Border Security
Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas Gao ID: GAO-07-847 July 13, 2007After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of State (State) initiated changes to the visa process to increase security, but these changes also increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa. Although maintaining security is of paramount importance, State has acknowledged that long waits for visas may discourage legitimate travel to the United States, potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic benefits over time, and adversely influencing foreign citizens' opinions of our nation. GAO testified in 2006 that a number of consular posts had long visa interview wait times. This report examines (1) State's data on visa interview wait times, (2) actions State has taken to address wait times, and (3) State's strategy for dealing with projected growth in visa demand.
According to State, the amount of time that applicants must wait for a visa interview has generally decreased over the last year; however, some applicants continue to face extensive delays. State's data showed that between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 consular posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, whereas 53 posts reported such waits for the same period 1 year later. However, despite recent improvements, at times during the past year, a number of posts reported long wait times, which could be expected to reoccur during future visa demand surges. In 2007, State announced a goal of providing applicants an interview within 30 days. Although State's data is sufficiently reliable to indicate that wait times continue to be a problem at some posts, GAO identified shortcomings in the way the data is developed that could mask the severity of the problem. State has implemented steps to reduce wait times at several posts including using temporary duty employees to fill staffing gaps at some posts and repositioning some consular positions to better utilize its current workforce. However, these measures are not permanent or sustainable solutions and may not adequately address the increasing demand for visas worldwide. In addition, State has made improvements to several consular facilities and has identified plans for improvements at several other posts with high workload. Some posts have utilized procedures that enable them to process applications more efficiently. However, not all of these procedures are shared among posts in a systematic way and, therefore, not all posts are aware of them. State has not determined how it will keep pace with growth in visa demand over the long-term. State contracted for a study of visa demand, in select countries, over a 15-year period beginning in 2005, which projected that visa demand will increase dramatically at several posts. However, at some posts, demand has already surpassed the study's projected future demand levels. State has not developed a strategy that considers such factors as available resources and the need for maintaining national security in the visa process, along with its goal that visas are processed in a reasonable amount of time. Given dramatic increases in workload expected at many posts, without such a strategy State will be challenged in achieving its current goal for wait times.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-847, Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-847
entitled 'Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with
Increasing Demand for Visas' which was released on August 3, 2007.
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.
Report to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2007:
Border Security:
Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for
Visas:
GAO-07-847:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-847, a report to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of State
(State) initiated changes to the visa process to increase security, but
these changes also increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a
visa. Although maintaining security is of paramount importance, State
has acknowledged that long waits for visas may discourage legitimate
travel to the United States, potentially costing the country billions
of dollars in economic benefits over time, and adversely influencing
foreign citizens‘ opinions of our nation. GAO testified in 2006 that a
number of consular posts had long visa interview wait times. This
report examines (1) State‘s data on visa interview wait times, (2)
actions State has taken to address wait times, and (3) State‘s strategy
for dealing with projected growth in visa demand.
What GAO Found:
According to State, the amount of time that applicants must wait for a
visa interview has generally decreased over the last year; however,
some applicants continue to face extensive delays. State‘s data showed
that between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 consular posts
reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month,
whereas 53 posts reported such waits for the same period 1 year later.
However, despite recent improvements, at times during the past year, a
number of posts reported long wait times, which could be expected to
reoccur during future visa demand surges. In 2007, State announced a
goal of providing applicants an interview within 30 days. Although
State‘s data is sufficiently reliable to indicate that wait times
continue to be a problem at some posts, GAO identified shortcomings in
the way the data is developed that could mask the severity of the
problem.
State has implemented steps to reduce wait times at several posts
including using temporary duty employees to fill staffing gaps at some
posts and repositioning some consular positions to better utilize its
current workforce. However, these measures are not permanent or
sustainable solutions and may not adequately address the increasing
demand for visas worldwide. In addition, State has made improvements to
several consular facilities and has identified plans for improvements
at several other posts with high workload. Some posts have utilized
procedures that enable them to process applications more efficiently.
However, not all of these procedures are shared among posts in a
systematic way and, therefore, not all posts are aware of them.
State has not determined how it will keep pace with growth in visa
demand over the long-term. State contracted for a study of visa demand,
in select countries, over a 15-year period beginning in 2005, which
projected that visa demand will increase dramatically at several posts
(see fig.) However, at some posts, demand has already surpassed the
study‘s projected future demand levels. State has not developed a
strategy that considers such factors as available resources and the
need for maintaining national security in the visa process, along with
its goal that visas are processed in a reasonable amount of time. Given
dramatic increases in workload expected at many posts, without such a
strategy State will be challenged in achieving its current goal for
wait times.
Figure: Projected Growth in Visa Demand for Select Countries by 2020:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of State data from the Consular Affairs Futures
Study.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To improve State‘s oversight and management of visa-adjudicating
posts”with the goal of facilitating legitimate travel while maintaining
a high level of security to protect our borders”GAO is recommending
that State (1) develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in
visa demand, (2) improve the reliability and utility of visa waits
data, and (3) identify and disseminate practices and procedures used by
posts to manage workload and reduce wait times. State concurred with
our recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-847].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State's Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some
Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews:
State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Posts
Experiencing Long Waits, but Several Are Not Sustainable:
State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth in Visa
Demand:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Visa Application Process:
Figure 2: Applications for Nonimmigrant Visas, Fiscal Years 2000-2008:
Figure 3: Posts Occasionally Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007:
Figure 4: Posts Consistently Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007:
Figure 5: Actual 2006 Visa Adjudications and Projected Growth in
Applicant Volume for 2020 from State's Consular Futures Study:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
NIV: nonimmigrant visa:
SAO: Security Advisory Opinion:
State: Department of State:
US-VISIT: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 13, 2007:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
To increase the security of the visa process following the 9/11
terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of State (State)
initiated multiple changes to visa laws, policies, and procedures;
however, these changes have also increased the amount of time needed to
schedule and adjudicate a nonimmigrant visa (NIV).[Footnote 1]
Concurrently, annual worldwide demand for visas has increased for 3
years in a row with levels exceeding 8 million visa applications for
2006.[Footnote 2] The increase in demand has made it difficult for some
posts to manage workload without causing applicants to wait
considerable time for an interview.[Footnote 3] In April 2006, we
testified that visa applicants at some posts, including strategically
important posts in India and China, were facing extensive waits in
obtaining a visa interview.[Footnote 4] According to the visa wait
times reported by State's consular posts, 97 of its posts had reported
maximum wait times greater than 30 days in at least 1 month between
September 2005 and February 2006.[Footnote 5] Although maintaining
security of the visa process is of paramount importance and overall
issuances of visas are on the rise, State has also acknowledged that
long wait times may discourage legitimate travel to the United States,
potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic
benefits over time,[Footnote 6] and adversely influencing foreign
citizens' impressions and opinions of our nation. Several groups,
including the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board,[Footnote 7] have
urged the administration to take action on this issue and have detailed
the negative impact--in terms of revenue losses--that impediments to
travel and tourism,[Footnote 8] including from visa processing delays,
have on U.S. businesses and colleges and universities.
At your request, we reviewed (1) State data on the amount of time visa
applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions State
has taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State's strategy for
dealing with projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our
objectives, we interviewed officials from State's bureaus of Consular
Affairs, Human Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also
interviewed officials from the Department of Commerce's Office of
Travel and Tourism Industries. In addition, we observed consular
operations and interviewed U.S. government officials at 11 posts in
eight countries--Brazil, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras,
India, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. We reviewed visa wait times
data reported by posts since September 2005. We also reviewed consular
reports and data from a total of 32 posts to identify factors
contributing to wait times and potential solutions to reduce wait
times. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Appendix I contains a more detailed
description of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
According to State, the amount of time that visa applicants must wait
for a visa interview has generally decreased over the last year;
however, some applicants continue to face extensive delays[Footnote 9]
for visa interviews. For example, for the period of September 2006 to
February 2007, 53 of State's 219 visa-issuing posts reported maximum
wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, which was 44 fewer
posts than had reported this figure for the same period the previous
year. State reported that a number of key posts in India, Mexico, and
Brazil, among others, have reduced wait times. For example, in April
2007, all posts in India reported they reduced their waits for
appointments to less than 2 weeks from highs that had exceeded 140 days
as recently as August 2006. However, despite recent improvements, at
times during the past year--especially during peak processing periods
for the summer months--a number of posts reported long wait times.
According to State officials, longer wait times are expected to reoccur
seasonally at some posts but can also occur at others unexpectedly
depending on factors such as the political or economic situation in a
given country. In addition, we identified a number of shortcomings in
the way State's wait times data is developed. For example, some posts
are not reporting weekly, as required, and some posts use different
methods for determining wait times. These shortcomings could mask the
severity of the visa wait problem at some posts. Moreover, they limit
the extent to which State can monitor whether the visa wait problem has
been addressed.
Since we last reported on visa delays in April 2006, State has taken a
number of steps to adjust staffing, facilities, and consular procedures
to reduce wait times at several overseas consular posts. State has used
temporary duty employees to fill consular staffing gaps at some posts
and is repositioning a number of consular positions at posts around the
world to better utilize its current workforce--especially at posts
experiencing large growth in workload. For example, because applicants
in India were experiencing long waits for appointments, State took
several actions, including sending a number of temporary duty officers
to posts in India and utilizing nonconsular staff from other offices in
the mission to assist with visa processing. In addition, the ambassador
made the reduction of wait times the primary objective of all India
posts. However, the use of temporary and other mission staff to reduce
wait times is not a permanent or sustainable solution. Furthermore,
State acknowledges that the repositioning of consular staff, while
necessary, may not adequately address the increasing demand for visas
worldwide. In addition, State has made improvements to several consular
facilities and has identified plans for future facilities improvements
at several posts with high workload. Although some improvements have
been made, facilities at many consular sections face constraints that
limit the number of visa officers that can be assigned there; moreover,
it will take many years for State to complete all needed consular
construction projects. State has also made some procedural changes to
help posts better manage visa workload, and we found that some posts
have utilized procedures that enable them to process applications more
efficiently--such as conducting workflow studies in order to identify
obstructions to efficient applicant processing. However, we observed
that not all of these procedures are shared among posts in a systematic
way and, therefore, not all posts are aware of them.
Although State has taken some steps to address wait times at a number
of overseas posts, including developing a plan to improve visa
operations and establishing a goal to interview all visa applicants
within 30 days, it has not determined how it will keep pace with
continued growth in visa demand over the long-term. State contracted
for a study of projected visa demand, in select countries over a 15-
year period beginning in 2005, which found that significant growth in
visa demand is estimated to occur in a number of countries including
Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. However, at
some posts, demand has already surpassed the study's projected future
demand levels. State has not developed a strategy that balances such
factors as available resources and the need for national security in
the visa process against its goal that visas are processed in a
reasonable amount of time. For example, it has neither estimated the
resources necessary to meet future demand, nor proposed plans that
would significantly reduce the workload of available officers or the
amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa if such resources are not
available. Given dramatic increases in workload expected at many visa-
issuing posts, State will be challenged to obtain the staffing and
facilities necessary to achieve its current goal for wait times.
To improve the Bureau of Consular Affairs' oversight and management of
visa-adjudicating posts, we recommend that the Secretary of State:
* Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand that
balances the security responsibility of protecting the United States
from potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S. interests
with the need to facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. In
doing so, State should take into consideration relevant factors, such
as the flow of visa applicants, the backlog of applicants, the
availability of consular officers, and the time required to process
each visa application. State's analysis should be informed by reliable
data on the factors that influence wait times. State should update any
plan annually to reflect new information on visa demand.
* Improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data by defining
collection standards and ensuring that posts report the data according
to the standards.
* Identify practices and procedures used by posts to manage workload
and reduce wait times and encourage the dissemination and use of
successful practices.
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and
Homeland Security (DHS). DHS did not comment on the report's message,
but provided a technical comment. State concurred with our report's
recommendations and said that any appropriate strategy to address
worldwide increases in visa demand must address the need for resources
to meet national security goals for both travel facilitation and border
security. Furthermore, State said that any suggestion of trade-offs
between these two goals would be inappropriate. Clearly we agree that
in developing a strategy, State must maintain its security
responsibilities while also facilitating legitimate travel to the
United States. Our report does not suggest that one of these goals
should be sacrificed at the expense of the other. State also provided a
number of technical comments, which we have incorporated throughout the
report, as appropriate.
Background:
Foreign nationals who wish to come to the United States on a temporary
basis must generally obtain an NIV[Footnote 10] to be admitted. State
manages the visa process, as well as the consular officer corps and its
functions, at 219 visa-issuing posts overseas.[Footnote 11] 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 12] (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 recommendation 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. For an overview of the visa process see figure 1.
Figure 1: Visa Application Process:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: GAO; Nova Development Corp. (clip art).
[End of figure]
Recent Visa Policy Actions Have Increased Time Needed to Adjudicate
Visas:
Congress, State, and DHS have initiated new policies and procedures
since the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strengthen the security of the visa
process. These changes have added to the complexity of consular
workload and have increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a
visa. Such changes include the following:
* Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State began a 3-year transition to
remove visa adjudication functions from consular associates.[Footnote
13] All NIVs must now be adjudicated by consular officers.[Footnote 14]
* Personal interviews are required by law for most foreign nationals
seeking NIVs.[Footnote 15]
* As of October 2004, consular officers are required to scan visa
applicants' right and left index fingers through the DHS Automated
Biometric Identification System before an applicant can receive a
visa.[Footnote 16] In 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security
announced that the U.S. government had adopted a 10-fingerscan standard
for biometric collection of fingerprints. In February 2006, State
reported that it would begin pilot testing and procuring 10-print
equipment to ensure that all visa-issuing posts have collection
capability by the end of fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 17]
* According to State, consular officers face increased requirements to
consult with headquarters and other U.S. agencies prior to visa
issuance in the form of Security Advisory Opinions.
* According to State, as a result of the Patriot Act, consular officers
have access to, and are required to consult, far greater amounts of
interagency data regarding potential terrorists and individuals who
would harm U.S. interests.
Factors Impacting Visa Delays:
A number of potential factors can contribute to delays for visa
interview appointments at consular posts. For example, increased
consular officer workload at posts, which can be caused by factors such
as increased security screening procedures or increased visa demand,
can exacerbate delays because there are more work requirements for each
available officer to complete. Other factors such as staffing gaps and
ongoing consular facility limitations could also affect waits because
they may limit the number of applicants that can be seen for an
interview in a given day.
Visa Application Trends:
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, applications for visas declined
from a high of over 10.4 million in fiscal year 2001 to a low of
approximately 7 million in 2003. For fiscal years 2004 through 2006,
the number of visa applications increased, according to State's data
(see fig. 2). State anticipates that 8.1 million visas applications
will be received in fiscal year 2007 and 8.6 million in 2008.
Figure 2: Applications for Nonimmigrant Visas, Fiscal Years 2000-2008:
[See PDF for image]
Source: State.
[End of figure]
State's visa workload increased by almost 16 percent between 2004 and
2006. In addition, several countries and posts have seen large growth
in visa demand, and State has projected these trends to continue well
into the future.[Footnote 18] Following are examples of these trends:
* India had an 18 percent increase in visa adjudications between 2002
and 2006.
* Posts in China reported that their visa adjudication volume increased
between 18 and 21 percent last year alone, and growth is expected to
continue.
Long Waits for Visa Interviews Have Previously Challenged a Number of
Overseas Consular Posts:
We have previously reported on visa delays at overseas posts. In
particular, we have reported on the following delays in Brazil, China,
India, and Mexico:
* In March 1998, we reported that the post in Sao Paolo, Brazil, was
facing extensive delays due to staffing and facilities
constraints.[Footnote 19]
* In February 2004, we reported delays at consular posts in India and
China. For example, in September 2003, applicants at one post we
visited in China were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. Also, we
reported that, in summer 2003, applicants in Chennai, India, faced
waits as long as 12 weeks.[Footnote 20]
* In April 2006, we testified that, of nine posts with waits in excess
of 90 days in February 2006, six were in Mexico, India, and
Brazil.[Footnote 21]
State's Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some
Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews:
According to State, wait times for visa interviews have improved at
many overseas consular posts in the past year. However, despite recent
improvements--such as those at posts in India, Mexico, and Brazil--a
number of posts reported long waits at times during the past year.
Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, in February of this
year, State announced its goal of providing all applicants an interview
within 30 days. We identified a number of shortcomings in the way in
which State's visa waits data is developed, which could mask the
severity of the delays for visa interviews at some posts and limit the
extent to which State can monitor whether the visa wait problem has
been addressed. To better understand and manage post workload, State
has begun to develop a measure of applicant backlog.
State Has Reported Improvements in Visa Wait Times:
In recent months, reported wait times for visa appointments have
generally improved. For example, in reviewing visa waits data provided
to us by the Bureau of Consular Affairs for the period of September
2006 to February 2007, we found that 53 of State's 219 visa-issuing
posts had reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1
month--44 fewer posts than had reported this figure when we reviewed
the same period during the previous year (see fig. 3). [Footnote 22]
Figure 3: Posts Occasionally Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, wait times reported by several consular posts have
improved during the past year, including for a number of high volume
posts in India, Brazil, and Mexico that had previously reported
extensive delays.[Footnote 23] In April 2007, wait times at all posts
in India were under 2 weeks, down from previous waits that exceeded 140
days at four key posts, as recently as August 2006, in most cases. For
example, Mumbai reported a reduction in wait times from a high of 186
days in September 2006 to 10 days as of April 9, 2007. Reported wait
times at some key posts in Mexico also significantly declined,[Footnote
24] as have wait times for several posts in Brazil in the past year.
Furthermore, an additional number of posts with delays experienced
large reductions in wait times over a recent 12 month period.
Some Posts Continue to Face Long Delays:
Despite recent improvements in wait times at a number of consular
posts, at times during the past year, especially during peak processing
periods, a number of visa adjudicating posts have faced challenges in
reporting wait times of less than 30 days. For example, during typical
peak demand season, 29 posts reported maximum monthly waits exceeding
30 days over the entire 6-month period of March through August 2006
(see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Posts Consistently Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of State date.
[End of figure]
We observed that long waits had occurred over the summer months in
Tegucigalpa, Honduras; San Jose, Costa Rica; and several posts in
India. Furthermore, some posts we reviewed developed increased wait
times. For example, in Caracas, the reported visa waits significantly
increased--from 34 days in February 2006 to 116 days in April 2007. In
addition, several other posts, including Sao Paolo, Brazil; Monterrey,
Mexico; Tel Aviv, Israel; and Kingston, Jamaica; have experienced
increases in wait times since February 2006.[Footnote 25] Moreover, 20
posts reported experiencing maximum monthly wait times in excess of 90
days at least once over the past year.
New Performance Standard for Visa Waits Implemented:
In February 2007, State's Bureau of Consular Affairs distributed
guidance setting a global standard that all visa applicants should
receive an appointment for a visa interview within 30 days.[Footnote
26] Previously, State had not set a formal performance standard for
visa waits but had set a requirement that posts report their wait times
on a weekly basis and make this information publicly available through
post Web sites. In setting the 30-day standard for visa waits,
officials acknowledged that wait times are not only a measure of
customer service but also help posts to better manage their workload
and visa demand. Furthermore, State identified that such a standard
allows it to better track post performance, helps with resource
allocation, and provides transparency in consular operations. Consular
officials explained to us that posts that consistently have wait times
for visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a
resource or management problem.
In setting its 30-day performance benchmark, State also distributed
information to posts on how wait times data is to be used by Bureau of
Consular Affairs management. For example, State indicated it will
review all posts that have reported waits over 20 days to determine if
remedial measures are needed.
Post Reporting of Visa Waits Data Needs Further Improvement:
State has provided guidance indicating that posts are required to
report wait times on a weekly basis, even if the times have not changed
from the previous week. However, we found posts are not reporting waits
data consistently, which impacts the reliability of State's visa waits
figures. In September 2005, our analysis of State's data on reported
wait times revealed significant numbers of posts that did not report
this information on a weekly basis during the 6-month period we
reviewed. In reviewing data over the past year, we again found that a
large number of posts were not consistently reporting waits data on a
weekly basis, as required by State.[Footnote 27] For example, post
reporting of wait times from January 2006 to February 2007 showed that,
while a large number of posts (about 79 percent) had reported waits at
least monthly, only 21 posts (about 10 percent) reported waits at least
weekly. Inconsistencies among posts in the reporting of visa waits data
impacts the reliability of visa waits figures and limits State's
ability to assess whether the problem has been addressed by posts.
However, State does not appear to be enforcing its weekly reporting
requirement. State acknowledges that it has had difficulties in getting
all 219 consular posts to report this data consistently.
According to cables provided to us by State, posts are directed to
provide the "typical" appointment wait time applicable to the majority
of applicants applying for a given category of visas on a given
day.[Footnote 28] Several of the posts we visited calculated wait times
based on the first appointment available to the next applicant in a
given visa category; however, other posts we reviewed calculated waits
differently. For example, one post we visited computed wait times by
taking the average of several available appointment slots.[Footnote 29]
In addition, several consular officials we spoke with overseas said
that they are still unclear on the exact method posts are to use to
calculate wait times, and some managers were unsure if they were
calculating wait times correctly. Additionally, we observed that some
posts artificially limit wait times by tightly controlling the
availability of future appointment slots--such as by not making
appointments available beyond a certain date, which can make
appointment scheduling burdensome for the applicant who must
continually check for new openings. State officials admitted that posts
should not be controlling the availability of appointment slots to
artificially limit wait times but, to date, there has not been specific
guidance distributed to posts on this issue.
We determined that State's data are sufficiently reliable for providing
a broad indication of posts that have had problems with wait times over
a period of time and for general trends in the number of posts that
have had problems with wait times over the period we reviewed; however,
the data were not sufficiently reliable to determine the exact
magnitude of the delays because the exact number of posts with a wait
of 30 days or more at any given time could not be determined. Until
State updates and enforces its collection standards for visa waits
data, precise determinations about the extent to which posts face visa
delays cannot be made. State officials acknowledge that current wait
times data is of limited reliability. State officials have also said
that visa waits data was not originally designed for the purpose of
performance measurement but to provide applicants with information on
interview availability. According to State, a current goal of the
Bureau of Consular Affairs is to refine collection standards for wait
times information to provide more uniform and transparent information
to applicants and management; however, the bureau has not yet done so.
Measure of Applicant Backlog under Development:
State's reported wait time data generally reflect the wait, at a moment
in time, for new applicants, and do not reflect the actual wait time
for an average applicant at a given post. Furthermore, wait times
generally do not provide a sense of applicant backlog, which is the
number of people who are waiting to be scheduled for an appointment or
the number of people who have an appointment but have yet to be
seen.[Footnote 30] To better understand and manage post workload, State
officials we spoke with said that they were in the process of
developing a measure of applicant backlog. Although State has not yet
developed the measure of backlog, officials we spoke with said that
they expect to begin testing methods for measuring applicant backlog by
the end of 2007.
State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Posts
Experiencing Long Waits, but Several Are Not Sustainable:
State has implemented a number of measures to increase productivity and
better manage visa workload, as well as measures to address
shortcomings in staffing and facilities for a number of consular posts
experiencing visa delays. State has provided temporary duty staff to
assist in adjudicating visas at several locations with long wait times,
particularly at posts in India, and recently developed a plan to
relocate consular positions to locations where large disparities in
staff and visa demand were apparent. In addition, State has continued
to upgrade embassies and consulates overseas to aid in processing visa
applicants. Furthermore, State has implemented some procedures and
policies to maximize efficiency and better manage visa workload.
However, despite the measures State has taken to address staffing,
facilities, and other constraints at some posts, State's current
efforts are generally temporary, nonsustainable, and are insufficient
to meet the expected increases in demand at some posts.
State Has Used Temporary Duty Staff and Repositioned Consular Staff to
Address Staffing Shortfalls Contributing to Visa Delays:
State has recently taken action at several posts to address current
staffing gaps to minimize the impact on visa wait times. State has
deployed temporary duty staff from other consular posts and from
headquarters to help process and adjudicate visa applicants.[Footnote
31] For example, State deployed 166 officials to staff consular
sections in fiscal year 2006 and through April of fiscal year 2007. In
addition, at the order of the Ambassador to India, beginning in 2006,
posts in India utilized consular-commissioned officials from other
offices in the embassy and consulates to assist the consular section in
handling its workload, including fingerprinting applicants and
interviewing some applicants, which helped reduce the wait times at
posts.[Footnote 32] According to consular officials, the additional
assistance in India was necessary as posts there did not have enough
permanent consular staff to handle the demand and reduce wait times.
In addition, in February 2007, State completed a review of consular
officer positions that examined the disparity between visa workload and
the number of consular officers at posts.[Footnote 33] As a result of
this study, State will transfer consular positions from certain posts
that are capable of handling the workload without reporting long visa
waits to posts where there has not been adequate staff to handle the
visa workload. The majority of the positions are being transferred from
posts in the European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau to posts in the
Western Hemisphere, East Asia and Pacific, and South and Central Asian
bureaus. Of these transferred and newly created consular officer
positions, the majority will be located in Brazil, China, India, and
Mexico--posts with a history of long wait times and high demand for
visas. State acknowledges that the repositioning of consular staff,
while necessary, may not adequately address the increasing demand for
visas worldwide.
Despite the measures State has taken to address the staffing issues at
some posts, State's current consular staffing efforts are generally
temporary, nonsustainable, and insufficient to meet the expected
increases in demand at some posts. First, when-actually-employed staff
are only allowed to work 1,040 hours per year due to federal
regulations. Second, posts are typically required to cover the housing
costs of assigned temporary staff, which is not always feasible if
posts are facing budget constraints.[Footnote 34] Third, embassy or
consulate officials that were temporarily assigned to support consular
operations indicated that their new duties negatively affected their
ability to perform their regular assignments, as they were spending
time performing consular duties instead of their typical functions at
post. Fourth, although temporary staff have helped to improve wait
times at select posts, current efforts--and some recent temporary
assignments, such as over the past 7 months in India--have been
undertaken during a period of lower applicant volume. It is unknown
whether State will be able to maintain the improved wait times during
the summer of 2007, as the period between May and August is typically
when posts have the largest influx of visa applicants and, in turn,
longer waits. For example, one post in India recently reported wait
times now exceed 30 days.[Footnote 35] Moreover, the temporary staff
assisting with visa adjudications during our visit to posts in India
was expected to leave by the end of May 2007. According to State's
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Visa Services, surges in temporary duty
staff, such as the ones State employed for India, can be useful in
tackling short-term situations but are not a viable long-term solution
in places with high visa demand.
Furthermore, consular staffing gaps are a long-standing problem for
State and have been caused by such factors as State's annual staffing
process, low hiring levels for entry-level junior officer positions,
and insufficient numbers of midlevel consular officers.[Footnote 36] We
have previously reported that factors such as staffing shortages have
contributed to long wait times for visas at some posts. A number of
State's visa-adjudicating posts reported shortages in consular staff
for 2006, and we observed gaps that contributed to visa wait times at
several posts overseas. Furthermore, we reviewed reports for 32 select
consular posts abroad to assess visa workload, consular staffing and
facilities, as well as other issues affecting visa wait times.[Footnote
37] We found that of the 32 posts, 19 posts (or about 60 percent)
indicated the need for additional consular staff to address increasing
workload.[Footnote 38]
State Has Implemented Consular Facilities Improvements at Many Overseas
Posts:
State has improved a number of consular sections at embassies and
consulates worldwide.[Footnote 39] According to the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations, since September 2001, State has improved almost
100 embassies and consulates, improving the consular section facilities
at a number of these locations. For example, between fiscal years 2003
and 2005, State obligated $26.9 million to fund consular workspace
improvement projects at 101 posts. Although these improvement projects
have been completed, according to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, most
were designed as temporary solutions that may require additional
construction in the future. Moreover, although some consular
improvement projects were recently completed or were under way when we
visited Mumbai and Chennai, India, these posts did not have adequate
office, waiting room, security screening, or window space to
accommodate the volume of visa applicants. State's construction project
in Chennai to add windows and additional processing areas was expected
to be completed by May 2007, and State has begun construction on a new
consulate in Mumbai that will be completed in 2008 and will add more
space for additional consular staff and 26 more windows for
interviewing. In addition, State is planning new consulate and embassy
construction projects for New Delhi and Hyderabad, India,[Footnote 40]
as well as at a number of other posts.
We also found that a number of posts we reviewed currently face
facility constraints, which limit the number of visa interviews that
can take place in a given day and, in some cases, prevent posts from
keeping pace with the current or expected future demand for visas. For
example, 21 of 32 posts reported, in their consular packages, that
limitations to their facilities affected their ability to increase the
number of applicants they could interview, which can contribute to
longer wait times.
Although State has taken steps to improve consular facilities and has
plans to rebuild a number of posts, it is unclear whether the
facilities will be adequate to handle the future demand. Two posts that
we reviewed are already predicting that future increased demand will
outstrip visa processing capacities given existing facilities
constraints. For example, in Seoul, South Korea, post officials report
that, despite recent improvements to the facility, the post will soon
have no additional space to accommodate future applicant growth.
Moreover, there is no current viable option to build a new facility due
to continuing land negotiations between the U.S. and South Korean
governments. In addition, a number of State's recent facilities
projects have not incorporated planned projections of increased
workload growth and are expected to soon face challenges meeting
demand. For example, even though a new embassy construction project is
currently under way in Beijing, China, State officials indicated that
the number of planned interviewing windows and space in the new
facility will be insufficient to allow for future increases in visa
demand[Footnote 41]. In addition, in Shanghai, China, even though the
consular section was moved to an off-site location to process visa
applications, the post has indicated that it already has reached visa-
adjudicating capacity because it cannot add any more interviewing
windows in the current space, and construction on a new consulate will
not begin until 2009. According to the Director and Chief Operating
Officer of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, the bureau
designs and constructs consular facilities with input from Consular
Affairs; therefore, Consular Affairs needs to provide more defined
assessments of future needs at a facility. The director stated that
proper planning and stronger estimates of future needs will help in
building facilities that can better address wait times at post over the
long term.
Some Visa Processing and Workload Management Practices Established but
Not Widely Shared Among Posts:
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have
initiated a series of changes to visa policies and procedures, which
have added to the complexity of consular officers' workload and, in
turn, exacerbated State's consular staffing and facilities constraints.
For example, most visa applicants are required to be interviewed by a
consular officer at post, and applicants' fingerprints must be scanned.
Furthermore, additional procedural changes are expected, including the
expansion of the electronic fingerprinting program to the 10-fingerscan
standard, which could further increase the workload of officers and the
amount of time needed to adjudicate an application. For example,
consular officers in London, which is one of the posts piloting the 10-
fingerprint scanners, indicated that the 10-fingerscan standard would
significantly affect other posts' operations given that they had
experienced about a 13 percent reduction in the number of applicants
processed in a day. However, as each post faces slightly different
circumstances, it is unclear whether this reduction would take place at
all posts.
To lessen the increase in wait times caused by of some of these
legislative and policy changes, State has promoted some initiatives to
aid posts in processing legitimate travelers. For example, State has
urged all posts to establish business and student facilitation programs
intended to expedite the interviews of legitimate travelers. State also
continues to use Consular Management Assistance Teams to conduct
management reviews of consular sections worldwide, which have provided
guidance to posts on standard operating procedures, as well as other
areas where consular services could become more efficient. In addition,
according to State officials, State has developed a Two-Year Plan, an
overall visa processing strategy to coordinate changes to the visa
process that will ensure consular officers focus on tasks that can only
be accomplished overseas, and is also contemplating other changes to
reduce the burden placed on applicants and consular officers. These
changes include the following:
* the deployment of a worldwide appointment system,
* use of a domestic office to verify information on visa petitions,
* a revalidation of fingerprints for applicants who have already
completed the 10-fingerprint scan, and:
* the implementation of an entirely paperless visa application
process[Footnote 42]
* and remote or off-site interviewing of visa applicants.
* Furthermore, some posts have taken action to reduce their increased
workload. For example, the following actions have been taken:
* The consular sections in South Korea and Brazil have established
expedited appointment systems for certain applicant groups, including
students.
* Consular officers in Manila, Philippines, redesigned the flow of
applicants through the facility to ease congestion and utilized space
designated to the immigrant visa unit to add three new visa processing
stations.
* Posts in Brazil have waived interviews for applicants who were
renewing valid U.S. visas that were expiring within 12 months and had
met additional criteria under the law.[Footnote 43]
* The embassy in Seoul, South Korea, implemented a ticketing system
that tracks applicants through the various stages of processing and
provides notification to consular section management if backups are
occurring. The system will also automatically assign applicants to the
first available interviewing window in order to balance the workload of
applicant interviews between all available interviewing windows.
* The embassies in El Salvador and South Korea have conducted workflow
studies in order to identify obstructions to efficient applicant
processing.
Although State has recently implemented a number of policy and
procedural changes to address increased consular workload and is
considering additional adjustments, more could be done to assist posts
in their workload management. Moreover, the effective practices and
procedures implemented by individual posts that help manage workload
and assist in improving applicant wait times are not consistently
shared with the other consular posts. While recognizing that not all
the policies and procedures used by posts to help manage visa workload
are transferable to other posts, State officials indicated that,
although there is currently not a forum available for consular officers
to share such ideas, State is in the process of developing some online
capabilities for posts to share visa practices and procedures.
State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth in Visa
Demand:
With worldwide nonimmigrant visa demand rising closer to pre-9/11
levels, and current projections showing a dramatic increase in demand
over time, State will continue to face challenges in managing its visa
workload and maintaining its goal of keeping interview wait times under
30 days at all posts. State has not developed a strategy for addressing
increasing visa demand that balances such factors as available
resources and the need for national security in the visa process
against its goal that visas are processed in a reasonable amount of
time.
Dramatic Increase in Visa Demand Is Expected and Will Continue to
Impact Visa Wait Times:
In 2005, State contracted with an independent consulting firm to
analyze several factors to help predict future visa demand in 20 select
countries, which, according to State officials, constituted
approximately 75 percent of the visa workload at the time.[Footnote 44]
The consulting firm identified some demographic, economic, political,
commercial, and other factors that it believed would affect visa demand
over a 15-year period, beginning in 2005, and estimated a likely rate
of growth in demand in those select countries. The study predicted the
growth in demand in these countries would range between 8 percent and
232 percent, with Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Saudi
Arabia all projected to experience significant growth of more than 90
percent (see fig. 5).[Footnote 45] State officials indicated that they
used the futures study to assist in determining consular resource
allocations and in the repositioning of consular staff in State's
review of consular positions in February 2007. However, State has not
analyzed the 5-, 10-, or 20-year future staffing and other resource
needs based on the demand projections found in the study.
Figure 5: Actual 2006 Visa Adjudications and Projected Growth in
Applicant Volume for 2020 from State's Consular Futures Study:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of State data from the Consular Affairs Futures
Study.
[End of figure]
Although officials indicated that State continues to use the visa
demand projections in the Consular Affairs Futures Study to assist in
making staffing and resource decisions, some of the study's projections
have already been proven to underestimate growth in demand. In
addition, State has not taken action to update the study to reflect
changes in visa workload since 2005. More than half of the countries
reviewed are already facing surges in visa demand greater than the
levels predicted in the Consular Affairs Futures Study for fiscal year
2006 and beyond. For example, Brazil adjudicated more visas in 2006
than the volume of applications the study projected for Brazil for
2010. In addition, Mexico adjudicated approximately 126,000 more visas
in 2006 than the study projected. Also, the Ambassador to India
recently stated that all posts in India would process over 800,000
applications in 2007, which exceeds the study's forecasts for India's
demand in 2016.
State's Plans Do Not Fully Address Future Visa Demand:
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services testified to Congress
in March 2007 of the need to consider and implement viable long-term
solutions for posts with high visa demand and indicated that State
needed to ensure it aligns consular assets to meet the demand. In
November 2006, State developed a plan for improving the visa process
that details several steps it intends to implement, or pilot, by
2009.[Footnote 46] Although the visa improvement plan can assist State
in improving the visa process, and State has taken some steps to
address wait times at a number of overseas posts, State has not
determined how it will keep pace with continued growth in visa demand
over the long term. For example, the strategies in the plan do not
identify the resources State would need to increase staff or construct
adequate facilities to handle the projected demand increases. Moreover,
State has not proposed plans to significantly reduce the workload of
available officers or the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa if
such resources are not available. Without a long-term plan to address
increasing demand, State does not have a tool to make decisions that
will maximize efficiency, minimize wait times, and strengthen its
ability to support and sustain its funding needs.
In order to develop a strategy addressing future visa demand, State may
want to make use of operations research methods and optimization
modeling techniques. These approaches can allow State to develop a long-
term plan that takes into account various factors--such as State's
security standards for visas, its policies and procedures to maximize
efficiency and minimize waits, and available resources. Researchers
have developed statistical techniques to analyze and minimize wait
times in a wide variety of situations, such as when cars queue to cross
toll bridges or customers call service centers. These techniques
consider the key variables that influence wait times, such as the
likely demand, the number of people already waiting, the number of
staff that can provide the service required, the time it takes to
process each person, and the cost of each transaction; consider a range
of scenarios; and provide options to minimize wait times, bearing in
mind the relevant factors. The analyses can, for instance, provide
quantitative data on the extent to which wait times could be reduced if
more staff were assigned or the time for each transaction were
decreased.
For example, State could determine the approximate number of additional
resources it would need in order to meet its stated goal of providing
an appointment to all applicants within 30 days despite increased visa
demand. Such a response would either require State to provide
additional staff through new hires or by using other staffing methods,
such as utilizing civil servants to adjudicate visas overseas.
Alternatively, State could require consular officers to process
applicants more efficiently and quickly. State may require multiple new
facilities to support an increase in the number of Foreign Service
officers and allow posts to process more applicants daily. However, if
State were to determine that a significant increase in resources for
staffing and facilities is not feasible, then State would have to
evaluate the efficacy of its 30-day standard for visa appointments or
consider requesting Congress to allow for changes in the adjudication
process, such as allowing additional flexibility in the personal
appearance requirement for visa applicants. It is dependent upon State
to determine the specific techniques and appropriate variables or
factors required to optimize its capability to address the demand for
visas.
Conclusions:
Expediting the adjudication of NIV applications is important to U.S.
national interests because legitimate travelers forced to wait long
periods of time for a visa interview may be discouraged from visiting
the country, potentially costing the United States billions of dollars
in travel and tourism revenues over time. Moreover, State officials
have previously testified that long waits for visa appointments can
negatively impact our image as a nation that openly welcomes foreign
visitors. Given projected increases in visa demand, State should
develop a strategy that identifies the possible actions that will allow
it to maintain the security of the visa process and its interest in
facilitating legitimate travel in a timely manner. The development of
such a plan will strengthen State's ability to manage visa demand,
support and sustain its funding needs, encourage dialogue with relevant
congressional committees on the challenges to addressing waits, and
promote consensus by decision makers on funding levels and expectations
for eliminating visa delays. Furthermore, there are several measures
State could take in the short run to improve the wait times for
interviews of NIV applicants and the reliability of visa waits
information for management purposes.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the Bureau of Consular Affair's oversight and management of
visa-adjudicating posts, we recommend that the Secretary of State take
the following actions:
* Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand that
balances the security responsibility of protecting the United States
from potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S. interests
with the need to facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. In
doing so, State should take into consideration relevant factors, such
as the flow of visa applicants, the backlog of applicants, the
availability of consular officers, and the time required to process
each visa application. State's analysis should be informed by reliable
data on the factors that influence wait times. State should update any
plan annually to reflect new information on visa demand.
* Improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data by defining
collection standards and ensuring that posts report the data according
to the standards.
* Identify practices and procedures used by posts to manage workload
and reduce wait times and encourage the dissemination and use of
successful practices.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and
Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security did not comment
on the draft but provided a technical comment. State provided written
comments on the draft that are reprinted with our comments in appendix
II of this report.
State concurred with our recommendations to enhance methods of
disseminating effective management techniques, to improve the
reliability and utility of visa waits data, and to develop a strategy
to address increases in visa demand. State noted that any appropriate
strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand must address the
need for resources to meet national security goals for both travel
facilitation and border security. Furthermore, State said that any
suggestion of trade-offs between these two goals would be
inappropriate. Clearly we agree that in developing a strategy, State
must maintain its security responsibilities while also facilitating
legitimate travel to the United States. Our report does not suggest
that one of these goals should be sacrificed at the expense of the
other. State also provided a number of technical comments, which we
have incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees. We will also send copies to the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We also will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We reviewed (1) Department of State (State) data on the amount of time
visa applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions
State has taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State's strategy
for dealing with projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our
objectives, we interviewed officials from State's bureaus of Consular
Affairs, Human Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also
interviewed officials from the Department of Commerce's Office of
Travel and Tourism Industries. In addition, we observed consular
operations and interviewed U.S. government officials at 11 posts in
eight countries--Brazil, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras,
India, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. For our site visits, we
selected posts that had either (1) recently reported wait times of 60
days or more, (2) had previously experienced long-standing wait time
problems, (3) were projected to experience a large future volume of
visa adjudications, or (4) were able to process a large volume of visas
with little or no wait for applicant interviews. During these visits,
we observed visa operations; interviewed consular staff and embassy
management about visa adjudication policies, procedures, and resources;
and reviewed documents and data. In addition, to obtain a broader view
of visa workload, consular staffing and facilities, as well as other
issues affecting visa wait times in consular sections, we selected an
additional 21 posts for a document review based on the same selection
criteria we used for selecting our site visits.[Footnote 47] Our
selection of posts was not intended to provide a generalizable sample
but allowed us to observe consular operations under a wide range of
conditions.
To determine the amount of time visa applicants were waiting to obtain
a visa interview, we analyzed interview wait times data for applicants
applying for visas for temporary business or tourism purposes, but not
for other types of visas, including student visas. Specifically, the
data provided to us showed the minimum and maximum wait times for visa-
issuing posts for the period January 2006-February 2007. Data were also
provided for the same period that indicated the number of posts that
reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month and
the number that reported wait times in excess of 30 days for this
entire 6-month period.[Footnote 48] In addition, at various points-in-
time, we received information on the most recently reported wait times
for visa-issuing posts and the date of last entry. To determine the
reliability of State's data on wait times for applicant interviews, we
reviewed the department's procedures for capturing these data,
interviewed the officials in Washington who monitor and use these data,
and examined data that was provided to us electronically. In addition,
we interviewed the corresponding officials from our visits to select
posts overseas and in Washington, who input and use the visa waits
data. We found that data was missing throughout the 13-month period
because posts were not reporting each week. Based on our analysis, we
determined that the data were not sufficiently reliable to determine
the exact magnitude of the delays because the exact number of posts
with a wait of 30 days or more at any given time could not be
determined. Consular officials who manage consular sections overseas
acknowledged that many posts are not reporting on a weekly basis.
However, we determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for
providing a broad indication of posts that have had problems with wait
times over a period of time and for general trends in the number of
posts that have had problems with wait times over the 13 months we
reviewed.
To determine the actions State has taken to address visa wait times and
its strategy for addressing waits, we analyzed consular policies and
procedures cables and staffing and facilities plans developed by the
department. In addition, we analyzed consular workload and staffing
data. We also reviewed the methodology for the Change Navigations Study
and found it to be one of a number of fairly standard approaches that
are available for a forecasting exercise of this nature. However, we
did not attempt to replicate the methodology or test alternative models
that relied on different techniques, data, or assumptions.
We conducted our work from August 2006 through May 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
JUN 2 5 2007
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Border
Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand
for Visas," GAO Job Code 320441.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact June
Kunsman, Managing Director, Bureau of Consular Affairs, at (202) 663-
1153.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Melissa Pickworth:
CA - Maura Harty:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Border Security: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing
Demand for Visas (GAO-07-847, GAO Code 320441):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office draft report entitled, "Border Security: Long-
Term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas."
The Department offers the following comments:
p. 3 (Letter to Waxman): "Although maintaining security of the visa
process is of paramount importance, State has also acknowledged that
long wait time may discourage legitimate travel to the United States,
potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic
benefits. "
Comment: Although State recognizes that travel to the United States
results in billions of dollars of economic activity and State
acknowledges that long wait times for visas may discourage some travel
to the United States, it is misleading to say that visa wait times are
"potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic
benefits." There is no meaningful way to correlate visa wait times with
travel or tourism revenues for the United States, as we do not know how
many applicants would actually be issued visas and travel to the United
States. It should be noted that in the same period covered by the
study, visa issuances have been steadily rising, thus producing steady
year over year increases in travel and tourism revenues. Moreover,
other studies have found the greatest drop in travel to the United
States to be from Visa Waiver countries.
p.5 "However, despite recent improvements, at times during the past
year - especially during peak summer-month processing periods - a
number of posts reported long wait times. "
Comment: State acknowledges that this is accurate, but believes
inadequate explanation is offered regarding the cyclical phenomena that
cause longer wait times during summer months. State also notes that the
report simplistically equates this transient, recurring phenomenon with
a more fundamental issue regarding resources needed to meet overall
visa demand now and in the future. The variations and events described
below often defy otherwise sound projections of demand. Factors that
cause this cyclical rise in backlogs include the following:
* The cost of overseas personnel and the infrastructure to support them
requires "right-sized" staffing for average annual workload.
* The timing of the personnel transfer cycle is set in part by external
factors that cannot be changed, such as the start and end of the school
year. This produces staffing gaps in the summer months. The perennial
fact that international travel increases in the summer months
guarantees that demand will peak as human resources remain static or
are actually reduced.
* Long lead times required for construction of facilities and security
requirements make expansion and larger numbers of admissions to
facilities a lengthy process.
* Currency exchange rates, inflation cycles, and general prosperity,
wages, and credit vary country by country.
* Political changes impact the perception of current and future
stability or economic security country by country.
* Natural disasters, coups, or violence require officers to turn their
full efforts to assisting American citizens immediately and may have
significant longer-term impacts upon economic conditions.
State believes it is misleading to equate this cyclical problem and the
modalities for addressing it with the underlying question of chronic
backlogs. By definition, posts that experience purely cyclical
increases in wait times normally reduce these backlogs within
established standards during off-peak seasons.
p. S "State has used temporary duty employees to fill consular staffing
gaps at some posts, and is repositioning a number of consular positions
at posts around the world to better maximize its current workforce -
especially at posts experiencing large growth in workload. .
Furthermore, State acknowledges that the repositioning of consular
staff, while necessary, may not adequately address the increasing
demand for visas worldwide. "
Comment: CA acknowledges that repositioning alone may not resolve the
issue and suggests that it should be noted in this report that the best
way to adequately address the increasing demand for visas worldwide, in
conjunction with efforts to improve capacity and efficiency of
facilities and consular procedures, is to permanently increase staffing
levels at State.
p.5 ". we found that some posts have utilized procedures that permit
them to process applications more efficiently - such as conducting
workflow studies in order to identify obstructions to efficient
applicant processing. However, we observed that these procedures are
not shared among posts in any systematic way, and, therefore, not all
posts are aware of them. "
Comment: Acknowledging that improvements can be made in information
sharing tools, which GAO notes in the report, State does not believe
there is any significant information gap between the Department and the
field on the basic methods for achieving efficiency in consular
operations. Workflow analysis, queue management, appointment system and
demand management, team approaches to processing, and even shift work
are all widely known techniques. While noting that improvements can be
made, in State's view, sharing at this level already exists in the form
of guidance on the Consular Affairs Intranet, cables to the field on
standard operating procedures including outsourcing and concession
agreement options, and inclusion of these methods in formal consular
training courses and in the directed guidance offered by Consular
Management Assistance Teams. The annual Consular Workload and Support
Statistics specifically address key workload management and customer
service concerns and require posts to report and evaluate their use of
those. Post-specific procedures are less sharable than management
principles, given the differences in physical configuration, host
country conditions, and other resource factors among posts.
p. 6: "For example, it has neither estimated the resources necessary to
meet future demand, nor proposed plans that would significantly reduce
the workload of available officers or the amount of time needed to
adjudicate a visa if such resources are not available. "
Comment: This comment does not acknowledge steps CA has taken. CA
planning for workload and resources includes regular projections of
future workload done post by post as part of the regular reporting in
the annual "consular package," the future study conducted by
contractors in 2005, and the CA global repositioning exercise in 2006
that balanced consular officer staffing and workload among overseas
posts worldwide.
p. 6: "Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand
that balances the security responsibility of protecting the United
States from potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S.
interests with the need to facilitate legitimate travel to the United
States. "
Comment: We have to challenge the selection of the word "balances."
State's border security responsibilities as a matter of public policy
and law do not lend themselves to a "balancing" process, with
facilitation of legitimate travel on one side of the scale and security
on the other. We must do both with equal efficacy and this has been the
fundamental challenge set by the "Secure Borders, Open Doors" agenda
and the Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision. State questions the appropriateness
of any suggestion that meeting increasing visa demand be approached in
this way. In particular, State questions the assumption that "time
required to process each visa application" is a significant factor in
wait times and there is nothing in this report to suggest that it is.
The duration of a visa interview at high volume posts is only a few
minutes and 97 percent of visas are processed to completion within two
days of the visa interview.
p. 8: "These changes have added to the complexity of consular workload
and have increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa. Such
changes include the following... "
Comment: State recommends the inclusion of two additional very
significant factors:
- Consular officers have increased requirements to consult with
headquarters, both within State and at other USG agencies, prior to
visa issuance in the form of Security Advisory Opinions.
- As a result of the Patriot Act, consular officers have access to, and
are required to consult, far greater amounts of interagency data
regarding potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S.
interests.
p. 14: "We observed that long waits had occurred over the summer
months. "
Comment: As noted above, the report fails to give adequate context to
cyclical/seasonal factors that have made delays in peak season a
persistent phenomenon.
p. 14: "For example, in Caracas the reported visa waits significantly
increased -from 34 days in February 2006 to 116 days in April 2007. "
Comment: State would like to point out once again that changes in the
political situation in Venezuela fueled this extraordinary demand. The
type of long-term planning which GAO rightly suggests is needed to
address the visa demand would not and could not address this type of
unpredictable political factor.
p. 16: "Several of the posts we visited calculated wait times based on
the first appointment available to the next applicant in a given visa
category; however, other posts we reviewed calculated waits
differently. "
Comment: As GAO is aware, variations in appointment systems make
calculation of wait times based on the next available appointment
inherently problematic. In fact, GAO pointed out this issue after their
early analysis of wait time data recorded by posts in India using this
method. The data were extremely volatile and had limited value. As
noted in the report, State is working on better measures to capture
both wait time and demand. As we transition to global on-line
application, appointment, and payment systems, it will at some point no
longer be necessary for managers to provide wait time information
because it will be built into the global systems.
p. 18: ".State will transfer 32 consular positions from posts that have
more staff than is needed to posts where there has not been adequate
staff to handle the visa workload. "
Comment: State notes that no post or consular section has more staff
than is needed. The repositioning exercise simply moved staff from
posts that were understaffed to a lesser degree to posts that were
understaffed to a greater degree.
p. 22: ".the bureau designs and constructs consular facilities with
input from Consular Affairs; therefore, they told us, Consular Affairs
needs to provide more defined assessments of future needs at a
facility. The director stated that proper planning and stronger
estimates of future needs will help in building facilities that can
better address wait times at post over the long-term.
Comment: The Bureau of Consular Affairs is not included in the formal
design approval process, although they do provide input informally to
the designers at the working level or intervene at higher levels once
issues come to their attention. Only State's regional bureaus have a
formal role in design approval. Recent efforts have generated a CA-0130
Working Group, which has discussed upcoming projects and responded to
all requests for assessments of future needs.
p. 22: "Consular officers in London...indicated that the 10-
fingerprint requirement would significantly affect other posts'
operations given that it experienced about a 13 percent reduction in
the number of applicants an officer can interview in a day."
Comment: The officer time required per case hasn't changed in London,
where officers do not do the fingerprint enrollment. State acknowledges
there may be a reduction in total applicants processed as a result of
the additional time required for 10-print enrollment in a high-volume
operation, but the constraints would be at the intake/enrollment
processes, which would not be done by officers in high-volume posts
such as London.
p. 23: "State is contemplating additional changes to the visa process,
including reducing the burden placed on applicants and consular
officers. "
Comment: In line with the general principles of good government, State
is continuously reviewing visa processing procedures to make the most
effective use of existing resources. The Visa Office's Two Year Plan is
an overall visa processing strategy to coordinate changes to the visa
process that will ensure consular officers abroad focus on those tasks
that can only be accomplished overseas. For example, the plan envisions
using the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) to verify information on non-
immigrant visa (NIV) petitions. Demands in other parts of the consular
section, such as the increased demand for passports resulting from the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative or a high proportion of
inadequately prepared Immigrant Visa (IV) applicants, also use up
resources that could be diverted to NIV processing. Other elements of
the Two Year Plan, such as using the National Visa Center (NVC) to
relieve posts of the task of collecting documents from IV applicants,
will make consular sections overall more efficient and potentially free
up resources and space.
p. 27: "In order to develop a strategy addressing future visa demand,
State may want to make use of operations research methods and
optimization modeling techniques. "
Comment: State is aware of and encourages the use of "lean management,"
ISO 9001 certification methodology, queue management techniques, and
value stream mapping techniques in visa and consular processing that
employ the methodologies cited in the GAO report. While acknowledging
the analytic insight these tools can sometimes provide, it would be
inappropriate to reduce visa processing to an analog of a "call center
operation," or "cars crossing a bridge," as the report suggests. It
would be highly inappropriate if consular interviews were considered
only a variable in "transaction time." Our experience in consulting
with businesses indicates that private sector, e.g., call center,
staffing models have limited applicability to State overseas
operations. The border security function must be supported and not
diminished by changes in administrative procedures aimed at reducing
process time.
p. 28: ". or would require consular officer(s) to process applicants
more efficiently and quickly. "
Comment: To reiterate points made above, State finds the emphasis on
making officers act more quickly to be misplaced and contrary to post-
9/11 mandates. While State acknowledges that more resources and
enhanced resource planning will be needed to meet the challenge of
growing visa demand, State finds the either/or formulation in the
report that either more resources are needed or officers will need to
be faster an unacceptable trade-off inconsistent with significant post-
9/11 concerns and legislative requirements.
p. 29: Recommendations for Executive Action:
Comment: State concurs with the need for a long term strategy to
address worldwide increases in visa demand. At the same time State
notes that an appropriate strategy must address the needs for resources
to meet national goals for both travel facilitation and border
security. An approach that suggests trade-offs or "balancing" of the
two goals is inappropriate. The Bureau of Consular Affairs can and does
update annually information on visa demand and information on personnel
resources, but this cannot be translated into an effective planning
tool without concerted action by several Bureaus and shared priorities
on allocation of resources to meet these demands.
State concurs with the recommendation to improve the reliability and
utility of visa waits data. Better data will become available as State
migrates to global appointment systems for visas. State also concurs
with the recommendation to enhance methods of disseminating effective
management techniques.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter
dated June 25, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. State's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services has
acknowledged that visa applicants may be deterred from visiting the
United States by long appointment wait times and that this could have
negative economic consequences and could adversely affect foreign
opinions of our country. The Department of Commerce points out that
foreign visitors bring economic benefits to our country in excess of
$100 billion each year. We agree that it is difficult to correlate visa
wait times with specific dollar value losses in travel and tourism
revenues. However, given that wait times for interviews are very high
at a number of posts, we believe that the loss in economic benefits to
our country over time could potentially be significant.
Our report acknowledges that visa issuances have increased over the
last several years.
2. We believe our report, as well as past GAO reports, shows that long
waits for visa interviews have been a long-standing problem for the
department. Furthermore, State's data show that there have been long
waits at some posts during peak and nonpeak periods (see fig. 2) and
that long waits are not solely cyclical in nature. State acknowledges a
number of cyclical factors that affect visa demand and resource
availability, such as staffing gaps and the personnel transfer cycle.
We believe these and other factors can contribute to chronic as well as
cyclical backlogs. In addition, we have modified the draft to
acknowledge the fact that wait times may reoccur cyclically as well as
unexpectedly. However, the report points toward the need for a strategy
for addressing such delays, which State has not developed to address
either cyclical or chronic visa waits.
3. We agree that increasing consular staff levels may ultimately be
necessary to address increasing visa demand. This is why we recommended
that State develop a strategy to address wait times and that, in doing
so, identify its resource needs. Such actions could promote consensus
by decision makers on funding levels and expectations for eliminating
visa delays.
4. We agree that State has taken a number of actions to share
information with posts on reducing wait times. However, as noted in the
report, during our fieldwork, we found that there were instances where
posts were not aware of certain practices and procedures implemented by
other posts to help manage workload and assist in improving applicant
wait times. We understand that all practices may not be transferable to
all posts, but we believe that all posts would benefit from knowing the
options that are available for more efficient operations.
5. Our report discusses State's efforts to estimate visa demand and
gives ample credit to the 2006 repositioning exercise to shift some
consular staffing to posts with the greatest need. Furthermore, neither
the annual consular package exercise nor the Consular Affairs Future
Study estimated the resources needed to meet long-term future demand.
Our point is that State has not estimated what resources will be
required to keep up with the increase in future demand that State
forecasts. Because these resources could be substantial, we think it is
incumbent on State to develop a long-term strategy now.
6. We based our statements on the testimony of State's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Visa Services before Congress in March 2007, where he
stated, "we strive to constantly strike the right balance between
protecting America's borders and preserving America's welcome to
international visitors." We acknowledge that in striking this balance
security is the primary concern. Clearly the time it takes to process
an application affects how many applications an officer can process in
a given day. We are not suggesting that State sacrifice security in
order to avoid visa waits, but rather that State develop a plan for how
it will cope with rising demand, taking these various circumstances and
responsibilities into consideration.
7. We agree that these are important factors and have modified the text
accordingly.
8. We understand that there are spikes in visa demand for various
reasons, some of which are difficult to predict. However, State is
aware that such spikes in visa demand can occur. We believe that State
needs a strategy to address growing visa demand that includes
consideration of how it will meet unanticipated spikes in demand. The
development of such a plan would allow State to use its visa surge
teams of temporary duty staff to deal with unanticipated spikes, rather
than using them to handle the anticipated increasing demand.
9. We have modified language in the report. State's comment reinforces
our belief that it is time for State to develop a strategy for
addressing long-term visa demand. If State determines it needs more
staff to handle projected demand, then it should detail these needs in
its strategy.
10. We based our comment on a cable prepared by the U.S. Embassy in
London. State acknowledges that the 10-fingerprint requirement could
reduce the number of applicants processed. Applicants are not
interviewed until after their fingerprints are taken, so a reduction in
the number of applicants processed would subsequently result in a
reduction of applicants interviewed. We have modified language in the
draft to clarify our point.
11. We have incorporated information on the Visa Office's Two-Year Plan
into the report.
12. State does not have a plan that outlines how it will cope with
growing visa demand, which is why we recommend that State develop a
strategy that identifies the actions it will take to address increasing
demand. We believe that there may be opportunities to achieve
efficiencies at some posts and that more resources may be needed. The
short-term, temporary measures that State is currently taking to
address visa demand are not adequate to handle the projected visa
demand. We suggest that State take advantage of available analytical
tools in order to identify options for the development of an overall
strategy that will address the projected increase in visa demand
worldwide. A wide range of sophisticated techniques are available to
help manage customer waiting times in many areas of government
operations, such as testing drivers at departments of motor vehicles
and treating patients at public health clinics. Our report does not
recommend that State reduce the processing time at the expense of
security. We agree that State must maintain its security
responsibilities while facilitating legitimate travel to the United
States.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess Ford, (202) 512-4128, fordj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant
Director; Joe Brown; Joe Carney; Martin de Alteriis; Jeff Miller; Mary
Moutsos; and Melissa Pickworth made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The United States also grants visas to people who intend to
immigrate to the United States. In this report, we use the term "visa"
to refer to nonimmigrant visas only.
[2] Applications for visas rose steadily in the 1990s to a peak of 10.4
million for fiscal year 2001. Following the 2001 economic recession and
the precipitous decline in travel resulting from the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, visa demand dropped.
[3] Wait time is broadly defined as the amount of time that a visa
applicant must wait to obtain a visa interview.
[4] See GAO, Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource
Requirements Could Help Address Visa Delays, GAO-06-542T (Washington,
DC: Apr. 4, 2006).
[5] At the time we reported this figure in April 2006, State reporting
having 211 visa-adjudicating consular posts. State currently reports
that it has 219 such posts.
[6] In March 2007, the Deputy Secretary of State for Visa Services
testified that, according to Department of Commerce figures, foreign
visitors accounted for $107.4 billion in spending and other economic
activity in the United States in 2006, and that international students
contribute an additional $13.5 billion each year to institutions they
attend and the surrounding communities in which they live.
[7] The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board consists of 14 industry
CEOs and was formed to advise the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on
national tourism strategy.
[8] As defined by the Department of Commerce, travel and tourism
includes leisure, business, conventions and meetings, and educational
and medical travel.
[9] Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, earlier this year,
State announced a goal of providing all applicants an interview within
30 days.
[10] Persons who may require NIVs include temporary business travelers
and tourists.
[11] The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is the
primary body of law governing immigration and visa operations (see Pub.
L. No. 82-414, 8 U.S.C., 1101 et seq.) In addition, 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; however, State retains authority in certain
circumstances (see Pub. L. No. 107-296.) A subsequent September 2003
Memorandum of Understanding between State and DHS further outlines the
responsibilities of each agency with respect to visa issuance.
According to the Memorandum of Understanding, DHS is responsible for
establishing visa policy, reviewing implementation of the policy, and
providing additional direction. State is in charge of managing the visa
process, as well as the consular corps and its functions at 219 visa-
issuing posts overseas.
[12] Biometrics includes 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 report,
"biometric identifiers" refer to fingerprints. See GAO, Technology
Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14 2002).
[13] Consular Associates are U.S. citizens and relatives of U.S.
government direct-hire employees overseas who, following a successful
completion of the required Basic Consular Course, are hired by the
consular section at post. Up until September 30, 2005, consular
associates at some posts were allowed to assist consular officers in
adjudicating visas.
[14] The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
further required that consular officers adjudicate visas. See Pub. L.
No. 108-458. As defined by State, consular officers are generally
active Foreign Service officers but may also include commissioned civil
service employees or retirees of the Foreign Service.
[15] According to U.S. law (8 U.S.C. § 1202(h), every alien applying
for an NIV who is between the ages of 14 and 79 must submit to an in-
person interview with a consular officer unless the interview is waived
under certain circumstances by either the consular officer or the
Secretary of State. See Pub. L. No. 108-458.
[16] 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, Federal Bureau of Investigation
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) and GAO, Technology Assessment: Using
Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14,
2002).
[17] In January 2006, the director of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program 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. US-VISIT is a governmentwide 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 fingers and have a digital
photograph taken upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry.
[18] See Change Navigators, Inc., State Department/Consular Affairs
Futures Study (Washington, D.C.: July-September 2005).
[19] See GAO, State Department: Tourist Visa Processing Backlogs Still
Persist at U.S. Consulates, GAO/NSIAD-98-69 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13,
1998).
[20] 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).
[21] GAO-06-542T.
[22] See GAO-06-542T. We reported that, during the period September
2005-February 2006, 97 of State's visa-issuing posts (211 at the time)
had reported maximum waits of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, and
20 posts had reported waits in excess of 30 days for an entire 6-month
period.
[23] In April 2006, we testified that waits over 90 days occurred at
the following posts in India, Mexico and Brazil: Mumbai, India--154
days; Chennai, India--168 days; New Delhi, India--91 days; Ciudad
Juarez, Mexico--92 days; Mexico City, Mexico--34 days; and Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil--140 days.
[24] Rio de Janeiro reported its wait times were reduced to 48 days in
February 2007 from a high of 149 days in October 2006. Mexico City
reported its wait times were reduced to 19 days from a high of 160 days
in January 2006.
[25] Wait times, as of May 16, 2007 are as follows: Sao Paolo-59 days;
Monterrey-60 days; Tel Aviv-66 days; and Kingston-55 days.
[26] In addition, State set a performance indicator that student visas
and U.S.-interest business applicants should receive an appointment for
a visa within 15 days or less. Furthermore, State clarified that those
applicants found eligible to receive a visa should expect their visa to
be issued within 2 or 3 days after their interview.
[27] Select small posts are allowed to report less frequently but are
required to do so at least once per month.
[28] One cable, in particular, directs posts not to compute a
mathematical average but to ask the question "on what date will the
majority of visa applicants seeking an appointment be scheduled for an
interview?" According to State, the number of calendar days between
that date and the calendar date is the typical wait time.
[29] A new post appointment system was recently implemented that
provided applicants the option to choose from available appointments at
either 3 or 6 weeks into the future.
[30] Appointment cancellations and other variables, such as increases
in the number of post staff or visa processing windows, can allow for
immediate appointment openings. When new appointments become available,
posts in some cases can reschedule applicants for earlier appointments;
however, we observed posts can fill the new slots with new applicants.
Therefore, applicants with prior appointments can continue to face long
waits although the post may be reporting low wait times due to new
appointment availability.
[31] These temporary duty staff include when-actually-employed
personnel, which is defined as employment where the workweek schedule
is determined by post management on an as-needed basis. These officials
are typically retired foreign service officers.
[32] The ambassador made the reduction of wait times the primary
objective of all posts in India.
[33] State officials indicated that the review considered NIV,
immigrant visa, and American Citizen Services workload and staffing
levels, and also considered other factors including future demand
projections.
[34] According to State officials, the Bureau of Consular Affairs was
providing posts in India with funding for temporary duty staff in order
to reduce the wait times at all posts in India. According to officials,
this was an exemption from State's policy and was only provided for
posts in India.
[35] As of May 16, 2007, wait times in Mumbai were reported at 46 days.
[36] 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 between grades 6 through 4
are classified as junior officers, while grades 3 through 1 are
midlevel officers.
[37] We selected posts that had either (1) recently reported wait times
of 60 days or more, (2) had previously experienced longstanding wait
time problems, (3)were projected to experience a large future volume of
visa adjudications, or (4) were able to process a large volume of visas
with little or no wait for applicant interviews. The analysis was not
intended to be representative of all posts.
[38] For the purpose of this report, consular staff includes both
Foreign Service consular officers and locally engaged staff working in
the consular section.
[39] In 2003, Congress directed the Bureau of Overseas Buildings
Operations to improve the overall working environment for consular
officers through the Consular Workspace Improvement Initiative.
[40] The new consulate in Hyderabad, India, is expected to be
operational by fiscal year 2008.
[41] The new embassy compound in Beijing is scheduled to open in the
summer of 2008. According to Beijing reports, the new facility will
meet consular section needs when it first opens, but the post expects
to quickly outgrow the new space as workload will soon require an
additional six interview windows.
[42] State introduced an electronic visa application form and mandated
its use at consulates worldwide in November 2006. Use of the
application form reduces data entry errors, eliminates duplicative data
entries, and increases the number of applicants consular staff can
interview daily. Building on its recent implementation of this
application form, State anticipates moving to an entirely paperless,
electronic visa application process by the end of 2007.
[43] The personal appearance requirement can generally be waived under
the following circumstances: (1) if the alien is applying at a post in
his resident country, the applicant has complied with U.S. immigration
laws and regulations, the prior visa expired less than 12 months ago,
and the alien is applying for the same visa classification; (2) if the
alien is applying for a visa as a foreign government official or an
official to an international organization; (3) if the alien is applying
for a NATO visa; (4) if the alien is granted a diplomatic or official
visa on a diplomatic or official passport; (5) if the alien is applying
as a foreign government official or member of the immediate family,
attendant, servant, or personal employee, in transit; or (6) if the
Secretary of State determines that the waiver is either in U.S.
national interest or is necessary as a result of unusual or emergent
circumstances. Regardless of the circumstances mentioned above, there
are also certain circumstances under which the interview cannot be
waived.
[44] The study was conducted by Change Navigators, Inc., between July
and September 2005.
[45] The projected growth is: Argentina-96 percent, Brazil-196 percent,
China-232 percent, India-109 percent, Mexico-99 percent, and Saudi
Arabia-136 percent.
[46] The plan calls for State to implement a number of steps, including
the following: (1) worldwide appointment scheduling system, which would
make more management information on visa demand available; (2)
electronic visa applications that can be reviewed prior to the
interview; (3) remote interviewing of applicants, where applicable, for
potential cost savings; and (4) visa "surge teams," or temporary duty
staff, to assist posts that face problems with wait times exceeding 30
days.
[47] We reviewed consular reports and data from a total of 32 posts
including: New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai, Beijing, Shanghai,
Shenyang, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Bogotá, Cairo, Seoul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao
Paolo, Manila, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Islamabad, Monterrey, Mexico City,
Guadalajara, Ciudad Juarez, London, Santo Domingo, Tegucigalpa, San
Jose, San Salvador, Riyadh, Quito, Paris, Port au Prince, and
Johannesburg.
[48] 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.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
