Homeland Security: Performance of Information System to Monitor
Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors Has Improved, but Issues
Remain (18-JUN-04, GAO-04-690).
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has implemented the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to
collect and record key data on foreign students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents--prior to their entering the
United States, upon their entry, and during their stay. In
accordance with Conference Report 108-280, GAO reviewed SEVIS.
Among the areas it examined were (1) system performance, (2)
actions to improve performance, and (3) plans for collecting the
fee to be paid by foreign students and exchange visitors to cover
SEVIS costs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-690
ACCNO: A10582
TITLE: Homeland Security: Performance of Information System to
Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors Has Improved, but
Issues Remain
DATE: 06/18/2004
SUBJECT: Cultural exchange programs
Data collection
Exchange of persons programs
Foreign students
Internal controls
Performance measures
Strategic planning
Homeland security
Policies and procedures
INS Student Exchange Visitor Information
System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-690
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Committees
June 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Performance of Information System to Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange
Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain
a
GAO-04-690
June 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Performance of Information System to Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange
Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain
Several indicators show that SEVIS performance is improving. First,
program office reports for some key system performance requirements show
that these requirements are being met. However, not all key performance
requirements are being monitored or reported on. Without formally
monitoring all key performance requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure
itself that potential problems will be identified and addressed early.
Second, other, less formal indicators of performance, such as daily system
use by program officials and unsolicited user feedback, indicate that the
system is meeting requirements. Third, GAO's analysis of new requests for
system changes, including changes to address reported performance
problems, shows these requests are declining. Finally, officials
representing educational organizations generally see performance as having
improved.
DHS has taken specific actions to improve SEVIS performance. In
particular, it has installed a series of new software releases and
increased Help Desk staffing and training. In addition, program officials
are holding regularly scheduled meetings, both internally and with
educational representatives, and are asking user groups to test new
releases. Despite these efforts, however, educational organizations
continue to report problems, such as the quality of Help Desk assistance.
The following table identifies reported system problems, examples, and
DHS's responses.
DHS Actions to Address User Problems
Problem Example DHS response
One report shows only 20
records at a time, so it must be Evaluating software options Inability of
users to download run repeatedly to show all to provide custom report data
to create custom reports affected individuals capabilities
An error on a student's status
took 6 weeks to correct; user
received varying responses for Slow Help Desk response; how to record
multiple training Increased Help Desk inconsistent answers to technical
records; user incorrectly staffing as of March 2003; questions and
incorrect answers advised not to sign travel training given to Help Desk
to policy questions authorization on continuing basis
Change to correct birth date Software change Incomplete transmission of
data not updated in State implemented in January to State Department
database Department database 2004
Highlights of GAO-04-690, a report to congressional committees
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has implemented the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to collect and record key data
on foreign students, exchange visitors, and their dependents-prior to
their entering the United States, upon their entry, and during their stay.
In accordance with Conference Report 108-280, GAO reviewed SEVIS. Among
the areas it examined were (1) system performance, (2) actions to improve
performance, and (3) plans for collecting the fee to be paid by foreign
students and exchange visitors to cover SEVIS costs.
To strengthen SEVIS, GAO is making recommendations designed to improve
DHS's monitoring of key system performance requirements, address
educational association performance concerns, and expedite collection of
the fee. DHS agreed with most of our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. It did not fully agree with two of our findings and their
associated recommendations.
Insufficient identification of A student was transferred to Schools are
listed by city schools when transferring the wrong school due to and state
on the DHS Web between schools similarity of school names site as of July
2003
Sources: GAO and DHS.
DHS submitted its final rule on the SEVIS fee to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in February and plans to collect the fee once OMB
approves it. Representatives of educational organizations are concerned
that two of the three payment options in DHS's final rule are either not
available to all students in developing countries or will result in
significant delays. Program officials acknowledge the increased demands on
students and visitors, but do not believe that these demands warrant
changes to their plans.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-690.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Randolph C. Hite at (202)
512-3439 or [email protected].
Contents
Letter 1 Recommendations for Executive Action 4 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 5
Appendixes
Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV:
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees on Homeland
Security, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 8
Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 86
GAO Comments 90
Comments from the Department of State 92
GAO Comments 94
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 95
GAO Contact 95
Staff Acknowledgments 95
Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
OIRM Office of Information Resource Management
CCD Consular Consolidated Database
NIV Nonimmigrant Visa System
US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator
Technology CLAIMS 3 Computer Linked Application Information Management
System CPU Central Processing Unit SCR System Change Request
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. However, 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.
A
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
June 18, 2004
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Chairman
The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is an
Internet-based system that collects and records information on foreign
students, exchange visitors, and their dependents prior to their entering
the
United States, upon their entry, and during their stay. SEVIS has the
following objectives:
o support the oversight and enforcement of laws and regulations
pertaining to foreign students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange
visitor program sponsors authorized by the government to issue eligibility
documents, and
o improve the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) processing of
foreign students and exchange visitors at ports of entry through
streamlined procedures and modernized data capture.
Within DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization, the Student
and Exchange Visitor Program is responsible for certifying schools to
accept foreign students in academic and vocational programs and managing
SEVIS. DHS required schools and exchange programs to start using the
system for new students and exchange visitors beginning February 15, 2003,
and for all continuing students beginning August 1, 2003.
In accordance with Conference Report 108-280,1 we reviewed various aspects
of SEVIS. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) determine how well the
system is performing, (2) identify what actions DHS has taken to improve
system performance, (3) determine what data the system collects and who
uses it, and (4) determine the government's plans for collecting the SEVIS
fee.2
On April 1, 2004, we provided your offices with a written briefing on the
results of our review. The full briefing, including details of our scope
and methodology, is reprinted as appendix I. The purpose of this report is
to provide the published briefing slides to you and to officially transmit
our recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
In summary, our briefing made the following four main points:
o According to several indicators, SEVIS performance is improving. First,
program office reports relating to certain system performance
requirements3 show that requirements are being met. However, several key
system performance requirements are not being formally measured. This is
problematic because, without formally monitoring and documenting key
system performance requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure itself that
potential system problems are identified and addressed early before they
have a chance to become larger problems that could affect the DHS mission
objectives supported by SEVIS. Second, other, less formal indicators of
performance-such as the program office's daily use of the system and
unsolicited feedback from users-likewise indicate that the system is
meeting requirements. Third, our analysis of new system change requests4
shows that the
1H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-280, at 32 (2003).
2The fee is to be paid by foreign students and exchange visitors to cover
SEVIS costs. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) first required that schools and exchange programs
collect the fee (P.L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996). The Visa Waiver Permanent
Program Act (2000) amended IIRIRA to require that the government collect
the SEVIS fee (P.L. 106-396, Oct. 30, 2000).
3Examples of performance requirements are (1) the system is to be
available 99.5 percent of the time to all users 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, excluding scheduled downtime and (2) the time to respond to user
queries, as measured as the response time between the application server
and database, is to be less than 10 seconds.
4Change requests are used to track all system changes, including
corrections to erroneous system programming, as well as planned system
enhancements.
number of new requests is steadily declining, which similarly suggests
that performance has improved. Finally, officials representing ten
educational organizations5 stated that system performance had improved.
o To DHS's credit, it has taken a number of actions to improve SEVIS
performance. In particular, it has installed a series of new software
releases and has increased Help Desk staffing and training. Nonetheless,
problems continue to be reported, such as the quality of Help Desk
support.6
o SEVIS collects a wide range of data, most of which are required by
legislation, regulation, or presidential directive. The system also
collects some data that are not required. Most of these elements, such as
information regarding visas and passports, are important to managing the
SEVIS program, but are not required and are only captured on a voluntary
basis. The data are used by schools, exchange programs, and offices within
DHS and State to oversee the pre-entry, entry, and stay of foreign
students, exchange visitors, and their dependents. The data are also used
by DHS and State to oversee the schools and exchange visitor programs.
o DHS intends to collect the SEVIS fee starting this year, but almost 7
years have passed since collection of this fee was required; thus millions
of dollars in revenue have been and will continue to be lost until the fee
is actually collected.7 DHS submitted its final rule on the fee, which
5We contacted representatives from the following 12 organizations:
Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training, Alliance for
International Educational and Cultural Exchange, American Association of
Collegiate Registrars, American Association of Community Colleges,
American Council on Education, Association of American Universities,
Association of International Educators, Council for Standards for
International Educational Travel, Council on International Educational
Exchange, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education,
National Association of College and University Business Officers, and the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Two of
the organizations stated that they did not have the detailed information
in which we were interested for this engagement.
6The SEVIS Help Desk was established to assist system users by providing
troubleshooting and resolution of technical problems, along with problem
escalation and resolution, and changes to the database.
7In its comments, DHS stated that SEVIS has been supported by both
appropriated and Immigration Examination fee funds. IIRIRA required that
the SEVIS fee be deposited in the Immigration Examination Fee Account
(P.L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996).
includes three payment options, to the Office of Management and Budget on
February 19, 2004, and is waiting to hear if the rule is approved.8
Representatives of educational organizations are concerned that two of the
payment options are either not available to all students in developing
countries, or that they will result in significant delays. While program
officials acknowledge that collection of the fee will increase the demands
placed on students and exchange visitors, they stated that such concerns
do not warrant changes to their plans for collecting the fee. The longer
disagreements over how the fee should be collected go unresolved, the
longer SEVIS reduces the Immigration Examination Fee funds available to
other programs. Resolution of such differences in perspective is precisely
what the rulemaking process is intended to accomplish. Therefore, it is
important that the outcome of this process be implemented quickly.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To strengthen SEVIS performance, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security direct the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement to ensure that the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program Director take the following three actions:
o Assess the extent to which defined SEVIS performance requirements are
still relevant and are being formally measured.
o Provide for measurement of key performance requirements that are not
being formally measured.
o Assess educational organization Help Desk concerns and take appropriate
action to address these concerns.
We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the necessary steps to provide
for the expeditious implementation of the results of the SEVIS fee
rulemaking process.
8In agency comments on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it received
clearance of the SEVIS rule from the Office of Management and Budget on
May 19, 2004.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Both DHS and State provided comments on a draft of this report. In written
comments signed by the Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (reprinted in app. II, along with our responses), DHS agreed
with most of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. However, it
did not fully agree with two of our findings and their associated
recommendations.
First, DHS did not agree with our finding that the SEVIS program was not
monitoring and reporting on all system performance requirements, and it
agreed in part with our associated recommendation, adding that it believes
that we did not fully assess all data that the program office provided to
us on this matter. DHS said it was resubmitting these data to clarify our
finding. We acknowledge that DHS provided in its comments data on system
performance monitoring and reporting, but we do not agree that we did not
fully assess the data previously provided, and thus we have not modified
our finding and associated recommendation. In particular, neither the data
enclosed with its comments, nor the data previously provided, specifically
addresses measurement of SEVIS availability. As we state in our report,
while the program monitors and reports on the availability of the
communications software on its application servers, which can be used to
identify problems that could affect SEVIS availability, it does not
specifically measure SEVIS availability (i.e., the SEVIS application may
not be available even though the communication software is). Further, we
acknowledge DHS's statement in the enclosure that it has implemented a new
SEVIS-specific processor utilization tool, which relates to one of the
performance requirements that our report cited as not being monitored and
reported on. However, information on this tool was not previously provided
to us and thus could not be verified by us and included in our briefing.
We are nevertheless supportive of any recent program actions that would
expand system monitoring and reporting to include all key performance
requirements.
Second, DHS did not fully agree with our finding regarding the use of
taxpayer dollars to fund SEVIS. According to DHS, SEVIS has been funded by
both appropriated funds and immigration examination user fees, which are
collected from nonimmigrants seeking benefits. We do not question DHS's
statement that the program has been supported by $36.8 million in
appropriated (taxpayer-funded) and $34.3 million in immigration
examination user fees funds. Our finding is that 7 years have passed since
the fee collection was required, and millions of dollars have been spent
(both appropriated and user fees) and will continue to be spent until the
SEVIS fee is actually collected. Even if SEVIS is prospectively funded
with the immigration examination user fees, until the SEVIS fee is
collected, the amount of funds available to other programs funded by this
account is reduced. With respect to our associated recommendation, DHS
commented that it agreed in part, noting that while it shared the
recommendation's sense of urgency in implementing the SEVIS user fee, it
did not agree that the Assistant Secretary needed to be directed to take
the necessary steps to expeditiously do so because these steps were
already being taken. As we stated in our report, although we were told
that steps were under way to begin collecting the fee, DHS officials did
not provide us with a plan showing, for example, what these steps are. Our
recommendation is intended to address this absence of explicit planning
for how this shared sense of urgency in implementing the fee will be
accomplished.
In written comments signed by the Department of State's Assistant
Secretary and Chief Financial Officer (reprinted in app. III, along with
our response), the department stated that its concerns with collecting the
SEVIS fee that we cite in the report remain valid. It also stated that
since the report was originally drafted, it has initiated a pilot project
with DHS to explore the feasibility of collecting the fee at both consular
offices using foreign financial institutions and at consular offices with
internal cashiers. According to State, the pilot is to be conducted in a
small number of consulates, and will only be extended on a post-by-post
and country-bycountry basis. The department also provided technical
comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate in the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, and to the Director, Office of
Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at www.gao.gov.
Should you have any question on matters contained in this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3439, or by e-mail at [email protected]. The GAO
contact and key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Randolph C. Hite Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems
Issues
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations
Homeland Security: Performance of Information System to Monitor Foreign
Students and Exchange Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain
Briefing to the Staffs of the
Subcommittees on Homeland Security
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
April 1, 2004
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o Introduction
o Objectives
o Results in Brief
o Background
o SEVIS Results
o Performance
o Actions to Improve Performance
o Data and Users
o Fee Plans
o Conclusions
o Recommendations for Executive Action
o Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
o Attachment: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) organization, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP) office is responsible for certifying schools to accept foreign
students in their academic and vocational programs and managing the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).
SEVIS was initiated in July 2001 to automate manual, paper-intensive
processes that schools and exchange programs already used to manage and
report information about foreign students and exchange visitors. According
to program officials, SEVIS began operating in July 2002.1
SEVIS is an Internet-based system that collects and records key
information on foreign students and exchange visitors prior to their
entering the United States, upon their entry, and during their stay. Using
the system, schools and program sponsors can transmit information
electronically via the Internet to DHS and the Department of State
(State).
1According to program officials, SEVIS began operations on July 1, 2002.
It was available to certify schools on July 1, 2002, and to register
students on July 15, 2002. According to State, SEVIS was available to
exchange visitor programs in October 2002. DHS required schools and
exchange programs to begin using SEVIS for new students and exchange
visitors no later than January 30, 2003, however, this deadline was
extended to February 15, 2003. Schools and exchange programs were required
to use SEVIS for all continuing students and exchange visitors starting
August 1, 2003.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Conference Report 108-2801 requires GAO to report on the following aspects
of SEVIS to the Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2004:
o the technical problems faced by institutions of higher education using
the system,
o corrective actions being taken by DHS to resolve system problems, and
o the need for the detailed information collected.
1H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-280, at 32 (2003).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
As agreed with the Appropriations Subcommittees' staff, our objectives were to
o determine how well the system is performing,
o identify what actions DHS has taken to improve the system's
performance,
o determine what data the system collects and who uses it, and
o determine the government's plans for collecting the SEVIS fee.1
We conducted our work at DHS and State headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
and at ten educational organizations2 from December 2003 through March
2004, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Details of our scope and methodology can be found in the attachment.
1The fee is to be paid by foreign students and exchange visitors to cover
SEVIS costs.
2We contacted 12 organizations, but two stated that they did not have the
detailed information in which GAO was
interested for this engagement.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
A number of indicators show that system performance has improved. For
example, program office reports for some key performance requirements show
that requirements are being met. However, not all key performance
requirements are being measured and reported on. Nevertheless, according
to program officials, other less formal indicators of performance, such as
personal use of the system, daily inspection of Help Desk logs, and
unsolicited user feedback, indicate that the system is meeting
requirements.
Another indicator of system performance is trends in reported system
problems. For SEVIS, such problems are described in system change
requests.1 Based on DHS change request data, our analysis of new change
requests also suggests that performance has improved.
Officials representing schools and educational organizations also told us
that SEVIS performance had improved. However, they also identified seven
types of performance problems that remain, such as the quality of Help
Desk support.
1Change requests are used to track all changes to SEVIS, including
corrections to erroneous system programming, as well as planned system
enhancements.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
DHS has taken a number of actions to improve SEVIS performance. In
particular, a series of new versions of SEVIS have been installed and Help
Desk staffing and training has increased. According to program officials,
these actions address six of the seven problems reported by the schools
and learning organizations, and solutions to the remaining problem are
currently being evaluated. However, according to these organizations, some
of the problems continue.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS collects a wide variety of data, the vast majority of which are
required in legislation, regulation, and a presidential directive.
Examples of data elements required, but not collected, are the foreign
student or exchange visitor's visa change date and classes enrolled in.
SEVIS also collects some data that are not required. Examples of such data
elements are the individual's visa number, visa expiration date, and visa
issuing post. According to program officials, such data are not required
and are only entered into SEVIS if they are voluntarily provided by the
school or exchange program.
SEVIS data are used by schools, exchange programs, and numerous offices
within DHS and the Department of State to oversee the pre-entry, entry,
and stay of foreign students, exchange visitors, their dependents, and the
schools that enroll them and the exchange visitor programs that sponsor
them.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
DHS plans to collect the SEVIS fee; however, about 7 years have passed
since collection of the fee was first required of schools and education
programs.1 Federal government direct collection of the fee has been
required since October 2000. Since then, a variety of circumstances has
delayed the fee's collection. On February 19, 2004, DHS submitted its
final rule on the fee to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Representatives of educational organizations identified several concerns
with the SEVIS fee plans. One concern is that the payment options are
either not available to all students and exchange visitors in developing
countries or that they will result in significant visa application delays.
While program officials acknowledged that collection of the fee will
increase the demands placed on students and exchange visitors applying for
admission to the United States, they stated that the concerns do not
warrant changes to their plans for collecting the fee.
1Originally, schools were required to collect the fee beginning April 1,
1997. P.L. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
To assist DHS in managing SEVIS, we are making four recommendations to the
Secretary of DHS.
In commenting on a draft of this briefing, DHS officials stated that (1)
measurement of SEVIS performance requirements is important and that the
department needs to update defined system performance requirements, (2)
all necessary system performance measurement is occurring now or will
occur, and (3) it is working consistently to improve Help Desk
performance, including continuously training and monitoring Help Desk
staff and helping educational institutions understand that deficiencies
attributed to Help Desk performance are due to problems attributed to the
institutions. DHS also provided some technical comments and clarifications
that we have incorporated into the briefing.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Various laws define SEVIS-related requirements:
o The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA)1 requires that foreign students and exchange visitors be
monitored and reported on, and that a data-collection system be developed
for approved institutions of higher education and designated exchange
visitor programs to track nonimmigrants possessing or applying for F-, M-,
or J-class visas or status.2 It also requires that a fee be collected by
approved institutions of higher education and designated exchange visitor
programs from students and exchange visitors in order to reimburse program
expenses.
1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996).
2SEVIS manages information for foreign students and exchange visitors
having any of the following visa types: F visas for academic study at
2-and 4-year colleges and universities and other academic institutions; M
visas for nonacademic study at institutions, such as vocational and
technical schools; and J visas for participation in exchange programs. (8
U.S.C. S: 1101 (a) (15)).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act (2000)1 amends IIRIRA to require
that the Attorney General, not the institutions of higher education and
exchange programs, collect the SEVIS fee.2
o The USA PATRIOT Act3 expands the foreign student tracking system to
include other approved educational institutions, such as air flight
schools, language training schools, and vocational schools. It also
required that the system be fully operational by January 1, 2003, which it
was.
1P.L. 106-396 (Oct. 30, 2000).
2 With the creation of DHS in 2003, the Attorney General's
responsibilities for collecting the SEVIS fee were transferred to DHS.
3P.L. 107-56 (Oct. 26, 2001).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 20021
requires that
o an electronic means be established to monitor and verify (1) the
acceptance of a foreign student or exchange visitor by an institution or
program and (2) additional information on nonimmigrants, such as date of
entry and port of entry; and
o within 30 days after 1) the end of a school's enrollment period or 2)
the commencement of an exchange program, the school or exchange visitor
program must inform DHS of foreign students who fail to enroll.2
1P.L. 107-173 (May 14, 2002).
2On October 17, 2003, DHS issued a memorandum to SEVIS certified academic
institutions explaining its implementation of this requirement. The memo
stated that the deadline for reporting student registration is 30 days
after the "Program Start Date" or the "Next Session Start Date" for new
and continuing students, respectively.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
ICE is responsible for SEVP. The SEVP office is responsible for a variety
of program functions, including certifying schools to use SEVIS; providing
program policies and plans; performing program analysis; and conducting
communications, outreach, and training. It is also responsible for SEVIS,
including identifying and prioritizing system requirements, performing
system release management, monitoring system performance, and correcting
data errors.
ICE's Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM) manages the
information technology infrastructure (hardware and system software) on
which the SEVIS application software is hosted. It also manages the SEVIS
Help Desk and the systems life cycle process for SEVIS, including system
operations and maintenance.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
The SEVIS Help Desk was established to assist system users. It consists of
three levels of support known as tiers.
o Tier 1 provides initial end-user troubleshooting and resolution of
technical problems.
o Tier 2 provides escalation and resolution support for Tier 1, and makes
necessary changes to the database (data fixes).1
o Tier 3 addresses the resolution of policy and procedural issues, and
also makes data fixes.
SEVP uses a contractor to operate Tiers 1 and 2. Both the contractor and
the program office operate Tier 3. Currently, Tier 1 has 26 staff, Tier 2
has 9 staff, and Tier 3 has 8 staff.
1According to State, fixes to records of J visas are made at Tier 3 after
State reviews and approves the changes.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS has two primary objectives:
o To support the oversight and enforcement of laws and regulations
pertaining to foreign students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange
visitor program sponsors authorized by the government to issue eligibility
documents.
o To improve DHS's processing of foreign students and exchange visitors
at ports of entry through streamlined procedures and modernized data
capture.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS was implemented in phases, beginning with new students and exchange
visitors, and ending with continuing students and exchange visitors.
o SEVIS began operating on July 1, 2002, for students and in October
2002, for exchange visitors.1
o Schools and exchange visitor programs were required to use SEVIS for
all new students and exchange visitors beginning February 15, 2003.
o Schools and exchange visitor programs were required to use SEVIS for
all continuing students beginning August 1, 2003.
1According to program officials, SEVIS was available to certify schools on
July 1, 2002, and to register students on July 15, 2002. According to
State, SEVIS was available to exchange programs in October 2002.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
The foreign student and exchange visitors' process generally consists of
three primary functions: pre-entry, entry, and stay management.
Pre-entry
Schools and exchange visitor programs that wish to participate in SEVP
must first be approved by DHS and State.
o Schools submit a certification application to DHS. If the application
is approved, the school is then certified to issue forms1 to students and
their dependents to enable them to enter the United States to attend the
school.
o Organizations and institutions submit an application for designation to
State. If the application is approved, the organization or institution is
designated and an exchange visitor program sponsor is authorized to issue
forms2 to exchange visitors, and in some cases, their dependents, to
enable them to enter the United States and participate in the exchange
visitor program.
1Form I-20A-B: Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student
Status --for Academic and Language Students, and Form I-20M-N: Certificate
of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1) Student Status --for Vocational
Students.
2Form DS-2019: Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1)
Status.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
To attend a school or participate in an exchange visitor program in the
United
States, a foreign student or exchange visitor must first apply to a
DHS-certified
school or State-designated exchange visitor program and receive the
appropriate
form. A SEVIS identification number is automatically created when the form
is
issued. Second, the foreign student or exchange visitor must apply for a
visa at a
United States consulate or embassy.
To apply for a visa, a foreign student or exchange visitor presents to the
consular
officer several hard copy documents, including a current passport and
photograph,
a copy of the appropriate forms from the school or exchange visitor
program he or
she plans to attend, and documentation to show that the person has the
financial
resources to pay for tuition and living expenses. The consular officer
compares the
information on the applicant's hard-copy paperwork, such as the
applicant's name,
date and place of birth, and SEVIS identification number, against selected
information that has been automatically extracted from SEVIS through
DataShare1
to State's Consolidated Consular Database (CCD)2. The consular officer
also
conducts an in-person interview of the applicant.
1DataShare provides electronic data exchange between State and DHS
systems.
2CCD is used by consular officers to verify that the student or exchange
visitor has been accepted by a particular school or exchange visitor
program.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
The applicant must pay a $100 nonrefundable fee for a visa application.
The feecollection procedure varies among consulates and embassies. In some
cases, an off-site contractor collects the fee and provides the applicant
with a receipt to take to the consulate or embassy. In other cases, the
applicant pays the fee at the consulate or embassy. In certain countries
there is also a separate issuance fee if the visa is approved.
The consular officer decides if the applicant is eligible for nonimmigrant
status and, if so, issues a visa. If a visa is issued, the consular
officer enters information about the visa application into State's
Nonimmigrant Visa system (NIV). This information is sent to SEVIS through
CCD and DataShare.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Entry
Upon entering the United States, the foreign student or exchange visitor
presents to the border inspector at the port of entry the passport
containing the student and exchange visitor visa, the copy of the
appropriate form, and other travel documents. The inspector reviews the
documentation to determine if it is valid and interviews the student or
exchange visitor. If the student or exchange visitor is approved to enter
the country, the inspector puts the entry data into the United States
Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) system.1
1US-VISIT is a governmentwide program to collect, maintain, and share
information on selected foreign nationals. We have issued a series of
products on US-VISIT, including Homeland Security: Risks Facing Key Border
and Transportation Security Program Need to Be Addressed, GAO-03-1083
(Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2003) and Information Technology:
Homeland Security Needs to Improve Entry Exit System Expenditure Planning,
GAO-03-563 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2003).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Stay Management
Schools and exchange visitor programs manage the stays of foreign
students, exchange visitors, and their dependents during their time in the
United States.1 This includes noting full-time school attendance each
semester, outside employment or training, and changes in U.S. address.
CLAIMS 32 sends data to SEVIS when an F, M, or J visa-holder requests a
nonimmigrant benefit, such as change of status, extension of stay, or work
permit cards.3
Foreign students and exchange visitors are permitted to leave the United
States
and return after a temporary absence as long as they retain a valid visa.
To re
enter the country, the foreign student or exchange visitor must have an
official from
the school or exchange program properly certify the appropriate form
stating that
the student or exchange visitor is leaving temporarily but will be
returning.
1Schools designate one principal official and up to nine additional
designated school officials who are authorized to use SEVIS. Exchange
programs designate one responsible officer and up to ten alternates who
are authorized to use SEVIS.
2Computer Linked Application Information Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3) is
a system that contains information on foreign nationals who request
benefits, such as change of status or extension of stay.
3According to State, these are known as Employment Authorization
Documents.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Simplified Diagram of the SEVP Pre-entry, Entry, and Stay Management Process
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
According to program officials, they obligated about $28.2 million in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for SEVIS development, testing, deployment, and
operations and maintenance activities. Program officials plan to obligate
an additional $9.6 million by September 30, 2004.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS application software runs on a system infrastructure (hardware and
systems software) that supports multiple DHS Internet-based applications.
The infrastructure includes common services, such as application servers,
Web servers, database servers, and network connections. SEVIS shares five
application servers and two Web servers with two other applications, the
Customer Relations Information System and E-filing.1
Data are entered into SEVIS through one of two methods:
o Real-time interface (i.e., an individual manually enters a single
student/ exchange visitor record) or
o Batch processing (i.e., several student/exchange visitor records are
uploaded to SEVIS at one time using vendor-provided software or software
created by the school/exchange visitor program).
1 The Customer Relations Information System allows customers who have
applied for immigration benefits, such as naturalization, to access the
system and determine the status of their application based on their
receipt number. E-filing allows customers to electronically file the I-765
(Application for Employment Authorization) and I-90 (Application to
Replace Permanent Resident Card) forms, along with certain supporting
evidence for these forms, such as power of attorney.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
According to DHS, as of February 6, 2004, there were
o 767,529 active students and exchange visitors registered in SEVIS, of
which
o 625,754 used F visas,
o 3,417 used M visas, and
o 138,358 used J visas.1
o 10,349 institutions were in SEVIS, of which
o 8,960 were technical schools, colleges, and universities, and
o 1,389 were exchange visitor programs. The breakout of visa and
institutional types is shown in the following chart.
1In its comments on a draft of this report, State commented that some
persons enrolled in SEVIS are not issued visas, and other persons may have
more than one SEVIS record.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Breakout of Visa and Institution Types as of February 6, 2004
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Available indicators show that SEVIS performance is improving. Program
office reports relating to certain, but not all, key system performance
requirements show that the requirements are being satisfied. Other, less
formal performance indicators that program officials use also show that
performance requirements are being met. Another indicator of system
performance-trends in system changes to address, among other things,
system problems-similarly shows that system performance has improved.
Additionally, school and exchange program associations reported that
performance has improved, but they also cited some residual problems.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Formal and Informal Reports of System Performance Indicate that Key
Requirements Are Being Met
The SEVIS Functional Requirements Document1 identifies a number of key
performance requirements. For example:
o System availability:2 99.5 percent of the time to all users 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, excluding scheduled downtime.
o Response time: less than 10 seconds to return a record in response to a
query using the identification number. (Time is measured from application
server to database and back to application server.)
o Capacity: create at least 5,000,000 new records per year, store at
least 12,500,000 eligibility records, and handle at least 7,500,000 record
updates per year.
1Functional Requirements Document for the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System, Task Order No. COW-I-D3847: Corporate Information
Systems Program, Update, November 10, 2003.
2System availability is defined as the time the system is operating
satisfactorily, expressed as a percentage of time that the system is
required to be operational.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o Resource usage: identify when usage exceeds 50 percent of allocated
resources for (1) central processing unit, (2) disk space, (3) random
access memory, and (4) network usage.
Some, but not all, of these key performance requirements are being
adequately measured. Program officials identified the following reports in
relation to measuring each of the requirements. Based on key requirements
that are measured, SEVIS is performing satisfactorily.
o For system availability, program officials stated that they use a Hyper
Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) report that shows the time that the system
infrastructure, which supports multiple DHS Internet-based applications,
is successfully connected to the network. Program officials provided
reports that showed the uptime percentages from August 2003 to January
2004 for the two Web servers that were 99.88 and 99.66 percent. While
these reports can be used to identify problems that could affect SEVIS
availability, they measure the availability of the communications software
on the application servers, but do not specifically measure SEVIS
availability (i.e., the SEVIS application may not be available even though
the communication software is).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o For response time, program officials stated that the contractor
monitors this on a daily basis. According to the February 2004 report,
daily response time ranged from .30 to .75 seconds, which is well below
the 10-second requirement.
o For capacity, program officials stated that they use a weekly report on
the number of records and number of record updates in SEVIS. The report
for the week of January 31, 2004, through February 6, 2004, shows that
SEVIS had a current total of 777,878 records since operations began. This
is below the capacity requirements of 5,000,000 new records a year and
12,500,000 total records. This report also shows that there were 277,963
record updates between September 27, 2003, and February 6, 2004, which,
for a 4-month period, is also below the capacity requirement of 7,500,000
record updates per year.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o For resource usage, program officials stated that they use a central
processing unit (CPU) activity report that shows the percentage of CPU
capacity utilization. According to OIRM officials, they review this report
on a daily basis, and if utilization exceeds an average of 20 percent,
they troubleshoot to identify and resolve the problem. However, as this
report focuses on the shared infrastructure environment, which supports
SEVIS and the two other DHS applications, it does not specifically measure
SEVIS-related CPU performance.
o For the other resource usage performance requirements, such as (1)
random access memory and (2) network usage, we requested but program
officials did not provide, any reports that measured performance against
requirements.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Program officials stated that they augment these formal performance
measurement reports with other, less formal measures, and that these
latter measures show that SEVIS is meeting its key performance
requirements. These informal measurement activities include
o browsing the daily Help Desk logs to determine if there are serious
performance problems that require system changes or modifications;
o receiving calls and e-mails directly from users; and
o using the system themselves on a continuous basis.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Program officials stated that some key performance requirements are not
formally measured, but believe that a combination of formal performance
reports and less formal performance monitoring efforts give them a
sufficient picture of how well SEVIS is performing. Further, program
officials stated that they are exploring additional tools to monitor
system performance. For example, they stated that they are in the process
of implementing a new tool to capture the availability of the SEVIS
application, and that they plan to begin using it by the end of April
2004.
Without formally monitoring and documenting all key system performance
requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure itself that potential system
problems are identified and addressed early, before they have a chance to
become larger problems that could affect DHS mission objectives supported
by SEVIS.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Trends in Reported System Problems Indicate Improved Performance
One indicator of how well a system is performing is the number and
significance of reported problems or requests for system enhancements.
For SEVIS, a system change request (SCR) is created when a change is
required to the system. According to officials, SCRs are used, for
example, to fix system problems, make system enhancements, and correct
data.
Between January 1, 2003, and February 1, 2004, DHS reported that a total
of 1,268 SCRs1 were created.
1This number excludes data fixes.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Of the 1,268 SCRs, 505 were reported as open as of February 2004. Of these
505, 270 were designated as critical or high priority. The distribution of
these SCRs is shown in the following graphs.
Distribution of New SCRs by Priority
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
An analysis of the trends in SCR data indicates that the number of new
critical and high SCRs is decreasing. As can be seen in the following
graph, between January and June 2003, DHS experienced 6 weeks in which
more than 20 critical and high SCRs were reported per week. However,
between June and December 2003, that number decreased to two.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Trends in New Critical and High Priority SCRs
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Of the 1,268 SCRs submitted between January 1, 2003, and February 1, 2004,
527 were corrective fixes, meaning that the current system application did
not meet requirements. The distribution of SCRs by type is shown in the
graphs below.
Distribution of New SCRs by Type
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SCR trend data indicate that the number of new requests that are to
correct system errors decreased between January 2003 and February 2004. As
can be seen in the following graph, the most dramatic decrease was in the
first 7 months of the program.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Decreasing Trend in New Corrective SCRs
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Users Indicate Performance Has Improved, But Identified Residual Problems
Another indicator of performance is user feedback. According to
representatives of the educational organizations, overall SEVIS
performance has improved since it was implemented, and the program's
outreach and responsiveness have been good. Early reported problems
involved user access to the system, the system's timing out before users
could complete their tasks, and merging data from one school or exchange
visitor program with that from another. The representatives told us that
these early problems no longer occur.
However, seven new problems were identified by at least 3 of the 10
organizations, and three of the seven problems are related to Help Desk
quality. The following table shows the problems and the number of
organizations that identified them.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS Problems Identified by Organizations
Number of
Problem Organizations Example
Citing the Problem
A user needed a report
showing the number of
students who are registered
for training outside of the
1. Inability to school in which they are
download data so that enrolled. However, SEVIS
users could manipulate 7 only allows a user to view
it themselves and 20 such records at a time,
create useful reports. and because her school had
over 800 foreign students,
she had to run the SEVIS
report repeatedly to get
the full list.
2. Slow Tier 2 and 3 7 A correction to a student's
Help Desk responses. status took 6 weeks to fix.
A foreign visitor was
3. Incomplete record denied a visa at the
updates in the nightly consulate because the
transmission from 6 birthdate on the hard copy
SEVIS to CCD. form did not match the
birthdate in the automated
record.
4. Inconsistent Help A user received varying
Desk answers to 5 Help Desk responses for how
technical questions. to record multiple training
records for a student.
A user was told that she
5. Incorrect Help Desk did not need to sign a
answers to policy 3 student's I-20 for travel
questions. purposes, but the signature
was required at the port of
entry.
A user attempting to
6. Insufficient transfer a student to a
identification of 3 college in Arizona
schools in SEVIS erroneously selected a
pull-down menus for college in California with
transfer purposes. a similar name.
A user entered data and
printed a form showing the
7. Unexplained data 3 correct information.
differences in SEVIS. Subsequently the data were
found to be different in
SEVIS.
Source: GAO analysis of organization data.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
A number of steps have been taken to identify system problems, and a
number of new versions of SEVIS have been released to correct them and
improve performance. Further, DHS reports that it has taken steps to
address all but one category of problems identified by schools and
educational institutions; however, some of the problems continue.
DHS Has Taken Steps to Improve System Performance
Program officials have described several steps that they have taken to
identify system performance problems and subsequently improve system
performance. Examples of steps to identify problems include
o holding biweekly internal performance meetings and weekly technical
meetings,
o holding biweekly1 conference calls with representatives from
educational organizations,
o establishing special e-mail accounts to report user problems, and
o having user groups test new releases. 1The conference calls were being
held weekly until January 2004.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
According to program officials, identified problems are reviewed and steps
are taken to address the problems, such as changes to hardware or
revisions to Help Desk information. Another step is creating a new SCR.
The following graph shows the total number of SCRs, and the number
categorized as critical and high priority that were closed by each SEVIS
release since January 2003.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SCRs Closed by SEVIS Releases
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
DHS Reports that User Identified Problems Have Been Addressed, But Some
Persist Well After DHS Action To Address Problem
DHS reports that it has taken action to address six of the seven problems
through releases of new versions of SEVIS and Help Desk training and
staffing increases. According to program officials, the remaining problem
is currently being evaluated for potential solutions.
The following table shows the problems, number of organizations that
identified them, and DHS's actions taken to address each problem.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
DHS Actions to Address User Problems
Number of
Problem Organizations DHS Actions
Citing the Problem
1. Inability to download Software options to
data so that users could extract user requested
manipulate it themselves 7 data, provide summary
and create useful reports, and perform
reports. statistical analyses are
being evaluated.
In March 2003, Tier 2
2. Slow Tier 2 and 3 staffing increased from
Help Desk responses. 7 8 to 9 people, and Tier
3 staffing increased
from 5 to 8 people.
3. Incomplete record On January 2, 2004, a
updates in the nightly 6 software change was
transmission sent from implemented in Release
SEVIS to CCD. 4.8.
Since June 2002,
4. Inconsistent Help training is provided to
Desk answers to 5 Help Desk staff every
technical questions. time a new release is
implemented or a major
workaround is devised.
Since June 2002,
5. Incorrect Help Desk training is provided to
answers to policy 3 Help Desk staff every
questions. time a new release is
implemented or a major
workaround is devised.
Since July 2003, the
list of school codes
6. Insufficient needed in SEVIS has been
identification of 3 available on the DHS
schools in SEVIS website with the schools
pull-down menus for identified by city and
transfer purposes. state.
On May 11, 2003, a
7. Unexplained data 3 software change was
differences in SEVIS. implemented in Release
4.6.2.
Source: GAO and DHS.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Despite DHS actions, some problems are still being reported. For example:
o Program officials stated that they had addressed the problem about slow
Help Desk responses by increasing staffing in March 2003. However,
representatives from seven organizations stated that slow Tier 2 and 3
Help Desk responses were still a problem.
According to program officials, the majority of calls handled by Tier 2
and 3 involve data fixes that are a direct result of end-user error.
Sometimes, DHS's response to these fixes are delayed pending documentation
from the endusers reflecting the nature of the data fix needed and the
basis for the change.
o Program officials stated that since June 2002, training has been
provided to Help Desk staff each time a new SEVIS release is implemented.
Nevertheless, representatives from five of the ten organizations stated
that the quality of the Help Desk's response to technical and policy
questions remains a problem.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
According to program officials, Help Desk response is complicated by a
variety of user platforms and end-user knowledge of computers. These
officials indicated that the program office is working to educate SEVIS
users on the distinction between platform problems and problems resulting
from SEVIS. Further, Help Desk responses may be complicated by the
caller's failure to provide complete information regarding the problem.
Program officials also stated that supervisors frequently review Help Desk
tickets to ensure the accuracy of responses, and these reviews have not
surfaced any continuing problems in the quality of the responses.
Despite these actions, educational organization representatives told us
that problems remain.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS collects a variety of data, the preponderance of which are required
by various authoritative sources. These data are used by schools, exchange
visitor programs, and DHS and State Department organizations to oversee
foreign students, exchange visitors, and the schools and exchange visitor
programs themselves.
Data Collected by SEVIS Are Largely Specified in Legislation, Regulation,
and a Directive
Various laws, regulation, and a directive define the data to be collected
by SEVIS. These include:
o Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA)1
o USA PATRIOT Act (2001)2
o Immigration and Nationality Act3
o Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 20024
1P.L. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996). 2P.L. 107-56 (Oct. 26, 2001). 38 U.S.C. S:
1101 (a) (15). 4P.L. 107-173 (May 14, 2002).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o Cyber Security Research and Development Act (2002)1
o 8 Code of Federal Regulations 214.32
o Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 2, dated October 29, 20013
These laws, regulation, and directive identify over 113 items, resulting
in 230 data elements4 to be collected by SEVIS. These data items and
elements include information on students, exchange visitors, schools, and
exchange visitor programs. For example,
o biographical information (e.g., student or exchange visitor's name,
place and date of birth, and dependents' information, including their
spouses and children);
1P.L. 107-305 (Nov. 27, 2002).
28 C.F.R. S: 214.3.
3 S PD-02 (Oct. 29, 2001).
4Some data items result in several data elements. For example, the data
item "address" can result in five data elements, such as number and
street, apartment number, city, state, and zip code.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o academic information (e.g., student or exchange visitor's status, date
of study commencement, degree program, field of study, and institution
disciplinary action);
o employment information (e.g., the student or exchange visitor's
employer name and address, and employment beginning and ending dates);
o school information (e.g., campus address, type of education or degrees
offered, and session dates); and
o exchange visitor program information (e.g., status and type of program,
responsible program officials, and program duration).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS is designed to collect and store all but 3 of the 113 items defined
in these laws, regulations and directive. SEVIS does not collect
o date visa changed (required by IIRIRA),
o classes enrolled in (required by Homeland Security Presidential
Directive No. 2), and
o accompanying dependents' addresses (required by the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002).
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Reasons that program officials provided for not collecting these three
data elements are as follows:
o The first required data element is not collected because another
collected, but not required, data element (i.e., status change date) fills
the need for this data element.
o An interagency working group established to implement Homeland Security
Presidential Directive No. 2 determined that collecting the list of
classes attended by each foreign student and exchange visitor required
more effort than the potential benefits from this data element justified.1
o Accompanying dependents' addresses were erroneously assumed to be the
same as the student's or exchange visitor's, but fields are now being
added to the SEVIS database for a dependent's address if it is different
from the student's or exchange visitor's address.
1Statement of the Honorable John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives, October 10, 2002.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS is also designed to collect certain data elements that are not
required by laws, regulation, or directive. According to program
officials, these data elements are important to managing the SEVIS
program. Specifically,
o the nonimmigrant visa number,expiration date, and issuing post are
optional and only captured if entered into the system by the school or
exchange visitor program;
o the nonimmigrant drivers license number and issuing state were imposed
by the interagency working group and support investigative efforts; and
o the nonimmigrant passport number, passport expiration date, and
passport issuing country are optional and only captured if entered into
the system by the school or exchange visitor program.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS Data are Used by a Variety of Entities
DHS has identified major groups of SEVIS data users, including DHS, State,
schools, and exchange visitor program sponsors. The following tables show
examples of users, and how each uses the data.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
DHS plans to collect the SEVIS fee, but about 7 years have passed since
collection of the fee was first required, and DHS's plans have yet to be
approved, much less implemented. Some have questioned DHS's plans for
various reasons.
DHS Has Not Collected the SEVIS Fee, But Has Plans to Do So
Although the requirement for foreign students and exchange visitors to pay
a fee to cover the costs of SEVIS has existed for about 7 years, the fee
has yet to be collected. DHS plans to begin collecting the fee as soon as
its plans are approved.
In 1996, IIRIRA1 required schools and exchange visitor programs to collect
a fee from each foreign student and exchange visitor in order to reimburse
agency expenses. According to the act, the fee was not to exceed $100. In
December 1999, INS published a proposed rule2 that authorized collection
of the SEVIS fee by the schools and exchange visitor programs, and set the
fee at $95. During the comment period, INS received over 4,600 comments,
many in protest of the requirement that school and exchange visitor
program officials collect the SEVIS fee.
1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996). 2Proposed Rule 64 FR 71323.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Subsequently, in October 2000, IIRIRA1 was amended by the Visa Waiver
Permanent Program Act (2000),2 to require the government, not the
institutions, to collect the fee. The act also required proof of fee
payment before a visa could be issued.
In October 2001 the USA PATRIOT Act3 authorized $36.8 million in
appropriated funds for SEVIS to fully implement and expand the system
prior to January 1, 2003.
In October 2003 DHS published another proposed rule.4 The proposal (1) set
the fee at $100 for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors, and no
more than $35 for J-1 visa-holders who are au pairs, camp counselors, or
participants in a summer work travel program, in accordance with public
laws; and (2) proposed two options for students and exchange visitors to
pay the fee, these being
o pay the fee by mail using a check or money order drawn on a U.S. bank
and payable in U.S. dollars, or
o pay the fee electronically through the Internet using a credit card.
1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996). 2P.L. 106-396 (Oct. 30, 2000). 3P.L. 107-56
(Oct. 26, 2001). 4Proposed Rule 68 FR 61148.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
On February 19, 2004, DHS submitted its final rule for approval to OMB.
According to program officials, the final rule includes these two payment
options, as well as a third option that permits exchange visitor programs
to make bulk payments to DHS on behalf of J visa-holders. DHS plans call
for publishing the final rule by June 2004. According to program
officials, DHS has developed a plan for implementing the SEVIS fee
collection process. However, program officials did not yet provide us with
a copy of the plan.1
1In agency comments on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it received
clearance of the SEVIS rule from OMB on May 19, 2004. DHS also stated that
the date for implementing the SEVIS fee collection has changed from June
2004, to September 1, 2004.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Opinions Differ on Appropriateness of DHS Plans for How the Fee Will Be
Collected
Representatives from several of the organizations that we met with
expressed concerns with the first two methods of payment. According to the
representatives, the credit card and mail methods require that the fee be
paid before the individual applies for a visa. They stated that the
provision is not required by law.
Representatives from several of the organizations also stated that the
credit card option may limit the reach of international education and
exchange programs because not all foreign students have ready access to
the Internet or credit cards in order to pay electronically. Additionally,
they stated that the proposed mail option may result in significant delays
to an already lengthy visa application and review process, and increase
the risk that paper receipts will be lost or stolen. They estimated that
this option could take 4 to 6 weeks for mail delivery and return.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Program officials acknowledged that collection of the SEVIS fee will add a
requirement to the process of applying to enter the United States as a
student or exchange visitor. However, they stated that none of these
problems are severe enough to warrant changes to their plans for fee
collection for the following reasons.
o Students and exchange visitors who can arrange funding for tuition,
living expenses, and other program costs can budget an additional amount
for the one-time SEVIS fee.
o Students and exchange visitors currently have to pay application fees
to schools and exchange visitor programs, and can use these same methods
to pay the SEVIS fee.
o Students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange programs can adjust
their time frames for applications in order to accommodate additional
processing time for payment.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Further, program officials stated that they are exploring the possibility
of entering into agreements with foreign banks that would allow foreign
students and exchange visitors to pay the SEVIS fee in local currency,
rather than U.S. dollars. They are also working with the State Department
to create a field in the SEVIS database to allow State to verify that a
student has paid the SEVIS fee in the event that the paper receipt is lost
or misplaced.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Some organization representatives, noting that the Department of State
already collects a fee when issuing machine-readable visas at consulates
or embassies, have suggested that State collect the SEVIS fee. State
officials responded that too many process changes are needed to make this
feasible. For example:
o In instances in which the visa fee is collected by an off-site
contractor, State would have to renegotiate and retrain every contractor
on a country-by-country basis.
o In instances in which the visa fee is paid at the consulate or embassy,
State would have to reconfigure the physical layout of each consular
office to add another cashier line for the collection of the fee, and many
of the offices are already overcrowded.
o If State were to be responsible for collecting the fee, State officials
assert, the fee amount would have to be increased to cover its costs,
which does not seem feasible, given that the fee amount is capped by law
and is already seen by many educational organizations as too high.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
State officials also stated that while they are willing to help DHS
establish a fee collection system by sharing their experiences, the law
requires DHS to collect the fee, not State, and DHS is the beneficiary of
almost all of the revenue. In this regard:
o The fee-generated revenue is to fund four positions at State
responsible for the designation of exchange visitors programs, as well as
DHS system development and maintenance costs, staff positions, school and
exchange visitor program liaison positions, system training, fee
collection activities, and enforcement positions. It is also to reimburse
DHS for the historical costs of establishing the system.
o The revenue was to be split between SEVP and ICE's Office of
Investigation, with 54 percent going to SEVP and 46 percent going to
Investigations. However, the percentage distribution to each office is
currently being reevaluated.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Various system and program performance indicators show that SEVIS
performance has improved and that program officials have a basis for
identifying most instances of where the system may be falling short of
requirements and expectations. Such a basis is important because it allows
DHS to address problems, such as the ones that organizations representing
educational institutions reported to us, and thereby ensure that the
system effectively supports the department's mission goals and objectives.
To DHS's credit, it has taken several recent actions to improve SEVIS
performance, but a number of problems continue to be reported, and a
number of key system performance requirements are not being formally
measured. Without formally monitoring and documenting key system
performance requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure itself that
potential system problems are identified and addressed early, before they
have a chance to become larger problems that could affect the DHS mission
objectives supported by SEVIS.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
SEVIS collects a variety of data relating to foreign students, exchange
visitors, and the education institutions they attend, and these data are
largely in line with requirements for the system as defined in laws,
regulations, and directive. These data are used by a wide range of DHS and
educational institution employees for multiple purposes in support of our
nation's important homeland security mission.
Notwithstanding DHS's plans to begin collecting the SEVIS fee, almost 7
years have passed since collection of this fee was required, and thus
millions of dollars in revenue have been and will continue to be lost
until the fee is actually collected. While DHS, State, and educational
institutions do not fully agree on how the fee should be collected, the
fact remains that the longer this goes unresolved, the longer taxpayers
will have to pay for SEVIS. Further, resolution of such differences in
perspective is precisely what the rulemaking process is intended to
accomplish. Therefore, it is important that the outcome of this process be
implemented quickly.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
To strengthen SEVIS performance, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security direct the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement to ensure that the SEVP Director take the following
actions:
o assess the extent to which defined SEVIS performance requirements are
still relevant and are being formally measured;
o provide for measurement of key performance requirements that are not
being formally measured; and
o assess educational organization Help Desk concerns, and take
appropriate actions to address these concerns.
We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the necessary steps to provide
for the expeditious implementation of the results from the SEVIS fee
rulemaking process.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
We provided this briefing to and discussed its contents with the SEVP
program officials and OIRM officials, including the SEVP IT Manager. In
providing oral comments on a draft of this briefing, the officials made
three primary points.
First, they stated that measurement of SEVIS performance requirements is
important and that the department needs to update defined system
performance requirements, thereby ensuring that valid requirements are
being measured. In our view, these statements are consistent with our
conclusions and recommendations concerning measurement of SEVIS
performance.
Second, they stated that all necessary system performance measurement is
occurring now or will occur. We agree that SEVIS performance measurement
currently occurs, as we recognize in this briefing. Further, we support
any future efforts to expand on this measurement, as our recommendations
are intended to appropriately provide for.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
Third, they stated that they are working consistently to improve Help Desk
performance, including continuously training and monitoring Help Desk
staff, and helping educational institutions understand that deficiencies
attributed to Help Desk performance are due to problems attributed to the
institutions. According to DHS, Help Desk performance does not warrant
increases in staffing or additional training. We agree that DHS has taken
steps to improve Help Desk performance, which we recognize in our
briefing, and we do not question DHS's statements regarding ongoing
efforts to improve. We also do not presume that staffing increases or more
training are needed, but instead recommend, in light of educational
institutions' continuing concerns about Help Desk performance, that DHS
look at educational organization Help Desk concerns identified in this
briefing, and take appropriate actions to address these concerns.
DHS also provided some technical comments and clarifications that we have
incorporated into the briefing.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
To accomplish our objectives, we
o agreed to focus on the performance of the SEVIS system rather than the
entire SEVP;
o observed the use of SEVIS at two universities;
o analyzed documents and interviewed program officials, in order to
understand the management structure, roles, and responsibilities for the
development and maintenance of SEVIS;
o interviewed Department of State officials to understand State's role in
administering the exchange visitor program;
o analyzed SEVIS operational requirements and system infrastructure
reports, and interviewed program officials, to determine whether DHS is
measuring system performance against requirements and what other actions
are taken to monitor system performance;
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o obtained a flat file of SCR data from DHS, which we imported into an
Access database and performed analyses, including separating data fixes
from system change requests, sorting by release version, and, for SCRs
created after January 1, 2003, observed trends over time for priority and
type of SCR;
o analyzed supporting documentation and interviewed program and
contractor personnel to gain an understanding of the controls around the
creation of the SCR database; determined the existence of and likely
effectiveness of those controls and, as a result, assessed that the data
are of sufficient quality;
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o contacted representatives from 12 educational organizations identified
by DHS1 as involved in SEVIS development, and interviewed representatives
from 10 groups that stated that they had information to contribute to our
engagement;
o analyzed responses collected from the educational organizations
regarding system performance and user problems, and interviewed program
officials to determine what steps they have taken to address these
problems;
o analyzed laws, regulations, and directives that define the data to be
collected by SEVIS, compared these against the data elements in the SEVIS
data dictionary, and interviewed DHS program officials to determine
whether SEVIS is designed to collect data in accordance with guidance;
1The 12 organizations are the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education
and Training, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural
Exchange, American Association of Collegiate Registrars, American
Association of Community Colleges, American Council on Education,
Association of American Universities, Association of International
Educators, Council for Standards for International Educational Travel,
Council on International Educational Exchange, National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of College and
University Business Officers, and the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Appendix I
Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees
on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations
o analyzed SEVIS functional requirements documentation on classes of
users and automated interfaces, and interviewed DHS and State officials,
to determine who is using SEVIS data; and
o analyzed legislation requiring the collection of the SEVIS fee, and
interviewed DHS and State officials regarding plans to collect the SEVIS
fee and how the money is expected to be distributed.
For DHS-provided data that we did not substantiate, we have made the
appropriate attribution indicating the data's sources.
We conducted our work at DHS and State headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
and at ten educational organizations, from December 2003 through March
2004, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
(310271)
Appendix II
Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Homeland Security's
letter dated May 27, 2004.
GAO Comments 1.
2.
We do not agree that we did not fully assess all data that the program
office provided to us. We carefully considered all the data that were
provided, and neither these data, nor the data enclosed with DHS's
comments, addressed all key performance requirements, such as system
availability. As we state in our report, DHS monitors and reports on the
availability of the communications software on the application servers,
which may be used to identify problems that could affect SEVIS
availability, but does not specifically measure SEVIS availability (i.e.,
the SEVIS application may not be available even though the communication
software is). Therefore, we have not modified our finding and associated
recommendation.
We acknowledge DHS's statement in the enclosure that it has implemented a
new SEVIS-specific processor utilization tool, which relates to one of the
performance requirements cited in our report as not being monitored and
reported on. However, DHS had not previously provided this information to
us and thus we could not verify the data and include it in our briefing.
Nevertheless, we are supportive of any recent program actions that would
expand system monitoring and reporting to include all key performance
requirements.
We do not question DHS's commitment to making the SEVP program, including
the fee requirement, operational and successful. However, as we state in
our report, although program officials told us that they had developed a
plan for implementing the SEVIS collection process, they did not provide
us with the plan showing their intended actions. Further, DHS did not
include in its comments a plan for implementing the fee. Our
recommendation is intended to address this absence of explicit planning
for implementing the fee collection process.
3. We do not question DHS's comment that SEVIS has been supported by
$36.8 million in appropriated funds (counter-terrorism funds) and $34.3
million in immigration examinations fee funds, which are collected from
nonimmigrants seeking benefits. This comment is consistent with our
finding that 7 years have passed since the fee collection was required,
and millions of dollars have been spent (both appropriated and user fees)
and will continue to be spent until the SEVIS fee is actually collected.
Even if SEVIS is prospectively funded with the immigration
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
examination user fees, until the SEVIS fee is collected, the amount of funds
available to other programs funded by this account is reduced.
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of State
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of State
Now on p. 33. See comment 1.
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of State
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter.
GAO Comments 1. The information presented is based on DHS-provided data
addressing active students and exchange visitors registered in SEVIS as of
February 6, 2004, and is appropriately attributed to DHS. We have added a
footnote to our briefing noting State's comment.
Appendix IV
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact Deborah Davis, (202) 512-6261, [email protected].
Staff In addition to the individual named above, Camille M. Chaires, Neil
Doherty, Jeanette Espinola, Michael P. Fruitman, Jamelyn Payan, and Nik
Acknowledgments Rapelje made key contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
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. General Accounting 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, Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htmWaste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***