approximately the same as in July 

through September 2007 (1.5). 

208 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS X 

Exhibit X-10. Trend in Gap in Erroneous TNC Rates Between Workers Attesting to Be Citizens 

Percent 

and Noncitizens: July 2004–June 2008 

3.0 

July-Sept

2.3 2.3 2.5 Oct-Dec

1.9 2.0 

1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 

1.5 

JanMar 1.1 1.2 1.0 

1.0 

Apr-June

1.1 1.0 1.2 

0.5 

July-Sept

0.0 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Apr-June

2004 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

The conclusions about differences between citizens and noncitizens based on SSA data are generally 

similar to those based on Form I-9 data for the same time period. Both sets of data indicate that 

noncitizens have substantially higher erroneous TNC rates than citizens (Exhibit X-11) and that the 

fluctuation in the gap between citizens and noncitizens makes it difficult to detect a long-term trend in the 

gap. 

Percent 

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept 

Exhibit X-11. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates, by SSA Citizenship Status: January 2006–June 2008 Oct-Dec

4.0 

Citizen 3.5 

2.9 3.0 Noncitizen JanMar

3.0 

2.5 

Apr-June 

2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.7 

1.5 1.0 

0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.0 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and special tabulations from SSA. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 209 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


2.2.2.2. All Foreign-Born Compared to U.S.-Born Workers 

As anticipated by foreign-born rights advocates, employment-authorized foreign-born workers are 

more likely than U.S.-born workers to receive TNCs, thereby subjecting a greater percentage of 

work-authorized foreign-born workers to potential adverse actions arising from the E-Verify 

process. Essentially all of the U.S.-born workers (99.9 percent) found to be authorized by E-Verify 

between April and June 2008 were verified without a TNC. For all foreign-born workers, the comparable 

rate was 97.6 percent. As shown in Exhibit X-12, the corresponding erroneous TNC rate for workers who 

were eventually found to be work authorized was approximately 20 times higher for foreign-born workers 

than for U.S.-born workers (2.6 percent versus 0.1) in April through June 2008. One likely reason for the 

higher rates for foreign-born workers, in addition to those noted above for noncitizens, is that employers 

are more likely to make mistakes when entering foreign-sounding names than in entering names with 

which they may be more familiar, causing more nonmatches during the verification process for foreignborn workers. Additionally, despite instructions to the contrary, many foreign-born workers may list their 

date of birth in day-month order, resulting in nonmatches on that variable. 

Exhibit X-12. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Workers: 

January 2006–June 2008 

6.0 

Percent 5.5 

5.0 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

4.3 4.2 

3.7 3.7 

4.2 4.3 

3.8 

3.3 

3.8 

2.6 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-June 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

All foreign born 

U.S. born 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and special tabulation provided by SSA. 

The U.S.-born and foreign-born gap in the erroneous TNC rate for workers has decreased over 

time. The gap in erroneous TNC rates for ever-authorized U.S.-born and foreign-born workers has been 

reduced from 4.1 percentage points in January through March 2006 to 2.4 percentage points in April to 

June 2008.

204 

204See Section 2.3.5 of this chapter for a discussion of the likely cause of this drop. 

210 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 

2.2.2.3. Foreign-Born Citizens and Noncitizens 

The gap in the erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born workers who are now U.S. citizens and 

X 

noncitizens is dramatically lower than in the past. The percentage of foreign-born citizens receiving 

TNCs was 3.2 percent in April through June 2008, 1.1 percentage points higher than the 2.1 percent 

erroneous TNC rate for noncitizens (Exhibit X-13). This is lower than the gaps for the preceding months, 

which ranged from 3.9 to 7.6 percentage points. As discussed in Chapter VI, a significant part of this 

change can be attributed to the Naturalization Phase I changes implemented in May 2008, which check 

Form I-9 information for those workers attesting to being citizens against USCIS databases on naturalized 

citizens when SSA cannot confirm that the workers are employment authorized. If the erroneous TNC 

rates had been based on post-Naturalization Phase I data only, the rates of foreign-born citizens and 

noncitizens would have been even closer. 

Percent 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

Jul-Sept

Exhibit X-13. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for Foreign-Born Citizens and Noncitizens: Oct-Dec

January 2006–June 2008 

12 

Foreign-born citizen 9.9 Jan-Mar

Noncitizen 10 

8.2 

7.1 

8 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.6 Apr-June

6.2 

6 

4 2.9 3.0 2.2 

Jul-Sept

2.3 3.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.7 

2 

2.1 

Oct-Dec

0 

Jan-Mar

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and SSA data on birth/citizenship status. 

Apr-June 

2.2.2.4. U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Citizens 

Foreign-born citizens are much more likely than U.S.-born workers to receive erroneous TNCs; 

however, this gap has declined substantially recently. In April through June 2008, 3.2 percent of everauthorized foreign-born citizens received TNCs prior to being found work authorized compared to 

0.1 percent of ever-authorized U.S.-born workers—a gap of 3.1 percentage points (Exhibit X-14). This 

gap is much smaller than the prior gaps, which ranged from 6.1 to 9.7 percentage points. Again, the April 

through June 2008 gap would have been even smaller if Naturalization Phase I had been implemented at 

the beginning of the quarter instead of on May 5. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 211 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


Exhibit X-14. Trend in Erroneous TNC Rates for U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Citizens: 

January 2006–June 2008 

Percent 12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 

7.1 

6.8 6.8 6.6 

9.9 

8.2 

6.8 6.2 

7.0 

3.2 

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

U.S.-born citizens 

Foreign-born citizens 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database and SSA data on birth/citizenship status. 

The discrepancy in the erroneous TNC rates of native-born and foreign-born citizens is 

attributable, at least in part, to differences in the way that the USCIS and SSA databases are 

structured. The E-Verify system check against the SSA database indicates whether the worker is shown 

as a U.S. citizen on SSA’s records. The citizenship data in SSA’s records are dependent on whether 

workers report changes in citizenship status to the agency. However, it is not necessarily expected that 

people will update their SSA records when their citizenship status changes, and USCIS does not 

automatically provide SSA with information about naturalization. SSA may, therefore, not have the 

updated information needed to verify the work-authorization status of some foreign-born citizens. Until 

the institution of the Naturalization Phase I changes in early May 2008, SSA issued a TNC when this 

occurred. Currently, if the submitted SSN, name, and date of birth are consistent with SSA records but 

SSA does not have up-to-date information permitting them to determine whether a worker attesting to 

being a U.S. citizen is employment authorized, the case is electronically forwarded to USCIS for 

comparison with databases of persons naturalized beginning in the mid-1990s for determination of 

whether they are naturalized citizens. However, because U.S. citizens provide only their SSNs in the 

Form I-9 process and USCIS tracks by A-number, which is not available for these cases, USCIS must rely 

on matching on the SSN when available in USCIS records, and otherwise by name and date of birth.205 

Although this permits USCIS to confirm that many workers have naturalized, such confirmation is not 

always possible. 

Even in the absence of further program changes, the erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens 

will decrease over time. USCIS does not have searchable electronic information on most persons 

naturalized before the mid-1990s, but they now capture naturalization data, including SSN, electronically 

205When the SSN is lacking for naturalized citizens, their USCIS records can be accessed only by A-number; however, former A-numbers are not 

requested from naturalized U.S. citizens on the Form I-9, which is the basis for the information used in electronic verification. This practice 

reflects a policy decision made when E-Verify was first designed to treat all citizens equally and not to reveal to employers which U.S. citizens 

are naturalized and which are native born. Furthermore, there is no requirement or expectation that naturalized citizens should know their 

former A-number. 

212 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

for all cases. As existing workers retire and are replaced by workers who have more recently become 

citizens and as foreign-born U.S. citizen workers update their SSA records as a part of E-Verify or other 

programs, more SSA records will reflect the correct citizenship status and the erroneous TNC rate for 

naturalized citizens will decline. However, this process will take considerable time. 

In the absence of further changes to USCIS and E-Verify procedures, the erroneous TNC rate for 

persons who derived citizenship status when one or both of their parents were naturalized will not 

decline. Certificates of citizenship are not requested and issued for most children who derive citizenship 

status when one or both of their parents become naturalized citizens,206 resulting in USCIS having no 

documentation of their citizenship status. Even when a certificate is issued, USCIS does not electronically 

record the issuance in any system that could be used to verify their U.S. citizenship status. At the time the 

report was being written, USCIS was working with other DHS components and the Department of State 

to institute a check of U.S. passport information to permit E-Verify to confirm the citizenship status of 

persons who derived citizenship if they present a U.S. passport in the I-9 process. However, USCIS 

currently has no plans to update its electronic records based on hardcopy documentation for persons who 

derived citizenship in the past, nor have plans been made to routinely collect and enter this information 

into a USCIS database for additional children who derive U.S. citizenship. 

2.2.3. Case Processing Timeliness 

Although the erroneous TNC rate is the most obvious factor to consider in understanding the likely 

impact of E-Verify on discrimination, unintentional discrimination can also occur because of differences 

in the time it takes to process TNC cases. Since employers do not always comply with the E-Verify 

requirements not to take adverse actions while workers are contesting TNCs, any differences in 

processing times may contribute to unintentional discrimination. Because SSA could not provide the 

necessary individual data to compare foreign-born and U.S.-born citizens for the evaluation because of 

privacy restrictions, this section is restricted to examining timeliness by Form I-9 citizenship status. 

The time between case initiation and final case resolution is significantly longer for noncitizens than 

citizens. In April through June 2008, the mean time for case resolution was 0.2 days for workers attesting 

to being citizens and 2.3 days for workers attesting to being work-authorized noncitizens (Exhibit X-15). 

The gap in time from initiation date through final resolution date between citizens and noncitizens 

has declined slightly over time. In April through June 2008, the gap in time from initiated date to final 

resolution date was 2.1 days (0.2 days for citizens and 2.3 days for noncitizens) compared to 2.3 days in 

October through December 2004 (0.5 days for citizens and 2.8 days for noncitizens). 

206 The “certificate of citizenship” is a separate and optional application that requires paying a fee. It is, therefore, common for new citizens not 

to request such certificates for their children who have derived citizenship. It is also common for persons with derived citizenship or their 

parents to apply for U.S. passports, which are cheaper and usually faster to receive than certificates of citizenship. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 213 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 
 Nu

m

ber of days 

Exhibit X-15. Trend in the Number of Days Between Case Initiation and Final Case Resolution, 

by Citizenship Status: October 2004–June 2008 

4.0 

Oct-Dec

Citizen 

3.5 Noncitizen 3.1 

2.8 2.8 

3.0 

Jan-Mar

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 

2.5 2.2 2.2 Apr-June

2.0 

1.5 

July-Sept

1.0 

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Oct-Dec

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

0.0 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 July-Sept

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

The major reason that case processing for those attesting to being noncitizens takes longer on 

average than for citizens is that noncitizens are less likely than citizens to be verified instantly as 

work authorized. Approximately 98 percent of citizens were instantly verified as work authorized 

compared to 69 percent of noncitizens in April through June 2008 (Exhibit X-16). This difference is 

attributable to several factors, the most important of which is that workers attesting to being noncitizens 

are less likely to be found employment authorized initially than are workers attesting to being citizens. 

Another contributing factor is the nature of the databases checked by SSA and USCIS. Because 

noncitizens are much more likely to change citizenship (and immigration) status than are citizens, it is 

much more difficult to keep information up to date in DHS files. It should also be noted that noncitizens 

must be immediately verified as work authorized by both SSA and DHS checks to be classified as 

instantly verified, providing increased opportunity for not being instantly verified. 

214 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit X-16. Trends in the Percent of Cases Verified Instantly as Work Authorized, by Attested 

Percent

Citizenship Status: October 2004–June 2008 

100 

Oct-Dec

97.7 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.4 95.9 95.8 96.5 96.4 96.4 96.6 97.0 97.0 97.2 97.3 

80 

JanMar

74.5 71.9 72.8 73.5 69.4 60 66.3 66.2 67.6 68.0 67.9 66.6 67.3 68.6 66.5 63.4 Apr-June

40 

Citizen 

July-Sept

Noncitizen 20 Oct-Dec

0 

JanMar

Apr-June

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 July-Sept

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

JanMar

Apr-June 

E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

For workers who contest TNCs, the number of days between case initiation and final resolution for 

citizens is longer than for noncitizens; SSA Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) cases are also longer for 

citizens. For cases that are found work authorized after a TNC, time from case initiation to final 

resolution is 12.5 days for citizens and 7.6 days for noncitizens. This difference may reflect in part the 

longer time required for citizens to request and receive documentation such as birth certificates from 

some states. For cases that receive SSA FNCs, the difference is 11.2 days for citizens and 10.0 days for 

noncitizens. Noncitizen cases receiving USCIS FNCs take 12.6 days (Exhibit X-17). 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 215 
Exhibit X-18. Percent of Cases Initiated Within Three Work Days of Hire Date, by Form I-9 

Citizenship Status: April–June 2008 

Citizen 83 

Lawful permanent resident 83 

Other noncitizen 77 

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


Exhibit X-17. Days From Case Initiation to Final Resolution, by Final Case Finding and Form I-9 

Citizenship Status: April–June 2008 

Citizen 0.0 Instantly verified 0.0 Noncitizen 

12.5 Second stage work authorization by SSA 

Second stage work authorization by USCIS 0.7 

Third stage work authorization by USCIS 7.6 

11.2 

SSA FNC 10.0 

USCIS FNC 12.6 

Unauthorized by USCIS 10.1 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Number of days 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

There are not major differences in the time between hire date and case initiation date based on 

Form I-9 citizenship status. Employers enter most cases, both citizens and noncitizens, within three 

work days of the hire date that is entered into E-Verify. In April through June 2008, employers entered 

83 percent of citizen cases, 83 percent of lawful permanent resident cases, and 77 percent of other 

noncitizen cases within this required time frame (Exhibit X-18). 

216 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

2.3. Impacts of Recent Legislative and Program Changes 

2.3.1. Legislative Changes 

Mandating the use of E-Verify may increase the erroneous TNC rate, thereby increasing the burden 

on workers in those states. As discussed in Chapter VI, employers in states that require the use of 

E-Verify for all or some of their workers have higher erroneous TNC rates than employers in states with 

no requirement to use E-Verify (0.56 for Arizona compared to 0.50 percent for states that mandate 

E-Verify for some employers and 0.49 for other states). Since the erroneous TNC cases are the only cases 

that can lead to worker burden, it is reasonable to conclude that E-Verify is more burdensome, on 

average, for workers in Arizona than in states that do not mandate that all employers use E-Verify. 

However, there may be explanations for Arizona’s high erroneous TNC rate (e.g., the large number of 

foreign-born workers in Arizona) that are not linked to the mandatory nature of E-Verify in that state. It 

is, therefore, necessary to be cautious in concluding that E-Verify is more burdensome when it is 

mandated. 

2.3.2. Photo Screening Tool 

The Photo Screening Tool has the appearance of being discriminatory, since it is only used for 

noncitizens. Since only noncitizens were subject to checks with the Photo Screening Tool during the time 

that the data were being collected for this evaluation, any erroneous TNCs attributable, for example, to an 

employer error or a glitch in the system itself would be expected to increase costs and actions with 

discriminatory impacts against work-authorized noncitizens. It is also possible that the extra steps 

employers are required to take to use the Photo Screening Tool would make them more reluctant to hire 

noncitizens or that employers may not inform workers of their rights to contest when erroneous TNCs are 

received because of the Photo Screening Tool.207 However, very few workers receiving TNCs attributable 

to the Photo Screening Tool contested their TNCs (only one out of 154 cases receiving TNCs as a result 

of the Photo Screening Tool match in May 5 through June 30, 2008, was successfully contested). Since 

the majority of authorized workers contest other types of TNCs, it is reasonable to assume that almost all 

of the Photo Screening Tool TNCs were for unauthorized workers. It, therefore, appears that use of the 

Photo Screening Tool is not resulting in a substantial increase in the number of work-authorized 

noncitizens receiving TNCs; however, any procedure that can increase the probability of a TNC that is 

limited to noncitizens gives the appearance of being discriminatory. 

Some employers are more likely to violate a worker’s right (under Form I-9 procedures) to select 

among permissible I-9 documents because of the Photo Screening Tool. Current Form I-9 policy does 

not allow employers to ask for specific documents when verifying workers if the documents presented are 

among those allowed and appear to be valid and to relate to the individual208. Among employers 

responding to the Web survey, 10 percent reported that their establishments had been more likely to ask 

for immigration documents during the verification process since the start of the Photo Screening Tool and 

an additional 40 percent said they did not know whether they were more likely to do so (Exhibit X-19). 

Only one onsite study employer reported requiring workers to submit documents that could be used with 

the Photo Screening Tool and there was no evidence from worker interviews that workers were asked to 

submit types of documents that could be used with the Photo Screening Tool. 

207See Chapter IX for a discussion of the impact of the Photo Screening Tool on employers. 

208 Users of E-Verify are expected to follow the same Form I-9 procedures as other employers except that the identity document must contain a 

photograph. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 217 
X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


Exhibit X-19. Percent of Web Survey Employers Saying They Are More Likely to Request 

Immigration Documents During the Verification Process 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 40.3 

50.1 

9.6 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent 

SOURCE: E-Verify Web Survey: 2008. 

The increase in the erroneous TNC rate because of the Photo Screening Tool appears to have led to 

no more than a very minimal increase in the burden of E-Verify for employment-authorized 

workers. As discussed in Chapter VI, in the absence of the Photo Screening Tool, the estimated 

erroneous TNC rate would have been approximately 0.48 percent, similar to the observed rate in April 

through June 2008. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that any increase in worker burden for 

employment-authorized workers attributable to the current Photo Screening Tool is extremely low. 

The Photo Screening Tool could potentially lead to privacy violations, because, as pointed out by 

some of the Federal interviewees, the Photo Screening Tool returns information to employers that 

they did not previously have. When workers use counterfeit documents with information about someone 

else during the Form I-9 process, the employer and possibly the worker would have an opportunity to 

determine what the actual cardholder looks like, which may be considered an invasion of the actual 

cardholder’s privacy. There are currently plans to diminish the possible impacts of such a disclosure by 

making it more difficult to duplicate the image produced by the Photo Screening Tool. 

2.3.3. Pre-TNC check 

The reduction in the erroneous TNC rate because of pre-TNC checks reduces the burden of 

E-Verify on workers. As discussed in Chapter VI, the pre-TNC checks apparently led to a decrease in 

the erroneous TNC rate from 0.7 percent in July through September 2007 to 0.6 percent in October 

through December 2007.209 This decrease reduced the burden of E-Verify on workers, since these 

erroneously issued TNCs are the primary way that the Program affects them. When employers do not 

comply with program procedures designed to protect worker rights in the contesting process, reducing the 

erroneous TNC rate also protects workers from violations of their rights. 

209The pre-TNC checks were introduced in mid-September 2007 for most employers; however, they were instituted for a few pilot employers 

prior to that time. 

218 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Percent 

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Exhibit X-20. Trend in the Erroneous TNC Gap Between Workers Attesting to Being Citizens on Jan-Mar

the Form I-9 and Workers Attesting to Being Noncitizens 

3.0 

Apr-June

X- - -X 

Pre-TNC check 

2.5 begins July-Sept

2.3 2.3 

1.9 2.0 Oct-Dec

1.8 

1.6 1.7 

1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 

1.5 

Jan-Mar

1.2 

Apr-June

1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 July-Sept

0.5 

Oct-Dec

0.0 

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

FY FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

2004 

July-Sept

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database: July 2004–June 2008. 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

The gap in erroneous TNC rates for citizens and noncitizens may have been reduced by the preTNC check. As seen in Exhibit X-20, the gap in the erroneous TNC rate between citizens and noncitizens 

declined from July through September 2007 and October through December 2007 from 1.5 to 1.0 

percentage points. Although this is encouraging, there is sufficient variation in the gap over time due to 

seasonality and other programmatic changes that it is not clear how much of this drop can be attributed to 

the pre-TNC check. 

2.3.4. EV-STAR 

EV-STAR reduces the chance that a worker will be adversely affected by E-Verify because of 

communication problems between SSA and employers. Two features of EV-STAR are likely to reduce 

the chance of workers being adversely affected by E-Verify: 

• EV-STAR automatically rechecks SSA’s NUMIDENT data file immediately before issuing an 

FNC. This means that when SSA revises NUMIDENT without recording that the worker has 

been found work authorized under E-Verify, an erroneous FNC is avoided. There is no easy 

way to measure this impact, since under the pre-EV-STAR procedures some employers may 

have done this check by resubmitting cases themselves. 

• If the SSA field office inputs the case as pending in EV-STAR, then E-Verify automatically 

informs employers that SSA cases are still in continuance after 10 days rather than relying on 

SSA staff to contact the employer, which did not always occur. This should reduce the number 

of cases in which employers erroneously assume that workers are not work authorized. 

Since workers who visit SSA no longer need to bring a signed letter back from SSA for the employer, the 

revised process should eliminate the burden associated with this task; however, this burden is presumably 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 219 
210See Table 1.7 Employment Status of the Civilian Population 16 Years and Over by Sex and U.S. Citizenship Status: 2004 (Numbers in 

thousands. 1/ 2/) (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/ppl-176/tab01-7.xls). 

X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


slight. Furthermore, the positive impact of this provision may have been diminished by the initial 

apparent employer confusion about the changed E-Verify procedures, resulting in some employers 

continuing to require workers to have their referral letters stamped by SSA. 

2.3.5. Naturalization Phase I 

Phase I of the naturalization reforms resulted in a significant reduction in worker burden and 

unintentional discrimination against naturalized citizens. The additional automated database 

checking process for naturalized citizens that constituted Naturalization Phase I dramatically reduced the 

erroneous TNC rate for naturalized citizens. As discussed in Chapter VI, the erroneous TNC rate for 

foreign-born citizens dropped from 7.0 percent to 3.2 percent between January through March 2008 and 

April through June 2008 even though Naturalization Phase I did not take effect until May 5, 2008. The 

impact of the high erroneous TNC rate for naturalized citizens was reflected in the onsite study for this 

evaluation conducted prior to the implementation of Naturalization Phase I. Of the 126 workers in the 

onsite study who had resolved SSA TNCs, 62 had become naturalized citizens but had not updated their 

citizenship status with SSA. However, only 6 percent of the entire employed population are naturalized 

U.S. citizens.210 

Phase I of the naturalization reforms also resulted in a significant reduction in unintentional 

discrimination against all foreign-born workers who are employment authorized. The erroneous 

TNC gap between foreign-born and U.S.-born workers was 2.4 percentage points in April through June 

2008 compared to 3.6 percent in the January through March 2008 quarter that immediately preceded 

implementation of Naturalization Phase I (Exhibit X-21). This gap would have been further decreased if 

Naturalization Phase I had been in existence earlier in the quarter. 

Exhibit X-21. Trend in Erroneous TNC Gap Between U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Workers: 

January 2006–June 2008 

220 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS
 X 

Percent 

5.0 

4.1 4.5 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.5 Jan-Mar

3.0 

2.4 

2.5 

Apr-June

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

Jul

y-Sept

0.5 

0.0 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

Apr-June

Jul

y-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June 

The reduced erroneous TNC rate attributable to Naturalization Phase I presumably decreased the 

potential for privacy violations. As discussed earlier in this chapter, employers do not always inform 

workers receiving TNCs about their TNCs in private. Therefore, reducing the erroneous TNC rate should 

reduce worker exposure to this risk. 

2.3.6. Naturalization Phase II 

Naturalization Phase II has reduced the time and financial burdens of resolving TNCs for many 

naturalized citizens; however, the long-term savings may prove to be less than the initial savings. 

Naturalization Phase II, implemented in May 2008, allows naturalized citizens to resolve erroneous TNCs 

by contacting USCIS by phone rather than by making a trip to an SSA office. Approximately half 

(53 percent) of the eligible workers who contacted either agency took advantage of the option to contact 

USCIS (Exhibit X-22). The citizens who choose to contact USCIS instead of SSA will presumably have 

lower costs for resolving TNCs because of the differences in resolution procedures between USCIS and 

SSA. This would lead to a reduction in the discriminatory impacts of E-Verify on foreign-born citizens. 

However, since any discrepancies with SSA data will not have been corrected unless the worker chooses 

to do so independently, similar problems may occur if the worker moves to another participating 

employer. 

Exhibit X-22. Extent to Which Naturalized Citizens Who Received TNCs Availed Themselves of the 

Opportunity to Contact USCIS Instead of SSA: May 5–June 30, 2008 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 221 
57.4%

Contacted USCIS

53.0% 

Contacted 

USCIS only 

42.6%

Contacted

SSA only

4.4% 

Contacted USCIS

 and SSA 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database. 

X E-VERIFY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WORKERS 


222 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CHAPTER XI. FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 

1. BACKGROUND 

Decisions about the value of any program must be balanced against its financial and nonfinancial costs. 

Some of the earlier evaluation reports included extensive analyses of Federal costs in order to compare 

different versions of the pilot program and to give policymakers some idea of program costs under an 

expanded program; however, there is not currently a need to evaluate multiple electronic verification 

programs, and cost estimates of expanding the Program are now performed by the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) staff.211 Therefore, it was not cost-effective to do an in-depth examination 

of Federal costs in this evaluation; the discussion in this chapter is, therefore, cursory and limited to the 

impact of recent program and possible future changes on Federal per-case operating costs. 

This chapter uses the following estimates of Federal per-case costs: 

• Conducting USCIS secondary verifications is estimated as $7 per case not instantly verified. 

• Resolving Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) by the Social Security Administration (SSA) is 

estimated by SSA to cost $48 per contested case resolved by SSA. 

• Resolving USCIS TNC cases is estimated as $34 per case.212 

This chapter discusses costs related to the following topics: 

• Increased use of E-Verify, including legislative changes that would make it mandatory for 

some or all employers; 

• Increased accuracy; 

• The Photo Screening Tool; 

• The SSA and USCIS pre-TNC checks; 

• EV-STAR; 

• Naturalization Phase I; and 

• Naturalization Phase II. 

2. USAGE 

The size and complexity of the E-Verify Program has increased rapidly over time, creating 

significant new workloads for Federal staff. Several Federal respondents pointed out that the rapid 

211 Of course, this situation could change. For example, one legislative proposal (the New Employee Verification Act) would replace 

E-Verify with a system linked to the Database of New Hires, which is now used to find persons who are not paying child support. If this 

legislation were to be seriously considered, comparison of this new system with E-Verify would be critical. 

212 Since USCIS did not have an updated per-case cost available for use in this report, previously estimated costs for FY 2008 are used in this 

chapter. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 223 
XI FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 


expansion in the program size has led to major increases in the size of and organizational complexity of 

E-Verify staff. The number of USCIS workers responsible for E-Verify increased from 59 in FY 2007 to 

146 in FY 2008. The number of divisions with responsibility for operating the Program grew from five to 

13. Federal respondents reported that the expansion created some problems, both because of the need for 

more complex coordination and because so many of the staff were new to the Program. As the Program 

has matured, USCIS reports that these problems have largely been overcome. 

Documentation of software changes has not always been made promptly and completely. Although 

the operations contractor has been very cooperative with the evaluation team, it has not always updated 

software documentation promptly and completely after modifying it. This has resulted in the evaluation 

team misunderstanding how to measure key variables and having to redo a number of analyses. 

The total Federal government cost for E-Verify has increased rapidly as the Program has grown. 

Financial costs associated with the expanding Program include system costs, hiring and training costs for 

new staff, and facility costs for housing new employees.213 

If the E-Verify Program grows because of increases in the number of employers mandated to use 

the Program, there will need to be some concomitant increase in the size of Federal staff with 

responsibility for the Program. SSA estimates that a mandatory national program would require them to 

hire 1,500 more field staff. Similarly, USCIS would likely need to increase the number of Immigration 

Status Verifiers (ISVs) to handle increased numbers of secondary verifications and contested TNCs. 

Although USCIS has increased staff as E-Verify has grown and has undertaken a number of contingency 

planning measures to prepare for the possibility of a mandatory program, USCIS staff report that their 

budgets through 2014 are based on the assumption that the Program will continue to be a rapidly 

expanding voluntary program. 

Several Federal respondents cautioned against increasing the size of the E-Verify Program too 

rapidly. Several Federal respondents cautioned that large scale or mandatory expansion should be done 

on a phased-in basis to ensure that the Program is not overwhelmed with the need to hire, house, and train 

additional staff in a short period of time and the need to revise organizational structures and procedures 

developed for a smaller program. 

If E-Verify or a similar program were to become mandatory, a heavy investment in outreach and 

education would be necessary. If E-Verify were to become mandatory, E-Verify staff would need to 

reach out to a much larger group of employers and workers to make clear their rights and responsibilities 

under the Program. 

213 As noted in the Background section of this chapter, the evaluation has not estimated the total financial costs of the Program to the Federal 

government in this analysis, but it is clear that the cost increases have been substantial. 

224 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
XI FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 

3. ACCURACY 

SSA costs per case transmitted have decreased because the percentage of all cases requiring 

resolution of a TNC by SSA has declined. SSA’s major ongoing cost for E-Verify is for resolving 

contested TNCs, which is currently done in person at SSA offices. As seen in Exhibit XI-1, the overall 

trend of the percentage of E-Verify cases requiring SSA to resolve contested TNCs has been trending 

downward over time at the same time that the Program has been expanding rapidly. In April through June 

2005, 0.7 percent of all cases required SSA resolution of a TNC; by April through June 2008, it was down 

to 0.3 percent. If the percentage of cases requiring SSA to resolve a TNC in April through June 2008 had 

been the same as it was in April through June 2005, the estimated cost in April through June 2008 for 

resolving the additional 5,500 SSA TNCs resolved would have been a little more than twice as much as 

the actual cost ($600,000 compared to $262,000)—an annual operating cost savings of approximately 

$1.4 million. Of course, since the Program has expanded over this time, the actual costs have increased. 

Exhibit XI-1. Trends in Percent of Cases Needing SSA Resolution of TNCs 

1.0 

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

0.5 0.5 

0.3 

0.7 0.7 

0.8 

0.7 

0.8 

0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

0.7 

0.5 0.5 

0.3 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Ju

ne

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Ju

ne

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Ju

ne

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Ju

ne 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

All Employers 

Employers in Longitudinal Sample 

Percent 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database: October 2004–June 2008. 

The percentage of all cases requiring secondary review by a USCIS ISV has not changed 

appreciably. As seen in Exhibit XI-2, the overall trend in the percentage of E-Verify cases requiring 

USCIS to conduct a secondary review has not changed appreciably over time.214 Thus, the total operating 

costs for resolving these cases has increased roughly proportionately to the overall increase in cases 

submitted to E-Verify and inflation. The estimated cost for April through June 2008 was $248,000 

compared to the estimated April through June 2005 cost for secondary reviews of $32,000 in 2008 

dollars. 

214Note that the trend would have been downward if there had not been an October 2005 change in procedures that required all noncitizen cases to 

be verified by USCIS rather than having SSA confirm their status if SSA records indicated that the person had permanent work authorization. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 225 
Percent 

Exhibit XI-2. Trends in Percent of All Cases Requiring USCIS to Conduct a Second-Level Review 

4.0 

3.2 3.2 3.5 Oct-Dec

3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.7 Jan-Mar

2.6 2.3 

2.3 2.5 

2.1 2.7 Apr-Ju

ne

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 

1.9 1.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.0 

2.2 2.1 2.0 July-Sept

1.9 1.8 

1.5 

Oct-Dec

1.0 

All Employers 0.5 

Jan-Mar

Employers in Longitudinal Sample 

0.0 

Apr-Ju

ne

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Jan-Mar

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database: October 2004–June 2008. 

Apr-Ju

ne

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Ju

ne 

XI FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 


The percentage of all cases requiring resolution of a TNC by USCIS has not changed appreciably 

since April through June 2005. As seen in Exhibit XI-3, the overall trend in the percentage of E-Verify 

cases requiring USCIS to conduct a third-level review has not changed significantly over time. Thus, the 

total operating costs for resolving these cases has increased roughly proportionately to the overall increase 

in the number of cases submitted to E-Verify. The estimated cost for April through June 2008 was 

$94,000 compared to the estimated April through June 2005 cost of $13,000 expressed in 2008 dollars. 

226 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 

Exhibit XI-3. Trends in Percent of All Cases Requiring TNC Resolution by USCIS 

Percent 0.50 

All Employers 

0.38 Employers in Longitudinal Sample 

0.40 

Oct-Dec

0.29 0.33 

0.30 0.24 0.23 Jan-Mar

0.30 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.14 

Apr-June

0.19 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.10 July-Sept

0.00 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Apr-June

NOTE: These percents are cases receiving third-level reviews, including workers found not work authorized as well as those 

found work authorized. 

July-Sept

SOURCE: E-Verify Transaction Database: October 2004–June 2008. 

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June

July-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-June XI 

USCIS has expanded the number of Department of Homeland Security databases that are 

incorporated into the Verification Information System (VIS) during the last 10 years, has taken a 

number of measures to expedite data entry into these systems, and contemplates adding more in the 

future. In the long run, these steps are likely to be cost-effective; however, these steps have had and will 

continue to have impacts on system costs during implementation due to the costs for new programming. 

Eliminating the ISV review of noncitizen cases that are not instantly verified to determine whether 

cases can be resolved without the issuance of TNCs, as some have suggested, would increase Federal 

costs. The cost for resolving a TNC case is significantly greater than the cost for conducting a secondary 

verification ($7 for the secondary review compared to $34 for resolving the TNC at the third level). Since 

the secondary verification resulted in finding 55 percent of the cases reviewed to be work authorized in 

April through June 2008, stopping the secondary review would increase rather than decrease USCIS costs 

for operating E-Verify. 

4. PHOTO SCREENING TOOL 

The Photo Screening Tool increases Federal costs to the extent that the extra check increases the number 

of erroneous TNCs that are contested. As discussed in Chapter VI, there have been very few Photo 

Screening Tool TNCs contested and thus the process has had a negligible effect on USCIS costs. 

However, the Federal government does incur some costs for processing requests from employers for help 

with the process and for reviewing cases in which the employer believes there is a nonmatch between the 

identity document proffered and the document photograph on the Federal database(s) queried. There are 

also system costs for adding the photographs to E-Verify. The evaluation does not have an estimate of 

these costs. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 227 
XI FEDERAL COSTS AND BURDENS 


5. THE SSA AND USCIS PRE-TNC CHECKS 

The pre-TNC checks implemented in September 2007 reduced Federal costs in comparison to what 

they would have been in the absence of these modifications. As discussed in Chapter VI, the pre-TNC 

check reduced the erroneous TNC rate, thus reducing the Federal costs both for USCIS secondary reviews 

and for resolving TNCs. The estimated cost savings for this change would be approximately $48 for each 

contested SSA TNC case avoided, $7 per case secondary review that does not need to be resolved by 

USCIS, and $34 per case for every USCIS TNC case that does not need to be resolved. 

6. EV-STAR 

EV-STAR would not be expected to significantly affect ongoing operating costs. There is no reason to 

believe that EV-STAR would increase the cost of resolving SSA TNCs. However, it does require 

additional costs for training existing and new SSA field office staff. 

7. NATURALIZATION PHASE I 

Checking USCIS databases prior to issuing TNCs for persons attesting to being U.S. citizens has 

made a significant contribution to reducing Federal costs. Although there were clearly implementation 

costs associated with the Naturalization Phase I program modification, there are also long-term savings. 

The additional automated database checking process was seen in Chapter VI to have reduced the number 

of successfully contested SSA TNCs by approximately 3,300 between May 5 and June 30, 2008.215 The 

estimated cost savings associated with resolving those cases was approximately $160,000. Annualizing 

this cost provides an estimated savings of approximately $1.0 million. 

8. NATURALIZATION PHASE II 

Permitting naturalized citizens to resolve TNCs regarding their citizenship status with USCIS 

rather than SSA has led to a slight decrease in costs for the Federal government. Since the estimated 

cost for resolving a TNC with USCIS is somewhat lower than for SSA, there was an estimated Federal 

savings from this modification in May 5 through June 30, 2008, of approximately $14 per case resolved 

by USCIS rather than SSA for a total savings of $5,000 for the 355 cases resolved by USCIS. This 

savings was offset by the increased costs for the 32 cases that were referred to SSA after contacting 

USCIS that required both agencies to review the case, estimated as approximately $1,100. The annualized 

savings from Naturalization Phase II were approximately $25,000. It should also be noted that under 

current procedures, naturalized citizens resolving erroneous TNCs with USCIS may continue to have 

incorrect SSA records that may result in SSA costs at a later time to resolve the discrepancy.

216 Thus, the 

impact of Naturalization Phase II on Federal costs is small compared to the other changes examined in 

this report. 

215See Chapter VI for a discussion of how this 3,300 was computed. 

216This additional cost could be averted by SSA modifying its records for naturalized citizens at the point that USCIS verifies that they are indeed 

naturalized citizens. 

228 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
PART 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Part 4 consists of two chapters. 

• Chapter XII presents the report conclusions. Its organization differs from that of the report 

itself in order to bring together related findings from the separate chapters. It is meant to 

complement the Executive Summary, which provides a more straightforward summary of the 

report. 

• Chapter XIII presents the evaluation team’s recommendations for the E-Verify Program in 

light of the findings. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 229 
230 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter highlights the major findings in the report from a somewhat different perspective than the 

preceding chapters.217 The first section provides an overview of the major E-Verify strengths and ongoing 

challenges facing the Program. The second section focuses on the impacts of recent changes to E-Verify. 

By bringing together related information from different sections about these changes, this chapter is 

meant to clarify issues, such as the impacts of the Photo Screening Tool, that are covered in multiple 

chapters. 

1. E-VERIFY STRENGTHS AND ONGOING CHALLENGES 

1.1. Preventing Unauthorized Employment 

1.1.1. Strengths 

E-Verify has been proven to be effective in meeting its primary goal of reducing unauthorized 

employment among participating employers. The evaluation estimates that approximately half of the 

cases submitted for workers without employment authorization correctly received either Final 

Nonconfirmations (FNCs) or unauthorized findings, i.e., they were not found work authorized in April 

through June 2008. In most cases, employers take the appropriate action of terminating the employment 

of these workers or, for employers screening job applicants, employers do not hire workers identified by 

E-Verify as having an FNC or unauthorized finding. Furthermore, some workers without employment 

authorization may avoid employers using E-Verify, thereby limiting their employment options. Thus, 

E-Verify has been successful in reducing the level of unauthorized employment among employers using 

it. 

1.1.2. Challenges 

E-Verify, as currently formulated, finds many unauthorized workers committing identity fraud to 

be work authorized. If a worker presents documents that appear valid and contain information about a 

real work-authorized person, E-Verify is unlikely to detect the identity fraud. As a result, it is estimated 

that approximately half of unauthorized workers with cases submitted to E-Verify receive an inaccurate 

finding of being work authorized. 

1.2. Usage 

1.2.1. Strengths 

E-Verify has been growing rapidly since its inception. One general measure of a program’s success is 

how rapidly it is growing. E-Verify has proven to be highly successful by this measure. In April through 

June 2005, 217,000 cases were submitted to E-Verify. By April through June 2008, this number had 

grown to 1.7 million—an eight-fold increase in three years. 

217Readers interested in a summary of the report are referred to the Executive Summary. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 231 
XII CONCLUSIONS 


1.2.2. Challenges 

Most U.S. workers are not processed through E-Verify. The evaluation team estimated that no more 

than 12 percent of new hires were processed through E-Verify in April through June 2008. This limited 

usage means that most jobs are offered by employers that do not use E-Verify. 

1.3. Timeliness 

1.3.1. Strengths 

Case processing timeliness has been improving. The mean number of days from case initiation to final 

resolution has declined from 0.9 days in October through December 2004 to 0.4 days in April through 

June 2008. One major reason for the decrease in time from case initiation to final resolution is that the 

percentage of all cases instantly verified as work authorized increased steadily between the start of the 

Program and June 2008. A second likely reason is that changes in the secondary review process were 

instituted to speed up that process. 

Most workers receiving Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) received their TNC notices promptly. 

Among the 352 record review cases that included a signed TNC notice, 320 were signed by the worker 

within a week of the issuance of the TNC. Among the 191 record review cases with a referral date and a 

signed TNC notice indicating that the worker wanted to contest the TNC, 183 were referred to the Social 

Security Administration (SSA) or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within a week 

of the date the worker signed the TNC notice. 

Most workers contesting SSA TNCs do so shortly after they are referred to SSA. Workers receiving 

TNCs who wish to contest have eight Federal workdays to contact USCIS or SSA. Almost half of 

workers contesting SSA TNCs since the start of EV-STAR in October 2007 did so within one day of the 

referral date input into E-Verify by their employers; however, 6 percent took 11 or more days to contact 

SSA. 

1.3.2. Challenges 

Although employers usually obtain prompt responses from E-Verify when entering cases, there are 

times when the system is down. During the year prior to the end of the data collection for this study, 

July 2007 through June 2008, the E-Verify systems contractor documented 13 incidents of the system 

being unavailable due to systems-related problems, ranging from a few minutes to several hours. The 

system is also closed to data entry for approximately six hours each Sunday night for routine 

maintenance. In addition, there are approximately 30 hours a week that the SSA system is unavailable at 

night, which means that employers inputting queries during night shifts do not always receive 

instantaneous responses to their queries. 

Employers do not always follow the requirement to promptly terminate employment when E-Verify 

is not able to confirm that an employee is work authorized. Although most Web survey respondents 

(87 percent) who had employees who received FNC or unauthorized findings reported terminating that 

employment within a week of receiving the FNC or unauthorized finding, 5 percent reported having taken 

more than one week to terminate the employment, and 8 percent reported that they had never terminated 

the employment of any of these employees. 

232 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONCLUSIONS
 XII 

1.4. Accuracy 

1.4.1. Strengths 

The accuracy of the USCIS database, as measured by the erroneous TNC rate for workers ever 

found authorized, continues to improve. The overall erroneous TNC rate declined from 0.9 percent to 

0.5 percent between April through June 2005 and April through June 2008. 

Employers believe that E-Verify is accurate. A large majority of employers (92 percent) using E-Verify 

reported that it is a highly accurate system for verifying work authorization. 

1.4.2. Challenges 

There is a continuing need for improvement in the accuracy of E-Verify for subgroups of workers. 

Although the estimated total inaccuracy rate of 4.1 percent (with a range of 2.3 to 5.7 percent) is not very 

different from the accuracy of many other Federal systems, the inaccuracy rates for some subgroups are 

higher than may be desirable. For example, due to its inability to detect identity fraud, E-Verify remains 

unable to identify approximately half of workers without employment authorization. Also, although 

much improved since the last evaluation, the erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens (3.2 percent) 

remains well above the rate for U.S.-born workers (0.1 percent). This is largely due to out-of-date SSA 

and USCIS database information on the citizenship status of many foreign-born citizens. 

1.5. Employer Compliance 

1.5.1. Strengths 

Employers were more likely to report in the Web survey that all staff actively using the E-Verify 

system had completed the tutorial in 2008 than had reported this in 2006. In 2008, 90 percent of Web 

survey respondents reported that all verification staff had completed the tutorial compared to 84 percent 

in 2006, presumably decreasing employer noncompliance attributable to employers’ misunderstanding the 

Program’s procedures. 

The transaction data were consistent with the claim that employers generally do not single out 

either citizens or noncitizens for verification. Of the approximately 8,600 employers that had 

submitted cases for at least 100 workers between July 2004 and June 2008, 0.1 percent did not submit 

cases for any workers attesting to being citizens and 4.2 percent did not submit any noncitizen cases. 

These numbers are small enough that it is reasonable to believe that few, if any, of these employers are 

selectively submitting cases for either citizens or noncitizens among their new hires. 

1.5.2. Challenges 

Some employers are not complying with E-Verify procedures. Some employers do not consistently 

adhere to such E-Verify requirements as entering Form I-9 information within three workdays, not 

prescreening, failing to hire workers without providing them with the right to contest the finding, or 

promptly terminating the employment of workers receiving FNCs. For example, according to the record 

review information, at least 27 of the 108 onsite study employers had submitted at least one case for a job 

applicant. Additionally, based on information from worker interviews, there appears to be significant 

underreporting of noncompliance by employers. For example, of the 42 onsite study employers that said 

they did not screen job applicants as a general practice, 35 had one or more employees who reported that 

their work-authorization status was determined when they were job applicants. Although some of the 

worker reports of prescreening may be inaccurate because of confusion about the job being referred to, 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 233 
XII CONCLUSIONS 


the definition of hire date, or some other reason, it seems reasonable to believe that many of these were 

cases in which the employer did, in fact, prescreen at least some workers but did not report such behavior 

in an interview. 

One reason for employer noncompliance was that employers were not always aware of their 

responsibilities under E-Verify. For example, of the 12 onsite study employers that reported 

prescreening some or all of their job applicants, eight did not appear to understand that prescreening is not 

allowed by the E-Verify Program. 

1.6. Employer Burden and Satisfaction 

1.6.1. Strengths 

Employers were generally satisfied with E-Verify and indicated that it was not burdensome. Most 

Web survey employers (95 percent) reported that E-Verify is an effective tool, and a large majority of 

them (80 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is impossible to fulfill all the employer 

obligations required by the E-Verify process. In addition, of the 104 onsite study employers discussing 

their overall satisfaction with E-Verify, 99 reported being generally satisfied. 

1.6.2. Challenges 

Perceived employer burden does prevent some employers from using E-Verify. Approximately onequarter of employers that had signed up for E-Verify and had either never used the Program or stopped 

using it cited employer burden as a reason for their nonuse. 

Some employers were dissatisfied with aspects of E-Verify and/or made recommendations about 

possible improvements to E-Verify. One of the more frequently mentioned dissatisfactions with the 

E-Verify Program was communication between SSA, USCIS, and employers. Another frequently 

mentioned employer recommendation for improvement was to allow employers to screen job applicants. 

Employer satisfaction appeared to be somewhat lower in 2008 than in 2006. In 2008, 80 percent of 

Web survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is impossible to fulfill all the employer 

obligations required by the E-Verify process, significantly lower than in 2006 when 95 percent disagreed 

or strongly disagreed with this statement. This may relate in part to the fact that some states have made 

E-Verify mandatory for some or all of their employers, moving it from the totally voluntary program it 

was in 2006. 

1.7. Worker Rights, Worker Burden, and Discrimination 

1.7.1. Strengths 

Almost half of interviewed workers who discussed their costs for resolving TNCs reported that they 

had no costs. Of the 115 workers who reported information about costs, 47 reported that there were no 

costs to contesting the TNC. This finding would tend to reduce any discriminatory impact of TNCs since 

work-authorized foreign-born persons more frequently receive erroneous TNCs than do U.S.-born 

218 persons.

218 As explained in Section 1.3 of Chapter X, discrimination does not require that an action is intended to harm a group of protected individuals; it 

can also occur unintentionally. 

234 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONCLUSIONS
 XII 

E-Verify apparently reduces discrimination against foreign-born workers in the hiring process. 

Although 81 percent of users reported that E-Verify made them neither more nor less willing to hire 

immigrants, when change was reported, it was almost always in the direction of making employers more 

willing to hire immigrants (17 percent) compared to those who were less willing (2 percent). 

The gap between the erroneous TNC rates for U.S-born and foreign-born workers has decreased 

substantially. The gap in erroneous TNC rates between foreign-born and U.S.-born workers decreased 

from 4.0 percent in April through June 2006 to 2.4 percent in April through June 2008. 

1.7.2. Challenges 

Employers do not consistently comply with E-Verify requirements designed to protect worker 

rights. Some employers fail to inform employees or job applicants of their TNCs or take adverse actions 

against them such as curtailing their training during the time they contest TNCs, thereby denying them 

their rights under E-Verify to due process. Among the 161 workers who discussed whether adverse 

actions had been taken against them by employers as a result of their TNCs, 59 workers reported that 

adverse actions (such as hiring delays, training delays, and not being paid for work completed while 

contesting TNCs) had been taken against them. 

Some workers reported costs of more than $50 to resolve TNCs. Among the 53 workers reporting 

costs greater than zero for resolving TNCs, 25 workers spent more than $50. 

E-Verify contributes to post-hiring discrimination against foreign-born workers, since foreign-born 

workers with employment authorization are more likely to incorrectly receive TNCs. The percentage 

of foreign-born workers ever found to be work authorized by E-Verify who received a TNC prior to 

having their work authorization verified in April through June 2008 was 2.6 percent, compared to 

0.1 percent of workers who are U.S. born. This means that foreign-born workers with employment 

authorization were over 20 times more likely than U.S.-born workers to incur the burden associated with 

resolving TNCs. Although the process for resolving TNCs is usually neither costly nor burdensome, some 

workers with employment authorization are dismissed or not hired because of TNCs without an 

opportunity to avail themselves of their right to resolve their TNCs with SSA or USCIS. 

Persons attesting to being work-authorized noncitizens on the Form I-9, especially those who are 

not lawful permanent residents, are more likely than those attesting to being U.S. citizens to receive 

erroneous TNCs. Between April and June 2008, the erroneous TNC rate for workers attesting to being 

U.S. citizens was 0.3 percent, compared to 1.0 percent attesting to being lawful permanent residents and 

5.3 for workers attesting to being other noncitizens with authorization to work. 

1.8. Privacy and Security 

1.8.1. Strengths 

SSA and USCIS have taken care to protect the privacy of the workers with information submitted 

to E-Verify. SSA and USCIS have a number of policies in place to ensure the security of all of their 

databases, including E-Verify. In addition, the Federal government processes queries only for employers 

that have signed an MOU. These employers are identified through establishment access and user 

identification codes. Each person using the system is also expected to have an individual user 

identification number and password that must be changed regularly. Additionally, employers have access 

to only the cases they submit. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 235 
XII CONCLUSIONS 


1.8.2. Challenges 

Concern has been raised about the potential for individuals other than authorized E-Verify users at 

legitimate employers to use E-Verify to obtain information about the employment-authorization 

status of individuals. There are currently no safeguards in place to ensure that entities enrolling in 

E-Verify are legitimate employers that will only use the system for determining the employmentauthorization status of workers; however, there are no reported cases of either nonlegitimate employers 

enrolling in the Program or employers using it to verify for purposes other than determining employmentauthorization status. USCIS and SSA are exploring ways to implement safeguards against this type of 

abuse as the system expands. 

Employers did not consistently inform employees of TNC findings in private. Although almost all 

employers (94 percent of 2006 Web survey employers and 91 percent of 2008 Web survey employers) 

reported that they always inform employees of TNC findings in private, 33 of 140 workers in the 2008 

onsite study reported being notified in an area that was not private. 

1.9. General Improvements 

1.9.1. Strengths 

USCIS staff report that they have undertaken a number of efforts to improve E-Verify. In response 

to earlier evaluations and other factors, USCIS had made ongoing changes to the Program to address 

identified shortcomings and to improve program performance. Reported efforts to improve E-Verify 

include adding data sources that can be checked automatically, making the system and forms more userfriendly through clearer guidance and improvements to the tutorials, exploring ways to make E-Verify 

more secure, and working toward full implementation of a monitoring and compliance capability. These 

efforts have also included enhancing outreach efforts to employers and, to a lesser extent, workers, 

including presentations by USCIS, Webinars for employers, advertising campaigns, and establishment of 

a phone center to provide program information to the public. 

1.9.2. Challenges 

There is room for improvement in the communication between E-Verify users and both SSA and 

USCIS. Of the 74 onsite study employers that commented on their communication with SSA, 17 

employers were dissatisfied. Some of these employers reported that SSA offices did not understand or 

even know about E-Verify, while a few others were frustrated that SSA could not provide an explanation 

as to why some cases took longer than 10 days. Of the 103 onsite study employers commenting on their 

communication with USCIS, 27 said they were dissatisfied with the communication. Of the 27 

dissatisfied employers, 15 were dissatisfied with the way changes were communicated, eight were 

dissatisfied with their communication with the helpline, and four were generally dissatisfied with their 

communication with USCIS. 

2. IMPACTS OF RECENT LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM CHANGES 

2.1. State Legislative Changes 

Arizona is the only state that had implemented legislation that required the use of E-Verify by all 

employers in the state during the time period examined in this report. However, several other states had 

enacted legislation requiring some employers to register for the Program. Because of the small number of 

236 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
XII CONCLUSIONS 

states involved, it is difficult to differentiate the effects of legislative changes from other differences 

among these states. However, based on the limited analysis of available data, it appears that the effects of 

legislative changes were as follows: 

• Increased use of E-Verify. In Arizona, the number of employers transmitting cases to 

E-Verify had a 50-fold increase between January through March 2007, when their mandatory 

participation law first took effect, and April through June 2008. During the same time period, 

the remaining states increased their usage by two- or three-fold. A difference this large is 

unlikely to be attributable to factors other than the legislation. 

• Arizona employers had an average compliance score below that of employers in other 

states.

219 Comparing Arizona employers responding to the Web survey with other survey 

respondents based on a general measure of compliance with E-Verify procedures on a measure 

that has a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100220 indicated that Arizona employers 

were slightly less compliant than other employers (474 compared to 510 for other employers). 

It is possible that this is because employers required to use E-Verify are less compliant than 

other employers. However, it may be due to factors other than the State Legislation Group 

differences, such as differences in the demographic characteristics of employers in Arizona 

compared to the rest of the country or the disproportionately high number of employers newly 

enrolled in E-Verify in Arizona. 

• Employers in Arizona were more timely than other states in case submission and 

referring workers to SSA or USCIS. The average time from hire date to case initiation in 

April through June 2008 for Arizona (4.8 calendar days) was markedly shorter than the 

8.2 days for states requiring some employers to use E-Verify and 9.8 days for other employers. 

The average time from TNC issuance to referral for Arizona (3.6 calendar days) in April 

through June 2008 was was also shorter than the 4.0 days for employers in states requiring 

some but not all employers to enroll and 4.3 in other states. 

• No detectable effects on employer satisfaction were noted between Arizona and other 

employers. 

2.2. Program Changes 

2.2.1. Photo Screening Tool 

Most employers expressed considerable satisfaction with how the Photo Screening Tool was 

implemented and reported no significant problems in using it. Among employers that had used the 

Photo Screening Tool, 97 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “The Photo Tool is easy to use.” 

However, there was widespread confusion among employers about how to use it. For example, 59 percent 

of employers reported in the Web survey that they compared the picture from the Photo Screening Tool 

with the worker (instead of or in addition to comparing it with the document), which is not consistent with 

E-Verify procedures. 

Despite employer satisfaction with the Photo Screening Tool, its effects on the E-Verify Program 

were mixed: 

219This difference is statistically significant at the .05 level using a one-tail test, but not using a two-tail test. 

220See Chapter II for additional information on the Compliance Scale. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 237 
XII CONCLUSIONS 

• Since the current Photo Screening Tool can only be used for those workers submitting certain 

immigration documents, it clearly increases at least the appearance of unintentional 

discrimination against noncitizens. 

• The effectiveness of the Photo Screening Tool is significantly limited by the fact that it is not 

available for most workers with cases submitted to E-Verify—it was available for 4 percent of 

cases submitted in May 5 through June 30, 2008. Furthermore, at the time this report was 

written, it appeared unlikely that the Photo Screening Tool would be expanded to a 

significantly larger group of cases in the foreseeable future. 

• The Photo Screening Tool slightly increased the ability of E-Verify to identify workers without 

employment authorization. The estimated percentage detected in April through June 2008 

would have been 45.8 percent without the Photo Screening Tool compared to the 46.0 percent 

estimated effectiveness with the Photo Screening Tool. On the other hand, the Photo Screening 

Tool led to an extremely minor increase in the inaccuracy rate for workers with employment 

authorization, since employers may incorrectly determine that the document photo does not 

correctly match the photo displayed by the Photo Screening Tool. 

• The Photo Screening Tool has very slightly decreased the percentage of cases that are verified 

instantly as work authorized, thereby slightly reducing timeliness. 

• The Photo Screening Tool has contributed to employer noncompliance in the sense that it 

creates additional rules that the employer must follow. Compliance with these rules at least 

initially has been poor, presumably because the rules are new and relate only to certain 

workers, and employers do not fully understand the process. 

2.2.2. Pre-TNC Checks 

The pre-TNC checks appear to have been successful in reducing the erroneous TNC rate. This 

change, implemented in mid-September 2007, instructs employers to recheck their data input when the 

initial automated check indicates that the worker is about to receive an SSA TNC or the case is about to 

be sent for a secondary verification review and possible TNC for cases sent to USCIS. The erroneous 

TNC rate for all workers ever found work authorized declined from 0.72 to 0.58 (a decline of 0.14 

percent) between July through September 2007 and October through December 2007. The observed 

decline in the erroneous TNC rate was larger than the declines observed between these same two periods 

in the two preceding years. It also seems plausible that the pre-TNC check explains the decline in data 

input errors leading to TNCs that were reported by employers in the Web survey (from 52 percent in 2006 

to 42 percent in 2008) reporting having had such errors. 

The pre-TNC checks may have led to a slight improvement in the percentage of E-Verify cases 

instantly verified as work authorized. The percentage of cases instantly verified as work authorized 

increased 0.2 percentage points (from 94.3 to 94.5) between July through September 2007 (the quarter 

before the TNC check was implemented221) and October through December 2007 (the first quarter after 

the change was made). Although this was less than the increase of 0.5 percentage points (92.9 to 93.4) 

between July through September 2006 and October through December 2006, it was well above the 

221 The pre-TNC checks were introduced in mid-September 2007 near the end of the quarter. 

238 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CONCLUSIONS
 XII 

decrease of 0.8 percentage points (92.7 to 91.9) between July through September 2005 and October 

through December 2005. 

2.2.3. EV-STAR 

In the long run, EV-STAR should make a positive contribution to E-Verify because it reduces 

employer burden and provides better follow-through of cases sent for SSA secondary verification. It has 

increased SSA’s ability to track E-Verify cases and has decreased the percentage of cases receiving 

erroneous SSA FNCs when SSA is not able to promptly verify the work authorization of individuals who 

must provide SSA with documents that may take a long time to obtain, such as some birth certificates. 

The pre-FNC check instituted in conjunction with EV-STAR that compares the E-Verify data for SSA 

TNC cases not reported to be successfully resolved in EV-STAR also detects some cases that might have 

previously defaulted to FNCs. However, the implementation of EV-STAR created considerable initial 

confusion on the part of some employers that did not understand the changed procedures. 

Employers had mixed views on the impact of EV-STAR on SSA response time. Some employers 

commented that the change in SSA procedures that occurred when EV-STAR was implemented has had a 

positive impact on SSA response time. However, other employers reported dissatisfaction with changed 

procedures because the change has made the process more time-consuming. It is possible that this 

dissatisfaction was at least partially attributable to initial employer confusion about the changed 

procedures. 

2.2.4. Naturalization Phase I 

The institution of Naturalization Phase I led to a dramatic reduction in the erroneous TNC rate for 

foreign-born citizens; however, it also led to a small reduction in the effectiveness of E-Verify in 

identifying workers without employment authorization. Naturalization Phase I was designed to 

reduce erroneous TNC findings for naturalized citizens by checking USCIS data files with information 

about naturalized citizens when SSA can confirm the identity but not the employment-authorization status 

of workers attesting to be U.S. citizens. The erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born citizens dropped from 

7.0 percent to 3.2 percent between January through March 2008 and April through June 2008, even 

though Naturalization Phase I did not take effect until May 5, 2008, while the rate stayed constant for 

U.S.-born workers. 

An unintended consequence of Naturalization Phase I was an increase in the percentage of workers 

without employment authorization who were found work authorized. Based on the model developed for 

the evaluation, it is estimated that approximately 1,400 of the 6,100 cases found work authorized by the 

Naturalization Phase I check were cases for workers without employment authorization who had stolen or 

were borrowing the identity of naturalized citizens (i.e., they were committing identity fraud). These 

cases represent approximately 2.3 percent of the cases for workers without employment authorization 

submitted to E-Verify between the start of Naturalization Phase I on May 5, 2008, and June 30, 2008, 

with a plausible range of 0.4 percent to 4.0 percent. Thus, the implementation of Naturalization Phase I 

decreased the effectiveness of E-Verify in identifying non-employment-authorized workers by 

approximately 2 percentage points. If Naturalization Phase I had not been in effect, the estimated 

effectiveness rate for workers without employment authorization would have been approximately 

48 percent instead of the estimated 46 percent. 

2.2.5. Naturalization Phase II 

Approximately half of eligible workers took advantage of the opportunity established by 

Naturalization Phase II to contact USCIS instead of SSA to resolve erroneous TNCs. Since USCIS is 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 239 
XII CONCLUSIONS 


much less likely than SSA to require an in-person visit, this should facilitate resolution of TNCs in the 

short run and should slightly decrease the Federal costs of resolving TNCs since USCIS per case costs are 

lower than those of SSA. However, it may not be a time-saver in the long run, since contesting a TNC 

with USCIS does not currently allow SSA records to be updated unless the worker takes action 

independently, thus potentially resulting in recurring TNCs in the future as these persons change jobs and 

work for other employers participating in E-Verify. 

240 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
CHAPTER XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

IMPROVING E-VERIFY 

This chapter presents recommended changes to the E-Verify Program based on the evaluation. Some of 

these recommendations were presented in previous evaluations; others have been implemented since data 

collection for the report was completed or are currently in the process of being implemented. Such 

changes are noted but not fully discussed. The report recommendations are grouped into the following 

broad categories: 

• Increasing the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment; 

• Decreasing violations of worker rights and discrimination against foreign-born workers with 

employment authorization; 

• Improving operating efficiency and user-friendliness; and 

• Conducting additional research. 

Many of the recommendations in this report are to test and evaluate pilot programs. These pilot tests have 

two goals: (1) weigh the advantages and disadvantages of expanding the pilot program to all (or all 

appropriate) E-Verify employers; and (2) to the extent feasible, recommend ways to ameliorate the 

disadvantages identified. 

1. INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF E-VERIFY IN REDUCING 

UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT 

This report has demonstrated that although E-Verify has reduced unauthorized employment among 

employers using the system, there are also significant limitations to its ability to prevent unauthorized 

employment because of the prevalence of identity fraud. This section discusses a number of ways that 

E-Verify could be modified to increase its effectiveness in reducing unauthorized employment. 

1.1. Testing and Evaluating a Pilot Program That Requires Workers to Be Found Employment 

Authorized Prior to Starting Work 

A pilot program requiring E-Verify users to verify that workers are employment authorized prior 

to allowing them to start work should be tested and evaluated. The primary goals of the testing and 

evaluation would be to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of requiring employers to 

confirm that potential employees are work authorized prior to the start of work, including determining 

whether it is possible to develop proper safeguards to minimize or avoid potential negative impacts such 

as increased discrimination and increased employer burden. Although legislative changes would be 

necessary to implement prework screening for all employers enrolled in E-Verify, the administration 

could presumably implement a pilot program using the demonstration project authority to test alternative 

verification systems allowed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 241 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 

There are a number of potential advantages to not allowing workers to start a job prior to being verified as 

employment authorized: 

• It would prevent workers without employment authorization from “job hopping” by working 

during the time it takes the employer to enter information into E-Verify; notify the worker of a 

Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC); wait for the end of the 10 Federal workdays during which 

workers are allowed to resolve TNCs if they indicated they would contest; and terminate the 

worker’s employment. At the end of this time, which could easily last three to four weeks 

under current E-Verify procedures, workers are free to start over again with different 

employers. 

• It would be expected to increase employer satisfaction with E-Verify, since many employers, 

including employers not now using E-Verify, find that the current procedures are burdensome 

due to the costs associated with hiring and training employees who must subsequently have 

their employment terminated. 

• It would make E-Verify checking procedures consistent with other Federal and state laws that 

require background checks prior to starting certain jobs (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-

bck.htm#4). 

• Employment-authorized workers who quit an existing job to accept a job with an E-Verify 

employer would not be faced with a situation in which the use of E-Verify results in their 

losing the new job shortly after they start work.222 

• Monitoring and compliance efforts that might otherwise be spent on identifying employers that 

prescreen could be spent on other program violations, such as identifying employers that fail to 

follow procedures related to notifying workers of their rights under E-Verify. 

Potential problems with the proposed pilot program are as follows: 

• Employers may be less likely to inform workers of TNCs than is the case under the existing 

procedures. The main reason prescreening was forbidden in the original legislation was the 

concern that employers may fail to hire workers who receive TNCs without informing them of 

their right to contest, resulting in discrimination against employment-authorized foreign-born 

workers who are relatively more likely to have high erroneous TNC rates. (The erroneous 

TNC rate is defined as the percentage of workers ever found authorized by E-Verify who 

receive TNCs prior to being found work authorized.) 

Although some employers are currently prescreening workers without providing them with an 

opportunity to resolve their TNCs, many other employers that prescreen workers follow 

E-Verify procedures for notifying workers of TNCs and their right to contest the finding. At 

the same time, some employers that do not prescreen do not properly notify employees of 

TNCs. Thus, the relationship between prescreening and informing workers of their right to 

contest are not as closely linked as appeared to be the case prior to the enactment of the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) authorizing 

E-Verify. One purpose of the evaluation of a pilot program would, therefore, be to determine 

222This situation is most likely to arise if the E-Verify employer terminates employees without providing them with an opportunity to contest. 

However, even when employers follow proper E-Verify procedures, the contesting process is likely to be more stressful if the employee faces 

termination from a job instead of simply not being able to move to a new job. 

242 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

what impact the revised pilot procedures have on the likelihood of employers’ providing proper 

notice of TNCs compared with the current E-Verify Program. 

• Those employment-authorized workers who would work during the contesting period under the 

current E-Verify procedures could potentially lose pay and possibly access to benefits and 

training, especially if these TNCs take some time to resolve. However, the extent of these 

losses is probably less than the original framers of the E-Verify would have envisioned because 

most workers who now resolve TNCs do so the same day that they receive the TNC, 

minimizing the loss of pay, benefits, and training. 

It is, therefore, not clear what the relative size of worker losses under the pilot program would 

be compared to the current Program. This would, of course, constitute a major component of 

the evaluation of the pilot program. 

• In some situations, requiring verification of work authorization prior to the start of work may 

be burdensome for employers. This could occur if an employer has an immediate need for help 

(e.g., a restaurant owner that needs a dishwasher or a hospital that needs emergency room 

personnel). It is especially likely to be a problem when E-Verify is not used at the hiring site, 

since time must be allowed for records to be transferred from the site to the place where 

E-Verify is used (such as when E-Verify cases are submitted by staff at a company’s 

headquarters). The revised E-Verify procedures may, therefore, make some employers 

reluctant to hire foreign-born workers or others that they believe may get TNCs. The 

evaluation of the pilot program should, therefore, include an examination of this issue, 

including discussion with Federal officials responsible for programs requiring background 

checks. 

• To the extent that employers screen workers prior to hiring them, the proposed pilot would 

increase the number of cases transmitted to E-Verify, and the number of TNC cases that the 

Social Security Administration (SSA) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 

need to resolve would increase, thereby increasing employer and Federal costs to implement 

and operate the revised program. 

1.2. Testing and Evaluating a Pilot Program Using Analyses of the Transaction Database to 

Detect Identity Fraud and Requiring Expedited Reviews of Cases Identified 

USCIS and SSA should develop sophisticated algorithms for identifying cases likely to be 

fraudulent and use this information in the verification process. 

Factors likely to indicate fraud discussed in this report include the following: 

• Social Security numbers (SSNs) that are likely to indicate identity theft. The likelihood of 

an SSN belonging to someone committing identity theft clearly rises with the frequency that it 

appears in the transaction data. There are additional factors (such as employer location and 

industry) that should be taken into account in defining SSNs likely to be associated with 

identity theft. For example, a smaller number of duplicates might be considered suspicious if 

the SSN were used in multiple geographically distant locations and industries. Similarly, for 

industries with high turnover rates, it might be advisable to use a larger number of duplicates or 

a shorter time frame. The USCIS Monitoring and Compliance unit is presently examining 

these data for monitoring purposes. This work could be used as a starting point for identifying 

SSNs likely to be being used fraudulently for other purposes. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 243 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


• Cases in which persons attesting to be noncitizens provide an SSN and identifying 

information belonging to someone born in the United States. This report indicates that the 

percentage of TNCs that are successfully contested is quite low for persons attesting to being 

noncitizens but providing information on the Form I-9 belonging to someone born in the 

United States. Since the percentage of successfully contested TNCs within a group can be 

viewed as an indicator of the percentage of employment-authorized workers in the group, it 

seems likely that identity fraud is high among these workers. 

• Cases in which an SSN has previously had a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) or 

unauthorized finding. When an SSN is used that was previously associated with an FNC or 

unauthorized finding case, there is presumably a relatively high probability that the TNC 

recipient is not work authorized. 

• Cases in which an SSN and associated information belong to a person whose SSA record 

indicates that the person is deceased. 

USCIS and SSA should implement a pilot program for an expedited TNC process when it is highly 

likely that the worker is presenting fraudulent documentation as a potential alternative to prework 

verification. Expediting the resolution of cases highly likely to be fraudulent would decrease the amount 

of time such workers are employed while they claim to be resolving their TNCs. If such a program 

modification is implemented after the pilot period, SSA and USCIS should be encouraged to implement it 

incrementally so that the initial definition suggesting fraud is very limited, and then expand it if the 

modification appears to be effective without leading to an unacceptable erroneous TNC rate. 

The algorithms developed to identify likely fraud should also be used to identify employers with 

high rates of workers who appear to be using fraudulent documents in order that corrective action 

can be taken. USCIS is currently developing algorithms to identify employers that appear to be 

submitting high numbers of cases for unauthorized workers and has also been developing procedures for 

determining the appropriate corrective action(s) to be taken. 

1.3. Using Biometrics and/or Expanding the Photo Screening Tool 

USCIS should discontinue the use of the Photo Screening Tool until progress can be made on 

expanding it to include a broader range of documents, including documents that are less tamperproof and counterfeit-resistant than are the documents currently in the Photo Screening Tool. 

Although the Photo Screening Tool is popular with employers, there are potential disadvantages to its use. 

At the time of the evaluation, the Photo Screening Tool included only photographs for individuals 

presenting USCIS-issued Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) and green cards. The restriction 

of the Photo Screening Tool to these documents used by noncitizens is, on the face of it, discriminatory. 

Furthermore, as long as these are the only documents available in the Photo Screening Tool, the Tool will 

have no more than a minor impact on the ability of E-Verify to detect identity fraud, since such 

documents activate the Photo Screening Tool in only 4 percent of all cases and because these documents 

are relatively tamper-proof and counterfeit-resistant, presumably making them unattractive for 

counterfeiting and alteration. 

More than one year after the initial implementation of the Photo Screening Tool, there has been no 

obvious progress toward incorporating driver’s licenses or other new documents into the Photo 

Screening Tool. Furthermore, significant hurdles exist because many state laws prohibit sharing this type 

of information. Additionally, there are issues about who would resolve photo mismatches (SSA and 

244 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

USCIS or the issuing agency). Arranging for sharing information with 54 entities, even through a single 

source such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), would be 

challenging. 

It is also inevitable that as the existence of the Photo Screening Tool becomes better known, more 

unauthorized workers will turn to using borrowed or stolen valid documents with pictures that resemble 

them or types of fraudulent documents not subject to scrutiny by the Photo Screening Tool, thereby 

reducing the usefulness of the Photo Screening Tool to detect and deter unauthorized employment until it 

is available for a broader range of documents.. 

There should be continued exploration, including development of a pilot program, of how 

fingerprints and/or other biometric checks can be incorporated into the E-Verify system while 

protecting workers against discrimination, ensuring privacy, and avoiding undue burden on 

employers and the Federal government. The accuracy of biometrics continues to improve and their use 

continues to expand; it is, therefore, likely that a biometric system (e.g., fingerprints) to detect identity 

fraud will become practical at some point. The feasibility of incorporating some form of biometric 

verification into E-Verify should, therefore, continue to be explored. This incorporation could be done 

either by having the employer verify the biometric indicator on the document with the person or by 

comparing the biometric indicator with stored records. If comparison was made to a fingerprint embedded 

into the driver’s license, it would avoid some of the problems, such as obtaining cooperation from other 

entities to add their information to the database, encountered in expanding the Photo Screening Tool. 

Since fingerprints are now on some driver’s licenses and on other documents used in E-Verify, a pilot 

program could be tested and evaluated. Implementing a pilot program would require addressing such 

practical issues as the cost and availability of fingerprint readers, especially to small employers and 

employers in remote or unusual locations. 

In considering the use of biometric indicators, USCIS and SSA should attempt to coordinate their efforts 

with other agencies, groups, and programs interested in detecting identity fraud, since the costeffectiveness of a coordinated approach is likely to be greater than that for a stand-alone system. Included 

among the groups that should be consulted are the Department of Justice, which “prosecutes cases of 

identity theft and fraud under a variety of federal statutes,”223 the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the 

U.S. Department of Education, which “conducts audits, investigations, and inspections of education 

programs and operations” and operates the OIG Fraud Hotline,224 and the Federal Trade Commission, 

which is charged with consumer protection and maintains a website designed to be a “one-stop national 

resource to learn about the crime of identity theft.”225 

1.4. Expanding E-Verify Usage 

Continued outreach is needed to make nonparticipating employers aware of the Program, its 

benefits, and its requirements. Since the effectiveness of E-Verify in deterring unauthorized 

employment is closely related to the size of the Program, outreach efforts should be continued and 

expanded. 

223http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html#whatdoing indicates that their “Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative 

agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service to 

prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.” 

224http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/misused/index.html. 

225http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 245 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


1.5. Other Recommendations Related to Reducing Unauthorized Employment 

USCIS should implement and enforce a strong monitoring and compliance program. The evaluation 

has documented employer violations of E-Verify procedures that reduce the effectiveness of E-Verify, 

such as not terminating employees receiving unauthorized or FNC findings. Although some of these 

problems can be best addressed through improved education and training, it is also necessary to have a 

way of identifying and acting upon serious program violations that occur for reasons other than a lack of 

knowledge. Recognizing this need, USCIS has established monitoring and compliance units; however, at 

the time this report was being written this program has not yet become robust because of barriers to 

implementation due to privacy concerns. USCIS needs to resolve this impasse, especially if E-Verify 

becomes mandatory nationwide, since this report suggests that employers required to join the Program are 

more likely to look for ways around the program requirements than are those who participate voluntarily. 

Without a strong monitoring and compliance effort, employer noncompliance with program procedures is 

likely to continue and increase, diluting the ability of the Program to meet its goals. 

USCIS should continue working on the development and implementation of guidelines that provide 

specific timeframes for notifying employees of TNCs and for terminating employees who receive 

FNCs or unauthorized findings. Without specific timeframes for notifying employees of TNC findings 

and terminating employees with FNCs, employers may allow the verification process to become 

protracted and make it difficult, if not impossible, to enforce violations of these provisions. As a result, 

unauthorized workers could work for extended periods, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the 

Program. 

2. DECREASING VIOLATIONS OF WORKER RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION 

AGAINST FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS WITH EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION 

2.1. Decreasing the Inaccuracy Rate for Foreign-Born Workers With Employment Authorization 

SSA and USCIS should continue efforts to reduce the high erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born 

workers with employment authorization. Although SSA and USCIS have made much progress in 

reducing the high erroneous TNC rate for foreign-born U.S. citizens and have plans to implement 

additional measures, more work remains to be done to reduce further the inaccuracy rates for foreign-born 

citizens and employment-authorized noncitizens. In April through June 2008, the erroneous TNC rate for 

foreign-born U.S. citizens was 3.2 percent and the rate for noncitizens was 2.1 percent, compared to an 

erroneous TNC rate of 0.1 percent for U.S.-born workers. In addition to creating burdens for foreign-born 

employment-authorized workers who receive TNCs, the erroneous TNC rate differences may result in 

unintentional discrimination against foreign-born workers with employment authorization. 

The goal of inaccuracy rate reduction for any group of employment-authorized workers cannot 

realistically be set at 0.0. Because human error, such as employer input errors and brief delays in 

updating SSA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records, is not completely avoidable, a goal 

of a 0.0 inaccuracy rate is not attainable. Furthermore, in cases in which the work-authorization status is 

difficult to determine, reducing the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers would be likely to increase the 

inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. For example, it appears that although Naturalization Phase I 

was very effective in reducing inaccuracies for foreign-born citizens, it has also resulted in some workers 

without employment authorization being found employment authorized through identity fraud. 

246 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

It is also not realistic to set a goal that the gap in inaccuracy rates between U.S.-born and foreignborn workers will be 0.0. The possibility for inaccuracy in determining work-authorization status is 

necessarily greater for foreign-born workers, especially those workers who either change their visa 

category status or have a temporary work-authorization status that needs to be extended periodically if 

they wish to continue to be employed. The need for changing records in these cases to reflect the change 

in workers’ status creates additional opportunity for occasional inaccuracies or delays that are not 

encountered among U.S.-born citizens. 

Additional measures that should be undertaken to reduce the inaccuracy rate for foreign-born 

workers include the following: 

• SSA should conduct additional outreach activities to encourage naturalized citizens, 

persons with derived citizenship, and lawful permanent residents to update their SSA 

records accordingly. In addition to publicity campaigns, other outreach efforts may be 

warranted. For example, in some areas SSA staff attend naturalization ceremonies to encourage 

and assist new citizens in updating their citizenship status in SSA records at that time—a 

practice that could be broadened. In locations where SSA staff cannot attend naturalization 

ceremonies, SSA could provide a handout for USCIS to distribute, instructing new citizens on 

the need to correct their SSA records and how to do so. SSA could also consider using their 

annual mailings summarizing individuals’ SSA account status to include a statement that they 

should go to an SSA office to notify SSA after a change in name or citizenship status.226 SSA 

will, of course, need to plan for the workload implications of asking substantial numbers of 

individuals to correct their records and may need to seek appropriations for this purpose, since 

this would increase workload for SSA field offices, at least in the short run. 

• In addition to the highly successful Naturalization Phase I program, USCIS and SSA 

should arrange for a one-time electronic transmittal of information for naturalized 

citizens. This information should not be restricted to individuals for whom USCIS has SSNs, 

since SSA is often able to uniquely identify persons on its database from other information 

(i.e., name, date of birth, and country of birth). This information could be flagged, however, to 

indicate that it resulted from a data match in case a discrepancy is later found. 

• USCIS should ensure that all applicants for U.S. citizenship include their SSN on the 

naturalization application form and that this be a mandatory field for data entry. In the 

future, USCIS should update their electronic records for applicants for citizenship and 

electronically send the SSN, name, date of birth, and new citizenship status to SSA at the time 

that U.S. citizenship is acquired to allow SSA to update their records automatically. 

• USCIS should develop a way of capturing information (including SSN) about children 

under age 18 who derive U.S. citizenship at the time their parents are naturalized. USCIS 

should collect and input information about children who derive citizenship when their parents 

become naturalized citizens to ensure their records will be up to date, regardless of whether 

their parents apply for Certificates of Citizenship. This information should routinely be 

transmitted to SSA. 

• USCIS should ensure information about the current work-authorization status of 

noncitizens with a temporary humanitarian status is up to date and included in individual 

226SSA might also wish to consider providing workers with the name and citizenship information that is on their records; however, such a step 

should only be done after careful consideration of whether such procedures would increase opportunities for identity fraud if someone other 

than the named individual were to obtain these forms. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 247 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


records in USCIS databases. USCIS examines Temporary Protected Status determinations 

annually and frequently extends the time that persons from designated countries are considered 

to have this legal status and thereby be employment authorized. On some occasions these 

changes are made through a Federal Register notice rather than through updating individual 

employment authorization records and documents. Incorporating information about extensions 

in individual records would reduce the inaccuracy rates for these individuals, since it is likely 

that most employers are aware of these changes. USCIS reports that they are considering 

implementing automated checks of Temporary Protected Status determinations. 

• USCIS and SSA should use algorithms that are as similar as possible to match noncitizen 

worker Form I-9 information with their databases. Noncitizen cases are subject to more 

stringent matching criteria than citizen cases because they must match both SSA and USCIS 

databases before a determination of work authorization can be made. Given that the two 

databases use different numerical identifiers (the SSN and the A-number), there is currently no 

easy way to eliminate this “double jeopardy” situation. However, the USCIS and/or SSA 

matching routines involving name and date of birth should be modified to make them as 

consistent as possible. This change should probably be made by USCIS rather than SSA, 

because SSA’s routines have been better tested in other programs and over a much longer 

period than have those of USCIS. 

• USCIS should continue other efforts to ensure the data used in E-Verify are accurate and 

up to date. USCIS should continue efforts to ensure that the E-Verify Program has access to 

all DHS electronic databases and hardcopy records227 that provide up-to-date information 

needed to determine the work-authorization status of noncitizens, naturalized citizens, and 

persons who derived U.S. citizenship when their parents became naturalized citizens. As part 

of its modernization and transformation efforts, USCIS should place emphasis on scanning, 

digitizing, and storing in electronic, searchable databases hardcopy files that contain 

information that will further improve the ability of E-Verify to verify the employmentauthorization status of workers. Efforts should also be made to add SSNs to all digitized 

records to increase the probability that USCIS can match worker records with SSA database 

and Form I-9 information. 

2.2. Enhancing Training and Resources 

USCIS should continue recent work to make E-Verify training and resources more user-friendly. For 

example: 

• The language used in the tutorial and in the system itself should make the process and 

definitions less confusing for employers. For example, the following terms, based on 

information from the onsite interviews, appear to confuse employers:228 “new hire,” “DHS 

Verification in Process,” “Case in Continuance,” and “Self-terminated.” 

• When questions are answered incorrectly, the tutorial should provide and explain the 

correct response to ensure that the user understands the material. By providing and 

227Such systems may be external to USCIS. For instance, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects arrival data for many groups of 

noncitizens who are work authorized incident to their nonimmigrant status. Similarly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains 

data on academic students and exchange visitors who may be authorized to work. 

228When employers misunderstand and misuse these terms, the results shown in the Transaction Database become inaccurate, which has a 

negative impact on the usefulness of Transaction Database reports for management and monitoring purposes. 

248 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 

explaining the correct responses to questions with wrong responses, the tutorial will be able to 

provide additional targeted training when needed. 

• Training modules for staff other than system users and administrators should be 

developed to help prevent violations of procedures for which they are responsible. Most 

importantly, managers and supervisors need to be aware of their potential responsibilities under 

the E-Verify Program to perform such functions as notifying and explaining TNCs to workers 

and need to be made aware that they may not take verification-related adverse actions against 

workers while the workers are resolving TNCs. 

• Periodic retesting and, if needed, refresher training should be used to ensure that 

material has not been forgotten. Refresher training will remind employer staff of content that 

they may have forgotten, update them on recent changes to the Program in case they have 

missed previous announcements, and discourage the practice observed during onsite visits of 

assuming another user’s name and password to avoid the tutorial and Mastery Test. 

• The tutorial or resource section should include examples of how to use the system to 

verify workers under a variety of scenarios. Employers would benefit from seeing how more 

complicated cases are supposed to be handled from the point of data entry all the way through 

the referral process and case closure.229 

• Employers should be encouraged to complete the entire verification process with a set of 

test cases provided by USCIS for this purpose. While some employers use test cases now, 

not all of them are aware of the possibility and staff involved in monitoring and evaluating the 

Program may have difficulty in identifying which cases are test cases for employers that make 

up their own test cases. 

• The system should be able to provide real-time online guidance to employers on E-Verify 

program requirements. It is especially important that there be real-time online guidance on 

the TNC process, since some employers may encounter these cases infrequently and may not 

correctly recall how to handle TNCs. 

Users should receive clear instructions on whom to call for help. The toll-free help desk number 

appears only on the system home page, not on pages where users are likely to need assistance. Many 

employers call their local SSA office for help with E-Verify and frequently find that the local staff are 

unfamiliar with the Program. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment 

Practices in the U.S. Department of Justice also reports having received telephone calls from employers 

and workers that should have been handled by the E-Verify technical or program help desks. 

Well-trained customer-service and help desk representatives are needed to ensure that callers 

receive correct information. A number of employers expressed dissatisfaction with the information they 

received from the government. Indeed, anecdotal information from the stakeholder meeting suggests that 

an employer may be told contradictory things by different representatives. 

Complete ongoing efforts to review and revise all worker materials to make sure they are suitable 

for use with workers who may have limited English skills. SSA and USCIS are currently translating 

the notices into languages other than English and Spanish and are examining the level of the language 

229Employers would also like more training related to identifying fraudulent documents; this training might be included in the tutorial and/or 

through E-Verify resource materials, even though it is related to the basic Form I-9 process rather than being specific to E-Verify. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 249 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


used with the goal of simplifying materials. These should prove to be helpful measures to ensure worker 

understanding of what they need to do and why. 

2.3. Increasing Government Outreach to Protect Workers’ Rights 

USCIS should expand its program to inform workers of their rights and responsibilities. USCIS and 

the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division of DHS have made outreach efforts to inform workers of 

their rights under E-Verify. However, an expanded effort is needed since employers do not consistently 

inform workers of their rights. This recommendation will become increasingly important and increasingly 

cost-effective as the Program expands to cover more workers, especially if requiring verification prior to 

the start of work is implemented. 

USCIS should also increase its outreach to employers using E-Verify as the Program expands. 

Employer noncompliance with E-Verify procedures designed to protect the rights of workers and avoid 

discrimination is a significant problem. Although some of the problem is due to employers’ knowingly 

violating procedural requirements, lack of employer knowledge is also a problem. Outreach and training 

has to extend beyond those program users currently required to complete the tutorial to include managers 

and supervisors responsible for managing other aspects of the Program, such as notifying workers of 

TNCs and scheduling job training. 

USCIS must make employer responsibilities as clear as possible. When USCIS policy is not clear 

about what E-Verify program requirements are, it is difficult for USCIS to explain the requirements to 

employers or workers. A good example of this lack of clarity is the definition of “new hire.” Until 

relatively recently, there was not consensus at USCIS on the definition, even though the legislation 

underlying E-Verify stipulates that the Program can only be used with “new hires.” Furthermore, once a 

decision was made, although the tutorial was updated, there was little effort to inform current users of the 

correct definition. 

A mechanism needs to be established so that workers can confirm that their SSA and/or USCIS 

records that are accessed by E-Verify are correct and up to date in the same way that individuals 

can now access their credit ratings and other confidential information. Establishing a mechanism to 

allow workers to review their government records may not be easy, since it will be necessary to guard 

against improper access to worker information and is likely to have significant costs to the Federal 

government. However, as the E-Verify Program expands, especially if verification prior to the start of 

work is required, it becomes increasingly important for workers to be able to verify that their records are 

correct before seeking a new job. As is true for other complex procedures, initial attempts to establish 

such procedures should be started and evaluated on a pilot basis. It might be reasonable, for example, to 

start with a widely advertised program in Phoenix or alternate locations in Arizona. 

Monitoring employer violations of E-Verify procedures and enforcement efforts discussed above 

must include both violations that affect worker rights and discrimination as well as those that affect 

the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment. The evaluation has documented 

employer violations of E-Verify procedures that result in workers’ being denied their rights under 

E-Verify and/or result in discrimination. For example, employers do not always inform workers who 

receive TNCs of the fact that they have received TNCs or employers may take adverse actions (such as 

reducing pay or not providing the same training that other workers hired at the same time have received) 

while workers are contesting a TNC. These violations must be pursued as well as those related to 

unauthorized employment. 

250 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

3. IMPROVING OPERATING EFFICIENCY AND USER-FRIENDLINESS 

3.1. Modifying Deadlines 

Extend the time frame for entering information for new employees to five workdays after hire if 

verification prior to the start of work is not implemented. Some employers face difficulty in verifying 

workers within three days of hire, especially when verification for several sites is centralized. If 

verification prior to the start of work is required, there may be no need to set an explicit deadline for 

entering information for job applicants beyond specifying procedures that are not discriminatory, e.g., it 

would be logical to specify that all applicants for a given job be screened at the same stage during the 

hiring process (i.e., initial application, before the job offer, after the offer, after acceptance). 

Consider shortening the time that workers have to first contact SSA or USCIS to start the 

contesting process if E-Verify is not modified to require verification prior to work. Most workers 

who contest TNCs contact SSA or USCIS in well under 8 Federal workdays, so that a shorter time frame 

would not inconvenience most workers. However, decreasing the time allowed would decrease the burden 

of the Program on employers that incur expenses in training unauthorized workers during the contesting 

period and would improve the effectiveness of E-Verify in reducing unauthorized employment. To ensure 

that there is not undue hardship placed upon workers in unusual circumstances, there will be a need to 

allow extensions if such a program change were to be instituted. This program change should be 

implemented on a pilot basis, perhaps along with the recommended pilot to require verification prior to 

the start of work, so that the relative advantages of both alternatives to the current system can be 

considered. 

3.2. Expansion of E-Verify 

One means of increasing the percentage of employers using E-Verify shortly after enrollment would 

be to ensure that employers have sufficient information about E-Verify to determine whether 

E-Verify meets their needs prior to enrollment. One program change under consideration that is likely 

to increase the percentage of employers transmitting cases within three months of signing a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) is making the tutorial available over the Web without requiring employers to 

register for the Program first. If more information about the way the Program works were available to 

employers prior to their enrolling in E-Verify, it would be reasonable to expect that some of the 

employers that enroll in the Program and then decide not to use it (e.g., because they decide it is too 

burdensome or does not fit their hiring model) would be able to make that decision without enrolling. 

Moreover, other employers concerned about the burden of E-Verify may look at the tutorial and sign up, 

deciding it is less burdensome than they had feared. 

Employers should be permitted to use E-Verify when they conduct the Form I-9 reverification 

required for noncitizens who have presented immigration documents with expiration dates on their 

original Form I-9. If reverification is permitted, it would be reasonable to use the same procedures for 

providing and resolving TNC cases as are currently used for new employees. 

Attempts to significantly expand the use of E-Verify should provide for phasing in its use by 

employers. Most Federal legislation proposed to date has provided for a phasing-in process to allow the 

Federal government adequate time to hire and train the new staff required to run such a program, to 

educate employers and employees on the new requirements, and to allow employers time to make any 

needed adjustments to their operating procedures and staffing. The most practical way to do this is to base 

the phase-in on employer size, starting with the largest employers that not only employ a high percentage 

of the labor force but are also most likely to have the computer equipment, personnel, and expertise to 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 251 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


implement an electronic verification program. In advance of expanding the start of E-Verify to small 

employers, USCIS should take steps to ensure that they will be able to meet the program requirements 

through either Designated Agents or alternate mechanisms. 

3.3. Adoption of an Alternate Electronic Verification Program 

Caution should be exercised in considering alternative electronic verification programs to the 

current E-Verify Program. E-Verify and its predecessor pilot programs have been successfully evolving 

for over a decade in response to program experiences and the results of independent evaluation studies. 

During this time, both USCIS and SSA have been building the infrastructure (such as staff and systems) 

necessary to operate the Program. Although it is, of course, possible that an alternate program would 

represent an improvement over the current Program, care should be taken to ensure that the challenges of 

any new program will not be greater than those of the current Program. If it is decided that an alternative 

program may be an improvement over the current Program, it is important to evaluate the new program 

on a pilot basis prior to full implementation. Experience with E-Verify has shown that hastily made 

changes can lead to unanticipated problems. 

3.4. System Issues 

3.4.1. Making E-Verify More User-Friendly 

The tutorial should include a general overview of what the E-Verify Program is designed to do and 

how it works. In particular, employers do not understand why TNCs are issued, and, as a result, some 

employers simply ignore the findings. The tutorial should provide multiple scenarios for why TNCs might 

be issued and also explain what happens at SSA and USCIS when those cases are referred. 

To minimize duplicate data entry by employers, efforts should be continued to integrate employers’ 

human resources systems and the E-Verify system. Greater integration of the E-Verify Program and 

employers’ human resources systems would enable employers to “personalize” the system so that the 

system returns directly match their records and so they can produce customized system reports. Such 

integration allows users to enter data once to meet the needs of both the employer and the E-Verify 

Program. Employers would also like to be able to export reports from E-Verify into Microsoft Excel, 

Microsoft Word, and Adobe Acrobat. Efforts to integrate the E-Verify system and human resources 

systems should take into account the option to use an electronic Form I-9 currently available to 

employers. 

The E-Verify system should be modified to permit entry of information about case resolution that 

becomes available after issuance of an FNC. Although there is currently no formal process for 

reopening cases that have become FNCs,230 an informal process has developed where a USCIS employee 

calls to tell the employer that the discrepancy has been resolved and that the worker is employment 

authorized. However, there is currently no way to update the Transaction Database to indicate that the 

outcome has been changed, resulting in discrepancies that could create problems for employmentauthorized workers or their employers if monitoring or enforcement actions indicate that employment 

should have been terminated. If a field is added to the system for this purpose, it would also make sense to 

provide the employer with an automated notification of the changed finding. 

230USCIS is currently considering implementing a process to accommodate more formal requests for reconsideration of FNC findings. 

252 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

Navigation through the verification screens should be further simplified. For example, users should 

be able to print the Verification Result screen rather than opening up a case detail page, and they should 

be able to return to the verification screens from the case detail page without using the back button on 

their Web browsers. 

The process that employers use to resolve cases should be further streamlined. For instance, the 

number of steps the employer must take to close employment-authorized cases should be reduced. If a 

worker is employment authorized at the initial query, the employer must click on the Resolve Case button 

on the Verification Result screen. The case resolution is entered on a separate screen, and the Resolve 

Case button must be clicked again. It should be feasible to offer the employer a choice on the Verification 

Result screen to “resolve case as work authorized” or “institute additional checking procedures,” and for 

the system to automatically enter the closure code if the first alternative is selected. 

The system should retain previously entered information if the employer’s connection “times out.” 

It is not unusual for employers to be interrupted while in the middle of inputting information about a case. 

For security reasons, it is important to continue the practice of having the system time out; however, other 

systems that the evaluation team is aware of retain the information already input so that employers can 

continue from where they left off their data entry when they return and log in to the system again. 

Additional edit checks should be considered. When the Web survey employers using E-Verify were 

asked about the E-Verify computer system, 29 percent of 2008 respondents indicated that it is easy to 

make errors when entering worker information into the system. Additional edit checks might help reduce 

but cannot eliminate all data input errors. For example, data input software would not correct for inputting 

some errors in dates (e.g., (0508) rather than (0805))231 or number transpositions in the entry of the SSN. 

While most of the TNC findings were not the result of data entry errors, there are a considerable number 

of TNCs that were due to mistakes when entering the Form I-9 information into the E-Verify system. It is 

possible that additional edit checks could further decrease inaccuracies. For example, instead of inputting 

dates, the employer could click the relevant dates on a calendar as is done in many other Web 

applications. 

Tutorial information needed only by data input staff that are not highly computer literate should be 

provided as a separate module. Some employers have commented that the tutorial focuses too much on 

basic computer skills (where to click to advance the screens) when the employers really need to know 

how the process works and why it is important to follow the prescribed steps. By using a modular 

approach to the tutorial, the length of time needed to complete the tutorial for many employers could be 

shortened. 

The system should be subjected to additional formal usability testing232 with employers to identify 

other aspects of the system that employers might find cumbersome or confusing and to verify that 

changes implemented are, in fact, understandable and efficient from the user’s perspective. 

Usability testing conducted by professionals specializing in this type of work should be done with the 

current system and whenever new or updated employer and worker materials are developed to ensure that 

E-Verify is clear to the target audience. 

231However, changes to formatting on the Form I-9 might help reduce errors in dates. 

232Formal usability testing includes procedures for observing and interviewing users to examine issues such as whether they are having difficulty 

understanding instructions or finding needed information. It is done in addition to testing the software to ensure that it does what it is designed 

to do, which, of course, is currently done. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 253 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 


3.4.2. Improve Usability of Transaction Database for Evaluation and Monitoring 

Continue and implement recent efforts to modify the automated cleaning of the Transaction 

Database to obtain more meaningful reports for management information purposes. The E-Verify 

systems contractor is currently working with the evaluation contractor to modify the data cleaning process 

for data to be used for reports designed to examine case outcomes.233 This effort should produce reports 

that are consistent with the evaluation reports, avoiding potential confusion over data and creating reports 

that are more accurate for certain types of analysis. 

Documentation of the E-Verify system needs to be clear; special care should be made to ensure that 

any changes made since the previous version of the system documentation was issued are clear in 

the documentation. Evaluation staff members have sometimes had difficulty understanding the E-Verify 

system contractor’s Transaction Database documentation and, because of misunderstandings, have 

sometimes failed to update the software they use to reflect recent changes in variables and codes in a 

timely fashion. The importance of this recommendation will be even greater after the monitoring and 

compliance units start using the data more frequently and also need to understand the details of the 

transaction data. 

More information related to worker and employer actions related to TNCs should be collected to 

inform future evaluations and monitoring efforts. Employers currently provide some information 

about workers’ responses to TNCs by indicating whether they are referring the case to SSA or USCIS. 

The system does not directly capture whether workers said that they want to contest. Right now this 

information is inferred from the referral field; however, it is not possible to identify cases in which the 

workers told their employers that they would contest but their employers failed to initiate referral through 

the system. This information would be useful for monitoring and evaluation purposes and may help 

remind employers of what should be happening after a TNC is received. 

Revise the questions about employer characteristics that are completed by the employer when 

registering. Based on comparisons of Web survey and employer registration information, the data 

employers provide at registration about industry and size is often inaccurate. Such changes could be part 

of the registration re-engineering process currently underway at USCIS. 

It would be helpful to revise the closure codes, as USCIS is currently planning to do. The goal of 

these revisions would be to reduce employer confusion about the meaning of the codes and to provide 

additional information for future monitoring and evaluation efforts. This effort should be coordinated with 

the recommendation to collect additional information about case referral. In explaining the new codes, 

USCIS should also explain when and how cases should be closed in error and resubmitted as a new case. 

For example, it is not clear whether an employer should try to reenter a case under a name the worker 

previously used (such as a maiden name) if the worker receives a TNC. 

233Although these cases should not normally be included in management reports designed to measure system efficiency, they should be retained 

and used for two purposes. First, this information could be of use in monitoring employers (e.g., high rates of cases closed in error might 

indicate that employers are “fishing” for ways to verify workers or are inadequately checking cases before submitting them to E-Verify). 

Second, some workload reports should reflect the number of transmissions rather than the actual number of cases; these include reports used 

for estimating system costs (which are based on transmissions) and also USCIS workload reports, since the error may not be identified in time 

to avert the Immigration Status Verifiers’ work on cases needing secondary verification. 

254 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY
 XIII 

3.5. Federal Verification Process 

USCIS should continue work on automating all aspects of its verification process to reduce the 

amount of work necessary at the secondary stage. Improvements should minimize the need for 

Immigration Status Verifiers (ISVs) to manually check databases other than the Verification Information 

System to determine if the person with information submitted to E-Verify should be found to be 

employment authorized without issuing a TNC. The ultimate goal should be to have a sufficiently 

accurate automated system that manual checking at the secondary stage could be eliminated. However, 

USCIS should not suspend use of these procedures as long as the second-level review results in a 

substantial decrease in the erroneous TNC rate, which is now the case. 

SSA should consider ways to reduce the worker burden associated with the requirement for inperson contact to resolve TNCs.234 Currently, workers receiving SSA TNCs are required to visit an SSA 

office to resolve TNCs. This can be a burden on workers, especially when the SSA office is located a 

considerable distance away. Possible changes to this procedure include the following: 

• Workers should be allowed to use fax and telephone to resolve TNCs, to the extent possible. 

Although the evaluation team recognizes that SSA often needs to scrutinize documents to 

determine their authenticity, there are some situations in which this may not be necessary. For 

example, cases involving employer input errors not caught by the employer or worker might be 

resolved without seeing the original documents. Also, more frequent initial contact by 

telephone may help ensure that the worker does not have to travel to SSA a second time to 

bring additional documents. 

• It may be helpful for SSA field office staff to travel to some remote locations to handle TNCs, 

perhaps on a weekly basis. 

USCIS should decide whether Designated Agents should be certified and, if so, how. Certification of 

Designated Agents would presumably decrease the possibility of misuse of E-Verify by these service 

providers and would provide a benefit to employers that wish to use a Designated Agent but are unsure 

how to select one. Small employers in particular, especially if their numbers continue to grow, are likely 

to need help in identifying reputable Designated Agents. One reason for consideration of this option is 

that many Designated Agents are making claims such as “________, an E-Verify federally approved 

Designated Agent,” “_________ is one of only a handful of federally approved E-Verify Designated Web 

Services Agents,” or “_________ is a federally authorized designated E-Verify Agent.” Claims such as 

these are easily interpreted as meaning that the service provider has undergone some kind of certification 

or screening process, which is not the case.235 Moreover, certification could require demonstration of 

knowledge and service provision that would provide greater assurance that the process was properly 

completed and to provide a means of decertifying those Designated Agents who are deemed to not 

comply with program standards.236 

An e-mail system to alert employers to upcoming and recently implemented changes to E-Verify is 

needed. The employer staff submitting E-Verify cases on a day-to-day basis are often clerical workers 

who are not involved in setting the company’s operational policies. Therefore, information that appears 

on the E-Verify screens may never be seen by company decision-makers. It is, therefore, important that 

234SSA has set a precedent for doing this by modifying its procedures for enrolling persons in Medicare by phone or the Internet. 

235The only review of Designated Agents currently conducted is a review to ensure that the files produced by Web Services providers are in a 

format that is consistent with the E-Verify system. 

236A corollary would be school certification for enrolling students in the Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Program. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 255 
XIII RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING E-VERIFY 

information about program changes be sent to higher level staff as well. Furthermore, in companies that 

hire infrequently, users may not see the current broadcast announcements on the E-Verify home page and 

thus would miss important news about program changes. USCIS reports that they will be implementing 

such an e-mail system in 2009. 

It is also important that outreach to inform Web Services providers about changes being made is 

done sufficiently in advance of implementing new procedures that it permits them to modify their 

software for employers to use in conjunction with E-Verify. It takes time for Web Services providers 

to develop new software to make their software consistent with major changes. It would be reasonable to 

give them information about major upcoming changes while USCIS is working on implementation, so 

that the Web Services employers can be prepared. 

4. CONDUCTING ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 

USCIS has funded a number of research efforts that have either started or will be started in the near 

future. These include a survey of employers that have not enrolled in E-Verify, an in-depth case study in 

Arizona aimed at identifying issues that are likely to arise in a mandatory E-Verify Program, and a 2010 

Web survey of employers using E-Verify to determine changes since the 2008 study as well as to evaluate 

changes made to the Program since the 2008 study. 

The following recommendations relate to future research: 

• Major procedural changes to the E-Verify Program should be carefully reviewed and 

subjected to independent evaluation, based on existing data and/or a pilot program, prior 

to implementation. Some pilot testing of the Photo Screening Tool was done by USCIS 

without assistance from an independent evaluator. However, the pilot test was based on a small 

number of volunteer employers and did not identify a number of problems that arose after 

implementation, such as the difficulty in adapting its use for Designated Agents because such 

employers had not participated in the pilot. 

• Independent general E-Verify evaluation activities need to be continued. In addition to 

evaluating specific procedural changes, it is important to conduct more general independent 

evaluations to measure the progress of USCIS and SSA in implementing the E-Verify Program 

and to determine the Program’s effectiveness in meeting the goals set for it, given that the 

E-Verify Program is rapidly evolving and that not all consequences of modifying it can be 

anticipated. 

• Examination of why there are marked seasonal trends in some of the indicators used in 

this report. Time constraints prevented analyses of the seasonal fluctuations noted in this 

report. Analyses of the reasons for the underlying trends and smoothing techniques would 

provide additional information about factors affecting the key variables used in measuring the 

effectiveness of the E-Verify Program. 

• Multivariate analyses of transaction data should be done to determine whether employer 

characteristics explain or are confounding the conclusions in this report. For example, it is 

possible that differences in the percentage of small employers between Arizona and other states 

explains why Arizona employers are more timely in submitting cases to E-Verify. Time 

constraints precluded doing much multivariate work for this report. 

256 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
GLOSSARY 

Alien. Any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. Because the term is found 

objectionable by some people, it is not generally used in this report. 

Alien number. A unique identification number DHS assigns to aliens (noncitizens) when any one of 

several DHS actions occurs that results in the creation of a file on or issuance of secure documentation for 

the person. Such actions include admission as a permanent resident, asylee, or refugee and issuance of an 

Employment Authorization Document. 

Authorized worker. An individual who is allowed to work legally in the United States. (Also see 

employment authorized). 

Automatically. In this report, the term is used to describe processes that are completed without human 

intervention. It is sometimes used elsewhere to mean authorized after an Immigrant Status Verifier (ISV) 

review without issuing a Tentative Nonconfirmation. 

Basic Pilot Program. The first of three pilot projects for employment verification mandated by Congress 

in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Basic Pilot Program is 

now referred to as E-Verify. 

Biometrics. Biological identifiers, such as fingerprints and retinal scans, that can be used to establish 

identity with a high degree of certainty. 

Breeder documents. Documents used to obtain other documents. For example, a birth certificate is a 

breeder document for a driver’s license. 

Case. A case consists of one or more Transaction Database records associated with a specific employer 

and worker for a particular hiring event. 

Case resolution. Determination of the final case outcome (instantly work authorized, received a Final 

Nonconfirmation from SSA, etc.). 

Citizen. A person owing loyalty to the protection of a particular nation state, usually by virtue of birth or 

naturalization. Generally used in the report to mean a U.S. citizen. 

Compliance scale. A scale developed for this evaluation to measure employer compliance with E-Verify 

procedures, based on employer responses to Web survey questions. The mean of the scale is set at 500 

and the standard deviation at 100. 

Contest. The option available to workers receiving Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) who disagree 

with the finding to contact SSA or USCIS to resolve the problem in their records that led to the TNC. 

Data entry error. An entry incorrectly keyed into an employment verification database by an employer. 

Database. An electronic catalogue of information. 

Designated Agent. The type of E-Verify access that an employer designates when registering that allows 

a service provider to act on behalf of client companies to verify the employment eligibility of their newly 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation GL-1 
hired employees using E-Verify. It allows the service provider to individually track their clients’ 

reporting, billing, and compliance needs, as well as to submit cases for its own new hires. 

Discrimination. Adverse treatment of individuals based on group identity. In employment situations, 

discrimination is defined as differential treatment based on individual characteristics, such as race or 

gender, that are unrelated to productivity or performance. 

Dissimilarity Index. The mean of the absolute differences between E-Verify and the nation on a 

particular characteristic. This index is used to indicate how dissimilar E-Verify employers and the 

workers for whom they submit cases are from the entire U.S. population of employers or workers. It 

ranges from 0 to 100. 

Effectiveness rate. The percentage of workers without employment authorization who were correctly not 

found to be employment authorized. This rate is equal to 100 percent minus the estimated inaccuracy rate 

expressed as a percent for unauthorized workers (or 1.00 minus the inaccuracy rate expressed as a 

proportion). 

Employment authorized. The designation that a worker is authorized to work in the United States. 

Persons authorized to work include U.S. citizens and nationals and noncitizens in various employmentauthorized statuses. (Also see authorized worker.) 

Employment verification. Process of verifying authorization to work in the United States. 

Erroneous Tentative Nonconfirmation rate. The percentage of workers found to be employment 

authorized at any point in the verification process who received a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) prior 

to receiving an employment-authorized finding. 

Establishment. A single location where an employer’s business is conducted. (Also see firm.) 

E-Verify. E-Verify is the name currently used in referring to the Basic Pilot Program initially authorized 

in 1996. The Program electronically verifies the employment-authorization status of newly hired workers 

based on Form I-9 information input by employers. 

E-Verify users. Employers that are actually using the E-Verify system. 

EV-STAR (E-Verify SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation Automated Response System). Implemented 

in October 2007, an automated tracking process for referring and contesting Tentative Nonconfirmations 

(TNCs) at SSA to more closely mirror the USCIS TNC tracking process. 

Final inaccuracy rate. An inaccuracy rate based on the final finding of the system after the case is 

contested or has become a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) because the case was not contested. 

Final Nonconfirmation (FNC). A result on the Transaction Database indicating that the worker’s 

employment authorization was not established because the worker or the employer did not take the 

necessary action to resolve a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC). This result is only issued by the 

E-Verify system after the employer has been notified of a TNC response and the time the worker has for 

contesting the finding has elapsed. 

Firm. A corporate entity that conducts business at one or more sites. 

Foreign national. An individual who is a citizen of a country other than the United States. 

GL-2 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Foreign born. An individual who was born outside of the United States. American citizens can be 

foreign born, either because they were born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent or because they were 

naturalized or derived U.S. citizenship through their parents. 

Form I-9. The USCIS form employers must use to verify the identity and employment-authorization 

status of all newly hired workers in the United States. The form was developed following passage of the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. (See Appendix E for an example of this form.) 

Fraudulent documents. Identity and/or employment-authorization documents that are counterfeit or are 

legitimate but have been altered to change the identifying information or images to represent another 

person. 

Gap between [group1] and [group 2]. The difference between group 1 and group 2 on the variable of 

interest. 

Hire date. According to the USCIS Web site, “The earliest the employer may initiate a query is after an 

individual accepts an offer of employment and after the employee and employer complete the Form I-9. 

The employer must initiate the query no later than the end of three business days after the new hire’s 

actual start date.” 

Illegal alien. A noncitizen who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States or who has, after a 

lawful admission, violated the terms of his/her lawful admission, usually by working or staying longer 

than authorized. (Also see Undocumented immigrant.) 

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). A major immigration law 

enacted on September 30, 1996. Among other things, IIRIRA mandated that the then INS conduct and 

evaluate three pilot electronic employment verification programs, including the Basic Pilot Program now 

called E-Verify. 

Immigrant. A noncitizen who has been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States. 

Immigrants either obtain immigrant visas at consular offices overseas or, if a visa number is immediately 

available or unnecessary, adjust status at USCIS offices in the United States. (Also see lawful permanent 

resident.) 

Immigration Status Verifiers (ISVs). The group of USCIS field office staff that verify immigration 

status for benefit and licensing agencies and E-Verify employers. One of their functions is to verify the 

status of individuals receiving a Tentative Nonconfirmation from USCIS. They are now called 

Management Program Assistants. The more descriptive term is used in the report for clarity. 

Inadvertent discrimination. See unintentional discrimination. 

Inaccuracy rate for authorized workers. The percentage of cases for workers with employment 

authorization who are not correctly found to be employment authorized. This rate can refer to either the 

initial inaccuracy rate based on the employment-authorization finding of the system prior to the case 

being contested or to the final inaccuracy rate calculated after any contesting is completed. If not 

otherwise specified, the rates in this report refer to the initial rates. This is often referred to as an error 

rate in research literature. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation GL-3 
Inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers. The percentage of workers without employment 

authorization who were incorrectly found to be employment authorized. This is often referred to as an 

error rate in research literature. 

Indicator. An indirect measure of a variable of interest used when a more direct measure is unavailable. 

Indirect costs. A cost that is not identifiable with a specific function, product, or activity. For example, 

indirect costs associated with setting up the employment verification program can include reassignment of 

workers, additional recruitment, and delayed production. 

Initial inaccuracy rate. An inaccuracy rate based on the employment-authorization finding of the 

system prior to the case being contested or becoming a Final Nonconfirmation because the case was not 

contested. 

Insecure documents. Documents that can easily be altered or counterfeited. 

Instantly verified. This report uses this term to indicate that the worker is verified almost immediately 

as work authorized based on the automatic E-Verify checks without the need for human intervention. 

Lawful permanent resident (LPR). A noncitizen who has been admitted as a legal permanent resident 

of the United States. A green card holder. (Also see immigrant.) 

Mean number of days between [action 1] and [action 2]. The mean number of days between two 

events, such as hiring and entry of information into the E-Verify database. If not otherwise noted, these 

are calendar days. 

Mean number of days between case initiation and case resolution. The mean number of calendar days 

between when the employer transmits a case to the E-Verify database and final case resolution. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A signed document in which an employer choosing to 

participate in E-Verify agrees to abide by the provisions of E-Verify and that specifies USCIS and SSA’s 

provision of certain materials and services. (See Appendix D.) 

Naturalization Phase I. Implemented in May 2008, this change added an automated DHS databasechecking process for workers attesting to be U.S. citizens when SSA records are consistent with the 

information submitted on Social Security number, name, and date of birth, but cannot confirm that 

workers entered into the system are U.S. citizens. This automated check compares the employersubmitted information with USCIS citizenship databases to determine whether the information submitted 

belongs to a naturalized citizen. 

Naturalization Phase II. Implemented in May 2008, this change provides a special referral letter for 

workers attesting to being U.S. citizens when their SSA records are consistent with the information 

submitted on Social Security number, name, and date of birth, but neither SSA nor USCIS records can 

confirm that they are U.S. citizens. The letter provides them with an opportunity to voluntarily contact 

USCIS by phone or fax to resolve the problem by providing their former Alien or “A” number rather than 

going in person to an SSA field office. 

New hire. According to USCIS, for E-Verify purposes a new hire is a person who has been offered and 

accepted a job offer. (Also see hire date.) 

GL-4 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
No show. A result on the Transaction Database indicating that a worker referred to SSA or USCIS to 

resolve a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) did not contact the appropriate agency to resolve the TNC 

within the allotted timeframe. 

Nonimmigrant. A noncitizen admitted to the United States with a nonimmigrant visa or under the 

nonimmigrant visa waiver program for a specified temporary purpose and time period. Common 

examples are tourists, students, temporary workers, and foreign government officials. 

Notice of Tentative Nonconfirmation. The printed form a pilot employer provides notifying a worker 

that a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) has been issued by the verification system and informing the 

worker of his/her rights and responsibilities with respect to resolving the TNC. The worker must sign the 

form, indicating whether he/she wishes to contest the finding. (See Appendix K.) 

Numerical Identification File (NUMIDENT). The SSA database containing information on all persons 

issued Social Security numbers (SSNs). E-Verify automatically checks the NUMIDENT database to 

confirm the accuracy of the worker’s reported SSN, name, date of birth, and, in some cases, citizenship 

status. 

Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC). An office 

established in the U.S. Department of Justice by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 to 

provide remedies for immigration-related discrimination related to employer sanctions and employment 

verification. The office provides a mechanism for dealing with discriminatory employment practices, 

including hiring and discharge from employment based on citizenship status or national origin. 

Operating costs. Recurring costs associated with program operations. 

Photo Screening Tool (Photo Tool). The Photo Screening Tool permits employers to compare 

photographs on employee documents with digital photographs stored in government systems to detect 

existing valid documents that have a new photograph substituted on the original document or that are 

counterfeit documents created with valid information but a new photograph. The only documents 

currently available on the Photo Screening Tool are Permanent Resident (“green”) cards and Employment 

Authorization Documents (EADs). 

Pre-FNC check. Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) cases without SSA action through EV-STAR are 

automatically resubmitted to E-Verify to determine if the case is work authorized prior to the issuance of 

a Final Nonconfirmation (FNC). This procedure avoids FNCs that would previously have occurred if 

employers failed to correctly resubmit cases after workers had visited SSA to resolve their TNCs. (Also 

see EV-STAR.) 

Prescreen. To evaluate the employment-authorization status of an individual before hiring him/her. This 

practice is prohibited by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the statute authorizing the 

Basic Pilot/E-Verify. 

Pre-TNC checks. SSA pre-Tentative Nonconfirmation (pre-TNC) check and USCIS pre-TNC checks 

that were implemented in September 2007. For SSA, this process consists of asking employers to review 

their input and correct any detected errors prior to the issuance of a TNC. For USCIS, employers are 

asked to review their input prior to the case going to the secondary verification process in which 

Immigration Status Verifiers manually check additional DHS databases when the initial automated check 

does not confirm that the employee is work authorized. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation GL-5 
Primary query. The first step of the computerized employment verification process. The employer 

enters information from the worker’s completed Form I-9 and transmits it to E-Verify for matching 

against the SSA database and, if necessary, DHS databases. 

Probability of selection. The probability of a unit being selected into a sample. For example, if all 

E-Verify employers are included in the sample, the probability of selection is 1; if half are included, the 

probability of selection is 0.5. 

Query. The action of keying information and accessing the verification database to verify employment 

eligibility. A single employment case may involve multiple queries. (Also see case.) 

Referral notice. The official notice an employer provides to a worker who wishes to contest a Tentative 

Nonconfirmation finding in the verification process. It explains what procedures the worker must take to 

resolve his/her case. (See Appendix L.) 

Sampling frame. The list from which a sample is selected. For example, in the onsite employer study, 

the sampling frame was all E-Verify establishments that were actively using E-Verify and met other 

specified criteria. 

Sanctions (of employers). A prohibition in Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act that 

makes it unlawful to knowingly hire or continue to employ workers who are not authorized to work in the 

United States. Employers who knowingly hire workers who are not employment authorized are subject to 

fines and possibly imprisonment. 

Satisfaction scale. A scale developed for this evaluation to measure employer satisfaction based on 

employer responses to Web survey questions. The mean of the scale is set at 500 and the standard 

deviation at 100. 

Secondary verification. The second stage of employment verification at USCIS under E-Verify. An 

Immigration Status Verifier reviews the case to determine the availability of additional information 

relevant to a worker’s employment-authorization status. This step is required if there is a mismatch 

between the DHS database and the worker information entered by the employer. For SSA, the second 

stage requires the worker to visit an SSA office to correct an inaccuracy in his/her records and is, thus, 

equivalent to the third verification stage for USCIS. 

Secure documents. Documents that have special security features such as bar codes, holograms, 

embedded images, biometric identifiers, laminates, or other features that make them difficult to 

counterfeit or alter. Such documents are typically issued through processes that are also secure. 

Stakeholders. Individuals and organizations with an interest in a program or issue. 

Standard Industrial Codes (SIC). A standard set of codes developed by the Federal government to 

classify industries. 

Start-up cost. The costs incurred by a business or the Federal government to initiate and implement a 

new program. 

State Legislation Groups. For analysis purposes, states are grouped based on the type of E-Verify 

legislation on March 31, 2008, into: (1) had implemented legislation requiring all employers to participate 

in E-Verify (Arizona was the only state in this category); (2) had implemented legislation requiring some 

GL-6 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
employers (for example, state agencies and their contractors) to participate in E-Verify; and (3) had not 

enacted legislation requiring participation in E-Verify. 

Target population. The individuals or groups of interest to a study. For the Web survey, the target 

population was all employers that signed a Memorandum of Understanding to use E-Verify that met 

certain criteria. 

Temporary Protected Status (TPS). A status given to noncitizens to temporarily stay and work in the 

United States based on a designation by the Secretary of Homeland Security that their country is subject 

to ongoing armed conflict, the aftermath of a natural disaster, or other extraordinary temporary condition 

such that their return would pose a serious threat to their personal safety. 

Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) (of work authorization). The initial response from E-Verify when 

a worker’s employment authorization cannot be immediately confirmed. There are many possible reasons 

that a worker may receive a TNC, ranging from employer keying errors to a worker’s lack of employment 

authorization. 

Total inaccuracy rate. The percentage of cases with an incorrect finding. Note that this inaccuracy rate 

is not the sum of the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers and the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized 

workers but the sum of these two types of inaccuracies divided by the total number of cases submitted to 

E-Verify.. This is often referred to as an error rate in research literature. 

Transaction Database. The administrative database that captures all E-Verify transactions by 

employers, SSA, and USCIS. 

U.S. citizen. An individual who is born in the United States or attains U.S. citizenship by being born 

abroad to at least one U.S citizen parent, by being naturalized, or by deriving citizenship following his/her 

parents’ naturalization. 

Unauthorized employment. Employment of workers without work authorization. (Also see 

unauthorized worker.) 

Unauthorized finding. An E-Verify finding that is issued by USCIS for workers that contest a Tentative 

Nonconfirmation and are found to be not authorized to work in the United States. 

Unauthorized worker. A noncitizen who does not have legal permission to work in the United States 

because of his/her immigration status or because he/she has applied and been found ineligible for work 

authorization. This category includes unauthorized workers who are in the country legally (e.g., visitors) 

but do not have authorization to work in the United States. (Also see undocumented immigrant.) 

Underground economy. Economic activity that is unrecorded in official gross domestic product figures. 

It includes illegal and criminal activities such as gambling and drug dealing, as well as income that goes 

unreported to avoid taxation. 

Undocumented immigrant. A noncitizen who does not have permission to enter or reside in the United 

States. (Also see illegal alien.) 

Unintentional discrimination. Discrimination against a protected group that occurs as a result of 

someone's actions without an intent to discriminate. For example, since foreign-born workers with 

employment authorization are more likely to receive erroneous Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) than 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation GL-7 
U.S.-born workers, adverse actions of an employer, such as refusing to employ workers receiving TNCs, 

disproportionately hurts foreign-born workers and is considered unintentional discrimination. 

User of Designated Agent. The type of E-Verify access that employers designate when registering, if 

they plan to have a Designated Agent conduct part of the E-Verify process (typically the system query) on 

their behalf. 

Verification. A process by which a case is entered into E-Verify for determination of work-authorization 

status. 

Verification Information System (VIS). The USCIS information system used by the E-Verify Program, 

which includes data from primary DHS databases with new information on noncitizen status. 

Verification Number. The Verification Number is a unique number generated automatically by 

E-Verify when a case is first entered into E-Verify; it is used to identify the case in any future actions. 

Verification transaction record. A record in the E-Verify Transaction Database capturing employerentered information to determine a worker’s employment authorization. 

Web Services provider. The type of E-Verify access that an employer designates when registering if the 

employer plans to submit Form I-9 information by extracting information from their existing Human 

Resources or payroll system or an electronic Form I-9 and transmitting that data to SSA and USCIS to 

determine employment authorization using E-Verify. This access method requires the company to 

develop or purchase software to interface between their system and E-Verify. The compatibility of the 

software the Web Services provider wishes to use must be reviewed by the USCIS contractor responsible 

for system operations prior to use to ensure it is compatible with the E-Verify Program interface. 

Work-authorization model. A model formulated for this study to estimate the true work status of 

groups of workers with specified interim or final case findings. (See Appendix B.) 

GL-8 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
APPENDIX A 

STEPS FOR CLEANING THE TRANSACTION DATABASE 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation A-1

A-2 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
APPENDIX A. 

STEPS FOR CLEANING THE TRANSACTION DATABASE 

This appendix describes the approaches used to clean the E-Verify Transaction Database. The main 

purpose of the cleaning is to identify and delete as many transactions as possible that were entered in error 

or that are duplicated. It is not always easy to determine which transactions should be removed. For 

example, the duplicate Social Security numbers (SSNs) for several employers were examined to see if it 

was reasonable to assume that when two SSNs were transmitted close together in time, they were related 

to a single case rather than multiple hiring of the same person or of different persons fraudulently using 

the same SSNs. 

To improve the cleaning process, the evaluation team intensively reviewed the cleaning steps described in 

the last report, examined the records on the initial file to determine whether the rules make sense in terms 

of what is on the database, and modified the rules as necessary. The most significant modification was to 

calculate the sequence of various verification events. Although it is not possible to develop a perfect 

measure that will place all cases in accurate sequential order, the evaluation team believes that applying 

this measure results in a database that more accurately reflects what is happening to individuals being 

screened by the E-Verify Program and correctly identifies the cases to be retained. 

This process is divided into four sets of actions: (1) preliminary steps, (2) SSN checks, (3) alien number 

(A-number) checks, and (4) name checks. Each is examined in turn. The flowcharts illustrating the steps 

are provided following the narrative. 

1. PRELIMINARY STEPS 

Prior to examining the transaction record, the EV-STAR data were merged with the initial Transaction 

Database. The preliminary steps involved identifying and deleting the cases that are clearly invalid 

transactions. The potential sources of invalid transactions included in the initial database were cases 

closed as invalid queries, records that appear to be identical for a particular case (referred to here as 

system duplicates), test cases, and cases transmitted using the PC system that preceded the Web Basic 

Pilot. Exhibit A-1 summarizes the preliminary steps. Of the almost 4.1 million records on the initial 

Transaction Database from March 2008 through July 2008, 156,269 cases (3.8 percent) were deleted 

because the employer closed the case with a closure code of “IQ,” indicating it was an Invalid Query. 

Another 32,640 cases (0.8 percent) were deleted because they appeared to be system duplicates; that is, 

all of the case information and the initiated date were the same. 

Following the preliminary checks, records were examined to determine if they were multiple records 

transmitted for a single case and, if so, to determine the cause of the duplication and take the necessary 

corrective action. To be considered two records for a single case, the records had to be transmitted by the 

same employer, been transmitted within 30 days of one another, and match on one or more of the checks 

described below (i.e., the SSN check, the A-number check, or the name check). Determining the reason 

for multiple records for a given case is, however, not straightforward. For instance, there is not an easy 

way to distinguish between individuals who are rehired by the same employer and employers hiring 

multiple persons fraudulently using a specific SSN. The evaluation team, therefore, developed and 

applied a set of rules to use in classifying duplicate records for a case. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation A-3 
2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CHECKS 

Exhibit A-2 indicates the sequence of checks run on the cases with duplicate SSNs. The first check was to 

identify whether it seems likely that the employer should have closed the case as an Invalid Query but 

failed to do so. For example, when an employer submits two nonidentical records on the same day for the 

same SSN that differ from one another on basic identifying information such as last name, the evaluation 

team assumes that the case with the earlier event measure should have been closed.237 This step led to the 

deletion of 35,829 records. 

Cases were assumed to be resubmittals of cases that had been referred to SSA when two records for an 

employer had the same SSN and hire date, the case with the lower verification number was an SSA 

Tentative Nonconfirmation, and the event measure of the lower case number was not more recent than the 

case with the higher case number. This step led to deletion of 8,069 cases; prior to deletion of a case with 

these duplicate records, information from the record with the lowest verification number was used to 

complete the fields describing the initial disposition of the case. 

Cases were assumed to be mistaken resubmittals of authorized cases when the duplicate SSN cases from 

the employer received a system response of authorized and there were less than 30 days between their 

initiated and hire dates. Approximately 45,099 cases were deleted based on this rule. 

3. ALIEN NUMBER CHECKS 

Of the 465,877 cases with A-numbers, 800 had A-numbers that were clearly made up (e.g., a number 

consisting only 9s); these were not subject to cleaning based on A-numbers because they most likely were 

numbers entered by employers when the correct A-number was not available.238 Cases with the 

remaining A-numbers were examined during a process that was similar to that used for the duplicate 

SSNs except that it was A-numbers that were checked for possible duplicates. Since the SSN check 

preceded the A-number check, and since all cases have SSNs and only noncitizen cases have A-numbers, 

it is not surprising that the duplicate A-number checks resulted in the deletion of fewer cases than the 

duplicate SSN number checks. Based on the cleaning rules (Exhibit A-3), 887 records were deleted 

because they should have been closed as Invalid Queries. Another 306 records were deleted as probable 

resubmissions, and an additional 31 records were deleted because they appeared to be work-authorized 

cases that had been mistakenly resubmitted. 

4. NAME CHECKS 

To perform name checks, all the name fields were changed to upper case and all special characters were 

deleted to ensure all records had the same name formats, and a matching variable was constructed from 

the name and birth date of the case. This cleaning routine was primarily designed to identify duplicate 

records that would not have been identified in the SSN and A-number checks because, for example, the 

employer realized that an incorrect SSN or A-number had been transmitted and he/she resubmitted the 

corrected information without closing the original case as an Invalid Query. Based on the checks 

(Exhibit A-4), 5,600 records were deleted as cases that should have been coded as Invalid Queries. In 

addition, 932 cases were deleted because they appeared to be resubmissions, and 470 records were 

deleted as mistaken resubmissions. 

237 The event measure indicates where the case was in the verification process. 

238When no A-number was available for a case with an I-94 number, the I-94 number was used instead of the A-number. 

A-4 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
5. TOTAL CASES CLEANED 

A total of 290,665 records (7 percent) were removed during the cleaning process (Exhibit A-5). Of the 

removed cases, 188,909 (65 percent) were deleted at the preliminary step, 88,997 (31 percent) were 

removed during SSN checks, and an additional 3 percent were removed during A-number (1,224 cases) or 

name (7,002 cases) checks. Another 4,533 records (2 percent) were deleted without determination of the 

likely reason for multiple records being submitted. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation A-5 
Exhibit A-1. Preliminary Data Cleaning Steps: March–July 2008 Transaction Database 

Raw Data from CSC 

4,095,970 records 

Yes 156,269 Invalid Queries 

Closure Code='IQ' records 

No 

3,939,701 

records 

Yes 0 records Test case? 

No 

3,939,701 

records 

Yes 0 records PC,PC-BP,PC_DABP 

No 

3,939,701 

records 

Yes Out of Date Window 0 records (before June 01, 2004) 

No 

3,939,701 32,640 Yes 

records System Duplicates? records 

No 

3,907,061 

records 

A-6 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit A-2. Steps for Cleaning Based on SSNs: March–July 2008 Transaction Database 

From previous step: 3,907,061 records 

--------------------------------------------------------------

SSN sort 

Yes 

35,829 records Closed in Error? 

No 

3,871,232 

records 

Yes 

8,069 records SSA Resubmittals 

No 

3,863,163 

records 

Yes 

45,099 records Mistaken Duplicates? 

No 

3,818,064 

records 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation A-7 
Exhibit A-3. Steps for Cleaning Based on Alien or I-94 Number: March–July 2008 Transaction 

Database 

From previous step: 3,818,064 records 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Alien number sort 

Yes 

887 records Closed in Error? 

No 

3,817,182 

records 

Yes 

306 records SSA Resubmittals 

No 

3,816,876 

records 

Yes 

31 records Mistaken Duplicates? 

No 

3,816,840 

records 

A-8 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit A-4. Steps for Cleaning Based on Name and Date of Birth: March–July 2008 Transaction 

Database 

From previous step: 3,816,840 records 

------------------------------------------------------------

Name sort 

Yes 

5,600 Closed in Error? 

No 

3,811,240 

Yes 

932 SSA Resubmittals 

No 

3,810,308 

Yes 

470 Mistaken Duplicates? 

No 

3,809,838 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation A-9 
Exhibit A-5. Summary of Database Cleaning Steps: March–July 2008 Transaction Database 

File from CSC: 

4,095,970 records 

Preliminary 

Cleaning: 156,269 

records 

Classified SSN# 

Duplicates: 121,637 

records 

Classified Alien# 

Duplicates: 1,224 

records 

Classified Name 

Duplicates: 7,002 

records 

Unclassified 

Duplicates: 4,533 

records 

Total Retained Records: 

3,805,305 

Total Deleted Records: 

290,665 

A-10 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY USED FOR MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF INACCURACY RATES 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-1

B-2 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-3 
239Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Demographer, Pew Hispanic Center, and D'Vera Cohn, Senior Writer, Pew Research Center, A Portrait of 

Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, 4.14.2009 (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107). 

APPENDIX B. METHODOLOGY USED FOR 

MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF INACCURACY RATES 

1. BACKGROUND 

This appendix is designed to provide technical information for readers who want a more in-depth 

understanding of how the model-based inaccuracy rate estimates used in the report were made. It is 

designed to supplement information provided in Chapter II about the inaccuracy rate calculations. The 

notation used in this report is presented in Exhibit B-1 for reference purposes. 

Exhibit B-1. Overview of statistical notation used in report 

First suffix (source of statistic): 

p = Pew Hispanic Foundation239 

. = Evaluation data 

Second suffix (demographic indicator): 

s = state 

i = industry 

. = nation 

First capitalized letter (type of statistic): 

N = number 

P = percent 

E = inaccuracy rate 

F = effectiveness rate 

Superscript (authorization status of population referred to): 

a = authorized 

u = unauthorized 

t = total (i.e., both authorized and unauthorized workers are included) 

Second capital letter 

R = received TNC 

W = work-authorized finding without TNC 

. = total (i.e., both TNC recipients and nonrecipients are included) 

Third capitalized letter (whether informed of TNC) 

I = informed 

N = not informed 

. = total (both informed and non-informed workers included) 

Fourth capitalized letter (whether contest TNC) 

C = Contest 

D = Didn’t contest 

. = total (both workers who contested and those who did not are included) 

B-4 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit B-1. Overview of statistical notation used in report (continued) 

Fifth capitalized letter (E-Verify finding) 

A = found work authorized 

F = received FNC 

U = found unauthorized 

X = not found authorized (i.e., either received either an FNC or an unauthorized finding) 

. = total (both workers who contested and those who did not are included) 

Other conventions 

•	 Italics are used to identify which variable(s) are used as the numerator in calculating percents 

•	 Leading and trailing “.”s are deleted from the notation for simplicity (e.g., Na refers to the total 

number of authorized cases and is short for .. Na

....) 

•	 When a step is a natural consequence of the preceding step, the last step is often omitted for 

simplicity (e.g., Na

RID refers to the total number of authorized cases for workers who have been 

informed of a TNC without contesting it and is short for ..Na

RIDF, since all cases not contested 

are Final Nonconfirmation cases). 

As explained in Chapter II, evaluation of several of the E-Verify Program’s key goals requires estimation 

of the following inaccuracy rates that are not amenable to direct measurement: 

The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers (Ea

) is the percentage of workers with employment 

authorization who are not found by E-Verify to be employment authorized (in other words, they either 

received FNCs or unauthorized findings), i.e.: 

(1) Ea

 = (Na...X)/Na 

The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers (Eu

) is the percentage of workers without employment 

authorization who are found to be employment authorized, i.e.: 

(2) Eu

 = (Nu...A)/Nu 

The total inaccuracy rate (Et

) is the percentage of workers with cases submitted to E-Verify who 

received a finding that is not consistent with their true employment-authorization status, i.e.: 

(3) Et

 = [(Nu...A) + (Na...X)]/ Nt 

Note that Et

 is not equal to the sum of the two inaccuracy rates above because the disproportionately large 

number of workers with employment authorization in the labor force results in the total inaccuracy rate 

being much closer to the inaccuracy rate for employment-authorized workers. 

Section 2 of this appendix explains how the inaccuracy rate for authorized workers (Ea

) is estimated, and 

Section 3 explains how the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers (Eu

) is estimated. The final section, 

4, discusses the estimation of the total inaccuracy rate (Et

) and the effectiveness rate (F). 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-5 
2. ESTIMATING THE INACCURACY RATE FOR AUTHORIZED WORKERS 

2.1. The percentage of employment-authorized workers informed of their TNCs 

Exhibit B-2 illustrates the flow of cases for employment-authorized workers who receive TNCs (Na

R), 

using the terminology in Exhibit B-1 and assuming that Na

R = 1,000.240 

Exhibit B-2. Illustration of E-Verify Process for Employment-Authorized Workers Who Receive 

TNCs 

Employment-authorized workers 

with a TNC 

(NaR) (1,000) 

Employer 

informs 

employee? 

Final Nonconfirmation 

(Na

RN) (300) 

Final Nonconfirmation 

(Na

RID) (55) 

Employee 

contests? 

Notified 

employees 

(Na

RI) (700) 

Authorized 

(Na

RICA) (645) 

PaRN 

No (30%) 

Pa

RI 

Yes (70%) 

Pa

RID 

No (7.9%) 

Pa

RIC 

Yes (92.1%) 

240As discussed later in this section, the model actually estimates the total number authorized from the total number of authorized workers 

successfully contesting TNCs, since the latter is what is known. However, it is simpler to understand the flow if the starting point is the number 

of employment-authorized workers. 

B-6 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Starting with the number of employment-authorized workers receiving TNCs (Na

R) which is assumed to 

be given for illustrative purposes, the flow can be summarized using the notation in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 

as follows: 

(4) Na

RN = PaRN * NaR 

(5) Na

RI = PaRI * NaR 

where Na

RN is the number of employment-authorized workers who received a TNC and were not 

informed of it; Pa

RN is the percentage of employment-authorized workers who received a TNC but were 

not informed of it; Na

RI is the number of employment-authorized workers who received a TNC and were 

informed of it; and Pa

RI is the percentage of employment-authorized workers who received a TNC and 

were informed of it. 

In the example in Exhibit B-2, the user has set Pa

RI to .7, which means that PaRN = 1-.7 or .3. Inserting 

the assumed values into equations (2) and (3): 

(6) Na

RN = .3 * NaR 

(7) Na

RI = .7 * NaR 

Since Na

R is known and is 1,000 in this hypothetical example, the desired values for NaRN and NaRI can 

be calculated: 

(8) Na

RN = .3 * 1,000 = 300 

(9) Na

RI = .7 * 1,000 = 700 

Similarly, 

(10) Na

RID = NaRI* PaRID 

(11) Na

RICA = NaRIC = NaRI* PaRIC 

NaRN is estimated as 300 in the illustration above and NaRI = 700. Therefore, to obtain estimates for 

Na

RID and NaRIC, it is necessary to obtain estimates for PaRID and PaRIC. 

In earlier versions of the model used in past reports, the user set the value for Pa

RIC. However, in the 

revised model it is calculated based on interviews of workers believed to be employment authorized who 

received FNCs and the user-estimated percentage of workers informed of their TNCs. The information 

from the worker interviews was used to estimate a parameter (k), which is defined as the ratio of the 

number of employment-authorized workers receiving FNCs because they did not contest after being 

informed of their TNCs (Na

RID) to the number of employment-authorized workers receiving FNCs 

because they were not informed of their TNCs (Na

RN), i.e.: 

k = Na

RID/NaRN 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-7 
Although the workers interviewed in the onsite study overrepresent employment-authorized workers, it is 

not unreasonable to believe that k can be estimated from the workers whom the interviewers believe are 

employment authorized. This ratio is .183, and in the illustration: 

(12) .183 = Na

RID/NaRN and NaRID = .183* NaRN 

Since Na

RN was estimated above to be 300, NaRID = .183* 300 = 55 

Na

RIC can then be calculated by subtracting the number of informed workers who do not contest (NaRID) 

from the total number of workers informed (Na

RI), i.e.: 

(13) Na

RIC = NaRI - NaRID = 700 – 55 = 645 

The corresponding probabilities can then be calculated from these numbers, i.e.: 

(14) Pa

RID = NaRID/NaRI = 55/700 = 7.9% 

And Pa

RIC = 1 - .079 = 92.1% 

The inaccuracy rate for authorized workers (Ea

) can now be calculated as the number of employmentauthorized cases that are not found employment authorized (Na

...X) divided by the number of cases that 

are, in fact, employment authorized (Na

), i.e.: 

(15) Ea

 = (Na...X)/Na 

Since all contested and resolved cases are assumed to have correct findings, it is assumed that there are no 

employment-authorized cases found unauthorized, i.e.: 

Na

RICU = 0 and equation (15) can be rewritten as 

(16) Ea

 = (Na...F)/Na 

where (Na

...F) is the number of FNCs 

(17) Na...F = NaRID + NaRN = 55 + 300 = 355 

If for illustrative purposes we assume that the number of authorized persons was estimated to be 100,000: 

(18) Ea

 = (Na...F)/Na = 355/100,000 = 0.36 percent in this hypothetical example.

In the example, to simplify the discussion, it was assumed that the number of authorized workers who 

received TNCs (Na

R) was known (1,000) and NaRICA was to be estimated. However, in actuality, it is 

NaRICA that is known because the assumption that the all resolved TNCs were correct means that 

Na

RICA = NtRICA, which is simply the number of successfully contested TNCs. To make the estimates 

starting with Na

RICA, it is necessary to calculate the values “backwards,” e.g.: 

Since Na

RICA = NaRI * PaRIC in equation (11), by solving for NaRI: 

(19) Na

RI= NaRICA/PaRIC = 645/.921 = 700 

The remaining estimates can be made in an analogous way. 

B-8 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
2.2. Selecting values for the percentage of employment-authorized workers receiving TNCS who 

are informed of their TNCs 

As discussed in the preceding section, estimating the percentage of employment-authorized workers 

among all workers with E-Verify cases (Pa

) requires the user to estimate the percentage of employmentauthorized workers informed that they have received a TNC (Pa

RI). This section discusses how the value 

estimates used in estimating Pa

RI in this report were selected. 

The selection for a point estimate for Pa

RI is based on the following empirical information:241 

• On the employer survey, 98 percent of employers reported that they always informed their 

employees of TNCs. 

• Among the 100 onsite study employers that discussed their employee notification processes, 96 

said that they always notified employees of TNCs. Of the 101 onsite study employers that 

discussed whether they provide their employees with the written TNC notice, 100 employers 

said that they always provide employees with the written TNC notice, and 86 percent of Web 

survey respondents said that they always provide written notification of TNC findings. 

• There were 82 onsite study employers out of the 100 that discussed their notification process 

that reported that they explained the meaning of the TNC notice to workers. However, of these 

82 employers, 37 had one or more employees who reported that they did not receive an 

explanation. 

• Among the records reviewed that should have contained a TNC notice, 52 percent were 

missing the appropriate notice. 

The estimate of the percentage of workers who received TNCs would be 98 percent if one relied solely on 

the first piece of information, and would be 52 percent if one relied solely on the last piece of 

information. However, it is clear from the employee interviews that 98 percent is an overestimate, which 

is not unexpected since employers would be expected to be biased toward reporting that they are 

complying with the E-Verify requirements. It is also reasonable to believe that some TNC notices are 

given to workers but not correctly filed. Based on the totality of the above information, the evaluation 

assumes that the true percentage is between 60 percent and 80 percent, with 70 percent being a reasonable 

point estimate. 

3. ESTIMATING THE INACCURACY RATE FOR UNAUTHORIZED WORKERS 

Estimating the percentage of the Transaction Database cases for workers without employment 

authorization requires estimating the number of unauthorized workers among the cases in the Transaction 

Database. 

The number of unauthorized workers among the Transaction Database cases (Nu

) can be viewed as 

having three components—the number of unauthorized workers found to be unauthorized (Nu

...U), the 

number receiving FNCs (Nu...F), and the number found work authorized (Nu...A), i.e.: 

(20) Nu

 = (Nu...U) + (Nu...F) + (Nu...A) 

241See Chapter VI for additional information about these findings. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-9 
242Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Demographer, Pew Hispanic Center, and D'Vera Cohn, Senior Writer, Pew Research Center, A Portrait of 

Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, 4.14.2009 (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=107). 

Since the model assumes that findings for all contested cases are correct, the number of unauthorized 

cases found to be unauthorized (Nu

...U) can be treated as known (i.e., 0). The number of unauthorized 

workers receiving FNCs can be easily estimated once the number of employment-authorized workers 

receiving FNCs is estimated as discussed in Section B of this appendix, since workers are assumed to be 

either authorized or unauthorized and because the total number of Final Nonconfirmations (Nt

...F) is 

known: 

(21) (Nt

...F) = (Nu...F) + (Na...F) 

and 

(22) (Nu

...F) = (Nt...F) - (Na...F) 

To estimate the inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers (Eu

), which is equal to (Nu...A)/ Nu by 

definition, it is only necessary to estimate either (Nu

...A) or (Nu), since equation (2) can be used to 

estimate either one of these values if the other can be estimated. 

The evaluation team has made an effort to estimate (Pu

); however, it is important to recognize that without 

direct evidence of the true employment-authorization status of the workers with cases submitted to EVerify, any estimate of Pu

 will be very imprecise. 

As discussed in Chapter II, the starting point of the estimate of percentage of unauthorized workers with 

Transaction Database cases was the Pew Foundation estimate of the percentage of unauthorized workers 

in the national labor force in March 2008 as 5.4 percent.242 Adjustments were made to this starting rate 

based on known differences between Transaction Database cases and all cases in the nation on state and 

industry. The standardization process for state and industry calculates the number of unauthorized 

workers within each state or industry by taking the number of Transaction Database cases within a state 

or industry and multiplying them by the percentage of unauthorized workers within the state or industry. 

These estimates are contained in Exhibits B-2 and B-3. 

Exhibit B-3. Distributions of National Labor Force, Transaction Database Cases, and Percent 

Unauthorized, by State 

State 

Pew estimates Transaction Database cases 

Total number 

of workers 

(psNt

) 

(000) 

Estimated 

number not 

authorized 

(psNu

) 

(000) 

Percent of 

workers 

estimated to be 

unauthorized 

(psPu

) 

Total cases 

(sNt) 

Estimated 

number of 

cases not 

authorized 

(sNu

) 

154,772 8,300 5.4 1,729,838 

Alaska 361 5 1.4 1,876 26 

Alabama 2,169 80 3.7 14,848 548 

Arkansas 1,413 40 2.8 29,596 838 

Arizona 3,103 300 9.7 250,175 24,187 

California 18,824 1,850 9.8 175,058 17,204 

Colorado 2,770 150 5.4 57,504 3,114 

Connecticut 1,893 80 4.2 7,871 333 

District of Columbia 329 25 7.6 6,091 463 

B-10 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
State 

Pew estimates Transaction Database cases 

Total number 

of workers 

(psNt

) 

(000) 

Estimated 

number not 

authorized 

(psNu

) 

(000) 

Percent of 

workers 

estimated to be 

unauthorized 

(psPu

) 

Total cases 

(sNt) 

Estimated 

number of 

cases not 

authorized 

(sNu

) 

Delaware 457 20 4.4 5,287 231 

Exhibit B-3. Distributions of National Labor Force, Transaction Database Cases, and Percent 

Unauthorized, by State—continued 

State 

Pew estimates Transaction Database cases 

Total number 

of workers 

(psNt

) 

(000) 

Estimated 

number not 

authorized 

(psNu

) 

(000) 

Percent of 

workers 

estimated to be 

unauthorized 

(psPu

) 

Total cases 

(sNt) 

Estimated 

number of 

cases not 

authorized 

(sNu

) 

Florida 9,231 750 8.1 43,858 3,563 

Georgia 5,009 325 6.5 77,334 5,018 

Hawaii 666 25 3.8 1,933 73 

Iowa 1,684 35 2.1 19,013 395 

Idaho 744 25 3.4 7,785 262 

Illinois 6,805 325 4.8 35,294 1,686 

Indiana 3,217 75 2.3 33,561 782 

Kansas 1,480 40 2.7 18,181 491 

Kentucky 1,991 25 1.3 21,912 275 

Louisiana 1,939 60 3.1 8,190 253 

Massachusetts 3,335 140 4.2 17,027 715 

Maryland 2,977 200 6.7 47,367 3,182 

Maine 710 5 0.7 1,794 13 

Michigan 5,004 65 1.3 14,061 183 

Minnesota 2,953 70 2.4 33,495 794 

Missouri 2,993 25 0.8 137,269 1,147 

Mississippi 1,417 25 1.8 14,906 263 

Montana 507 5 1.0 1,219 12 

North Carolina 4,682 250 5.3 66,080 3,528 

North Dakota 365 5 1.4 1,466 20 

Nebraska 1,006 30 3.0 18,581 554 

New Hampshire 766 15 2.0 2,694 53 

New Jersey 4,588 425 9.3 21,661 2,007 

New Mexico 929 40 4.3 4,869 210 

Nevada 1,370 170 12.4 14,690 1,823 

New York 9,673 650 6.7 23,740 1,595 

Ohio 5,900 65 1.1 46,691 514 

Oklahoma 1,714 40 2.3 39,584 924 

Oregon 1,933 100 5.2 9,475 490 

Pennsylvania 6,336 100 1.6 29,916 472 

Rhode Island 561 20 3.6 3,573 127 

South Carolina 2,210 50 2.3 33,439 757 

South Dakota 455 5 1.1 1,338 15 

Tennessee 3,055 110 3.6 43,126 1,553 

Texas 11,748 925 7.9 194,511 15,315 

Utah 1,379 80 5.8 16,998 986 

Virginia 4,117 210 5.1 38,043 1,940 

Vermont 343 5 1.5 1,313 19 

Washington 3,464 120 3.5 15,047 521 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-11 
State 

Pew estimates Transaction Database cases 

Total number 

of workers 

(psNt

) 

(000) 

Estimated 

number not 

authorized 

(psNu

) 

(000) 

Percent of 

workers 

estimated to be 

unauthorized 

(psPu

) 

Total cases 

(sNt) 

Estimated 

number of 

cases not 

authorized 

(sNu

) 

Wisconsin 3,081 55 1.8 16,847 301 

West Virginia 822 5 0.6 1,560 9 

Wyoming 292 5 1.7 2,091 36 

Total number 154,772 8,300 1,729,838 99,820 

Total percent 5.4 5.8% 

NOTE: Sum does not add to total because of rounding. 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database: April–June 2008; Pew Hispanic Center, op cit. 

B-12 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
Exhibit B-4. Distributions of National Labor Force, Transaction Database Cases, and 

Percent Unauthorized, by Broad Industry Category 

Civilian Labor Force Category 

Pew Estimates of the National Workforce Transaction Database cases 

Total 

number of 

workers 

(piNt

) 

(000) 

Estimated 

number not 

authorized 

(piNu

) 

(000) 

Percent of 

workers 

estimated to 

be 

unauthorized 

(piPu

) 

Total cases 

(iNt) 

Estimated 

number of 

cases not 

authorized 

(iNu

) 

Agriculture 2,339 314 13.4 24,538 3,294 

Mining 754 18 2.4 5,486 131 

Construction 12,407 1,749 14.1 80,053 11,285 

Manufacturing 16,911 1,104 6.5 129,037 8,424 

Wholesale and retail trade 21,894 946 4.3 78,107 3,375 

Transportation and utilities 8,289 289 3.5 33,477 1,167 

Information 3,678 73 2.0 145,494 2,888 

Financial activities 10,522 226 2.1 29,004 623 

Professional and business services 16,889 1,099 6.5 308,948 20,104 

Education and health services 32,371 507 1.6 127,688 2,000 

Leisure and hospitality 13,881 1,381 9.9 107,840 10,729 

Employment services (same as 

other services) 7.6 524,038 39,788 

Other services 7,257 551 7.6 64,476 4,895 

Public administration 6,941 - 0.0 72,757 -

Total 154,133 8,257 5.4 1,730,943 (Nt) 108,703 (Nu) 

 Percent unauthorized workers 

(Pu

) = Nu/Nt 6.3% 

SOURCES: E-Verify Transaction Database: April–June 2008; Pew Hispanic Center, op cit. 

Using the nomenclature in B-1, the formula for the percent unauthorized among Transaction Database 

cases based solely on the standardization on state is: 

(23) Pu

= ∑ (sNu*psPu) 

Where Pu is the standardized rate based on the Transaction Database distribution and the Pew estimates of 

the percentage of each state’s labor force who are unauthorized. Based on the information in Exhibit B-3, 

it is seen that the adjusted rate is 5.8 percent compared to 5.4 percent of the unadjusted rate for an 

increase of 0.4 percent after rounding. The standardization for industry shown in Exhibit B-4 is done in an 

analogous way and indicates an adjusted rate of 6.3 percent versus 5.4 percent for the unadjusted rate for 

a net difference of 0.9 percent. 

Ideally, standardization would be done within state/industry cells; however, there are no available 

estimates of the percentage of unauthorized workers by industry within states. Lacking this, it is assumed 

that the effects of these two standardizations are additive, i.e., the estimate of the adjusted percentage is 

given by adding the Pew estimate of total percentage of unauthorized workers in the labor force pPu =5.4, 

the difference between the original Pew estimate and the adjusted estimate controlling for state, and the 

difference between the original Pew estimate and the adjusted estimate controlling for industry. This 

standardization total is, therefore: 

(24) 5.4 + 0.4 + 0.9 = 6.7 percent. 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-13 
243 Immigration Policy Center, The Economics of Immigration Reform: What Legalizing Undocumented Immigrants Would Mean for the U.S. 

Economy, April 2009 (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/EconomicsofCIRFullDoc.pdf). 

244It is less clear what the enrollment rate would be for employers in the formal labor market that employ part of their work force “under the 

table.” 

245The evaluation team has not been able to locate a source that directly estimates job mobility among unauthorized workers. 

246Since one reason for the high mobility of unauthorized workers is industrial differences between authorized and unauthorized workers, it does 

not make sense to standardize on industry in addition to mobility. 

Although the standardization for state should be reasonably accurate, the standardization for industry is 

not as accurate as desirable, because there are undoubtedly significant differences between the 

classification of industry for the nation (based on reports of workers in the March 2008 Current 

Population Survey (CPS)) and for the E-Verify population (based on employer reports when employers 

registered for the E-Verify Program). Most importantly, 30 percent of the E-Verify cases are from 

employment agencies; however, many of these workers are being verified for other types of industries and 

are presumably being classified in the Pew data based on their actual industry classification. 

The estimate of 6.7 percent of E-Verify cases that are for unauthorized workers does not take into account 

a number of factors that might lead to the 6.7 percent being an underestimate or an overestimate. The 

following factors point to the estimate being an overestimate: 

• Workers without employment authorization are more likely than other workers to be employed 

in the informal labor market (it is estimated that between 25 percent and 50 percent of 

unauthorized workers are in the informal labor market),243 presumably employers in the 

informal labor market are not likely to enroll in E-Verify.

244 Based on this factor alone, it is 

reasonable to estimate that instead of 6.7 percent, the estimate should be between 3.4 (.5 * 6.7) 

and 5.0 ((1-.25) * 6.7) percent of workers entered into E-Verify were unauthorized. 

• Workers without employment authorization may avoid employers using E-Verify. Based on the 

information presented in Chapter VII, this is probably not a major factor. 

The following factor points to the estimate being an underestimate: 

• Since the 5.4 percent rate of unauthorized workers in the labor force is based on CPS data 

reported by individuals, and the Transaction Database reflects the number of “new hires,” it 

would be highly desirable to control for job mobility since unauthorized workers tend to be 

more mobile than authorized workers. The difference can be explained, at least in part, by 

unauthorized workers having lower levels of formal education than workers with employment 

authorization and therefore tend to be disproportionately employed in occupations and 

industries with high turnover rates and in seasonal and unattractive jobs. In other cases, it is 

likely that some unauthorized workers are more likely to move to avoid being located by 

authorities who might deport them. According to the Pew report, the geographic mobility rate 

for immigrants between 2007 and 2008 was 18 percent for unauthorized immigrants compared 

to 11 percent for U.S.-born residents, i.e., approximately 60 percent more unauthorized 

immigrants than U.S.-born workers moved during the year. Although geographic mobility is 

not synonymous with job mobility, it is reasonable to assume they are strongly correlated. If it 

were assumed that the corresponding job mobility was also 60 percent higher than the Pew 

estimate of the labor force unauthorized to work (5.4 percent), the estimated percentage of 

unauthorized workers among new hires would be approximately 8.6 percent.245 If the state 

standardization was also made, the estimated rate would be 9.0 percent.246 If both this 

adjustment for mobility and the adjustment for participation in the informal market were made, 

B-14 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation 
the range for the estimate of percentage of cases in E-Verify for unauthorized workers would 

be from 4.5 percent to 6.8 percent. 

• The estimate of the percentage unauthorized in the national labor force is most likely 

underestimated.247 

Based on the information presented here, the total range for the percentage of transmissions for 

unauthorized workers could be from 3.4 to 9.0 percent. However, it is reasonable to assume that, to some 

extent, the above factors cancel one another out. For the purpose of this evaluation, the evaluation team 

used a point estimate of 6.2 and a plausible range of to 4.7 to 7.5. 

This estimated range for the percentage of transmissions for unauthorized workers is broad, reflecting not 

only the factors discussed above but also other uncertainties about the original 6.7 percent estimate. For 

example, there is considerable variation in the percentage of workers within different occupations who are 

unauthorized; however, the Transaction Database does not have the occupational information needed to 

calculate a rate standardized on occupation.248 

4. ESTIMATING THE TOTAL INACCURACY RATE AND THE EFFECTIVENESS RATE 

Once the number of inaccurate cases for authorized workers and the number of inaccurate cases for 

unauthorized workers are estimated, the total inaccuracy rate is easily calculated: 

(25) Et

 = [(Nu...A)+ (Na...X)]/Nt 

Where Nt is the total number of cases in the Transaction Database. 

The effectiveness rate (F) is defined as the percentage of unauthorized workers found to be unauthorized. 

Since all unauthorized workers must be found to be either authorized or not found to be authorized, it is 

obvious that: 

(26) Nu

 = (Nu...X) + (Nu...A) 

and that 

(27) Nu

...X = Nu – (Nu...A) 

or 

(28) F = 1.0 - Eu 

247Informal correspondence with Michael Hoefer, Director of Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

May 2009. 

248Occupational differences in the percentage unauthorized appear to be even more extreme than the industrial distributions. For example, 

27 percent of construction laborers (an occupation) are estimated to be unauthorized compared to 14 percent of workers classified as being in 

the construction industry (Pew, op cit.). 

Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation B-15 
B-16 Findings of the E-Verify Program Evaluation