International Studies Office/Process Simplification Work Group

International Studies Office/Process Simplification Work Group

Final Report

July 8, 2000

I. Introduction

In January 2000, the International Studies Office/Process Simplification (ISO/PS) Work Group was formed to examine key activities managed by ISO. The goal was to determine if the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of selected processes could be improved as a means of better serving the University’s objectives for international education.

As outlined in the group’s mission statement, expected outcomes included:

• Improved communication about ISO services and opportunities that are available and about program requirements
• Reduced duplication of effort (i.e., more efficient support; more time available for creative and meaningful work)
• Easy access to information
• Improved coordination/communication among ISO areas/staff and with other University units; and
• Less time spent on the routine and more on the exception.

Appendix A outlines the group’s mission.

Christina Morell, Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget, served as group leader. Other group members include: Robin Cook, International Center (IC); Clare Cosgrove, IC: Bridget Ganey, ISO; Miles Gibson, Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget; Suzanne Louis, ISO; Jessica Roberts, ISO; Richard Tanson, ISO; and Marcia Taylor, ISO.

II. Approach to Work

To determine what processes to review, the work group inventoried all of the activities managed by ISO. These activities fell into the following categories: recruitment, admissions, orientation, advising, and training/supervision for students, faculty, and staff (for a listing of all of the processes identified see Appendix B). Once these tasks were inventoried, the group developed a list of criteria by which to select four key processes to review (see Appendix C for a list of these criteria). Based on these criteria, the work group agreed to examine the following:

1. Study Abroad: from when a student is recruited to participate in a program, through the advising, application, and pre-departure orientation session.
2. Bringing in Foreign Faculty/Staff: from when a department contacts ISO for help in securing or extending and/or changing the visa status of a foreign faculty/staff member hired, to when the foreign national is on payroll.
3. Bringing in Undergraduate Students: from when an undergraduate student receives information on the steps required to obtain a visa through when the student visa (I-20) is issued and ISO disseminates the visa and orientation packet to new students.
4. International Host Student Program (ISHP): from when a student is contacted to participate in a program either as a host or “hostee,” through the application, selection, and initial orientation process.

Process Simplification (PS) staff managed all of the data collection. To meet the group’s objectives, PS staff sought to gather information from the following three key sources: (1) ISO staff involved in administering the process; (2) persons who are at the receiving end of the process (e.g., study abroad participants; new foreign faculty/staff; departmental staff involved in bringing in a foreign national); and (3) institutions regarded by ISO staff as best practices models. In addition, key stakeholders, such as the Director of ISO and the Senior Associate Director of Admission, were interviewed to obtain their perspectives on the activities being evaluated.

1) ISO Interviews:

To understand the elements of each of the processes under review, PS staff started their work by interviewing the appropriate ISO representatives involved in each activity. For each respective process, information was obtained on the volume of activity; how many people in the office are involved in the process; what are their main responsibilities; what are the key start and end points within sub-elements of the processes under review; and what were some of the key challenges the staff faced in administering the process. An interview guide was used to conduct these interviews (see Appendix D for a sample set of questions). Once completed, all interview summaries were submitted to ISO staff for review, and changes were made based on clarifications offered.

2) “Customer” Surveys

To learn about the experiences of persons benefiting from ISO’s services, the following populations were surveyed:

• Students who had participated in study abroad during the past calendar year
• Departmental Faculty and Staff who work with ISO to bring in new foreign faculty/staff or to extend/change the visa status of a foreign national already on Grounds
• Foreign faculty who either arrived as new employees to the University within the past year or extended and/or changed their visa status during this time frame
• Foreign undergraduate students who were admitted as first-years or as transfers during the academic year
• Students serving as hosts in the International Student Host Program
• Students who participated in the ISHP as “hostees.”

Random samples of students who participated in study abroad (30 total) and who arrived as new foreign undergraduate students (40 total) during the past academic year were obtained from the Registrar’s Office. University Human Resources provided the random sample of 40 foreign faculty/staff who arrived as new employees during the past year, or who extended/and or changed their visa status during this time frame. The ISHP sample (45 hosts; 80 hostees) was obtained from the ISHP program coordinator. Finally, ISO staff provided a listing of ten departments in the Schools of Medicine, eight in the College of Arts and Sciences, and three in the School of Engineering that had been involved in bringing in foreign faculty/staff during the past year. This approach was followed to ensure the work group received input from departments who were familiar with the process. PS staff contacted each department listed to identify the appropriate department staff representative to survey, as well as to solicit from the departmental staff the names of three or four faculty who were involved in the process. In total, 28 department staff and 68 faculty were surveyed.

PS staff developed the surveys with input from ISO staff. All of the surveys were administered by e-mail; the responses were submitted directly to PS staff who analyzed and summarized the results.

Limitations:

The surveys were conducted during the month of April. Although the response rate of employees was within acceptable ranges, most student input was extremely limited (the most significant response rate came from study abroad participants). This limited response rate was not surprising given the time of year (i.e., end of the academic semester). Since minimal input was received from ISHP participants, and in light of certain changes that already were being pursued by the program’s administrators, the work group decided not to pursue this process any further. In addition, very few undergraduate students responded to the survey focusing on their experiences coming into the University. This limited response rate, coupled with changes underway in the New Orientation program, prompted the work group to narrow the scope of its review of the bringing in undergraduate students to key interactions between ISO and Admission.

Once all internal information was collected, PS staff proceeded to obtain data from external sources. The input sought form these external sites was limited to the redefined project scope.

3) Best Practices Institutions

PS staff contacted several other universities to learn how they manage their study abroad programs, as well as the processes for bringing in foreign faculty/staff and students to their institutions. The schools contacted were: CornellUniversity, DukeUniversity; the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. All interviews were conducted by telephone. Data were collected on organizational structure, staff support, volume of activity, processing of work, elements of their processes that work well, and key challenges they face in meeting their objectives. An interview guide was used during the course of the interviews (see Appendix F for a sample).

III. Summary of Findings

1) ISO Interviews

For each of the programs reviewed, ISO staff are responsible for all administrative aspects of the work. Table 1 provides information in summary form of the major responsibilities staff have in these areas (note: the information provided is limited to the scope of this project. ISO staff have other responsibilities, such as helping faculty/staff secure permanent residency status and admitting graduate students, which are not included in this matrix):

Study Abroad / Bringing in Faculty / Bringing in Undergraduate Students
Number of Staff / 1 Full-time (Study Abroad Adviser)
2 Part-time (Office Manager, Director of ISO)
9 part-time student volunteers peer advisers; non-paid / 1 Full-Time (International Faculty Adviser responsible for H-1 B, TN, O-1 visas)
1 ¾ Time (Associate Director, Exchange Visitor Program responsible for J-1 visas)
note: the H-1B designated officer serves as the alternate for the J-1 officer / 1 Full-Time (Foreign Student Adviser responsible for F-1)
1 ¼ time (Associate Director, Exchange Visitor Program)
Basic Responsibilities / One-on-one advising;
review applications UVa and affiliate programs; register accepted applicants; coordinate with faculty directors of programs; general communications regarding programs; collection of Leave of Absence fees and UVa summer program application materials; processing of payments for faculty participants in certain programs;
conduct pre-departure orientation sessions / Advise departments on appropriate visa status; prepare applications (review information, gather data; resolve questions); consult with outside agencies/institutions; make referrals to appropriate departments; process INS fees; research changes in regulations; advise foreign faculty / Provide advice as requested; review student files; gather missing documentation; issue F-1 (i.e., I-20) visa to students; prepare and distribute pre-orientation materials to new students; participate in orientation
Volume of Activity (avg. per year) / 600 students / H-1, TN, O-1 (150)
J-1 (400) / F-1 (130)
Peak Time / Year-round (fall, spring, and summer programs) / Year-round / May through August

Additional data collected during these interviews were used to develop process maps that outline the basics steps involved in the processes examined (see Appendices A though C). For the visa issuance process, the work group focused on H-1B (Temporary Worker – Specialty Occupations), J-1 (Exchange Visitors Program), and F-1 (Student Visa; I-20) visas, which account for approximately 90% of visas issued.

For all three activities reviewed, staff noted similar challenges to more effectively administering their work and to improving the quality of interactions they have with members of the University community. Limited understanding on the part of key constituencies regarding program requirements, insufficienttechnology, limitedaccess to ISO staff, inappropriate space, and lack of sufficient support to administer the volume of activity were identified as key challenges. Below are examples of some of the issues raised during the interviews:

Study Abroad (SA): Limited staff support makes it difficult for the SA Adviser to do anything more than the absolute minimum maintenance required. U.Va. has one study abroad adviser who is responsible for advising 600 participants in addition to managing a number of program tasks. Peer advisers help in the process, but typically students want access to professional staff, which makes meeting their advising needs a challenge. There is no systematic process in place to coordinate with faculty program advisers, which limits the quality of advice SA can offer students.

Most of the processing involved is done manually; none of the required SA forms are available on-line, and no information on program participants is maintained on a database. Since the web site has not been updated, communication with students is not as effective as it should be. For example, although changes were implemented last year to simplify aspects of the application process (e.g., simplification of Transfer of Credit forms), the modifications were not communicated clearly with students. Compounding this aspect of the program is the issue of accepting transfers of credits. Although this is a school-related matter, ISO often deal with students’ quandaries regarding this issue. SA offers a pre-departure orientation session, yet SA staff are limited in their capacity to address questions regarding a variety of programs. Finally, because most of the publication materials used for the program are homegrown, they lack a level of quality that is desirable to effectively market the program.

Bringing In Faculty and Staff: This process is predicated by state and federal approvals, which usually take several months to obtain, yet departments tend to seek assistance within a time frame that oftentimes cannot be accommodated. For H-1B visas, it takes Immigration and Naturalization Services about three months to review and approve a petition, which it receives after approvals have been granted by the Virginia Employment Commission and the Department of Labor. Institutional departments are asked to allot approximately four months to receive the approvals required, but usually do not seek help until several weeks before a visa expires. J-1 visas do not require the same approvals as H-1B visa. However, departments sometimes assume they can obtain a J-1 visa, when in fact it is not appropriate for an employee because the foreign national does not meet the stated criteria. Although department staff, especially those that have been dealing with visa issues, have some familiarity with federal requirements, there is a need for improved communication in this area. Also, ISO staff are contacted on a weekly basis for legal assistance, yet they do not have the expertise to respond to these questions. Currently, ISO relies on the advice of a legal firm in Richmond. However given the issue of access to this resources, plus the complex nature of legal questions they receive, ISO staff spend a significant amount of time trying to resolve these problems.

Again, an outdated website makes it difficult for ISO staff to communicate effectively with their key target audiences (i.e., departmental staff/faculty; foreign faculty/staff) about this process. Publication materials regarding ISO services in this realm are limited. Internal tracking of applications is done manually; there is no database in place to house critical information. Since no administrative support is available for visa processing, ISO visa advisers manage every aspect of administrative work. The time required for administrative tasks, coupled with the volume of work, limits accessibility to ISO staff.

Bringing In Students: For undergraduate students, ISO must receive various financial records in order to issue a student visa, yet about 80% of the files received lack this information. Since the forms are supposed to be sent with the admission application (they are required, but applications are accepted without them), ISO has no way of knowing these data are missing until after Admission forwards key sections of the student’s file, which they do between May 15 and early June (Admission and ISO keep separate files for students). Although e-mail has facilitated communication with students coming from abroad, it is nonetheless difficult to access this population and obtain the information required in the available time frame (i.e., before the end of August). Once a student’s paperwork is complete and ISO can issue the I-20, it also forwards a pre-orientation packet to students. Delays in international mail impact distribution of this information in a timely manner, and overnight mail is not currently a viable alternative, given ISO’s budgetary constraints. Since ISO does not review the application materials of students until after they have accepted admission, its timetable limits the amount of time available for the office to forward relevant information to students prior to their arrival.

Although the F-1 forms are available on-line, the rest of the process is conducted manually. ISO has software in place intended to facilitate tracking of student records along with processing of visa forms. However, glitches in the system are making it difficult to integrate old information with new data. No technical or administrative support is available for work related to this process. Finally, the orientation materials, which are developed internally, should be enhanced to better serve students.

2) Survey Findings

In general, the responses received from the groups surveyed were positive. Similar need areas emerged across all constituencies surveyed, including better use of technology, more access to staff, and improved communication regarding program requirements.

Study Abroad:

The response rate for this survey was 43% (13 out of 30 students). Overall, students agreed that the information available regarding study abroad opportunities; the advice they received from SA staff about program options and the application process; and the pre-departure orientation session was useful. However, they indicated that improved accessibility to professional staff, more on-line processing of forms, and better use of the web are areas requiring improvement. They also noted what appeared to be limited faculty support for participation in study abroad programs and difficulties surrounding the transfer of credit process. When asked about ways to improve their experience in this process, students offered the following suggestions: