Border Security
Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could Help Address Visa Delays Gao ID: GAO-06-542T April 4, 2006In deciding to approve or deny a visa application, the Department of State's (State) consular officers are on the front line of defense in protecting the United States against those who seek to harm U.S. interests. To increase border security following the September 11 attacks, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated a series of changes to border security policies and procedures. These changes have added to the complexity of consular workload. But consular officers must balance this security responsibility against the need to facilitate legitimate travel. In recent years, GAO has issued a series of reports on the visa process. This statement discusses (1) wait times for visas, (2) factors that affect wait times, and (3) GAO's recent work on consular staffing.
As a result of changes since September 11, 2001, aimed at strengthening visa policies and procedures, applicants have faced extensive wait times for visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that consistently have wait times of 30 days or longer for interview appointments may have a resource problem. During a recent 6-month period, 97 of State's 211 visa-issuing posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20 posts, the reported wait times were in excess of 30 days for this entire 6-month period. Further, in February 2006, 9 posts reported wait times in excess of 90 days. Several factors have contributed to these delays at some consular posts. For example, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security have initiated new policies and procedures since the September 11 attacks to strengthen the security of the visa process; however, these new requirements have increased consular workload and exacerbated delays. Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays because of special security checks for national security concerns. Other factors, such as resurgence in visa demand and ongoing embassy facility limitations, could continue to affect wait times. We recently reported that State had not conducted a worldwide, comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations. While State has increased hiring of consular officers, there is a need for such an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient staff at key consular posts, particularly in light of the visa processing delays at some posts.
GAO-06-542T, Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could Help Address Visa Delays
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-542T
entitled 'Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource
Requirements Could Help Address Visa Delays' which was released on
April 4, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 4, 2006:
Border Security:
Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could Help Address Visa
Delays:
Statement of Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade:
GAO-06-542T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-542T, a testimony before the Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In deciding to approve or deny a visa application, the Department of
State‘s (State) consular officers are on the front line of defense in
protecting the United States against those who seek to harm U.S.
interests. To increase border security following the September 11
attacks, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland Security
initiated a series of changes to border security policies and
procedures. These changes have added to the complexity of consular
workload. But consular officers must balance this security
responsibility against the need to facilitate legitimate travel. In
recent years, GAO has issued a series of reports on the visa process.
This statement discusses (1) wait times for visas, (2) factors that
affect wait times, and (3) GAO‘s recent work on consular staffing.
What GAO Found:
As a result of changes since September 11, 2001, aimed at strengthening
visa policies and procedures, applicants have faced extensive wait
times for visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts
that consistently have wait times of 30 days or longer for interview
appointments may have a resource problem. During a recent 6-month
period, 97 of State‘s 211 visa-issuing posts reported maximum wait
times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20 posts, the
reported wait times were in excess of 30 days for this entire 6-month
period. Further, in February 2006, 9 posts reported wait times in
excess of 90 days.
Several factors have contributed to these delays at some consular
posts. For example, Congress, State, and the Department of Homeland
Security have initiated new policies and procedures since the September
11 attacks to strengthen the security of the visa process; however,
these new requirements have increased consular workload and exacerbated
delays. Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays
because of special security checks for national security concerns.
Other factors, such as resurgence in visa demand and ongoing embassy
facility limitations, could continue to affect wait times.
We recently reported that State had not conducted a worldwide,
comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa operations.
While State has increased hiring of consular officers, there is a need
for such an assessment to ensure that State has sufficient staff at key
consular posts, particularly in light of the visa processing delays at
some posts.
Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary Business
and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days, February
2006:
Post: Chennai, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 168.
Post: Ciudad Juarez, Mexico;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 92.
Post: Havana, Cuba;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 129.
Post: Mexico City, Mexico;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 134.
Post: Mumbai, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 154.
Post: New Delhi, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 91.
Post: Paris, France;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 116.
Post: Port Au Prince, Haiti;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 167.
Post: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 140.
Source: Department of State
Note: These data are based on reports from overseas consular posts to
the Consular Affairs Bureau in Washington, D.C. According to consular
officials, in cases where posts report wait time data more than once in
a given month, State's data are the maximum wait time reported that
month.
[End of section]
What GAO Recommends:
We recommended in October 2002 and again in September 2005 that State
reassess its consular staffing requirements. In commenting on a draft
of our September 2005 report, State disagreed with our recommendation
that it prepare a plan to address consular requirements. In light of
the increased workload due to additional border security requirements
and ongoing staffing shortages and processing delays at some posts, we
continue to urge State to fully assess its resource needs to ensure it
has the right people at key posts.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
April 4, 2006:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO's observations on delays in the
nonimmigrant visa process.[Footnote 1] In deciding to approve or deny a
visa application, the Department of State's (State) consular officers
at 211 visa-issuing posts overseas are on the front line of defense in
protecting the United States against potential terrorists and others
whose entry would likely be harmful to U.S. national interests. But
consular officers must balance this security responsibility against the
need to facilitate legitimate travel. Congress, State, and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have initiated a series of
changes since the September 11 attacks to enhance border security
policies and procedures. These changes have added to the complexity of
consular officers' workload. They have also, in turn, contributed to
the delays facing foreign citizens at some posts who are seeking visas
for travel to the United States. For example, in February 2004, we
reported that applicants had faced delays when scheduling appointments
for visa interviews at consular posts in China and India.[Footnote 2]
Although wait times in China have improved in recent months, applicants
in India continue to face long delays. Moreover, worldwide, nine posts
reported maximum wait times of 90 or more days in February 2006. In
light of the increased workload per visa applicant due to additional
border security requirements, we recommended in October 2002 and again
in September 2005[Footnote 3] that State reassess its staffing
requirements.
Today I will discuss (1) wait times facing visa applicants, (2) factors
that affect wait times, and (3) our recent work on consular staffing
concerns. My statement covers a series of reports that we have issued
regarding the visa process and related areas. Over the course of our
work for these reports, we have reviewed relevant legislation and
agency documents, interviewed State's consular and human resource
officials in Washington, and observed visa operations and interviewed
consular officials at more than 20 consular posts. In addition, in
2005, we interviewed consular staff at 25 overseas posts regarding
issues such as visa policies and procedures, staffing, and training.
Our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards (see appendix I for a list of GAO reports).
Summary:
Since September 11, 2001, applicants have faced extensive wait times
for visas at some posts. According to consular officials, posts that
consistently have wait times for visa interview appointments of 30 days
or longer may have a resource or management problem. State's data show
that between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 posts reported
maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20
posts, the reported wait times were in excess of 30 days for this
entire 6-month period.[Footnote 4] Further, in February 2006, nine
posts reported wait times in excess of 90 days. In Chennai, India,
applicants applying for visas faced an average reported wait time of
126 days over this 6-month period.
Several factors have contributed to delays for visa interview
appointments at some consular posts. For example, new policies and
procedures implemented since the September 11 attacks have strengthened
the security of the visa process; however, these new requirements have
increased consular workload and exacerbated delays. For example,
consular officers are now required to interview virtually all visa
applicants. Additionally, some applicants have faced additional delays
because of special security checks. Other factors, such as resurgence
in visa demand, and ongoing consular facility limitations, could
continue to affect wait times.
In September 2005, we reported that State had not conducted a
worldwide, comprehensive assessment of staffing requirements for visa
operations. In commenting on a draft of that report, State argued that
it had a staffing plan. While State has increased hiring of consular
officers, we continue to see a need for such an assessment to ensure
that State has sufficient staff with the necessary skills at key
consular posts, particularly in light of the visa processing delays at
some posts.
Background:
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is the primary
body of law governing immigration and visa operations.[Footnote 5] The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 generally grants DHS exclusive authority
to issue regulations on, administer, and enforce the Immigration and
Nationality Act and all other immigration and nationality laws relating
to the functions of U.S. consular officers in connection with the
granting or denial of visas.[Footnote 6] As we reported in July 2005,
the act also authorizes DHS to, among other things, assign employees to
any consular post to review individual visa applications and provide
expert advice and training to consular officers regarding specific
security threats related to the visa process.[Footnote 7] A subsequent
September 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between State and DHS
further outlines the responsibilities of each agency with respect to
visa issuance. DHS is responsible for establishing visa policy,
reviewing implementation of the policy, and providing additional
direction. State manages the visa process, as well as the consular
corps and its functions at 211 visa-issuing posts overseas.
The process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa
contains several steps, including documentation reviews, in-person
interviews, collection of biometrics[Footnote 8] (fingerprints), and
cross-referencing an applicant's name against the Consular Lookout and
Support System--State's name-check database that posts use to access
critical information for visa adjudication. In some cases, a consular
officer may determine the need for a Security Advisory Opinion, which
is a response from Washington on whether to issue a visa to the
applicant. Depending on a post's applicant pool and the number of visa
applications that a post receives, each stage of the visa process
varies in length.
Applicants May Face Extensive Wait Times for Visa Interviews:
According to consular officials, posts that consistently have wait
times for visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a
resource or management problem. To monitor posts' workload, State
requires that posts report, on a weekly basis, the wait times for
applicant interviews.[Footnote 9] As of March 2006, State's data showed
that between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 posts reported
maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least one month; at 20
posts, the reported wait times were in excess of 30 days for the entire
6-month period. Moreover, in February 2006, nine posts reported wait
times in excess of 90 days (see table 1).
Table 1: Consular Posts with Maximum Reported Wait Times for Temporary
Business and Tourism Visa Interview Appointments in Excess of 90 Days,
February 2006:
Post: Chennai, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 168.
Post: Ciudad Juarez, Mexico;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 92.
Post: Havana, Cuba;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 129.
Post: Mexico City, Mexico;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 134.
Post: Mumbai, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 154.
Post: New Delhi, India;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 91.
Post: Paris, France;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 116.
Post: Port Au Prince, Haiti;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 167.
Post: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
Maximum Wait Time in Days: 140.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs,
managing consular workload is a major issue for the department,
particularly at posts in India and China where volume is expected to
continue to increase. In February 2004,[Footnote 10] we reported that
officials at some of the posts we visited in India and China indicated
they did not have enough space and staffing resources to handle
interview demands and the new visa requirements. According to consular
officers, during the 2003 summer months, the wait for visa interviews
was as long as 12 weeks in Chennai, India. In China, applicants at one
post were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks during our September 2003
visit due to an imbalance between demand for visas and the number of
consular officers available to interview applicants and staff to answer
phones. Although these posts have undertaken initiatives to shorten the
wait times, such as using temporary duty help and instituting longer
interviewing hours, delays for visa interviews remain an ongoing
concern. For example, the U.S. embassy in New Delhi instituted a new
appointment system in October 2005, which resulted in immediate,
additional interviewing capacity at post, according to consular
officials. However, reported wait times in New Delhi had risen above 90
days by February 2006 (see table 2).
Table 2: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and
Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in India, September 2005
through February 2006:
India:
Post: Calcutta;
September: 111;
October: 96;
November: 101;
December: 94;
January: 94;
February: 86.
Post: Chennai (Madras);
September: 168;
October: 121;
November: 122;
December: 84;
January: 123;
February: 136.
Post: Mumbai (Bombay);
September: 79;
October: Not reported;
November: 70;
December: 127;
January: 134;
February: 154.
Post: New Delhi;
September: 140;
October: 9;
November: 24;
December: 40;
January: 74;
February: 91.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
At posts in China, Consular Affairs indicated that improvements in
facilities and staff increases have helped to lessen wait times for
interviews. However, consular officials have acknowledged that demand
for visas at posts in China is likely to rise and continue to affect
wait times in the future. Table 3 shows recent wait times for visa
appointments in China.
Table 3: Maximum Reported Wait Time in Days for Temporary Business and
Tourism Visa Interview Appointments at Posts in China, September 2005
through February 2006:
China:
Post: Beijing;
September: 36;
October: 21;
November: 25;
December: 34;
January: 26;
February: 18.
Post: Guangzhou;
September: 49;
October: 30;
November: 17;
December: 18;
January: Not reported;
February: 1.
Post: Shanghai;
September: 58;
October: 28;
November: 30;
December: 36;
January: 33;
February: 19.
Post: Shenyang;
September: 35;
October: 12;
November: 2;
December: 7;
January: 6;
February: 8.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
Officials, Groups Have Noted Impact of Visa Delays on U.S. Scientific
and Business Interests:
Although we have not attempted to measure the impact of the time it
takes to adjudicate a visa, we reported in February 2004 that consular
officials and representatives of several higher education, scientific,
and governmental organizations reported that visa delays could be
detrimental to the scientific interests of the United States. Although
these officials and representatives provided numerous individual
examples of the consequences of visa delays, they were unable to
measure the total impact of such lengthy waits. For example, in
September 2003, Department of Energy officials in Moscow explained that
former Soviet Union scientists have found it extremely difficult to
travel to the United States to participate in U.S. government-sponsored
conferences and exchanges that are critical to nonproliferation
efforts. Business groups have also expressed concern about the impact
of visa delays. For example, officials from the American Chamber of
Commerce and other industry executives have testified numerous times in
recent years about the problem of delayed entry for foreign nationals
traveling to the United States for legitimate business purposes. In
addition, on June 2, 2004, a coalition of eight industry associations
published a study estimating that U.S. companies suffered losses
totaling $30 billion from July 2002 to March 2004 due to delays and
denials in the processing of business visas.[Footnote 11] Beijing's
Deputy Chief of Mission and consular officials at the embassy and
consulates in China also stated that visa delays could have a negative
impact on student and scholar exchanges.
Several Factors Contribute to Wait Times for Visas:
Visa delays are a longstanding problem. However, since September 2001,
several factors have exacerbated wait times for visas. First, changes
to visa policies and procedures have resulted in additional workload
for consular officers. Second, while not reaching pre-2001 levels, visa
application volume has increased in recent years. Third, many posts
face facility constraints, which limit the extent to which posts can
increase visa processing. Finally, staffing shortfalls also affect the
length of time that applicants must wait for a visa.
Visa Policy and Procedural Changes Have Increased Consular Workload:
Since the September 11 attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have initiated
a series of changes to policies and procedures designed to enhance
border security. These changes have added to the complexity of consular
officers' workload and, in turn, exacerbated State's resource
constraints. These changes include the following:
* Consular officers must interview virtually all visa applicants; prior
to August 2003, they could routinely waive interviews.
* Since October 2004, consular officers are required to scan foreign
nationals' right and left index fingers and clear the fingerprints
through the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System before an
applicant can receive a visa.[Footnote 12]
* Some responsibilities previously delegated to Foreign Service
nationals[Footnote 13] and consular associates[Footnote 14] have been
transferred to consular officers. For example, consular associates are
no longer authorized to adjudicate visas.
* As previously mentioned, some applicants have faced additional delays
due to various special security checks, or Security Advisory Opinions.
For example, foreign science students and scholars, who may pose a
threat to our national security by illegally transferring sensitive
technology, may be subject to security checks known as Visas Mantis. In
the spring of 2003, it took an average of 67 days for Visas Mantis
checks to be processed and for State to notify consular posts of the
results. Since then, State and other agencies have taken actions which
have reduced delays to about 15 days for these checks.[Footnote 15]
In addition, on July 13, 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security
announced that the U.S. government had adopted a 10-print standard for
biometric collection for visas. In January 2006, the director of the
U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program[Footnote
16] testified that moving to a 10-fingerscan standard from a 2-print
standard would allow the United States to be able to identify visa
applicants and visitors with even greater accuracy. In February 2006,
State reported that it plans to complete pilot testing and procurement
of the 10-print equipment to ensure that all visa-issuing posts have
collection capability by the end of fiscal year 2007. Requiring
applicants to submit 10-prints could add more time to the applicant's
interview and potentially delay visa processing.
To help mitigate the adverse impact of these policy and procedural
changes on wait times, State has taken actions to help maintain the
right balance between promoting security and facilitating travel. For
example, while we have not assessed the impact of these actions, all
overseas posts have established procedures to expedite the processing
of business visas and are working closely with local American Chambers
of Commerce in more than 100 countries to expedite the visa process for
bona fide business travelers. In July 2005, State also established a
Business Visa Center to facilitate visa application procedures for U.S.
businesses in conjunction with upcoming travel or events. Regarding
foreign students, in February 2006, State announced that it has
extended the length of time foreign students may be issued student
visas, which will allow some students to apply up to 120 days before
their academic program start date (as compared to 90 days under
previous regulations).[Footnote 17] According to State, U.S. embassies
and consulates also have established special, expedited visa interviews
for prospective foreign students.
Increasing Visa Demand Strains Consular Resources:
While not returning to levels prior to the September 11 attacks, visa
issuance rates increased in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, according to
State's data (see fig. 1). Should application volume continue to
increase, State has acknowledged that additional management actions
will be necessary to ensure that visa applications are processed in a
timely manner.
Figure 1: Worldwide Visa Issuance Volume, Fiscal Years 1992 through
2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: According to State, the data for fiscal year 2005 are preliminary
as of November 23, 2005, and are subject to change.
[End of figure]
In the future, we believe that increased global trade and economic
growth will likely result in increased demand for visas, particularly
in certain countries.
Facilities Constraints Limit State's Options for Addressing Visa
Delays:
Embassy facilities at some posts limit the number of visa applications
that are processed each day and make it difficult to keep up with visa
demand. In our September 2005 report, we noted that many visa chiefs we
interviewed reported problems with their facilities. For example, at 14
of the 25 posts covered in our survey, consular officials rated their
workspace as below average, and 40 percent reported that applicants'
waiting rooms were below average. In addition, due to overcrowded
waiting rooms at four of the eight posts we visited, we observed visa
applicants waiting for their interviews outside or in adjacent
hallways. Moreover, a limited number of security guards and screening
devices, as well as limited physical space, often create bottlenecks at
the facilities' security checkpoints. In March 2006, we observed visa
facilities in Paris, France, and noted that there are insufficient
adjudicating windows to meet visa demand. A senior consular official
acknowledged that many consular facilities are located in run-down
buildings with insufficient adjudicating windows and waiting rooms. In
fiscal year 2003, Congress directed the Overseas Building Operations
Bureau to begin a 3-year Consular Workspace Improvement Initiative to
improve the overall working environment for consular officers.[Footnote
18] In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, State obligated $10.2 million to 79
workspace improvement projects at 68 posts. However, according to a
senior consular official, these funds are being used to provide
temporary solutions at posts that may require a new embassy as part of
State's multibillion-dollar embassy construction program. It may take
years before some posts' facilities needs are fully addressed.
To have sufficient resources to manage the demand for visas and
minimize the time applicants must wait, State may need to consider
establishing new visa-issuing posts. Indeed, in its 2005 inspection of
the Embassy in New Delhi, for example, the Office of the Inspector
General stated that State should establish a permanent consulate in
Hyderabad, India, by no later than 2008 in light of the need for
expanded visa processing facilities due to increased application
volume. In March 2006, the President announced that the United States
would open a new consulate; however, it is unclear when this may
happen.
Staffing Shortfalls Impact the Effectiveness of Visa Operations:
In September 2005, we reported that State faced staffing shortfalls in
consular positions--a key factor affecting the effectiveness of the
visa process and the length of time applicants must wait for visas. As
of April 30, 2005, we found that 26 percent of midlevel consular
positions were either vacant or filled by an entry-level
officer.[Footnote 19] In addition, almost three-quarters of the vacant
positions were at the FS-03 level--midlevel officers who generally
supervise entry-level staff. Consular officials attribute this
shortfall to low hiring levels prior to the Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative[Footnote 20] and the necessary expansion of entry-level
positions to accommodate increasing workload requirements after
September 11, 2001. We believe experienced supervision at visa-issuing
posts is important to avoiding visa delays. For example, experienced
officers may provide guidance to entry-level officers on ways to
expedite visa processing, including advising staff on when special
security checks are required.
During our February 2005 visits to Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and
Cairo, Egypt, we observed that the consular sections were staffed with
entry-level officers on their first assignment with no permanent
midlevel visa chief to provide supervision and guidance. Although these
posts had other mid-or senior-level consular officers, their
availability on visa issues was limited because of their additional
responsibilities. For example, the head of the visa section in Jeddah
was responsible for managing the entire section, as well as services
for American citizens due to a midlevel vacancy in that position. At
the time of our visit, the Riyadh Embassy did not have a midlevel visa
chief. Similarly, in Cairo, there was no permanent midlevel supervisor
between the winter of 2004 and the summer of 2005, and Consular Affairs
used five temporary staff on a rotating basis during this period to
serve in this capacity. Entry-level officers we spoke with stated that
due to the constant turnover, the temporary supervisors were unable to
assist them adequately. At the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, entry-level
officers expressed concern about the lack of a midlevel supervisor.
More recently, during a February 2006 visits to posts in Nigeria and
China, we found similar consular vacancies. For example, first tour,
entry-level officers in Chengdu and Shenyang, China, are filling
midlevel consular positions.
We have reported on numerous occasions that factors such as staffing
shortages have contributed to long wait times for visas at some posts.
Since 2002, State has received funding to address these shortfalls.
Through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and other sources, State
increased the number of Foreign Service officer consular positions by
364, from 1,037 in fiscal year 2002 to 1,401 in fiscal year 2005.
However, while we have not studied this issue, the disparity in wait
times among posts may indicate the need to reallocate positions to
address the growing consular demand and long wait times at some posts.
In the event of staffing shortfalls, State has mechanisms for
requesting increased staff resources. For example, if the Consular
Affairs Bureau identifies a need for additional staff in headquarters
or overseas, it may request that the Human Resources Bureau establish
new positions. In addition, posts can also describe their needs for
additional positions through their consular package--a report submitted
annually to the Consular Affairs Bureau that details workload
statistics and staffing requirements, among other things. For example,
in December 2004, during the course of our work, the consular section
in Riyadh reported to Washington that there was an immediate need to
create a midlevel visa chief position at post, and consular officials
worked with human resource officials to create this position, which,
according to State officials, would be filled by summer 2005.
State Has Not Assessed Overall Consular Resource Needs:
State's current assignment process does not guarantee that all
authorized positions will be filled, particularly at hardship posts.
Historically, State has rarely directed its employees to serve in
locations for which they have not bid on a position, including hardship
posts or locations of strategic importance to the United States, due to
concerns that such staff may be more apt to have poor morale or be less
productive.[Footnote 21] Due to State's decision to not force
assignments, along with the limited amount of midlevel officers
available to apply for them,[Footnote 22] important positions may
remain vacant.
According to a deputy assistant secretary for human resources, Consular
Affairs can prioritize those positions that require immediate staffing
to ensure that officers are assigned to fill critical staffing gaps.
For example, Consular Affairs could choose not to advertise certain
positions of lesser priority during an annual assignment cycle.
However, senior Consular Affairs officials acknowledged that they
rarely do this. According to these officials, Consular Affairs does not
have direct control over the filling of all consular positions and can
often face resistance from regional bureaus and chiefs of mission
overseas who do not want vacancies at their posts. Thus, as we have
previously reported, certain high-priority positions may not be filled
if Foreign Service officers do not bid on them.
In commenting on a draft of our September 2005 report, State disagreed
with our recommendation that it prepare a comprehensive plan to address
vulnerabilities in consular staffing. State argued that it already had
such a plan. Moreover, State claimed that it appreciates that priority
positions must be filled worldwide based on the relative strategic
importance of posts and positions. While State argued that every visa
consular officer is serving a strategic function, the department
identified one post, Embassy Baghdad, as a clear example of a priority
post. Further, State acknowledged that it has fewer midlevel consular
officers than it needs. We continue to believe it is incumbent on the
department to conduct a worldwide analysis to identify high-priority
posts and positions, such as supervisory consular positions in posts
with high-risk applicant pools or those with high workloads and long
wait times for applicant interviews. Although State noted that it
anticipated addressing this shortage of midlevel consular officers, it
did not indicate when that gap would be filled.
On January 18, 2006, the Secretary of State announced the department's
plan to restructure overseas and domestic staffing. This plan aims to
shift U.S. diplomatic personnel from European posts and headquarters
offices to posts in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
While we have not conducted a comprehensive review of this initiative,
only midlevel political, economic, and public diplomacy officers, and
not consular officers, would comprise the initial realignment of 100
positions, according to State officials.
In February 2006, consular officials told us that, since our report,
they concluded a review of consular position grades to ensure that they
reflect the work requirements for each consular position. Based on this
analysis, consular officials recommended that 47 positions be upgraded-
-from an entry-to midlevel position, for example--to reconcile the
management structures of posts that have undergone rapid growth.
However, State's bidding and assignment process does not guarantee that
the positions of highest priority will always be filled with qualified
officers. Therefore, a further assessment is needed to ensure that
State has determined its staffing requirements and placed the right
people in the right posts with the necessary skill levels.
Conclusions:
The visa process presents a balance between facilitating legitimate
travel and identifying those who might harm the United States. State,
in coordination with other agencies, has made substantial improvements
to the visa process to strengthen it as a national security tool.
However, given the large responsibility placed on consular officers,
particularly entry-level officers, it is critical to provide consular
posts with the resources necessary for them to be effective. Indeed,
extensive delays for visa interview appointments point to the need for
State to perform a rigorous assessment of staffing requirements to
achieve its goal of having the right people with the right skills in
the right places.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For questions regarding this testimony, please call Jess T. Ford, (202)
512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this
statement include John Brummet, Assistant Director, and Kathryn Bernet,
Eugene Beye, Joseph Carney, and Jane Kim.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Related GAO Products:
Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit From
Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. GAO-05-859. September
13, 2005.
Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Department
of Homeland Security's Visa Security Program. GAO-05-801. July 29,
2005.
Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on
Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed.
GAO-05-198. February 18, 2005.
Border Security: State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on
Schedule, but Guidance Is Lagging. GAO-04-1001. September 9, 2004.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in
the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-04-795. July 13, 2004.
Visa Operations at U.S. Posts in Canada. GAO-04-708R. May 18, 2004.
Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to Adjudicate
Visas for Science Students and Scholars. GAO-04-371. February 25, 2004.
State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being
Met but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. GAO-04-139. November
19, 2003.
Border Security: New Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Fill Gaps in
the Visa Revocation Process. GAO-03-798. June 18, 2003.
Border Security: Implications of Eliminating the Visa Waiver Program.
GAO-03-38. November 22, 2002.
Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. GAO-03-
174. November 15, 2002.
Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an
Antiterrorism Tool. GAO-03-132NI. October 21, 2002.
State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts. GAO-02-626. June 18,
2002.
State Department: Tourist Visa Processing Backlogs Persist and U.S.
Consulates. GAO/NSIAD-98-69. March 13, 1998.
State Department: Backlogs of Tourist Visas at U.S. Consulates.
GAO/NSIAD-92-185. April 30, 1992.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The United States also grants visas to people who intend to
immigrate to the United States. In this testimony, the term "visa"
refers to nonimmigrant visas only. Persons who may require nonimmigrant
visas include temporary business travelers and tourists.
[2] See GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken
to Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, GAO-04-371
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).
[3] See GAO, Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit
From Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing, GAO-05-859
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2005), and GAO, Border Security: Visa
Process Should Be Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool, GAO-03-132NI
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002).
[4] According to consular officials, in cases where posts report wait
time data more than once in a given month, State's data are the maximum
wait time reported that month.
[5] P.L. 82-414, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.
[6] State retains authority in certain circumstances, as outlined in
the act. See P.L. 107-296.
[7] The act also requires that DHS on-site personnel in Saudi Arabia
review all visa applications prior to adjudication by consular
officers. P.L. 107-296, Sec. 428(e) and Sec. 428(i). See GAO, Border
Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Department of
Homeland Security's Visa Security Program, GAO-05-801 (Washington,
D.C.: July 29, 2005).
[8] Biometrics is a wide range of technologies that can be used to
verify a person's identity by measuring and analyzing that person's
physiological characteristics. For the purposes of this testimony,
"biometric identifiers" refers to fingerprints. See GAO, Technology
Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).
[9] Posts are asked to provide the appointment wait time applicable to
the majority of applicants applying for a given category of visas on a
given day, and not an average wait time. In September 2005, our
analysis of State's data on reported wait times revealed significant
numbers of posts that did not report on a weekly basis during the 6-
month period we reviewed. Therefore, the data were not sufficiently
reliable to fully determine how many posts had wait times in excess of
30 days. We recommended that State ensure that consular chiefs update
interview wait time data on a weekly basis. For the purposes of this
statement, the data are sufficiently reliable to broadly indicate that
delays for visa appointments are an ongoing concern.
[10] GAO-04-371.
[11] The Santangelo Group, Do Visa Delays Hurt U.S. Business?
(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004).
[12] The Automated Biometric Identification System is a DHS database
that includes some 5 million people who may be ineligible to receive a
visa. For example, the Automated Biometric Identification System data
includes, among other records, FBI information on all known and
suspected terrorists, selected wanted persons, and previous criminal
histories for individuals from high-risk countries. See GAO, Border
Security: State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on Schedule, but
Guidance Is Lagging, GAO-04-1001 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2004).
[13] Foreign Service national employees are non-U.S. citizens employed
at a U.S. Foreign Service post by a U.S. government agency.
[14] Consular associates are U.S. citizens and relatives of U.S.
government direct-hire employees overseas who, following successful
completion of the required Basic Consular Course, are hired by the
Consular Section at their post. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State
began a 3-year transition to remove adjudication functions from
consular associates and provide additional consular officers.
[15] GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered
Burden on Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further
Refinements Needed, GAO-05-198 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005).
[16] US-VISIT is a government wide program to collect, maintain, and
share information on foreign nationals and better control and monitor
the entry, visa status, and exit of visitors. Under the program, most
foreign visitors are required to submit to fingerprint scans of their
right and left index finger and have a digital photograph taken upon
arrival at U.S. ports of entry. As a complement to US-VISIT, State
implemented the Biometric Visa Program at all visa-issuing overseas
consulates on October 26, 2004. See Section 303 of the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, P.L. 107-173.
[17] These changes apply only to initial-entry students.
[18] See House Conference Report 108-10, attached to P.L. 108-7,
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
[19] Foreign Service officers are assigned a grade, which ranges from
FS-06 to FS-01, corresponding from entry-level to midlevel,
respectively. According to State, officers at grades 6 through 4 are
classified as junior officers; 3 through 1 are midlevel officers. In
addition, members of the senior Foreign Service are senior officers. In
this testimony, we refer to them as entry-level, midlevel, and senior-
level officers.
[20] In fiscal year 2002, State launched the Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative--a 3-year effort to ensure global diplomatic readiness--
through which State reported that it hired 834 Foreign Service
officers. In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 authorized the hiring of an additional 150 consular
officers per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. See P.L. 108-458
§ 7203.
[21] State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S.
government provides differential pay incentives--an additional 5
percent to 25 percent of base salary depending on the severity or
difficulty of the conditions--to encourage employees to bid on
assignments to these posts and to compensate them for the hardships
they encounter. See GAO, State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and
Ineffective Assignment System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at
Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2002).
[22] The assignment process begins when Foreign Service employees who
are eligible to be transferred from their current assignment each year
receive a list of instructions and upcoming vacancies for which they
may compete. Staff then must submit a list of those positions for which
they want to be considered.
