The importance of protecting the integrity of the passport issuance process

The United States passport has been called the "gold standard of travel documents".  It is accepted as proof of citizenship and identity for U.S. citizens/nationals - for entering the U.S., but also for other purposes as well (domestic air travel, business transactions, obtaining government benefits, entering federal buildings, etc.).  The trustworthiness of the passport - and the trustworthiness of the issuance process - is relied upon by officers of U.S. and foreign government agencies.  As such, it is a cornerstone of our nation's border security and thus our national security.  

The Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is the Agency responsible for conducting "criminal investigations into violations of passport and visa fraud."  DS explains that "These federal felonies are often committed in connection with more serious crimes, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, alien smuggling, money laundering, pedophilia, and murder. These investigations are critical to the President's efforts to secure American borders and protect the national security of the United States.”  DS adds: “The U.S. passport is the most valuable identity document in the world as it establishes American citizenship and allows its bearer unlimited access to virtually every country in the world. People who attempt to obtain a U.S. passport illegally often are seeking to change their identities and conceal their activities and movements.”
 

Continued efforts to address adjudication quotas

The June 29, 2005 GAO report was also critical of the development of the adjudication performance standards and stated that the changes did put more emphasis on quantity rather than quality, but concluded that since the work processes kept changing during the time period studied, they were unable to draw firm conclusions on the issue at this time. 

However, while the GAO pointed out that "in response to union and examiner [adjudicator] concerns, State eased the production standards during 2004 [the daily quota for GS-9 and GS-11 adjudicators was effectively lowered from 168 to 156 applications] and made a number of other modifications and compromises", the adjudicators continue to feel they have insufficient time to adequately scrutinize passport applications for fraud indicators and to determine entitlement to a U.S. passport.  

In July 2005 a survey of adjudicators showed that 96% believed the numerical standards still did not provide enough time, a more comprehensive January 2006 survey found that 94% of respondents felt the same (and 96% felt that the focus in the job was more on quantity than on quality), and in March 2007 a petition was signed by 85% of non-probationary adjudicators asking that HQ lower the quotas (scroll down below for more on this). This problem received coverage in a July 2007 Christian Science Monitor Story (also picked up by the UPI) and in a June 2007 story by MSNBC Red Tape Chronicles author Bob Sullivan, in which he asked "What stands between a terrorist and a new U.S. passport? About two and a half minutes. That's how much time passport inspectors have to make sure applications are authentic."

From January 2006 to present, the Union has continued to press this issue in communications to HQ (including formal requests in writing to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services) and in contract negotiations, though no headway has been made as of February 2009.  

Scroll down below for more information about adjudication quotas.   
 

Efforts to address passport acceptance function concern 

Applicants who submit passport applications for the first time must apply in person and establish their identity, swear an oath, and meet other requirements to a Passport Acceptance Agent.  This process is called "accepting" or "executing" a passport application.  Prior to June 2007, it had been decades-long (or longer) practice and policy of the Department of State that passport applications could only executed by government personnel - Passport Specialists and Foreign Service Officers employed by the Department of State, specially designated employees of the U.S. Postal Service, or specially designated state, county, or city government officials.  This is a very critical function, as the person accepting the application literally serves as the eyes and ears of the Department of State.  A passport is essentially a letter from the Secretary of State to a foreign government that identifies the bearer and asks for entry and assistance for that bearer in his/her travels.  The basis for the Secretary to identify the bearer in the passport begins most critically with the Acceptance Agent.  The Acceptance Agent plays an important role in helping to detect and prevent fraudulent applications for passports.  

As a step to address the unprecedented workload crisis in mid-2007 that was caused by insufficient hiring and preparation, Passport Services Management took the alarming step of contracting out this vital function in June 2007 to non-governmental contractors who had no experience and little training on how to execute passport applications or identify fraudulent applicants.  NFFE Local 1998 attempted to address this by filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge, which was resolved with a memorandum of understanding that only served to somewhat lessen the chance of the function being contracted out in the future.  

The Union also submitted a FAIR Act Inventory challenge on July 29, 2008.  A July 31, 2008 NFFE National press release on this subject was picked up by the Government Executive on August 5, 2008 and by Federal Daily on August 8, 2008.  The challenge was denied by the Department of State on September 5, 2008 so on September 15th NFFE President Rick Brown wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appealing the denial.  In the September 5th denial, the DOS claimed that the function of identifying passport applicants was not inherently governmental and could be contracted out.  However, the DOS stated that the practice had ceased and would not continue, noting that 400 adjudicators had been hired since September 2007.  NFFE President Brown expressed appreciation for that statement, but argued that the job function was inherently governmental and that the door to using contractors for that job should be closed permanently.  The Union's appeal was subsequently denied.  

The Union also wrote to the Department of State seeking a meeting to discuss another aspect of this issue - the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  That law governs the federal rules-making process - the manner in which a proposed rule in the Federal Register becomes a final rule (with the force of law) in the Code of Federal Regulations.  The Department of State has not yet agreed to a meeting.  The Union's concern is that the Department of State may have violated the APA by publishing in the final rule as part of 22 CFR 51.22 explicit authorization to use contractors for the execution function when that was never included in the March 7, 2007 proposed rule - a "bolt from the blue".  The problem is illustrated here: 
 

 
As you can see, there was no change in what was proposed in 22 CFR 51.22(c)(3) - Acceptance Agents would exclude "contractual" (non-governmental) workers.  This was simply a restating of long-standing Department of State policy.  It also reflects the fact that there was no intent in March 2007 to use contractors for this function.  Later, when Passport Services Management did use contractors for this function, they compared them to Acceptance Agents (as opposed to Passport Specialists directly employed by the Department of State).  The Union agrees with the inclusion of this restatement of long-standing policy in the CFR.  

The potential violation of the APA occurs above, in 22 CFR 51.22(a)(4), where the Department of State had listed only DOS employees in the proposed rule but then added "and contractors" in the final rule.  

There were only four comments on the proposed rule received by the Department of State.  None of them touched on the issue of the use of contractors to perform the acceptance function.  The Union was not given the opportunity, as required by the APA, to comment on any proposed addition of "and contractors" to the CFR.  The Union believes these two words should be stricken from the CFR.  

The petition was gathered between late January and early March. Only non-probationary employees were invited to sign (probationary employees have few rights to contest terminations, and some expressed concerns about retaliation). At the time the petition was distributed, there were about 665 Passport Specialists working for Passport Services, many of whom were still in probationary status (partly due to additional hires, and partly due to the use of a new 2-year probationary period). 

Of 383 non-probationary employees asked to sign the petition, 327 chose to sign their names - which is an overwhelming 85% participation rate. Virtually all of the Senior Passport Specialists (GS-11's) signed the petition. The Union asked HQ to respond to this petition within a month's time. The petition marks yet another effort in a long series of attempts by the Union to address this issue with Passport Services Management.  Click here to read the petition cover letter, including the wording of the petition: 2007 ADJ PETITION.  
 

 
January 13, 2006: Between January 9 and January 13, 2006 the Union surveyed all bargaining unit employees and asked all Passport Specialists whether they agreed with the following statement: "The numerical performance standards do NOT provide me with sufficient time to diligently adjudicate passport applications (without taking shortcuts) and carefully scrutinize the evidence/application/tools for fraud indicators".  

Out of the 368 Passport Specialists who indicated a firm response, 248 said they “Strongly Agreed” and 98 said they “Agreed” with that statement – an overwhelming 94% (there were 58 Passport Specialists - mostly new hires - who indicated they were "Neutral", left the question blank, or wrote "N/A", and 23 employees combined who “Disagreed” or “Strongly Disagreed”). 

In addition, 97% of employees indicating a response said that the focus in adjudication is on quantity instead of quality, employees listed the "integrity of the passport issuance process" as their # 1 issue out of 10 options, and out of 228 written comments that were received 112 focused on the numerical adjudication standards (111 - 99% - took the time to argue that they should be lowered and that we need to focus more on quality).  Almost every Passport Specialist who was present during the week of the survey participated. 

 January 2006 survey results on adjudication numerical standards, showing only those who gave a firm response

January 2006 survey results on numerical adjudication standards, showing all responses

January 2006 survey results of quantity vs. quality emphasis, showing only those indicating a firm response

January 2006 survey results of quantity vs. quality emphasis, showing all responses

 
July 15, 2005: Survey by Union Confirms Concerns About the Integrity of the Passport Issuance Process. The results of the Union's June 27th - July 8th survey of passport specialists views on passport integrity and performance standards issues were released. The survey reached approximately 336 of the 489 passport specialists, and 142 employees responded. The total number of responses and the percentage of employees participating (42%) is the highest of any survey since at least 1998. The results of the survey:

• 96% said that the numerical performance standards do NOT provide sufficient time to diligently adjudicate passport applications and detect passport fraud
• 93% said they have to take shortcuts to make the quota
• 93% felt that the emphasis in the job (retention, appraisals, awards, promotions) is on quantity, not quality or a good balance
• 94% are concerned that we will issue a passport to a criminal or terrorist
• 54% believe we do NOT have sufficient anti-fraud resources training, 26% believe we do, and 19% said we don't have time anyway
• 98% disagreed (some very strongly) with the claim that "nearly every specialist is making the numbers, so that proves that the standards are just fine and there is no reason to reduce them"

This site is owned & maintained by IAMAW FD1 NFFE FL1998, the union that represents the bargaining unit employees of Passport Services (a division of the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs). The views expressed here are those of the Union and not the federal government.