Recommendations for the Federal Government

The application for citizenship — even with vast improvements — may always feel daunting and long. While simplifying and improving the application itself is critical, there are also ways to break down an arduous experience such as the N-400 into a digestible series of achievable goals. While it would be ideal for USCIS to improve the application experience, there are measures other groups can take in making the form easier to complete.

Most think the N-400 is extremely complex even if they are able to apply without assistance. As we saw from testing, all participants found a checklist and reminder system to be extremely valuable. Tools designed to help the applicant quickly understand the breadth of the application while promoting them to focus on one task or section at a time could help reduce anxiety at the onset and throughout applying. If possible, these tools could also help applicants pre-populate information from their own personal accounts or documents to input on the form. Additionally, many testers suggested additional features linking the checklist to actual form submission or direct interaction with USCIS as desired.

“I would use it, it's friendly, reminding me with kindness that this process can be done. I love that someone is thinking about this, creating an app for me as an immigrant, that's fabulous. It's a more enthusiastic way to go through the immigration process.” Interviewee 8

Additionally, features that found help in one’s city and provided centralized access to credible advice were highly rated. More surprisingly, multiple testers noted an organizational tool could replace the need for a lawyer who was hired to avoid errors as opposed to those who were hired to overcome substantial legal issues.

“Keeping goals, track of what gets done, I was doing that manually on paper before. Would def used it if it existed.” Interviewee 2

“I wouldn't have needed a lawyer if I had this for GC. It'd be a great way to not miss something. For visa apps or citizenship.” Interviewee 7“Lawyers aren't very good at providing support. They weren't always there to explain things to me, why they need certain info, if I have this app I can ask other people about it.” Interviewee 13

Features that allow applicants to compare their citizenship timeline and experiences with others' (keeping privacy in mind) creates reassuring communal insight. This makes comparing one’s experience easier, and gives applicants a sense of how normal their timing is and whether they need to contact immigration or request additional help.

“You need information about the interview, what they’ll ask you, and how they’ll ask you. You need support for sure. Not sure if other people have that, so it could be very good for other people to have resources they can gather.” Interviewee 8

Tools that support organization and tiered steps to the application itself will most likely not replace current modes of assistance, but could be very powerful in conjunction with lawyers or nonprofits, or to fill the gap for individuals unable to access these resources.

Throughout our research, nonprofits, immigrants, and subject-matter experts articulated several ways the various immigration processes, from visas to naturalization, could be better administered. These processes should be treated as services that are designed to reduce the burdens placed on applicants.

Much of government operates from the perspective of making processing as easy as possible for government employees. This is understandable, given the complexities of reviewing cases that require following the law, regulations, and department policies. However, there are examples of service redesign in the federal government from organizations like the United States Digital Service and 18F that look at a process holistically before implementing changes.

USCIS would do well to empower staff to focus on the needs of the applicant. By allowing researchers, designers, and software engineers to work directly with subject matter experts, immigrants, and staff, this complex system can be centered around immigrant needs while reducing friction and inefficiencies for government employees.

We recommend future administrations reach out and empower these kinds of teams to improve the entire lifecycle of the immigrant process. The following changes are opportunities we’ve identified as a place to start.

Recommendations for Content

Treat people with respect — especially during the interview

The most prominent opportunity for service redesign is to evaluate all interactions and policy through the lens of respect for immigrants and their families. While the first of the five guiding principles of USCIS’ general policy is “to treat customers with respect, courtesy, and dignity,”¹ many of our interviewees described aspects of the process and interview as harmful and even dehumanizing. To ensure agency values are being followed, the government should re-evaluate the steps they request immigrants take with thoughtful language and transparent intentions.

While not all of our interviewees had a negative interview experience, many had heard rumors or been told of others who had a negative experience with U.S. federal officials. There is a reputation built over decades that has informed immigrants that they may be treated poorly during their interview. There are clear guidelines for how interviews are to be conducted in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, which instruct officers to create a non-adversarial environment.² However, most interviewees we spoke with felt the officers were granted too much subjectivity, leading to uncertainty and mistrust. We heard from several interviewees who were told their interview success depended on how the federal official was feeling that day. Immigrants are required to go through a process which feels like a black box—closed off, without much transparency or accountability. Regardless of which phase or which agency, a federal official interviewing an applicant with little empathy exacerbates an already difficult process. No one wants to be ostracized by the country they wish to become a citizen of. Improving the process by making it more humane requires ensuring standards on conduct are followed and reigning in the subjectivity of each interview.

“It wasn't an interview because it didn't feel like there was a lot of back and forth. It was more like an interrogation.” Interviewee 14

“The most nerve wracking part is not knowing what the person is going to be like. Kind of the very infamous attitude of officers, immigration officers, is that they're very cold. Very unapproachable, you don't know what kind of mood they're in that day, and I was very intimidated by the fact that if they say no I can be denied. So your whole plan, I had a lot at stake when it comes to, I put a lot in stake for this citizenship test.” Interviewee 21

Applicants should be able to provide feedback easily on their interview outside of a formal appeals procedure. Monitoring transparency and fairness reduces the chances that applicants are unfairly denied and dissuaded from attempting to gain citizenship.

Clarifying complexities and reducing unneeded elements on forms and exams

Both the application and civics exam create an unfair burden and filters who applies for citizenship. These steps should not prohibit eligible LPRs who lack excessive free time, such as single parents or those working long hours or multiple jobs. For these individuals, naturalizing may represent a life-changing step in their security and prosperity in the US.

The complexity, length, and ambiguity of the N400 application was seen as a substantial barrier by most of the people we interviewed. One way to decrease the time required to apply would be to write the application in simpler language. On top of this, providing the form and/or instructions in other languages will help ensure those applying are interpreting the form accurately.

“Yeah. I think probably won't go down the lawyer route again, but if I felt there was somewhere where I could help helpful, impartial information, just practical information that's designed for a regular person, I would totally do that. I kind of feel like I don't really want to go down the legal, or law, route. To me, I don't feel like you should need a lawyer to do it. It just doesn't make sense to me.” Interviewee 7

The ability to pre-populate sections where the information was used in previous applications or from other government transactions such as taxes and international travel would also remove a substantial amount of unnecessary document gathering for applicants and proofing from government staff. Portions of the questions should be removed or rephrased if they are harmful or no longer applicable to today’s immigration expectations and globally-powered workforce.

Reconsidering the need for civics questions may also be necessary. While general U.S. history can be fascinating, few need to know these obscure details. Lawmakers should consider whether the civics portion of the naturalization exam enriches future Americans or if it is treated as a means to disqualify otherwise successful applicants who may not memorize information as well as others.

"Half of those questions were just ridiculous because I don't even think any person in the United States who is a native-born citizen even knows half of these questions. It's insane to think like, 'Why do they have to know all these random questions about the Senate when nobody even knows that in the first place?'" Interviewee 14

“I printed out flashcards. My partner helped me on the subway. He was like, ‘Oh, it's time to do my flashcards.’ ‘Okay, let's do this’. People around us are laughing at the questions and realizing like, ‘Oh, I wouldn't know those’ or ‘Oh, I definitely wouldn't.’ No worries… public studying.” Interviewee 4“I lived here, I went to high school here, I went to college here, so most information was not too hard. It's just basically memorizing it for one test and then forgetting it all later. If you asked me now I wouldn't have known what it is. So don't ask me.” Interviewee 23

Introducing changes to immigration processes will increase the trust many immigrants feel towards the federal government. Many recommendations outlined are a starting point, as they may require dramatic changes in law and policy. But as small and large changes to immigration are considered, improving the experience immigrants face as they enter and become part of the country should be a key part of the discussion.

Recommendations for Context

Treat citizenship as part of the overall immigration journey

To most, government is a monolith where interactions with one agency or one application are a part of an overall experience with all of government. Treatment at one point greatly affects attitudes towards future contacts. One of USCIS’s goals is to “Achieve excellent customer service each time USCIS interacts with its customers”³ and they agency warns interview officers that they may be intimidating because of “Prior negative experiences with authority figures.”⁴ However, many LPRs we spoke with noted being treated as if they were meeting them for the first time, regardless of how much information had already been provided. Interfacing with immigration would be more efficient and less stressful if departments immigrants interact with each case by focusing on the applicant as a known customer and potential future American citizen.

When we engage with immigrants along an entire path, we can anticipate and extend a welcoming tone for future steps. For example, USCIS could proactively inquire if a Green Card recipient wants to naturalize upon being eligible. Anticipatory actions like this open the door to a number of service design improvements that overcome barriers and misinformation, like:

• Locking in prices for naturalization at the point of receiving the Green Card.
• Notifying LPRs when their Green Card type is eligible for naturalization.
• Prompting eligible LPRs to log onto a revamped myUSCIS that is already partially filled using data USCIS already possesses.

Provide greater transparency around timing

Any redesign of the immigration process will need to be built with transparency for expected processing times. Most applicants we interviewed, even those with lawyers, were told to just wait, or that the process could take many more months. While applicants were in an unknown wait period, they would often encounter stressful decisions such as postponing travel for fear of a gap in status or refusing a very good job due to a need for permits.

“It could be frustrating because we would be waiting, and we didn't know whether we could wait a month, two months, or much longer because I think there was a date when your case becomes current, when your case is eligible to go through National Visa Center and stuff like that. […] During that wait, it was kind of frustrating because we didn't get enough communication from USCIS. That's one thing I wanted to mention.” Interviewee 46

"My feeling was there was no hope. There was a 1-800 number that is not even a person who works with immigration. They only have probably an interface that says processing, and nothing else. Okay, processing, but at what stage? What is missing? How long is it going to take? There was no such information. There was nowhere to go." Interviewee 3

Government has often sought to transform itself into an organization that is more user-friendly, looking for comparisons to the private sector where tracking progress and delivery is standard procedure. USCIS also has an explicit goal to “ensure the delivery of accurate, useful, and timely information to USCIS customers.” Applicants want to understand where their case is in the process in a way that is more informative than “in progress.” Clear expectations on wait times for each stage should be mandatory to relieve anxiety and to provide intuitive understanding on when to inquire on a potential error. Improving the transparency on timing with clear, proactive communication would help the agency meet another goal, “to provide solutions to enhance consistency and to increase customer confidence.”⁵

While immigrants sort out visas and Green Cards in the beginning of their immigration journey, touchpoints with immigration authorities are frequent, at least once every two or three years. Obtaining the Green Card is top-of-mind. As such, they are exposed to reminders to naturalize more often. After a permanent Green Card is obtained, communication around immigration drastically decreases — they might only think about it when they become eligible, or when they have to renew their Green Card. Aside from those milestones, LPRs who aren't connected to nonprofits are rarely reminded of the benefits of citizenship.

Additionally, messaging around citizenship benefits is seldom timed or linked to events that LPRs are actively prioritizing. Without this relevance, the messages are less tangible and pressing. Introducing regular messaging about specific benefits in the right contexts will help increase naturalization as a priority for immigrants.

Recommendations for Content

Be descriptive of the benefits—tell stories and encourage others to share

catalysts to naturalize are often practical. It's good to help LPRs understand how naturalization is going to improve their current situation. Not all messages resonate with everyone, but through meaningful placement, people may be exposed to messaging they care about. During testing, LPRs reacted positively to messaging related to the catalysts that originally encouraged them to start their applications.

“I like ‘Keep everyone together. Get your citizenship. Travel with your family.’ because when I was a resident I would travel to my country with my family. My transition was difficult because I spend more time in a long line, different line, fingerprint all my fingers…and my kids and husband they don’t do it because they are U.S. Citizens.” Interview #22

Furthermore, many interviewees also took action after hearing a story about a peer naturalizing. The stories that moved LPRs to take action often included elements that paralleled their own lives, such as a shared barrier or aspiration. Analogous testimonies of success allow potential applicants to envision themselves naturalizing.

Recommendations for Context

Take advantage of pacing dictated by USCIS processes

Multi-purpose organizations often collect data around when an immigrant received their Green Card, giving them unique insight into when that person will be potentially eligible to naturalize. Following up with LPRs systematically, and especially when they are close to eligibility, can improve how quickly people naturalize. After making sure any collected data is secure, it can be used as a means to identify when known catalysts (such as reaching eligibility years or the Green Card renewal period) are occuring in order to remind the LPR to consider naturalizing or begin their application. Customer relationship management (CRM) tools can enable nonprofits to automate these catalysts and messages.

Use official government channels (and some private sector channels)

Immigrants expect advice and messages from the government regarding naturalization. As we learned during our testing round, they are often distrustful of immigration outreach within the context of business or transactions. An exception was receiving contextual messaging while filing taxes with TurboTax, which was generally well received, as taxes are connected to the government. While we heard examples of doctors in large immigrant communities occasionally assisting in naturalization awareness during interviews, most of the individuals we tested felt any conversation regarding their status from a health professional would feel intrusive. Immigrants reacted mostly positively to immigration messaging when it came from DHS, city and state government agencies, and schools. Well-received intervention points included when LPRs obtain a driver's license at the DMV and sign up for healthcare insurance in the state marketplace.

Unexpected profiling and tracking is frightening

Many interviewees reacted negatively to being profiled as an immigrant during our testing. Interviewees felt uneasy regarding how a business or an agency may know sensitive information about their immigration status without them explicitly providing it at that moment, such as receiving a suggestion to naturalize in a post office receipt after mailing a package abroad, or as a part of the corresponding credit card statement. Even if these organizations had information about their immigration status, interviewees reasoned that they would be suspicious of the organization's agenda for bringing it up in an unexpected way. This doesn't mean there isn't an acceptable time and a place for this information to be shared; situations where LPRs are expected to show foreign identification feel more normal. Bringing it up in the context of the tax season was also mostly accepted as long as it was tied to the tax benefits of naturalization.