Immigrant Integration: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Could Better Assess Its Grant Program
Published: 2011-12-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2009, about 39 million foreign-born people lived in the United States. Immigrant integration is generally described as a process that helps immigrants achieve self-sufficiency, political and civic involvement, and social inclusion. The Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is responsible for a key activity that fosters political and civic involvementthe naturalization and citizenship process. USCISs Office of Citizenship (OoC) supports this process mainly through grants to immigrant-serving entities, but also with outreach activities and education materials. Other governmental and nongovernmental entities play a role in immigrant integration as well. GAO was asked to determine (1) the steps USCIS has taken to implement its integration programs and the extent to which it has assessed its grant program in particular, and (2) what federal mechanism exists to coordinate integration efforts. Among other things, GAO examined documentation on mission objectives and performance measures on immigrant integration and conducted interviews with officials in a nongeneralizable sample of cities and community-based organizations as well as senior USCIS officials about their immigrant integration efforts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: USCIS has implemented immigrant integration efforts through outreach activities, educational materials, and a grant program, and established various measures for assessing its grant program, but has not yet set interim milestones for planned evaluations of the program. From 2008 to 2011, OoC reported conducting more than 300 significant outreach events to promote citizenship awareness and civic integration. Further, nearly half of OoCs funding over the past 3 fiscal yearsabout $19.8 millionwas spent on grants aimed at preparing immigrants for the naturalization process. The grants were made to a myriad of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, including public school systems and community and faith-based organizations. OoC has established various measures for assessing grantees performance under its grant program. These measures include, for example, the number of participants enrolled in grantees citizenship instruction and naturalization preparation programs, the number of participants who passed their naturalization examinations, and the proportion of participants who received grantees services and self-reported that they naturalized during the year of the grant program. However, USCIS has identified inherent limitations with these measures, such as that its data were incomplete in part because data were self-reported by program participants, and not all program participants reported to grantees whether they passed the naturalization examination and naturalized. In January 2011, USCIS drafted a statement of work for a contractor to develop an evaluation plan that would allow USCIS to measure the grant programs performance and long-term impact, and this may help address these limitations. According to USCIS, it did not complete this statement of work or award a contract for an evaluation plan because, at that time, the agency was uncertain whether it would receive appropriations in fiscal year 2011 to continue the grant program, and the program has no authorizing statute. The final fiscal year 2011 law, enacted in April 2011, did allow the use of appropriations to fund the grant program, but USCIS did not proceed with developing an evaluation plan. In November 2011, USCIS reported that it plans to conduct an internal and external evaluation of the program in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, respectively, contingent on appropriations for the grant program. However, USCIS has not yet set interim milestones for these evaluations. Setting such milestones, contingent on the receipt of funding, could help USCIS strengthen its planning for conducting those evaluations, consistent with program management standards.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that USCIS set interim milestones for an internal and external evaluation of its immigrant integration grant program, to the extent that it receives fiscal years 2012 and 2013 appropriations for the program. DHS concurred with our recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Immigration is a major force affecting this country’s social and economic  development, and welcoming lawful immigrants reflects one of the  nation’s distinctive characteristics. In 2009, it was estimated that about 39  million foreign-born individuals lived in the United States, making up more  than 12 percent of the U.S. population—the largest share since 1920. Of  these, approximately 17 million were naturalized citizens; 11 million were  temporary or permanent residents with lawful status; and 11 million were  noncitizens without lawful immigration status. Integrating about 11 million  noncitizens with lawful immigration status into American society, with the  possibility of integrating potentially millions more if Congress passed  comprehensive immigration reform, would be a challenging task and  raises questions about how this would be accomplished and by whom.  Immigrant integration is generally described as a process that helps  immigrants achieve self-sufficiency, political and civic involvement, and  social inclusion in American communities. Numerous governmental and  nongovernmental organizations provide some form of immigrant  integration support. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has responsibility for a key  immigrant integration-related area—the naturalization and citizenship  process. The Office of Citizenship (OoC) within USCIS is responsible for  implementing immigrant integration activities that fall within the  naturalization and citizenship process. The primary focus of these  activities is to prepare lawful permanent residents for citizenship by,  among other things, helping them attain the English language skills and  civics knowledge required for naturalization. OoC aims to accomplish  this by awarding grants to help immigrant-serving organizations with  citizenship preparation programs, conducting outreach and public  education activities to promote integration and citizenship, and developing  educational materials on the naturalization process. The largest single  activity that accounted for nearly half of OoC’s budget over the past 3  years was its Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, which provides  competitive grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to  facilitate their ability to assist lawful permanent residents in becoming  naturalized U.S. citizens. In addition to USCIS, other federal agencies  provide some assistance for immigrant integration. For example, the  Department of Health and Human Services provides economic integration  assistance as part of its Refugee Resettlement program and the  Department of Education provides funding to states to support linguistic  integration in connection with its English language acquisition grants. In  addition, various state and local governments and nongovernmental  organizations provide an array of services that assist with the integration  process.
You asked us to review the extent to which the federal government has  programs in place to support and coordinate immigrant integration  activities. In response to your request, this report discusses the programs  and activities at USCIS. Specifically, it examines (1) what steps USCIS  has taken to implement immigrant integration programs and the extent to  which it has assessed the effectiveness of its grant program, and (2) what  federal mechanism exists to coordinate governmental and  nongovernmental immigrant integration efforts.
To determine the steps USCIS has taken to implement immigrant  integration programs and the extent to which it has assessed its grant  program, we reviewed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and  examined documentation on mission objectives and performance  measures identified by DHS and USCIS on immigrant integration. These  included DHS’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 2010  Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, Budget in Brief reports  for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and annual performance reports;  USCIS’s strategic plan, strategic goals, and initiatives; and USCIS’s  Citizenship and Integration Grant Program requirements and guidance.
We interviewed senior officials from DHS’s Office of Policy Development  and USCIS offices, including OoC, the Office of Public Engagement, the  Office of Policy and Strategy, and the Field Operations Directorate to  discuss their roles and responsibilities related to immigrant integration.  Further, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of 10 locations for site  visits and telephone interviews. Using estimates from the U.S. Census  Bureau’s 2010 American Community Survey and data from DHS’s Office  of Immigration Statistics, we selected these 10 locations based on various  factors, including the total number of foreign-born residents, whether the  region had a mixture of nationalities, the number with limited English  proficiency, the number of lawful permanent residents eligible for  naturalization, and recognition accorded to locations’ immigrant  integration programs. We made site visits to Baltimore, Maryland;  Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, D.C., and  conducted in-person interviews with USCIS officials from four district and  field offices; representatives from 10 nongovernmental organizations,  including grantees and subgrantees; and officials in government  immigrant integration offices about their efforts to foster immigrant  integration. We also conducted semistructured telephone interviews with  city government officials in New York, New York; Boston, Massachusetts;  Richmond, Virginia; Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; and Miami,  Florida; and discussed their initiatives and efforts to foster immigrant  integration. Our site visit and telephone interview results cannot be  generalized to other locations, but they provided us with valuable insights  about actions USCIS has taken to support immigrants’ integration, how  USCIS grant recipients are using award funds to support integration, and  actions taken by city governments to address integration needs. We  reviewed documentation on USCIS’s outreach efforts, educational  resources, fiscal year 2009 grant program results, and grantees’ fiscal  year 2010 quarterly performance reports to USCIS. We compared  USCIS’s mechanisms for assessing the results of its grant program  against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which  states, among other things, that managers should assess the quality of  performance over time and determine proper actions in response to  findings. We also compared them against GAO guidance on performance  measurement and evaluation.integration programs and focused on the grant program because it was  OoC’s single largest budget activity and the program for which it collected  some data on outcomes; that is, the extent to which lawful permanent  residents who were served by OoC grantees passed the naturalization  examination and naturalized.
We reviewed all of OoC’s immigrant  To determine what federal mechanism exists to coordinate governmental  and nongovernmental immigrant integration efforts, we reviewed the 2008  report of the presidentially commissioned Task Force on New Americans,  which included recommendations on providing leadership in immigrant  integration and the extent to which the recommendations have been  implemented. We also reviewed DHS reports, such as OoC’s 2010 report,  Improving Federal Coordination on Immigrant Integration, and its 2004  report, Helping Immigrants Become New Americans: Communities  Discuss the Issues, to identify DHS’s findings on the extent to which  federal leadership is needed, and in what areas. We reviewed DHS’s  Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report and the annual reports  and strategic plans of DHS, USCIS, and OoC to identify DHS’s goals for  providing federal leadership. Further, we interviewed key officials from  DHS’s Office of Policy Development and USCIS offices, including OoC,  the Office of Public Engagement, the Office of Policy and Strategy, and  the Field Operations Directorate, to identify existing federal leadership  and coordination activities for immigrant integration throughout the  department. We interviewed officials in the four USCIS field offices  mentioned above to identify the federal leadership role played by USCIS  field offices on a local level. We met with city officials and community- based organization representatives in each of the cities where the four  USCIS field offices are located and conducted semistructured telephone  interviews with city government officials in the six additional cities  mentioned above to obtain their perspectives on the role of the federal  government in supporting immigrant integration. The information from the  interviews is not generalizable to all cities or community-based  organizations, but provided valuable insights into how such organizations  view the federal government’s support of immigrant integration.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 through  November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I  contains additional details about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Role in the Civic Integration of Immigrants
paragraphs: Through OoC, USCIS manages the programs and activities within DHS  that are most directly associated with the civic integration of immigrants.  Created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, OoC’s mandate is to  promote instruction and training on citizenship responsibilities for  immigrants interested in becoming naturalized citizens of the United  States. To accomplish this, OoC competitively awards grants to help  immigrant-serving organizations implement citizenship preparation  programs aimed at promoting civic integration through naturalization;  conducts outreach and public education activities to promote and raise  awareness of citizenship and immigrant integration; and develops  educational resources on the naturalization process for lawful permanent  residents and organizations that help prepare immigrants for citizenship.  Outreach activities may include providing technical assistance to  providers of citizenship education services; conducting training  workshops for adult educators and volunteers on how to prepare  immigrants for citizenship; making presentations to educate and inform  immigrants about the process of becoming a U.S. citizen; and attending  conferences, organizing special naturalization ceremonies, and  participating in public events to help promote an awareness of citizenship  and immigrant integration. Table 1 summarizes USCIS’s programs and  activities that aim to support the citizenship aspect of immigrant  integration and the goals for those programs and activities.
To implement its immigrant integration programs and activities, OoC uses  funds from two sources—funds that are provided through the  appropriations process and funds that are allocated from USCIS’s  Immigration Examinations Fee Account. This account consists of fees  that USCIS collects from persons filing for immigration benefits (for  example, the fees charged to persons who file for naturalization) and  deposits into the fee account. As shown in table 2, OoC uses   (1) appropriated funds to support its grant program, including the grant  awards, grant program staff salaries and other grant administration  expenses, as well as citizenship public education and awareness  activities and (2) fee account funds for non-grant program staff salaries  and expenses, and activities including citizenship educational materials  development and dissemination, teacher training, naturalization test  implementation, and other operational expenses. Importantly, nearly half  of OoC’s budget over the past 3 years—$19.8 million of $42.6 million (46  percent)—was allocated to its grant program, which includes the funds  awarded and program administration and operational expenses for the  grant program.
In addition to OoC’s immigrant integration activities, USCIS’s Office of  Public Engagement and community relations officers within USCIS’s  district and field offices devote a portion of their time to conducting  citizenship-related outreach activities. Specifically, the Office of Public  Engagement assists OoC with carrying out its citizenship outreach  initiatives on a national level and, at the local level, USCIS districts are  required each quarter to conduct at least one citizenship-related outreach  activity in the form of a naturalization information session.
section_title: Immigrant Integration Efforts Are Multifaceted and Carried Out by Governmental and Nongovernmental Organizations
paragraphs: Providing immigrant integration support to immigrants is a multifaceted  effort that is dispersed across governmental and nongovernmental  sectors. At the federal level, a wide array of federal programs provide  assistance to immigrants and support various aspects of immigrant  integration, but those programs are not specifically categorized as directly  supporting integration. Based on data that the Office of Management and  Budget collected in September 2010, 13 federal agencies across the  federal government reported offering a total of 79 programs that either  directly or indirectly supported immigrant integration. These federal  agencies self-identified programs they perceived as supporting immigrant  integration because, according to OoC, there is no standard  programmatic definition for immigrant integration. As part of OoC’s review  of these data, it placed these 79 programs into four categories it identified  as broad areas of immigrant integration, as shown in table 3.
The federal programs reported providing immigrant integration support  by, among other things, making grants, establishing partnerships, and  providing direct services. Civic integration included OoC’s citizenship  programs; economic integration included refugee resettlement assistance  provided by the Department of Health and Human Services; and linguistic  integration included English language acquisition grants provided to  states by the Department of Education. The data do not represent all  federal programs that support immigrant integration and do not provide a  complete estimate of federal funding because a number of programs did  not report a funding amount. Additionally, agency officials self-identified  the programs they perceived as supporting integration.information collected by the Office of Management and Budget included  some programs that served the general population but included immigrant  populations as a subset. For example, the Department of Agriculture’s  National School Lunch Program offers low-cost or free lunches to children  from low-income families, which includes immigrants and nonimmigrants.
Further, the  Additional examples of federal, state, and local immigrant integration  programs and efforts are described in appendix II.
section_title: USCIS Has Developed and Implemented Programs to Support Immigrant Integration but Could Strengthen Assessment of Its Grant Program
subsections: section_title: USCIS Conducts Outreach and Develops Resources for Citizenship and Naturalization
paragraphs: From 2008 to 2011, OoC reported conducting more than 300 significant  outreach events to promote citizenship awareness and civic integration  and establish partnerships with governmental and nongovernmental  organizations to help encourage immigrants’ civic integration. Significant  outreach efforts could include conferences, special naturalization  ceremonies organized by OoC, meetings and training events, and  presentations to encourage immigrants to become more integrated into  American civic culture. Based on OoC’s fiscal year 2011 quarterly reports,  examples of its significant outreach activities included meetings with  representatives from the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition to discuss  state and local immigrant integration initiatives and discussions with the  Colorado African Organization on OoC’s tools and how they could be  used to promote citizenship and immigrant integration. OoC also met with  the National League of Cities’ to discuss how OoC can provide support in  their efforts to promote citizenship and immigrant integration.
OoC reported that since fiscal year 2008, it has held 86 citizenship  education training workshops for nearly 6,000 adult educators and  volunteers working with immigrants across the country. OoC training  workshops are designed to enhance the skills needed to teach U.S.  history, civics, and the naturalization process to immigrant students. For  the 36 requests for training workshops that OoC reported receiving in  fiscal year 2011, it conducted 32 training workshops across 22 states.fiscal year 2011, as part of its Citizenship Public Education and  Awareness Initiative, OoC launched public service announcements to  raise awareness about the rights, responsibilities, and importance of U.S.  citizenship and the free educational tools and resources available to help  eligible permanent residents prepare for citizenship.
In addition to OoC, the community relations officers in USCIS district and  field offices conduct citizenship outreach. USCIS field offices reported  that during fiscal year 2011, they held 444 naturalization information  sessions for more than 22,600 attendees. All representatives we  interviewed from 18 governmental and nongovernmental organizations,  including grantees and subgrantees, told us that USCIS’s naturalization  information sessions have helped reach lawful permanent residents  eligible to naturalize and influenced their preparation for and decision to  become citizens. USCIS has also sponsored special naturalization  ceremonies across the country, and since 2006, it has partnered with the  National Park Service to hold ceremonies at 22 national park sites.
OoC offers a variety of free publications and web-based resources to  educate immigrants on the citizenship and naturalization process; help  adult educators and organizations prepare immigrants for acquiring  citizenship; and help facilitate a smoother transition for immigrants into  their communities. Some examples of the publications and web-based  resources offered by OoC and agencies with which OoC has formed  partnerships to develop and enhance these resources are provided in  table 4.
As of August 2011, OoC reported distributing over 29,000 copies of its  Civics and Citizenship Toolkit. In March 2010, OoC distributed the  Toolkit to all public libraries in the City of Los Angeles to help librarians  assist eligible immigrants who are seeking naturalization. This effort was  part of the partnership between OoC and the City of Los Angeles to  promote citizenship and civic integration.
All representatives we interviewed from 18 governmental and  nongovernmental organizations, including grantees and subgrantees  serving immigrants, told us that they have used OoC’s publications to  provide immigrants with information on becoming U.S. citizens and  getting settled in the United States. Some also told us that they rely on  OoC’s educational resources to provide consistent information to  immigrants on the naturalization process, and some grant recipients  include them in their English and citizenship classes. Some also stated  that USCIS’s redesign of the naturalization test and OoC’s naturalization  test study materials have helped immigrants prepare for naturalization  and relate to basic concepts about the structure of government and  American history. Additionally, several of the local government officials  we spoke to indicated that because their offices often serve as  clearinghouses for immigrant communities and refer individuals to local  services or community-based organizations to assist them with various  aspects of immigrant integration, including citizenship, they often access  USCIS’s Citizenship Resource Center website for information when  responding to immigrant requests for assistance on the naturalization  process.
section_title: USCIS Awards Grants for Citizenship and Naturalization but Could Strengthen Its Planning for Conducting Evaluations of Its Grant Program
subsections: section_title: USCIS Administers a Grant Program to Support Citizenship Education and Naturalization Preparation
paragraphs: Through OoC’s Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, which  provides support for citizenship education and naturalization preparation,  USCIS aims to help immigrants become civically integrated members of  their communities. USCIS officials told us that the agency’s role in  immigrant integration is limited to involvement in civic integration, with  programs and initiatives designed to support immigrants on the path to  citizenship, because USCIS has no legislative directive mandating it to  support other aspects of integration. Further, OoC officials told us that the  agency faces uncertainty from year to year as to whether the program will  continue to exist, as the grant program has no authorizing statute and  operates under annual DHS appropriations. With funding in fiscal years  2009 through 2011, OoC provided grants to a myriad of governmental  and nongovernmental organizations, including public school systems,  community colleges, community and faith-based organizations, adult  education organizations, public libraries, and literacy organizations, under  the following grant categories:
Direct Services Grant – Citizenship Instruction Only. This grant  provides funding to help grantees prepare lawful permanent residents  for the civics and English (reading, writing, and speaking) components  of the naturalization test. Grantees are required to provide U.S. history  and government instruction and civics-focused English as a second  language instruction.
Direct Services Grant – Citizenship Instruction and Naturalization  Application Services. This grant funds activities aimed at providing the  citizenship instruction discussed above, as well as assisting lawful  permanent residents with completing their naturalization applications  and preparing them for the naturalization interview.
National Capacity Building Grant. This grant is intended to provide  federal funding to eligible national, regional, or statewide  organizations with multiple sites to build capacity among their local  affiliates/members to promote immigrant integration through direct  citizenship services to lawful permanent residents. The funds are  intended to provide support for organizations’ program management,  organizational capacity building, and technical assistance, as well as  for affiliates/members to develop and implement sustainable local  citizenship preparation programs.
During the first year of the grant program in fiscal year 2009, OoC  received 293 applications for citizenship grant funds and made  competitive 1-year grant awards totaling $1.2 million to 13 organizations  to help them improve and enhance their existing citizenship assistance  programs. For this first year of the grant program, OoC reported that  nearly 55,000 immigrants were provided outreach, received direct  citizenship services, or both. Of the approximately 55,000 immigrants who  received services from grantees, OoC reported that about 50,000  received information on citizenship preparation and the rights and  responsibilities of citizenship provided through outreach activities and it  was estimated that at least 5,000 participated in a citizenship education  class or received assistance with the naturalization application.  Specifically, grantees used funds to provide services to a range of  immigrants defined by USCIS as priority immigrant groups, including  elderly immigrants in retirement communities in San Diego, California;  low-income immigrants in New York; and refugees with low literacy levels  in St. Louis, Missouri. Grantees also built community partnerships to  strategically increase their impact. For example, one grantee in  Providence, Rhode Island, used grant funds to strengthen a consortium of  five immigrant-serving organizations. This consortium accounted for 28  percent of all fiscal year 2009 naturalizations reported under the grant  program.
For fiscal year 2010, the second year of the grant program, OoC received  365 applications and made competitive 1-year grant awards totaling   $8 million to 56 organizations. Of these, 48 grants were awarded to help  organizations provide direct services to lawful permanent residents, and 8  grants were awarded to help national immigrant-serving organizations  with member/affiliate structures provide technical assistance to increase  the long-term capacity of the subapplicants to provide direct services to  lawful permanent residents. As of the fourth quarter, which ended on  September 30, 2011, these organizations reported that, for fiscal year  2010, more than 21,480 immigrants were provided services and about  12,747 immigrants had enrolled in a citizenship education instruction  course. Based on quarterly reports submitted by grantees to OoC,  grantees reported providing naturalization application services to about  15,094 program participants of whom about 7,277 submitted an  application for naturalization and 3,122 had naturalized. Fiscal year 2010  was the first year that OoC awarded national capacity building grants  specifically designed to allow organizations to establish or enhance local  citizenship preparation programs through eligible service providers.  Examples of local capacity building activities proposed by grantees  included addressing the unmet educational needs of low-income adults  with limited English proficiency and literacy in Atlanta, Georgia, and  Nashville, Tennessee; Vietnamese immigrant communities in Houston,  Texas; and refugees and immigrants in Erie, Pennsylvania, and Raleigh,  North Carolina, among others.
For fiscal year 2011, the third year of the grant program, OoC received  324 applications and, in September 2011, made competitive 2-year grant  awards totaling $9 million to 42 organizations. Specifically, of the 106  applicants for Citizenship Instruction only grants, USCIS awarded  approximately $1.6 million to 11 organizations. Of the 195 applications for  Citizenship Instruction and Naturalization Application services grants,  USCIS awarded approximately $5.6 million to 28 organizations, and of  the 23 applicants for the National Capacity Building grant, USCIS  awarded approximately $1.8 million to 3 organizations.
Several of the grantees and subgrantees we spoke with told us that  OoC’s grant program has helped them to, among other things, address  their clients’ need to improve their English language skills so they can  pass the naturalization test. In Chicago, Illinois, where we met with two  organizations that received direct service grants, representatives from  one organization told us it was using funds to established two additional  citizenship instruction courses aimed at low- and preliterate Latinos with  less than a first grade reading level. They also told us that the curriculum  for these courses was developed to achieve a seventh grade reading  level, which the organization identified as the level needed to pass the  naturalization test. An additional organization had developed and  disseminated information specifically for lawful permanent residents who  have suffered from domestic violence, persecution, and other abuses,  which can interfere with their ability to seek assistance for acquiring  citizenship. Another grantee in Los Angeles, California, had directed  funds to serve lawful permanent residents who had suffered persecution,  working with local faith-based groups to reach out to these individuals. A  direct services grantee in Baltimore, Maryland, told us it used funds to  sustain its ability to provide tuition-free English language and citizenship  instruction because its previous funding sources had been cut. The  participants who we spoke with at this site said that their reasons for  participating in the program were to learn English so they could  communicate better and be self-sufficient and to obtain citizenship so  they could gain better employment and higher education opportunities.  One participant told us that the free instruction she was receiving helped  increase her English proficiency and motivated her to seek other  opportunities to continue learning. She also indicated that she had  submitted an application for naturalization and continues to prepare for  the citizenship test as a result of the citizenship instruction that she  received.
Of the three organizations we contacted that had received funding under  the National Capacity Building grant, representatives from one national  capacity building organization told us they are expanding services to  Haitians and Cubans in Greensboro, North Carolina. Representatives  from a subgrantee told us that the grant has allowed them to access  updated and innovative materials, curricula, and teaching methods and  helped them to develop the capability for expanding the grantee’s  program from providing only legal and court services to Iranians, Iraqis,  and Armenians to also establishing the ability to provide additional  services to clients on the path to citizenship. Representative from another  organization told us that they planned to provide services to over 1,700  immigrants through four subgrantees establishing citizenship services  under the grant.
Grantees can use their Citizenship and Integration Program grant funds  on a variety of activities. For reporting purposes, OoC classifies these  eligible activities into (1) citizenship instruction (e.g., instruction in English  as a second language and U.S. history and government); (2) outreach  and training (e.g., staff and volunteer training); and (3) naturalization  application services (e.g., assistance with preparing and completing  naturalization applications), as shown in table 5. For each of these  categories of activities, OoC has required grantees to collect and report  data on program outputs, which measure the quantity of program  activities and other deliverables, such as the number of participants  enrolled in grantees’ citizenship instruction and naturalization preparation  programs. In addition to these outputs, OoC has collected some  information on outcome measures to demonstrate the extent to which  grantees’ programs are helping program participants complete the  naturalization process, such as collecting data on participants’  naturalization examination results and the proportion of participants who  received grantees’ services and self-reported that they naturalized during  the year of the grant program.
In January 2011, USCIS reported on the results of its measures for the  fiscal year 2009 grant program based on data submitted by grantees.  However, USCIS identified limitations on the reported results. Specifically,  USCIS reported that its data on the number of participants who received  naturalization application services and passed the naturalization  examination, and who ultimately became naturalized, were incomplete in  part because grantees relied on data that were self-reported by program  participants, and not all program participants reported to grantees  whether they passed the naturalization examination and naturalized.  Further, there was a time lag between when program participants  received naturalization application services and when they passed their  naturalization examinations and became naturalized. For example,  USCIS reported that for fiscal year 2009, about 1,804 participants  received naturalization application services and submitted a naturalization  application during the 1-year grant performance period. Of the 1,804  participants, OoC estimated that about 46 percent submitted the  application during the third and fourth quarters of the year. USCIS  reported that because its average time for completing the processing of  naturalization applications was 4.7 months, it was possible that those  program participants who applied for naturalization toward the end of the  year naturalized after the grant performance period ended. USCIS did not  ask grantees to collect information on naturalization examination results  and the number of naturalizations of program participants that occurred  after the grant period ended.
To help address this issue, for the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 grant  programs, OoC provided additional guidance and technical assistance to  grantees on how to collect and report program data. These included  holding training sessions on grant program reporting guidelines, the types  of reports to use in collecting and reporting data on a quarterly basis, and  strategies for compiling data and activities from the grant performance  period to prepare and submit final reports to OoC. Additionally, OoC  provided grantees with 3 additional months beyond the end of the grant  performance period to collect and report information on the number of  participants who passed the naturalization examination and naturalized.
However, USCIS continues to face two inherent challenges in collecting  complete data on grantees’ performance. First, grantees may require  program participants to provide them with information on their  naturalization examination results and naturalization status. However,  according to USCIS, it is not feasible for grantees to obtain data on the  naturalization examination results and naturalization status for all  participants served through grant-funded programs because, among  other things, participants may choose not to report their results to  grantees or may decide not to naturalize. USCIS has instructed grantees  to develop a plan for working to obtain self-reported data for all program  participants, but it acknowledges that grantees may not be able to obtain  complete data from all program participants. Second, while USCIS has  extended the time period for grantees to report program data, USCIS may  not complete the processing of naturalization applications submitted by  program participants near the end of the performance period, given the  average reported application processing time of 4.7 months.
To further strengthen its measurement of the performance of its grant  programs, USCIS announced its plan to conduct an evaluation of the  Citizenship and Integration Grant Program in the fiscal year 2011 grant  solicitations. However, USCIS has not yet conducted such an evaluation.  In January 2011, USCIS drafted a statement of work for a contractor to  refine the strategic plan for the grant program and develop an evaluation  plan that would allow USCIS to measure the grant program’s  performance and long-term impact, and which may provide options to  help address these limitations. According to USCIS, it did not complete  this statement of work or award a contract for an evaluation plan  because, at that time, the agency was uncertain whether it would receive  appropriations in fiscal year 2011 to continue the grant program. DHS’s  fiscal year 2011 appropriations act, enacted in April 2011, allowed the use  of appropriated funds for the grant program. However, USCIS did not  proceed with finalizing its statement of work or contracting for  development of an evaluation plan because it was unsure of whether it  would receive funding in fiscal year 2012 for the grant program. USCIS  requested about $19.7 million for fiscal year 2012 to fund through  appropriations all OoC’s programs and activities, including the grant  program.
In November 2011, USCIS reported that it plans to conduct an internal  evaluation of the grant program in fiscal year 2012 by, among other  things, assessing grantee data against stated program goals, program  assumptions, inputs, program activities, output targets, and outcomes.  According to USCIS, these data will be used to determine how resources,  activities, and outputs link together to meet short-term performance  metrics and longer-term outcomes (program goals) of the grant program.  Further, contingent on the availability of funds, USCIS reported that in  fiscal year 2013 it plans to contract for an external evaluation of the  overall grant program. USCIS intends for the contractor to examine how  well the current evaluation methodology measures the program’s success  in meeting its goals, identify what aspects of the program contributed to  those achievements, and discover what barriers exist to the program  achieving its ideal results. Additionally, USCIS intends for the contractor  to make recommendations for improving evaluation methods for the grant  program and the effectiveness of program administration.
Internal and external evaluations, such as those that USCIS has  announced its intention to implement, could help the agency reassess the  goals, objectives, and measures of its grant program, including helping to  address inherent challenges with USCIS’s current measures, and better  evaluate the extent to which the program is achieving those goals and  objectives. Based on its uncertainty about whether the grant program will  continue to receive funding, USCIS has not yet established interim  milestones for its internal and external evaluations of the grant program,  such as milestones for initiating and completing the evaluations. Although  USCIS has stated its intention to conduct grant program evaluations in  fiscal years 2012 and 2013, USCIS also announced plans for an external  evaluation in fiscal year 2011, but as indicated, did not initiate or complete  that evaluation. Program management standards state that successful  execution of any program includes developing plans that include a  timeline for program deliverables. Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government and the Office of Management and Budget also call  for agencies to have performance measures and indicators that are linked  to mission, goals, and objectives to allow for comparisons to be made  among different sets of data so that corrective actions can be taken if  necessary.of the grant program is a good way to objectively determine whether the  current program framework is achieving stated program goals, whether  grantees meet desired performance outcomes, how various program  implementation characteristics might correlate to other indicators of  program success, and whether the grant program should continue. To the   Further, according to USCIS, a program-specific evaluation  extent that USCIS receives funding in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for the  grant program, initiating the planned internal and external evaluations  could provide USCIS with a mechanism for better evaluating its grant  program. By setting interim milestones for these evaluations, USCIS  could strengthen its planning efforts to develop and implement the  evaluations.
section_title: No Single Federal Agency Has Been Tasked with Coordinating Immigrant Integration Efforts, but Actions Are Under Way to Provide a Strategy and Guidelines
paragraphs: To date, no single federal entity has been designated to lead the creation,  implementation, and coordination of a national immigrant integration  capability. Immigrant integration efforts are dispersed across federal,  state, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations.  In the absence of federal coordination, officials in city governments and  representatives from nongovernmental organizations told us that they  faced challenges in carrying out their immigrant integration efforts. For  example, one representative of a community-based nongovernmental  organization said that immigrant integration efforts vary in different  regions in the country, and that it would be helpful if the federal  government had better guidelines on what constitutes immigrant  integration and what is expected of organizations providing immigrant  integration services. Another nongovernmental organization  representative noted that a lack of coordination in immigrant integration  has resulted in a number of nonprofit organizations competing for funds,  such as for language classes serving noncitizens with different levels of  English proficiency. Additionally, government officials for three cities  noted that in the absence of federal guidance for immigrant integration,  state and local governments have been setting immigration policies  independently, some of which set a negative tone toward immigrants,  making it difficult to successfully integrate immigrants. Officials in one of  the three cities added that this may adversely affect the attitudes of  immigrant populations toward government, even when the immigrants do  not reside in those places.
Our previous work has highlighted the benefits of actions that selected  federal agencies have taken to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts,  including the ability to leverage resources, improve quality, and expand  services. All representatives we interviewed from 15 governmental and  nongovernmental offices indicated a need for a national immigrant  integration strategy, federal coordination for immigrant integration efforts,  or both. For example, some representatives said that the federal  government could help stakeholders forge nationwide partnerships and  learn about best practices, and that a national strategy would help  develop a more consistent approach to immigrant integration. Also,  organizations such as the Migration Policy Institute, the National League  of Cities, and the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy  Coalition have called for a federal immigrant integration strategy.
There has been recognition that improved coordination of immigrant  integration efforts would be beneficial, and there have been calls at the  federal level to develop a national immigrant integration capability. For  example, in 2006, a presidential executive order established a task force,  chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security and comprising  representatives from 11 federal departments, including DHS, to provide  direction to the federal government and make recommendations to the  President on immigrant integration. The task force was also to provide  direction to executive departments and agencies on integration,  particularly through instruction in English, civics, and history. The task  force’s 2008 report called for a national integration effort and stated that  federal institutionalization of immigrant integration would lend credibility  and support to federal, state, and local governments and other sectors of  society. DHS officials said that DHS facilitated the task force’s activities  and led the effort to produce a final report, but no agency was designated  as the leader for a national immigrant integration effort. The task force,  while still technically active, has not met since the issuance of the report  in December 2008, according to DHS officials. Additionally, DHS’s 2010  Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report states that one of DHS’s  goals is to strengthen and effectively administer the immigration system  by promoting the integration of lawful immigrants. This is to be carried out  by providing leadership, support, and opportunities to immigrants to  facilitate their integration into American society. The Quadrennial  Homeland Security Review Report notes that immigrant integration  requires leadership, but it does not delineate a framework for  accomplishing this. Instead, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review  Report notes that homeland security-related functions are dispersed and  decentralized and DHS is just one of several components involved in  carrying out the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review’s strategic  framework. OoC officials told us that coordinating immigrant integration  activities nationwide could help immigrants navigate federal programs,  contribute to the development of a federal strategy and policy guidance,  help set measurable goals for immigrant integration, create opportunities  for the federal government to liaise with state governments and  nongovernmental organizations, and facilitate sharing best practices and  leveraging public-private partnerships.
We previously reported that achieving meaningful national results in many  policy and program areas requires a combination of coordinated efforts  among various actors across federal agencies and among state, local,   Such coordination requires  and nongovernmental organizations.leadership commitment, agreed-upon goals and strategies, clearly  identified roles and responsibilities, and compatible policies and  procedures to be effective. USCIS officials stated that they believe that  DHS is uniquely situated to coordinate a multiagency effort given its  competencies in areas such as immigration services, immigrant  integration resources, enforcement, community security, among other  things. For example, according to USCIS officials, the agency has access  to all foreign-born individuals going through the U.S. immigration process.  USCIS has also established relationships with a number of  nongovernmental organizations involved in immigrant integration through  OoC’s outreach efforts and its grant program. Further, USCIS has  engaged in dialogue at the local level and established partnerships at the  local level. For example, USCIS and the City of Los Angeles signed a  2010 letter of agreement to promote citizenship awareness, education,  and outreach events throughout the city. USCIS officials acknowledged  that USCIS’s resources and authority for undertaking such an effort are  limited. The officials also said that since the release of the presidential  task force’s 2008 report, DHS’s role in immigrant integration has been  limited to those aspects of civic integration, such as citizenship and  promoting the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, discussed earlier  in this report.
We were unable to meet with officials from the White House Domestic Policy Council  for the purposes of this report. in June 2010 to assess the roles and activities of the federal government  in promoting immigrant integration and to better coordinate integration  efforts across agencies. According to DHS officials, USCIS is an active  participant but not the lead agency in the council’s meetings. Based on  OoC’s 2010 report to the Office of Management and Budget, the working  group developed recommendations in support of a federal integration  strategy and consolidation of informational resources, programs, and  research through interagency collaboration. OoC’s report to the Office of  Management and Budget also stated that in late 2010, the Domestic  Policy Council disbanded the working group and convened the New  Americans – Citizenship and Integration Initiative consisting of several  members of the working group, and led by the Interagency Steering  Committee.distilled the recommendations into three key immigrant integration policy  areas: civic integration (naturalization and civic participation), economic  integration (employment and economic advancement opportunities), and  linguistic integration (learning English to facilitate daily life and support  economic and social advancement). The steering committee also  developed a 2011 action plan to guide the development of strategic  initiatives in the three areas. However, according to DHS officials, a  timeline for implementation of the recommendations has not been  finalized, and any associated budget or planning process has not yet  started. Because the work of this group has not yet been completed, it is  too early to know if, and to what extent, it will provide leadership for a  national immigrant integration capability.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Integrating immigrants into American society has economic, social, and  security implications. We found numerous examples of how USCIS’s  integration-related programs are helping immigrant populations. In  addition, USCIS has taken action to develop and use mechanisms for  collecting information on the outputs and outcomes of its integration- related programs, particularly its Citizenship and Integration Grant  Program, which is OoC’s largest single budget activity. USCIS has faced  inherent limitations in collecting complete data on grantees’ performance  and has stated its intention to conduct an internal and external evaluation  of the grant program, contingent on the program receiving future  appropriations. Establishing interim milestones for such evaluations,  including milestones for initiating and completing the evaluations, could  help USCIS strengthen its planning efforts for the program.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen USCIS’s plans for evaluating the Citizenship and  Integration Grant Program, we recommend that to the extent that USCIS  receives program funding in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the Director of  USCIS establish interim milestones for conducting the planned internal  and external evaluations of the grant program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment on  November 23, 2011. On December 9, 2011, DHS provided written  comments, which are reprinted in appendix III. In commenting on the draft  report, DHS concurred with our recommendation that USCIS establish  interim milestones for conducting its planned internal and external  evaluations of the grant program, and identified actions planned or under  way to implement the recommendation.
DHS stated that to the extent that USCIS receives appropriated program  funding and is allowed to use the funding for evaluation purposes, it  would establish interim milestones for conducting an internal evaluation of  the grant program in fiscal year 2012 and an external evaluation of the  grant program in fiscal year 2013. DHS also provided additional  information on the steps that USCIS’s OoC and Office of Policy and  Strategy will take to jointly determine the scope of the evaluations. We  believe that DHS’s proposed actions are consistent with the intent of the  recommendation and should help strengthen USCIS’s planning effort for  the grant program.
DHS also provided written technical comments, which we considered and  incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the  Department of Homeland Security, relevant congressional committees,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) the steps the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS) has taken to implement immigrant integration programs  and the extent to which it has assessed the effectiveness of its grant  program and (2) the federal mechanism to coordinate governmental and  nongovernmental immigrant integration efforts.
To determine the steps USCIS has taken to implement immigrant  integration programs and the extent to which it has assessed the results  of its grant program, we reviewed program activities in USCIS because  the focus on immigrant integration ties into its mission. We reviewed the  Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created USCIS’s Office of  Citizenship (OoC) to promote instruction and training and training on  citizenship responsibilities. We also examined documentation on mission  objectives and performance measures identified by the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS on immigrant integration, including  DHS’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 2010  Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, fiscal years 2011 and  2012 Budget in Brief reports, and annual performance report for fiscal  years 2010 through 2012; USCIS’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2008  through 2012 and fiscal year 2011 strategic goals and select initiatives;  and USCIS’s Citizenship and Integration Grant Program requirements  and guidance. We interviewed DHS senior officials from DHS’s Office of  Policy Development and USCIS offices, including OoC, the Office of  Public Engagement, the Office of Policy and Strategy, and the Field  Operations Directorate, to discuss their roles and responsibilities in how  the department defines and designates immigrant integration activities  and how it identifies and addresses immigrant integration needs. We  reviewed USCIS documentation and educational materials on the U.S.  citizenship and the naturalization process and strategies for outreach  activities in support of immigrant integration, including the Civics and  Citizenship Toolkit and the WelcometoUSA.gov website.
To identify and observe USCIS’s immigrant integration activities and  community-level efforts by cities and immigrant-serving organizations, we  selected a nonprobability sample of 10 locations for site visits and  telephone interviews. We visited Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois;  Washington, D.C.; and Los Angeles, California. We conducted  semistructured telephone interviews with officials in New York, New York;  Boston, Massachusetts; Richmond, Virginia; Seattle, Washington;  Houston, Texas; and Miami, Florida. Using estimates from the U.S.  Census Bureau’s 2010 American Community Survey and data from  DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics, we selected these 10 locations  based on various factors, including the total number of foreign-born  residents, whether the region had a mixture of nationalities, the number  with limited English proficiency, the number of lawful permanent residents  eligible for naturalization, and recognition accorded the locations’  immigrant integration programs. Additionally, we took into account the  proximity of USCIS offices and nongovernmental immigrant-serving  organizations, as well as organizations awarded Citizenship and  Integration Program grant funds in fiscal years 2009 or 2010.
During our site visits, we interviewed officials in USCIS’s Baltimore,  Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., district offices to identify  the role played by these offices in implementing USCIS local immigrant  integration activities. In these four cities, and via telephone in the other six  cities, we interviewed representatives of 10 community-based  organizations, including grantees and subgrantees, and officials in  government immigrant integration offices about their efforts to foster  immigrant integration and how local efforts benefit from federal immigrant  integration initiatives. Although our site visit and telephone interview  results cannot be generalized to other locations with foreign-born  populations, they provided us with valuable insights about actions USCIS  has taken to support immigrants’ integration, how USCIS grant recipients  are using award funds to support integration, and actions taken by city  governments to address integration needs.
To identify the steps DHS has taken to assess the results of its immigrant  integration efforts, we reviewed DHS documents with stated immigrant  integration directives and performance targets, and interviewed officials  and staff at the DHS Office of Policy Development and USCIS offices,  including OoC, the Office of Public Engagement, the Office of Policy and  Strategy, and the Field Operations Directorate, to obtain clarification on  DHS’s efforts to delegate responsibilities and capture results of intra- agency actions to promote immigrant integration. We reviewed immigrant  integration accomplishments detailed and summarized in DHS’s Budget  in Brief reports for fiscal years 2011, and 2012. We reviewed OoC’s  tracking information for its citizenship promotion and immigrant integration  activities. We interviewed officials in USCIS district offices in the four  cities we visited to obtain information about their citizenship promotion  and immigrant integration outreach activities and the methods for  capturing activity results. To determine how OoC assesses its immigrant  integration efforts through its Citizenship and Integration Grant Program,  we reviewed grantee performance results during the first funding round in  fiscal year 2009, which had a 1-year performance period. We reviewed  grantees’ reports to OoC on the number of participants registered for  direct services citizenship and English instruction courses, naturalization  applications filed, and participants naturalized, and we also examined  program results reported by grantees and results obtained via OoC staffs’  on-site grantee performance monitoring during this performance period.  We interviewed OoC staff on their performance monitoring methods and  how they supported grantees through guidance and technical assistance.  We corroborated this information in our interviews with select grantees in  the four selected cities. Additionally, we viewed some of the citizenship  instruction programs, obtained grantee performance reports submitted to  OoC, and obtained documentation on the results of OoC’s on-site grantee  monitoring efforts. Lastly, we interviewed some individual program  participants to learn about how the program had affected their progress  toward the goal of becoming naturalized, their perceptions on citizenship,  and their views on integrating into their communities. We compared  USCIS’s information on the results of its grant program against Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which states, among other  things, that managers should assess the quality of performance over time   We reviewed all of  and determine proper actions in response to findings.
OoC’s programs and focused on the grant program because it was OoC’s  single largest budget activity and the program that collected some data on  outcomes, that is, the extent to which lawful permanent residents who  were served by OoC passed the naturalization examination and  naturalized.
To determine what federal mechanism exists to coordinate governmental  and nongovernmental immigrant integration efforts, we reviewed the 2008  report from the presidentially commissioned Task Force on New  Americans to identify previous recommendations on providing leadership  in immigrant integration and the extent to which the recommendations  have been implemented. We reviewed DHS reports, such as OoC’s 2010  report, Improving Federal Coordination on Immigrant Integration, and its  2004 report, Helping Immigrants Become New Americans: Communities  Discuss the Issues, to identify DHS’s findings on the extent to which  federal leadership is needed, and in what areas. We reviewed DHS’s  Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report and the annual reports  and strategic plans of DHS, USCIS, and OoC to identify DHS’s goals for  providing federal leadership. We also interviewed key officials from DHS’s  Office of Policy Development and USCIS offices, including OoC, the  Office of Public Engagement, the Office of Policy and Strategy, and the  Field Operations Directorate to identify the existing immigrant integration  federal leadership and coordination activities for immigrant integration  throughout the department. We interviewed officials in the four USCIS  field offices mentioned above to identify the federal leadership role they  played by USCIS field offices on a local level. We met with city officials  and community-based organization representatives in each of the cities  where the four USCIS field offices are located, and conducted  semistructured telephone interviews with city government officials in the  six additional cities mentioned above, to obtain their perspectives on the  role of the federal government in supporting immigrant integration. The  information from these interviews is not generalizable to all cities or  nongovernmental organizations but provided valuable insights into how  such organizations view the federal government’s support of immigrant  integration. We reviewed laws and proposed legislation to identify existing  and proposed policies for federal leadership in immigrant integration. We  also consulted with outside researchers and reviewed their reports,  including the Migration Policy Institute, the National League of Cities, and  the National Conference of State Legislatures, to obtain their perspectives  on immigrant integration issues faced by state and local governments and  nongovernmental organizations and the extent to which the federal  government has provided leadership in this area.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 through  November 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Examples of Federal, State, and Local Immigrant Integration Efforts
paragraphs: Federal agencies have at times worked together on aspects of immigrant  integration, such as civics and English language education for  immigrants. For example, in 2011, an amendment to a 2010  memorandum of understanding was established between USCIS and the  Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History to develop  a learning tool that supports aspiring citizens’ efforts to prepare for the  civics portion for the naturalization test. Specifically, the National Museum  of American History will provide instructional design and content expertise  for the development of lesson plans and multimedia presentations that  utilize content from the museum and other Smithsonian collections and  will incorporate the civics questions that may be asked during the  naturalization test. Separately, in 2010, USCIS provided funding to the  National Institute for Literacy, for the expansion of the America’s Literacy  Directory, a web-based directory about literacy programs, to incorporate  citizenship preparation programs and classes. Also, as of July 2009,  USCIS and the Department of Education had in place an interagency  agreement to support a web-based tool for lessons in civics-and  citizenship-oriented English language learning, according to Homeland  Security and Educational Officials.
State and local governments have also taken action to develop policies  and plans to foster immigrant integration. For example, governors in  Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington have  issued executive orders specifically to address immigrant integration  issues. These executive orders called for establishing an advisory body (e.g., a committee or a council) made up of key stakeholders, such as  state and local government officials and representatives of  nongovernmental organizations, to make policy recommendations on  immigrant integration. The advisory bodies have made recommendations  to, among other things, incorporate immigrant integration into state  education, workforce, and financial service programs; promote English  language proficiency and civics education; and centralize information  available to immigrants upon their arrival to the community. A common  objective of these executive orders was to develop policies and plans or  recommendations to provide immigrants with the tools to become self- sufficient and contribute to their communities.
Local governments have also responded to the needs of immigrants in  their communities in ways that address immigrant integration issues. In  some cases, local officials serve as liaisons between city offices on  activities that foster immigrant integration. For example, the liaisons may  encourage offices to provide information in multiple languages on  workforce training, library services, or other available services or to  incorporate activities geared toward immigrants into local social service  programs. Other local governments provide information clearinghouses  for immigrant communities, referring individuals to local services or  community-based organizations that can assist with various aspects of  immigrant integration, including English and citizenship classes, legal  services, and vocational training.
Across the country, governmental and nongovernmental organizations— including community-based groups, social service organizations, ethnic  associations, local public school systems, universities and community  colleges, refugee resettlement agencies, health centers and hospitals,  religious institutions, unions, and law firms—have joined together to form  coalitions to advocate for and serve as resources to immigrants and  promote their integration into American society. One example is the  Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, which seeks  to promote the rights and integration of immigrants and refugees through  policy analysis and advocacy, institutional organizing, training and  leadership development, and strategic communications and consists of  more than 130 organizations. In Illinois, more than 120 organizations— including advocacy groups, religious institutions, and neighborhood  associations—make up the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee  Rights, which seeks to promote full and equal participation in the civic,  cultural, social, and political areas by immigrants. Both the Massachusetts  and the Illinois coalitions are members of the National Partnership for  New Americans, a nationwide alliance of 12 immigrant rights coalitions  seeking to support citizenship and the integration of immigrants into  American communities through outreach to immigrant groups, assistance  with capacity building for small organizations in remote areas, and policy  advocacy, among other things. The National Partnership for New  Americans hosts an annual national immigrant integration conference,  with past participation from representatives of the White House Domestic  Policy Council, USCIS, and other governmental and nongovernmental  organizations.
In addition, the National League of Cities’ Municipal Action for Immigrant  Integration program seeks to promote civic engagement and  naturalization in cities and towns across the United States by providing  resources and technical assistance and serving as an information  clearinghouse for best practices. The Migration Policy Institute’s National  Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, in partnership with the J.M.  Kaplan Fund, is also providing annual monetary awards during a three  year period to outstanding immigrant integration initiatives led by nonprofit  or community organizations, businesses, public agencies, religious  groups, or individuals. In addition to these broader initiatives, individual  organizations in communities across the nation are involved in efforts to  support immigrant integration, for example, through English language  instruction, workforce development, and legal services.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director;  Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas; Danielle Pakdaman; and Mya Dinh made  significant contributions to this report. David Alexander assisted with  design and methodology. Linda Miller provided assistance in report  preparation, and Frances Cook provided legal support.