Detailed Information on the
Permanent Labor Certification Program Assessment

Develop appropriate performance measures for the new program, and establish ambitious long-term and annual targets.

Revise the application for Permanent Labor Certification (ETA 9089) to promote clarity and ease of use by employers, address implementation of the Fraud Rule, and promote efficient processing.

Revise the PERM electronic system to reflect changes to the application for Permanent Labor Certification (ETA 9089) and provide system enhancements to promote program integrity.

Implement in 2005 the regulation to streamline the permanent labor certification process.

Develop a companion regulation that addresses the fraud problems that have been identified in the current processing system and will prevent similar problems with the streamlined system.

Redirect funds to finance the new consolidated processing center operations. Funding for the states will be reduced, in line with their reduced responsibilities.

Implement new procedures to eliminate the remaining backlog.

Measure: Percentage of employer applications for labor certification under the streamlined system that are resolved within six months of filing.

Explanation:Before a foreign worker may obtain employment in the United States on a permanent basis, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the Secretary of Labor certify to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State that the employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. An employer files an application with the Department of Labor (DOL) which is certified or denied by DOL or withdrawn by the employer. DOL evaluates its performance in processing these applications by calculating the percent of applications resolved (certified, denied, or withdrawn) within 180 days of receipt compared to all cases resolved in the fiscal year. In FY 2007, the number of cases resolved was 98,753, of which 85,112 were certified. A total of 90,168, or 91 percent, were resolved within 180 days. ETA developed the current processing standard (180 days or 6 months) for the re-engineered Program Electronic Review Management (or PERM) system in FY 2005. The standard is much shorter than the previous permanent labor certification program, which often took years to resolve applications. Processing rates will vary and the resolution rate may change, depending on the effects of new procedures designed to strengthen program integrity that began in FY 2007 with the publication of the final rule - Reducing the Incentives and Opportunities for Fraud and Abuse and Enhancing Program Integrity - and continued in FY 2008. These procedures include auditing applications for failure to meet program requirements and supervising recruitment for selected applications (in which DOL oversees recruitment steps from advertising to selection or rejection of workers). These additional steps may result in longer processing times.

Measure: Average cost to process a new application under the streamlined program model.

Explanation:Estimates average or unit cost of processing an Application for Permanent Employment Certification in the PERM program. The cost per application is calculated by dividing the costs of operating the FLC PERM program by the number of PERM applications submitted in the fiscal year. The Department plans to analyze the effect of implementing the fraud detection and integrity measures on staff requirements and processing rates. This analysis will be used to redefine the existing cost per application efficiency measure.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Employers who wish to hire foreign workers for permanent positions in the U.S. must obtain a "certification" from the Department of Labor (DOL). The program serves a protective function; immigration law requires that, before certain aliens are allowed to immigrate to the U.S. for employment, DOL "certify" to the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State (DOS) that no qualified U.S. workers are available and that hiring the foreign worker will not adversely affect U.S. wages or working conditions. An employer's application to DOL must establish that the employer has unsuccessfully recruited U.S. workers (availability prong) and, if permitted to hire the worker who is the subject of the application, will comply with program requirements with respect to wages and working conditions (worker protection prong). The certification allows the employer, as the alien's sponsor, to petition DHS for an immigrant visa. DHS approval authorizes DOS to assign the worker a visa number, which the worker can use to gain Legal Permanent Residency (the much sought-after "green card").

Evidence: Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §212(a)(5)(A), 8 USC §1182(a)(5)(A) (requirements for labor certification and qualification for certain aliens); 20 CFR Part 656 (labor certification requirements for permanent employment of aliens); DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG) Rept. 06-03-007-03-321 9/30/2003 (program is intended to ensure that employment of foreign worker on a permanent basis will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed; "DOL must certify to [DHS] that no qualified workers are available and willing to accept the job at the prevailing wage for that occupation in the area of intended employment"); and http://uscis.gov (description of immigration petition and visa process).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The program helps employers meet their need for skilled labor while seeking to prevent potential displacement of U.S. workers and the dilution of U.S. wages and worker protections. Employers who have specialized needs or are in industries experiencing labor shortages have the option to hire a foreign worker if they test the labor market and abide by certain wage and fair labor standards. The popularity of the program is evident in the large number of applications, which employers can file under either a lengthy "traditional" process (three years or more to obtain labor certification) or an expedited Reduction-in-Recruitment or "RIR" process (less than one year for certification). Employers file their applications with State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), which conduct a detailed review and supervise recruitment for U.S. workers. Regional offices for DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) conduct an independent review of State-approved applications.

Evidence: INA §212(a)(5)(A), 8 USC §1182(a)(5)(A); 20 CFR Part 656; and www.oig.dol.gov, OIG Rept. 06-03-007-03-321 9/30/2003 (describing purpose of program, separate application processes). In FY 2003, SWAs received over 97,500 "traditional" applications for permanent employment, and approximately 75% of applications for permanent labor certification processed in DOL regional offices were submitted through the RIR process. After an extension in 2001 of a filing deadline for a separate immigration program (under INA §245(i)) that authorized employment-based immigration by individuals not usually eligible, DOL's permanent labor certification program received 235,000 applications more than its annual average, significantly contributing to its backlog.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The federal government has exclusive authority to regulate immigration. Federal statute exclusively authorizes and requires the Secretary of Labor to make a determination about the (un)availability and protection of U.S. workers before an alien can be approved for admission as an immigrant based on permanent employment. This program's activities are not duplicated in the state, local, or private sector, although portions of the program do require assistance and information from state agencies and although, as a matter of program design (that is, within the program), there is some duplication of review functions by federal and state administrators.

Evidence: See, for example, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Executive Business Meeting 7/13/2003, Statement of Sen. Jeff Sessions (describing Congress' plenary power over immigration policy); INA §212(a)(5)(A), 8 USC §1182(a)(5)(A) (requirements for labor certification and qualification for certain aliens); and 20 CFR Part 656 (labor certification requirements for permanent employment of aliens).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: It is appropriate for this program's services to be provided by federal agencies, with assistance from state offices or outside contractors. However, the current process is paper-intensive, duplicative in places, and inefficient, all of which compounds the program's backlog burden and vulnerability to fraud and abuse. In addition, there are no "remoteness" checks on the employer's labor market test; it could be years between the recruitment efforts described in an application to DOL and the time a labor certification issues or the alien adjusts to permanent resident status (certification may take three years or more, immigration petitions and visas additional years), undermining confidence that U.S. workers are not available. Further, the certification itself lacks critical safeguards. After DOL approval: (1) there are no time constraints for submitting a petition to DHS, (2) the employer can substitute one alien for another, and (3) certifications are valid indefinitely, all of which fuels a profitable underground market for them. DOL has proposed reforms.

Evidence: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Permanent Labor Certif. Process Mgmt. Review 1/2002 (PWC study), www.doleta.gov/sga/rfp/ PWCfinalReport.cfm (describing labor-intensive, primarily paper-based process, and making recommendations); OIG Rpts. 06-03-007-03-321 9/30/2003 (citing numerous program weaknesses, including fraud, abuse, or failure to comply by employers, workers, or agents of either party, making labor certification programs one of DOL IG's "top ten concerns") and 06-96-002-03-321 5/22/1996 (labor market test poorly designed, provides little protection for U.S. workers; most aliens already in the country and working for the same employer), and Semiann. Rept. to Congress for 10/1/2003 - 3/31/2004 (integrity of labor certification programs remains major management challenge for DOL; recommended documenting that position really exists, limiting validity period of certifications, enhancing DOL authority, prohibiting substitution of employees on approved certifications, and prosecuting sale of certifications); 67 Fed.Reg. 30466 5/6/2002 (rule proposing program reforms).

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: As required by statute, the permanent labor certification program is employer-focused, with the employer's application serving as: (1) the vehicle through which DOL receives the requisite information about the need for a foreign worker and the employer's efforts to test the labor market, and (2) the basis upon which the agency determines whether to issue a certification. Although the program benefits many foreign workers seeking to gain permanent entry into the U.S., the certification process is driven by employers, who are the immediate customers for the service.

Evidence: INA §212(a)(5)(A), 8 USC §1182(a)(5)(A) (requirements for labor certification and qualification for certain aliens), and 20 CFR Part 656 (labor certification requirements for permanent employment of aliens).

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Program goals center around expeditious, cost-effective review of applications. Multi-year goals address processing times and backlog reduction, which are stakeholder priorities. In addition, ETA is developing an efficiency measure to help it determine, and manage against, the cost of certifications in each of its foreign labor programs. The program plans to eliminate its 315,000 case backlog within two years, an ambitious target that may be aided by centralization of processing activities and employer decisions to convert backlogged applications to a new, streamlined system. The goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications, though ambitious relative to current 32-month processing, may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process, if program reforms go as planned, and processing rates are as high as envisioned. However, the aggressiveness of this target cannot be judged until execution of and experience with the new system. Program goals and targets should be reassessed, and revised or supplemented as needed, once program reforms take effect.

Evidence: ETA Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FY 2005: (1) Reduce average processing time such that 90% of new applications are processed within six months of filing (target ambitious relative to current processing time of 32 months; target remains same in future years; contingent on implementation of reforms). (2) In 2004, reduce backlog of permanent applications by 36.5% from 270,000, and in 2005, by 42% from 171,450 (revised goal: elimination of backlog by end of 2006). (3) Goal for 2003 was to "assist employers in meeting their workforce needs by providing them with expeditious determinations on their applications to hire foreign workers under the [permanent, H-1B, and H-2B programs]". (4) Goal for 2001 and 2002 had been to "promptly review employer applications for foreign labor certification". Goals tie to program's mission and DOL's Strategic Goal 4, A Competitive Workforce. Numerical targets for processing will almost certainly need adjustment upon implementation of the new, automated system and centralized processing.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program's goal to eliminate its backlog within two years is ambitious. The goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process. However, as stated above, the aggressiveness of this target cannot truly be judged until execution of and experience with the new system.

Evidence: ETA, Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FYs 2005 (listing goals for FY 2004 and 2005) and 2004 (goals for FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The emphasis on processing times and backlog reduction of the long-term goals is mirrored in the program's annual goals (currently the same long-term measures, but with interim/annual targets). ETA's "per certification" measure will track efficiencies on both an annual and long-term basis. However, program goals and targets should be reassessed once program reforms take effect, to ensure they are well-targeted and ambitious relative to new or modernized program activities.

Evidence: ETA, Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FYs 2005 (listing goals for FY 2004 and 2005) and 2004 (goals for FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Program goals lack specific, ambitious annual targets. For example, the published backlog reduction targets would not result in elimination of the backlog in two years, as the program currently plans. And the goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications (currently 32 months) may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process, if processing rates hold true to plan. Annual goals must be updated to reflect the program's best and latest information on, and current expectations for, processing and backlog reduction.

Evidence: ETA, Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FYs 2005 and 2004: (1) Reduce average processing time such that 90% of new applications are processed within six months of filing. (2) In 2004, reduce backlog of permanent applications by 36.5% from 270,000, and in 2005, by 42% from 171,450 (revised goal: elimination of backlog by end of 2006).

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: SWAs are federally funded to administer various labor certification program activities. DOL oversight is based on written, centrally prepared guidance issued to both states and DOL regional offices, which monitor administration of the program. Regional offices establish and oversee priorities for states under their jurisdiction, and frequently engage with state offices on issues of practice and policy. Grants to states are: (1) contingent upon submission of state program plans; (2) subject to regular reporting by states; and (3) based on an allocation formula that incorporates productivity measures. State data is collected, analyzed, used to manage the program, and tracked against broader backlog reduction objectives. Please note: The redesigned permanent program, as proposed by DOL, would significantly reduce the role of the States -- SWAs would simply issue prevailing wage determinations to accompany employers' applications to DOL -- largely obviating the need for state accountability measures in this particular program.

Evidence: ETA Field Memorandum No. 9-04, Role of State Agencies for Foreign Labor Certification in FY 2004 (3/31/2004), providing States with "guidance for the funding and management of [ ] annual grant allocation for the Alien Labor Certification Program". Some states use performance measures related to labor certification as part of their own strategic planning or program management initiatives. See, for example, State of New Mexico, Governor's Office of Workforce Programs, Employment and Training Program Survey, http://gowp.state.nm.us/pdf/aliensurv.pdf (mission includes activities to "provide assistance to the US Department of Labor for alien labor certification"; two program goals are to "process temporary and permanent labor certifications" and "provide prevailing wage information").

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: In 2003, the DOL Inspector General completed an audit of the Department's labor certification programs, including the permanent program. In 2002, PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded a process evaluation for the permanent program whose recommendations DOL has gone on review and, where appropriate, implement. The Department has proposed reforms to the program in response to these and previous evaluations with consistent findings.

Evidence: PWC study 1/2002, www.doleta.gov/sga/rfp/ PWCfinalReport.cfm; OIG, www.oig.dol.gov, Semiann. Repts. to Congress for 10/1/2003 - 3/31/2004 and 4/1/2003 - 9/30/2003; OIG, Top Mgmt. Issues at the Dept. of Labor 1/2004; OIG Rpts. 06-03-007-03-321 9/30/2003 and 06-96-002-03-321 5/22/1996.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Like the rest of DOL, ETA does not have an integrated accounting and performance management system to identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day-to-day operations.

Evidence: ETA Congressional Justification submitted with FY 2005 President's Budget; DOL Strategic Plan for FYs 2003-2008, www.dol.gov/_sec/ stratplan/strat_plan_2003-2008.htm (describing DOL's budget/performance integration efforts).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department's budget/performance integration effort includes a "full cost accounting" initiative that reaches into each DOL agency, and DOL's FY 2005 budget submission moved closer to fully integrating performance goals with budget information. ETA is working to develop and refine a limited number of well-targeted, ambitious annual and long-term goals appropriate for the redesigned program it has proposed. The permanent labor certification program has developed an efficiency measure (cost of processing labor certifications in each labor certification program), to be implemented in FY 2005, to strengthen cost analysis and inform long-term planning.

Evidence: ETA, Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FY 2005 (listing goals for FY 2004 and 2005). Proposed goals tie to the program's mission and DOL's Strategic Goal 4, A Competitive Workforce.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: ETA collects and uses information from numerous sources to evaluate and improve program management, including reports from state and regional offices, caseload data from its internal tracking system, feedback from employers and other stakeholders, and findings from OIG and external program evaluations. One significant example: ETA has redesigned the program in response to longstanding concerns raised by experts and stakeholders, and is developing new goals for the redesigned program.

Evidence: See, for example, ETA Field Memorandum No. 9-04, Role of State Agencies for Foreign Labor Certification in FY 2004 (3/31/2004) (reporting requirements for state agencies receiving DOL grants that support labor certification and other employment services).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Funding to states is tied to productivity rates, and state partners are held accountable for planning and results. DOL ties performance ratings for managers and supervisors to the achievement of Departmental and program-specific goals and outcomes; employee evaluations are aligned on a fiscal year cycle to help cascade standards to non-supervisory personnel. One concern of note: In part due to planning and implementation of major reforms, the program currently lacks a set of specific numerical targets against which to assess managerial and staff performance on an annual basis. Once a new system is in place, prompt attention to the development of appropriate goals and numerical targets will strengthen accountability.

Evidence: DOL's Revised Performance Management Plans for Senior Executives (Form DL 1-2059, Rev. 10/2001) and for Supervisors and Managers (Form DL 1-382, Rev. 10/2001); ETA Field Memorandum No. 9-04, Role of State Agencies for Foreign Labor Certification in FY 2004 (3/31/2004)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Salaries and expenses funding is obligated in a timely manner, according to the ETA spending plan. State activities for the permanent program are funded on an annual basis. The formula allocation is based on weighted factors, the grants are awarded in accordance with ETA policy and procedures, and each year ETA issues guidance to the States regarding their role in foreign labor certification. The States, in turn, submit individual annual plans to ETA regional offices under the Wagner-Peyser annual funding agreement. Regional offices review and, as appropriate, approve the plans and state quarterly expenditure reports.

Evidence: ETA Field Memorandum No. 9-04, Role of State Agencies for Foreign Labor Certification in FY 2004 (3/31/2004); state annual plans; budget and accounting report, Status of Fund -- Alien Labor Certificaton (amounts obligated to each SWA in FY 2004); Form ETA-9037, State Alien Labor Certification Activity Report (state processing data reported semi-annually); quarterly reports from the EIMS financial system.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The framework for backlog reduction (adjudication of old cases) and streamlined processing (more efficient, effective review of new cases) is substantially complete, with backlog elimination centers scheduled to open in late Summer 2004 and a new, automated review system going into effect in Fall 2004. Procedures are also in place to eventually unify all labor certification processing activities, which will leverage economies of scale (processing under one roof), technology, and staff resources. A new efficiency goal to be implemented in 2005, and specific numerical targets for performance goals (under development), will help ETA to better measure and improve efficiencies.

Evidence: 67 Fed.Reg. 30466 5/6/2002 (rule proposing program reforms); 69 Fed.Reg. 43716 7/21/2004 (interim final rule authorizing trasfer of backlogged cases from states to backlog processing centers or regional offices for processing). The proposed efficiency measure would track the average cost of processing labor certifications for each of DOL's labor certification programs.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: ETA staff administering the permanent program coordinate and collaborate effectively: (1) internally, with ETA staff responsible for processing applications for temporary certification programs; (2) with state agencies reviewing applications and supervising employer recruitment at the local level; (3) with other DOL offices (like the Wage and Hour Division, the Office of the Solicitor, and the Office of Inspector General) as needed to combat fraud or meet other program objectives; and (4) with DHS and DOS, the other federal agencies administering later phases of this worker visa program. For example, ETA meets quarterly with CIS and DOS to discuss ways to reduce fraud in the foreign labor certification programs. In addition, ETA and CIS have formed a subgroup that meets monthly to share information on employers that are currently being investigated for fraud.

Evidence: See, e.g., Field Memorandum No. 9-04: 'Role of State Agencies for Foreign Labor Certification in FY 2004'; MOU between ETA and CIS, 5/3/1995, regarding the substitution of alien beneficiaries on approved Permanent Labor Certifications.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows established DOL/ETA practices and is free of material internal control weaknesses as identified by auditors. State grants are audited as part of the uniform audit procedures, internal state auditing. ETA Regional Office staff regularly monitor spending.

Evidence: DOL's Annual Reports on Performance and Accountability for FY2003, www.dol.gov/ dol/aboutdol/main.htm.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: DOL has proposed program reforms, under the auspices of a new Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) system, that would: (1) speed up the process by allowing employers to attest to their recruitment efforts and other compliance and keep records in-house, instead of undergoing supervised recruitment and submitting detailed documentation; (2) eliminate paperwork by requiring electronic filing of applications; (3) significantly reduce the role of SWAs, which would be limited to issuing prevailing wage determinations for applications, thus eliminating duplicative review; and (4) institute automated security screens, and random and select audits, to protect against fraud. ETA expects to significantly improve the average time it takes to process an application and dramatically improve the program's overall efficiency, preventing future backlogs. In addition, ETA will centralize processing of old cases to eliminate the current backlog. The program is also working closely with OIG and other program stakeholders to improve broader anti-fraud strategies and mechanisms.

Evidence: 67 Fed.Reg. 30466 5/6/2002 (rule proposing program reforms).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Since 2002, the program has achieved a number of milestones critical to its long-term health. The program has demonstrated progress through successful completion of qualitative, mission-critical goals, including: (1) the effective planning and/or completion of rulemaking, staff reallocations, and technological improvements underlying major program reforms; (2) the piloting of a new program model; and (3) the initiation of centralized backlog reduction efforts that will eliminate old cases now crowding state and DOL regional offices and free up program resources going forward. However, backlog elimination and efficient case procesing are still only goals; the elimination of backlogged cases and the efficient, effective processing of new cases both hinge on successful implementation of program changes still in the planning stages or just recently put in place. The next PART assessment will focus more closely on the extent to which these more quantitative goals have been achieved.

Evidence: ETA Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FYs 2005 (listing goals for FY 2004 and 2005) and 2004 (goals for FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has achieved a number of in-year objectives critical to reform of the program. However, the program's quantitative goals currently lack appropriate, ambitious numerical targets against which to measure year-to-year progress.

Evidence: ETA Congressional Justification submitted with the President's Budget for FYs 2005 (listing goals for FY 2004 and 2005) and 2004 (goals for FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In FY 2003, DOL regional offices processed 7% more permanent program applications than they received, despite sharing staff across labor certification programs and processing a large number of applications for the temporary programs, which have priority. Separately, a 2003 pilot for the proposed streamlined process reduced the time it takes to process applications from an average of 618 days to 205 days and provided the platform for a more effective, resource-efficient program model. Of note: The program will not implement its efficiency measure until FY 2005.

Evidence: In FY 2003, regional offices received 87,006 permanent program applications and processed 93,195. Also see DOL/ETA Simulation Project Final Report 12/2003, Technology & Management Services, Inc. (TMS)(results of streamlining project pilot).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The permanent program appears to be most comparable to the H-2B program; their processes are very similar, although the H-2B program helps employers hire foreign workers on a temporary basis. However, because DOL is in the process of overhauling both programs, a comparison here would not be meaningful or appropriate.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Ongoing stakeholder concerns and findings from program evaluations or OIG audits conducted in years past raise serious questions about the design, management, and accountability of the current program. DOL has proposed redesigns that begin to address the many valid points raised by program customers and reviewers. In addition, the program must continue to work closely with the OIG and other program stakeholders to collectively identify and address program weakness -- in particular, the serious fraud and abuse that continue to undermine this program.

Evidence: PWC study 1/2002; OIG, Semiann. Repts. to Congress for 10/1/2003 - 3/31/2004 (restating vulnerabilities of certification programs; making recommendations) and 4/1/2003 - 9/30/2003 (concern that redesigned system will reduce manual screening and reduce controls over application information, leading to increased fraud); OIG, Top Mgmt. Issues at the Dept. of Labor 1/2004 (citing extensive fraud in labor certification programs); OIG Rpts. 06-03-007-03-321 9/30/2003 (employers often do not comply with program criteria, may tailor job requirements to alien qualifications, or create nonexistent jobs to help gain immigrant status for friends or family; U.S. workers seldom hired; most aliens already occupying post or in the country and working for same employer; labor market test does not reflect availability of U.S. workers at time alien adjusts to permanent resident status) and 06-96-002-03-321 5/22/1996 (labor market test poorly designed, provides little protection for U.S. workers). Also see 67 Fed.Reg. 30466 5/6/2002 (rule proposing program reforms).