Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with	 
Increasing Demand for Visas (13-JUL-07, GAO-07-847).		 
                                                                 
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of 
State (State) initiated changes to the visa process to increase  
security, but these changes also increased the amount of time	 
needed to adjudicate a visa. Although maintaining security is of 
paramount importance, State has acknowledged that long waits for 
visas may discourage legitimate travel to the United States,	 
potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic  
benefits over time, and adversely influencing foreign citizens'  
opinions of our nation. GAO testified in 2006 that a number of	 
consular posts had long visa interview wait times. This report	 
examines (1) State's data on visa interview wait times, (2)	 
actions State has taken to address wait times, and (3) State's	 
strategy for dealing with projected growth in visa demand.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-847 					        
    ACCNO:   A72647						        
  TITLE:     Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace  
with Increasing Demand for Visas				 
     DATE:   07/13/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Border security					 
	     Consulates 					 
	     Embassies						 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Travel						 
	     Visas						 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-847

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]Recent Visa Policy Actions Have Increased Time Needed to Adj
          * [4]Factors Impacting Visa Delays
          * [5]Visa Application Trends
          * [6]Long Waits for Visa Interviews Have Previously Challenged a

     * [7]State's Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but

          * [8]State Has Reported Improvements in Visa Wait Times
          * [9]Some Posts Continue to Face Long Delays
          * [10]New Performance Standard for Visa Waits Implemented
          * [11]Post Reporting of Visa Waits Data Needs Further Improvement
          * [12]Measure of Applicant Backlog under Development

     * [13]State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Post

          * [14]State Has Used Temporary Duty Staff and Repositioned Consula
          * [15]State Has Implemented Consular Facilities Improvements at Ma
          * [16]Some Visa Processing and Workload Management Practices Estab

     * [17]State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth

          * [18]Dramatic Increase in Visa Demand Is Expected and Will Contin
          * [19]State's Plans Do Not Fully Address Future Visa Demand

     * [20]Conclusions
     * [21]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [22]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [23]GAO Comments
     * [24]GAO Contact
     * [25]Staff Acknowledgments

          * [26]Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

July 2007

BORDER SECURITY

Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas

GAO-07-847

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 6
State's Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some
Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews 11
State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Posts Experiencing
Long Waits, but Several Are Not Sustainable 18
State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth in Visa
Demand 25
Conclusions 28
Recommendations for Executive Action 29
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31
Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 33
GAO Comments 42
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45

Figures

Figure 1: Visa Application Process 7
Figure 2: Applications for Nonimmigrant Visas, Fiscal Years 2000-2008 10
Figure 3: Posts Occasionally Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007 12
Figure 4: Posts Consistently Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days, September
2005-February 2007 14
Figure 5: Actual 2006 Visa Adjudications and Projected Growth in Applicant
Volume for 2020 from State's Consular Futures Study 26

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
NIV nonimmigrant visa SAO Security Advisory Opinion
State Department of State
US-VISIT U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

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.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

July 13, 2007

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives

To increase the security of the visa process following the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, Congress and the Department of State (State) initiated multiple
changes to visa laws, policies, and procedures; however, these changes
have also increased the amount of time needed to schedule and adjudicate a
nonimmigrant visa (NIV).1 Concurrently, annual worldwide demand for visas
has increased for 3 years in a row with levels exceeding 8 million visa
applications for 2006.2 The increase in demand has made it difficult for
some posts to manage workload without causing applicants to wait
considerable time for an interview.3 In April 2006, we testified that visa
applicants at some posts, including strategically important posts in India
and China, were facing extensive waits in obtaining a visa interview.4
According to the visa wait times reported by State's consular posts, 97 of
its posts had reported maximum wait times greater than 30 days in at least
1 month between September 2005 and February 2006.5 Although maintaining
security of the visa process is of paramount importance and overall
issuances of visas are on the rise, State has also acknowledged that long
wait times may discourage legitimate travel to the United States,
potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic benefits
over time,6 and adversely influencing foreign citizens' impressions and
opinions of our nation. Several groups, including the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board,7 have urged the administration to take action on
this issue and have detailed the negative impact--in terms of revenue
losses-- that impediments to travel and tourism,8 including from visa
processing delays, have on U.S. businesses and colleges and universities.

1The United States also grants visas to people who intend to immigrate to
the United States. In this report, we use the term "visa" to refer to
nonimmigrant visas only.

2Applications for visas rose steadily in the 1990s to a peak of 10.4
million for fiscal year 2001. Following the 2001 economic recession and
the precipitous decline in travel resulting from the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, visa demand dropped.

3Wait time is broadly defined as the amount of time that a visa applicant
must wait to obtain a visa interview.

4See GAO, Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements
Could Help Address Visa Delays, [27]GAO-06-542T (Washington, DC: Apr. 4,
2006).

5At the time we reported this figure in April 2006, State reporting having
211 visa-adjudicating consular posts. State currently reports that it has
219 such posts.

At your request, we reviewed (1) State data on the amount of time visa
applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions State has
taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State's strategy for dealing
with projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our objectives, we
interviewed officials from State's bureaus of Consular Affairs, Human
Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also interviewed
officials from the Department of Commerce's Office of Travel and Tourism
Industries. In addition, we observed consular operations and interviewed
U.S. government officials at 11 posts in eight countries--Brazil, China,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, India, South Korea, and the United
Kingdom. We reviewed visa wait times data reported by posts since
September 2005. We also reviewed consular reports and data from a total of
32 posts to identify factors contributing to wait times and potential
solutions to reduce wait times. Our work was conducted in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains a
more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief

According to State, the amount of time that visa applicants must wait for
a visa interview has generally decreased over the last year; however, some
applicants continue to face extensive delays9 for visa interviews. For
example, for the period of September 2006 to February 2007, 53 of State's
219 visa-issuing posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in
at least 1 month, which was 44 fewer posts than had reported this figure
for the same period the previous year. State reported that a number of key
posts in India, Mexico, and Brazil, among others, have reduced wait times.
For example, in April 2007, all posts in India reported they reduced their
waits for appointments to less than 2 weeks from highs that had exceeded
140 days as recently as August 2006. However, despite recent improvements,
at times during the past year--especially during peak processing periods
for the summer months--a number of posts reported long wait times.
According to State officials, longer wait times are expected to reoccur
seasonally at some posts but can also occur at others unexpectedly
depending on factors such as the political or economic situation in a
given country. In addition, we identified a number of shortcomings in the
way State's wait times data is developed. For example, some posts are not
reporting weekly, as required, and some posts use different methods for
determining wait times. These shortcomings could mask the severity of the
visa wait problem at some posts. Moreover, they limit the extent to which
State can monitor whether the visa wait problem has been addressed.

6In March 2007, the Deputy Secretary of State for Visa Services testified
that, according to Department of Commerce figures, foreign visitors
accounted for $107.4 billion in spending and other economic activity in
the United States in 2006, and that international students contribute an
additional $13.5 billion each year to institutions they attend and the
surrounding communities in which they live.

7The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board consists of 14 industry CEOs
and was formed to advise the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on national
tourism strategy.

8As defined by the Department of Commerce, travel and tourism includes
leisure, business, conventions and meetings, and educational and medical
travel.

9Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, earlier this year, State
announced a goal of providing all applicants an interview within 30 days.

Since we last reported on visa delays in April 2006, State has taken a
number of steps to adjust staffing, facilities, and consular procedures to
reduce wait times at several overseas consular posts. State has used
temporary duty employees to fill consular staffing gaps at some posts and
is repositioning a number of consular positions at posts around the world
to better utilize its current workforce--especially at posts experiencing
large growth in workload. For example, because applicants in India were
experiencing long waits for appointments, State took several actions,
including sending a number of temporary duty officers to posts in India
and utilizing nonconsular staff from other offices in the mission to
assist with visa processing. In addition, the ambassador made the
reduction of wait times the primary objective of all India posts. However,
the use of temporary and other mission staff to reduce wait times is not a
permanent or sustainable solution. Furthermore, State acknowledges that
the repositioning of consular staff, while necessary, may not adequately
address the increasing demand for visas worldwide. In addition, State has
made improvements to several consular facilities and has identified plans
for future facilities improvements at several posts with high workload.
Although some improvements have been made, facilities at many consular
sections face constraints that limit the number of visa officers that can
be assigned there; moreover, it will take many years for State to complete
all needed consular construction projects. State has also made some
procedural changes to help posts better manage visa workload, and we found
that some posts have utilized procedures that enable them to process
applications more efficiently--such as conducting workflow studies in
order to identify obstructions to efficient applicant processing. However,
we observed that not all of these procedures are shared among posts in a
systematic way and, therefore, not all posts are aware of them.

Although State has taken some steps to address wait times at a number of
overseas posts, including developing a plan to improve visa operations and
establishing a goal to interview all visa applicants within 30 days, it
has not determined how it will keep pace with continued growth in visa
demand over the long-term. State contracted for a study of projected visa
demand, in select countries over a 15-year period beginning in 2005, which
found that significant growth in visa demand is estimated to occur in a
number of countries including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and
Saudi Arabia. However, at some posts, demand has already surpassed the
study's projected future demand levels. State has not developed a strategy
that balances such factors as available resources and the need for
national security in the visa process against its goal that visas are
processed in a reasonable amount of time. For example, it has neither
estimated the resources necessary to meet future demand, nor proposed
plans that would significantly reduce the workload of available officers
or the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa if such resources are
not available. Given dramatic increases in workload expected at many
visa-issuing posts, State will be challenged to obtain the staffing and
facilities necessary to achieve its current goal for wait times.

To improve the Bureau of Consular Affairs' oversight and management of
visa-adjudicating posts, we recommend that the Secretary of State

           o Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand
           that balances the security responsibility of protecting the United
           States from potential terrorists and individuals who would harm
           U.S. interests with the need to facilitate legitimate travel to
           the United States. In doing so, State should take into
           consideration relevant factors, such as the flow of visa
           applicants, the backlog of applicants, the availability of
           consular officers, and the time required to process each visa
           application. State's analysis should be informed by reliable data
           on the factors that influence wait times. State should update any
           plan annually to reflect new information on visa demand.

           o Improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data by
           defining collection standards and ensuring that posts report the
           data according to the standards.
           o Identify practices and procedures used by posts to manage
           workload and reduce wait times and encourage the dissemination and
           use of successful practices.

           We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and
           Homeland Security (DHS). DHS did not comment on the report's
           message, but provided a technical comment. State concurred with
           our report's recommendations and said that any appropriate
           strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand must
           address the need for resources to meet national security goals for
           both travel facilitation and border security. Furthermore, State
           said that any suggestion of trade-offs between these two goals
           would be inappropriate. Clearly we agree that in developing a
           strategy, State must maintain its security responsibilities while
           also facilitating legitimate travel to the United States. Our
           report does not suggest that one of these goals should be
           sacrificed at the expense of the other. State also provided a
           number of technical comments, which we have incorporated
           throughout the report, as appropriate.
			  
			  Background

           Foreign nationals who wish to come to the United States on a
           temporary basis must generally obtain an NIV10 to be admitted.
           State manages the visa process, as well as the consular officer
           corps and its functions, at 219 visa-issuing posts overseas.11 The
           process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa
           contains several steps, including documentation reviews, in-person
           interviews, collection of biometrics12 (fingerprints), and
           cross-referencing an applicant's name against the Consular Lookout
           and Support System--State's name-check database that posts use to
           access critical information for visa adjudication. In some cases,
           a consular officer may determine the need for a Security Advisory
           Opinion, which is a recommendation from Washington on whether to
           issue a visa to the applicant. Depending on a post's applicant
           pool and the number of visa applications that a post receives,
           each stage of the visa process varies in length. For an overview
           of the visa process see figure 1.
			  
10Persons who may require NIVs include temporary business travelers and
tourists.

11The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is the primary
body of law governing immigration and visa operations (see Pub. L. No.
82-414, 8 U.S.C., 1101 et seq.) In addition, the Homeland Security Act of
2002 generally grants DHS exclusive authority to issue regulations on,
administer, and enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act and all other
immigration and nationality laws relating to the functions of U.S.
consular officers in connection with the granting or denial of visas;
however, State retains authority in certain circumstances (see Pub. L. No.
107-296.) A subsequent September 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between
State and DHS further outlines the responsibilities of each agency with
respect to visa issuance. According to the Memorandum of Understanding,
DHS is responsible for establishing visa policy, reviewing implementation
of the policy, and providing additional direction. State is in charge of
managing the visa process, as well as the consular corps and its functions
at 219 visa-issuing posts overseas.

12Biometrics includes a wide range of technologies that can be used to
verify a person's identity by measuring and analyzing that person's
physiological characteristics. For the purposes of this report, "biometric
identifiers" refer to fingerprints. See GAO, Technology Assessment: Using
Biometrics for Border Security, [28]GAO-03-174 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14
2002).

Figure 1: Visa Application Process

Recent Visa Policy Actions Have Increased Time Needed to Adjudicate Visas

Congress, State, and DHS have initiated new policies and procedures since
the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strengthen the security of the visa process.
These changes have added to the complexity of consular workload and have
increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa. Such changes
include the following:

           o Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State began a 3-year transition
           to remove visa adjudication functions from consular associates.13
           All NIVs must now be adjudicated by consular officers.14

13Consular Associates are U.S. citizens and relatives of U.S. government
direct-hire employees overseas who, following a successful completion of
the required Basic Consular Course, are hired by the consular section at
post. Up until September 30, 2005, consular associates at some posts were
allowed to assist consular officers in adjudicating visas.

14The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 further
required that consular officers adjudicate visas. See Pub. L. No. 108-458.
As defined by State, consular officers are generally active Foreign
Service officers but may also include commissioned civil service employees
or retirees of the Foreign Service.

           o Personal interviews are required by law for most foreign
           nationals seeking NIVs.15
			  
15According to U.S. law (8 U.S.C. S 1202(h), every alien applying for an
NIV who is between the ages of 14 and 79 must submit to an in-person
interview with a consular officer unless the interview is waived under
certain circumstances by either the consular officer or the Secretary of
State. See Pub. L. No. 108-458.

           o As of October 2004, consular officers are required to scan visa
           applicants' right and left index fingers through the DHS Automated
           Biometric Identification System before an applicant can receive a
           visa.16 In 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that
           the U.S. government had adopted a 10-fingerscan standard for
           biometric collection of fingerprints. In February 2006, State
           reported that it would begin pilot testing and procuring 10-print
           equipment to ensure that all visa-issuing posts have collection
           capability by the end of fiscal year 2007.17

16The Automated Biometric Identification System is a DHS database that
includes some 5 million people who may be ineligible to receive a visa.
For example, the Automated Biometric Identification System data includes,
among other records, Federal Bureau of Investigation information on all
known and suspected terrorists, selected wanted persons, and previous
criminal histories for individuals from high-risk countries. See GAO,
Border Security: State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on Schedule,
but Guidance Is Lagging, [29]GAO-04-1001 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2004)
and GAO, Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security,
[30]GAO-03-174 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).

17In January 2006, the director of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program testified that moving to a
10-fingerscan standard from a 2-print standard would allow the United
States to be able to identify visa applicants and visitors with even
greater accuracy. US-VISIT is a governmentwide program to collect,
maintain, and share information on foreign nationals and better control
and monitor the entry, visa status, and exit of visitors. Under the
program, most foreign visitors are required to submit to fingerprint scans
of their right and left index fingers and have a digital photograph taken
upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry.

           o According to State, consular officers face increased
           requirements to consult with headquarters and other U.S. agencies
           prior to visa issuance in the form of Security Advisory Opinions.

           o According to State, as a result of the Patriot Act, consular
           officers have access to, and are required to consult, far greater
           amounts of interagency data regarding potential terrorists and
           individuals who would harm U.S. interests.
			  
			  Factors Impacting Visa Delays

           A number of potential factors can contribute to delays for visa
           interview appointments at consular posts. For example, increased
           consular officer workload at posts, which can be caused by factors
           such as increased security screening procedures or increased visa
           demand, can exacerbate delays because there are more work
           requirements for each available officer to complete. Other factors
           such as staffing gaps and ongoing consular facility limitations
           could also affect waits because they may limit the number of
           applicants that can be seen for an interview in a given day.
			  
			  Visa Application Trends

           Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, applications for visas
           declined from a high of over 10.4 million in fiscal year 2001 to a
           low of approximately 7 million in 2003. For fiscal years 2004
           through 2006, the number of visa applications increased, according
           to State's data (see fig. 2). State anticipates that 8.1 million
           visas applications will be received in fiscal year 2007 and 8.6
           million in 2008.
			  
			  Figure 2: Applications for Nonimmigrant Visas, Fiscal Years 2000-2008

			  Source: State.
			  
Stateï¿½s visa workload increased by almost 16 percent between 2004 and
2006. In addition, several countries and posts have seen large growth in
visa demand, and State has projected these trends to continue well into
the future.18 Following are examples of these trends:

o India had an 18 percent increase in visa adjudications between 2002 and
2006.

o Posts in China reported that their visa adjudication volume increased
between 18 and 21 percent last year alone, and growth is expected to
continue.

18See Change Navigators, Inc., State Department/Consular Affairs Futures Study
(Washington, D.C.: July-September 2005).

           Long Waits for Visa Interviews Have Previously Challenged a Number
			  of Overseas Consular Posts

           We have previously reported on visa delays at overseas posts. In
           particular, we have reported on the following delays in Brazil,
           China, India, and Mexico:

           o In March 1998, we reported that the post in Sao Paolo, Brazil,
           was facing extensive delays due to staffing and facilities
           constraints.19

           o In February 2004, we reported delays at consular posts in India
           and China. For example, in September 2003, applicants at one post
           we visited in China were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. Also,
           we reported that, in summer 2003, applicants in Chennai, India,
           faced waits as long as 12 weeks.20

           o In April 2006, we testified that, of nine posts with waits in
           excess of 90 days in February 2006, six were in Mexico, India, and
           Brazil.21
			  
			  State's Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some
			  Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews

           According to State, wait times for visa interviews have improved
           at many overseas consular posts in the past year. However, despite
           recent improvements--such as those at posts in India, Mexico, and
           Brazil--a number of posts reported long waits at times during the
           past year. Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, in
           February of this year, State announced its goal of providing all
           applicants an interview within 30 days. We identified a number of
           shortcomings in the way in which State's visa waits data is
           developed, which could mask the severity of the delays for visa
           interviews at some posts and limit the extent to which State can
           monitor whether the visa wait problem has been addressed. To
           better understand and manage post workload, State has begun to
           develop a measure of applicant backlog.
			  
19See GAO, State Department: Tourist Visa Processing Backlogs Still
Persist at U.S. Consulates, [31]GAO/NSIAD-98-69 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
13, 1998).

20See GAO, Border Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Time Taken to
Adjudicate Visas for Science Students and Scholars, [32]GAO-04-371
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).

21 [33]GAO-06-542T .			

           State Has Reported Improvements in Visa Wait Times  

           In recent months, reported wait times for visa appointments have
           generally improved. For example, in reviewing visa waits data
           provided to us by the Bureau of Consular Affairs for the period of
           September 2006 to February 2007, we found that 53 of State's 219
           visa-issuing posts had reported maximum wait times of 30 or more
           days in at least 1 month--44 fewer posts than had reported this
           figure when we reviewed the same period during the previous year
           (see fig. 3). 22

           Figure 3: Posts Occasionally Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days,
           September 2005-February 2007
			  
22See [34]GAO-06-542T . We reported that, during the period September
2005-February 2006, 97 of State's visa-issuing posts (211 at the time) had
reported maximum waits of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, and 20
posts had reported waits in excess of 30 days for an entire 6-month
period.

           Furthermore, wait times reported by several consular posts have
           improved during the past year, including for a number of high
           volume posts in India, Brazil, and Mexico that had previously
           reported extensive delays.23 In April 2007, wait times at all
           posts in India were under 2 weeks, down from previous waits that
           exceeded 140 days at four key posts, as recently as August 2006,
           in most cases. For example, Mumbai reported a reduction in wait
           times from a high of 186 days in September 2006 to 10 days as of
           April 9, 2007. Reported wait times at some key posts in Mexico
           also significantly declined,24 as have wait times for several
           posts in Brazil in the past year. Furthermore, an additional
           number of posts with delays experienced large reductions in wait
           times over a recent 12 month period.
			  
			  Some Posts Continue to Face Long Delays

           Despite recent improvements in wait times at a number of consular
           posts, at times during the past year, especially during peak
           processing periods, a number of visa adjudicating posts have faced
           challenges in reporting wait times of less than 30 days. For
           example, during typical peak demand season, 29 posts reported
           maximum monthly waits exceeding 30 days over the entire 6-month
           period of March through August 2006 (see fig. 4).
			  
23In April 2006, we testified that waits over 90 days occurred at the
following posts in India, Mexico and Brazil: Mumbai, India--154 days;
Chennai, India--168 days; New Delhi, India--91 days; Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico--92 days; Mexico City, Mexico--34 days; and Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil--140 days.

24Rio de Janeiro reported its wait times were reduced to 48 days in
February 2007 from a high of 149 days in October 2006. Mexico City
reported its wait times were reduced to 19 days from a high of 160 days in
January 2006.

           Figure 4: Posts Consistently Experiencing Waits Over 30 Days,
           September 2005-February 2007

           We observed that long waits had occurred over the summer months in
           Tegucigalpa, Honduras; San Jose, Costa Rica; and several posts in
           India. Furthermore, some posts we reviewed developed increased
           wait times. For example, in Caracas, the reported visa waits
           significantly increased--from 34 days in February 2006 to 116 days
           in April 2007. In addition, several other posts, including Sao
           Paolo, Brazil; Monterrey, Mexico; Tel Aviv, Israel; and Kingston,
           Jamaica; have experienced increases in wait times since February
           2006.25 Moreover, 20 posts reported experiencing maximum monthly
           wait times in excess of 90 days at least once over the past year.

25Wait times, as of May 16, 2007 are as follows: Sao Paolo-59 days;
Monterrey-60 days; Tel Aviv-66 days; and Kingston-55 days.

           New Performance Standard for Visa Waits Implemented

           In February 2007, State's Bureau of Consular Affairs distributed
           guidance setting a global standard that all visa applicants should
           receive an appointment for a visa interview within 30 days.26
           Previously, State had not set a formal performance standard for
           visa waits but had set a requirement that posts report their wait
           times on a weekly basis and make this information publicly
           available through post Web sites. In setting the 30-day standard
           for visa waits, officials acknowledged that wait times are not
           only a measure of customer service but also help posts to better
           manage their workload and visa demand. Furthermore, State
           identified that such a standard allows it to better track post
           performance, helps with resource allocation, and provides
           transparency in consular operations. Consular officials explained
           to us that posts that consistently have wait times for visa
           interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a resource or
           management problem.

           In setting its 30-day performance benchmark, State also
           distributed information to posts on how wait times data is to be
           used by Bureau of Consular Affairs management. For example, State
           indicated it will review all posts that have reported waits over
           20 days to determine if remedial measures are needed.
			  
			  Post Reporting of Visa Waits Data Needs Further Improvement

           State has provided guidance indicating that posts are required to
           report wait times on a weekly basis, even if the times have not
           changed from the previous week. However, we found posts are not
           reporting waits data consistently, which impacts the reliability
           of State's visa waits figures. In September 2005, our analysis of
           State's data on reported wait times revealed significant numbers
           of posts that did not report this information on a weekly basis
           during the 6-month period we reviewed. In reviewing data over the
           past year, we again found that a large number of posts were not
           consistently reporting waits data on a weekly basis, as required
           by State.27 For example, post reporting of wait times from January
           2006 to February 2007 showed that, while a large number of posts
           (about 79 percent) had reported waits at least monthly, only 21
           posts (about 10 percent) reported waits at least weekly.
           Inconsistencies among posts in the reporting of visa waits data
           impacts the reliability of visa waits figures and limits State's
           ability to assess whether the problem has been addressed by posts.
           However, State does not appear to be enforcing its weekly
           reporting requirement. State acknowledges that it has had
           difficulties in getting all 219 consular posts to report this data
           consistently.
			  
26In addition, State set a performance indicator that student visas and
U.S.-interest business applicants should receive an appointment for a visa
within 15 days or less. Furthermore, State clarified that those applicants
found eligible to receive a visa should expect their visa to be issued
within 2 or 3 days after their interview.

27Select small posts are allowed to report less frequently but are
required to do so at least once per month.

           According to cables provided to us by State, posts are directed to
           provide the "typical" appointment wait time applicable to the
           majority of applicants applying for a given category of visas on a
           given day.28 Several of the posts we visited calculated wait times
           based on the first appointment available to the next applicant in
           a given visa category; however, other posts we reviewed calculated
           waits differently. For example, one post we visited computed wait
           times by taking the average of several available appointment
           slots.29 In addition, several consular officials we spoke with
           overseas said that they are still unclear on the exact method
           posts are to use to calculate wait times, and some managers were
           unsure if they were calculating wait times correctly.
           Additionally, we observed that some posts artificially limit wait
           times by tightly controlling the availability of future
           appointment slots--such as by not making appointments available
           beyond a certain date, which can make appointment scheduling
           burdensome for the applicant who must continually check for new
           openings. State officials admitted that posts should not be
           controlling the availability of appointment slots to artificially
           limit wait times but, to date, there has not been specific
           guidance distributed to posts on this issue.

           We determined that State's data are sufficiently reliable for
           providing a broad indication of posts that have had problems with
           wait times over a period of time and for general trends in the
           number of posts that have had problems with wait times over the
           period we reviewed; however, the data were not sufficiently
           reliable to determine the exact magnitude of the delays because
           the exact number of posts with a wait of 30 days or more at any
           given time could not be determined. Until State updates and
           enforces its collection standards for visa waits data, precise
           determinations about the extent to which posts face visa delays
           cannot be made. State officials acknowledge that current wait
           times data is of limited reliability. State officials have also
           said that visa waits data was not originally designed for the
           purpose of performance measurement but to provide applicants with
           information on interview availability. According to State, a
           current goal of the Bureau of Consular Affairs is to refine
           collection standards for wait times information to provide more
           uniform and transparent information to applicants and management;
           however, the bureau has not yet done so.
			  
28One cable, in particular, directs posts not to compute a mathematical
average but to ask the question "on what date will the majority of visa
applicants seeking an appointment be scheduled for an interview?"
According to State, the number of calendar days between that date and the
calendar date is the typical wait time.

29A new post appointment system was recently implemented that provided
applicants the option to choose from available appointments at either 3 or
6 weeks into the future.

           Measure of Applicant Backlog under Development

           State's reported wait time data generally reflect the wait, at a
           moment in time, for new applicants, and do not reflect the actual
           wait time for an average applicant at a given post. Furthermore,
           wait times generally do not provide a sense of applicant backlog,
           which is the number of people who are waiting to be scheduled for
           an appointment or the number of people who have an appointment but
           have yet to be seen.30 To better understand and manage post
           workload, State officials we spoke with said that they were in the
           process of developing a measure of applicant backlog. Although
           State has not yet developed the measure of backlog, officials we
           spoke with said that they expect to begin testing methods for
           measuring applicant backlog by the end of 2007.

30Appointment cancellations and other variables, such as increases in the
number of post staff or visa processing windows, can allow for immediate
appointment openings. When new appointments become available, posts in
some cases can reschedule applicants for earlier appointments; however, we
observed posts can fill the new slots with new applicants. Therefore,
applicants with prior appointments can continue to face long waits
although the post may be reporting low wait times due to new appointment
availability.

           State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Posts
			  Experiencing Long Waits, but Several Are Not Sustainable

           State has implemented a number of measures to increase
           productivity and better manage visa workload, as well as measures
           to address shortcomings in staffing and facilities for a number of
           consular posts experiencing visa delays. State has provided
           temporary duty staff to assist in adjudicating visas at several
           locations with long wait times, particularly at posts in India,
           and recently developed a plan to relocate consular positions to
           locations where large disparities in staff and visa demand were
           apparent. In addition, State has continued to upgrade embassies
           and consulates overseas to aid in processing visa applicants.
           Furthermore, State has implemented some procedures and policies to
           maximize efficiency and better manage visa workload. However,
           despite the measures State has taken to address staffing,
           facilities, and other constraints at some posts, State's current
           efforts are generally temporary, nonsustainable, and are
           insufficient to meet the expected increases in demand at some
           posts.
			  
			  State Has Used Temporary Duty Staff and Repositioned Consular Staff
			  to Address Staffing Shortfalls Contributing to Visa Delays

           State has recently taken action at several posts to address
           current staffing gaps to minimize the impact on visa wait times.
           State has deployed temporary duty staff from other consular posts
           and from headquarters to help process and adjudicate visa
           applicants.31 For example, State deployed 166 officials to staff
           consular sections in fiscal year 2006 and through April of fiscal
           year 2007. In addition, at the order of the Ambassador to India,
           beginning in 2006, posts in India utilized consular-commissioned
           officials from other offices in the embassy and consulates to
           assist the consular section in handling its workload, including
           fingerprinting applicants and interviewing some applicants, which
           helped reduce the wait times at posts.32 According to consular
           officials, the additional assistance in India was necessary as
           posts there did not have enough permanent consular staff to handle
           the demand and reduce wait times.

           In addition, in February 2007, State completed a review of
           consular officer positions that examined the disparity between
           visa workload and the number of consular officers at posts.33 As a
           result of this study, State will transfer consular positions from
           certain posts that are capable of handling the workload without
           reporting long visa waits to posts where there has not been
           adequate staff to handle the visa workload. The majority of the
           positions are being transferred from posts in the European and
           Eurasian Affairs Bureau to posts in the Western Hemisphere, East
           Asia and Pacific, and South and Central Asian bureaus. Of these
           transferred and newly created consular officer positions, the
           majority will be located in Brazil, China, India, and
           Mexico--posts with a history of long wait times and high demand
           for visas. State acknowledges that the repositioning of consular
           staff, while necessary, may not adequately address the increasing
           demand for visas worldwide.
			  
31These temporary duty staff include when-actually-employed personnel,
which is defined as employment where the workweek schedule is determined
by post management on an as-needed basis. These officials are typically
retired foreign service officers.

32The ambassador made the reduction of wait times the primary objective of
all posts in India.

           Despite the measures State has taken to address the staffing
           issues at some posts, State's current consular staffing efforts
           are generally temporary, nonsustainable, and insufficient to meet
           the expected increases in demand at some posts. First,
           when-actually-employed staff are only allowed to work 1,040 hours
           per year due to federal regulations. Second, posts are typically
           required to cover the housing costs of assigned temporary staff,
           which is not always feasible if posts are facing budget
           constraints.34 Third, embassy or consulate officials that were
           temporarily assigned to support consular operations indicated that
           their new duties negatively affected their ability to perform
           their regular assignments, as they were spending time performing
           consular duties instead of their typical functions at post.
           Fourth, although temporary staff have helped to improve wait times
           at select posts, current efforts--and some recent temporary
           assignments, such as over the past 7 months in India--have been
           undertaken during a period of lower applicant volume. It is
           unknown whether State will be able to maintain the improved wait
           times during the summer of 2007, as the period between May and
           August is typically when posts have the largest influx of visa
           applicants and, in turn, longer waits. For example, one post in
           India recently reported wait times now exceed 30 days.35 Moreover,
           the temporary staff assisting with visa adjudications during our
           visit to posts in India was expected to leave by the end of May
           2007. According to State's Assistant Deputy Secretary for Visa
           Services, surges in temporary duty staff, such as the ones State
           employed for India, can be useful in tackling short-term
           situations but are not a viable long-term solution in places with
           high visa demand.

33State officials indicated that the review considered NIV, immigrant
visa, and American Citizen Services workload and staffing levels, and also
considered other factors including future demand projections.

34According to State officials, the Bureau of Consular Affairs was
providing posts in India with funding for temporary duty staff in order to
reduce the wait times at all posts in India. According to officials, this
was an exemption from State's policy and was only provided for posts in
India.

35As of May 16, 2007, wait times in Mumbai were reported at 46 days.

           Furthermore, consular staffing gaps are a long-standing problem
           for State and have been caused by such factors as State's annual
           staffing process, low hiring levels for entry-level junior officer
           positions, and insufficient numbers of midlevel consular
           officers.36 We have previously reported that factors such as
           staffing shortages have contributed to long wait times for visas
           at some posts. A number of State's visa-adjudicating posts
           reported shortages in consular staff for 2006, and we observed
           gaps that contributed to visa wait times at several posts
           overseas. Furthermore, we reviewed reports for 32 select consular
           posts abroad to assess visa workload, consular staffing and
           facilities, as well as other issues affecting visa wait times.37
           We found that of the 32 posts, 19 posts (or about 60 percent)
           indicated the need for additional consular staff to address
           increasing workload.38
			  
36Foreign Service officers are assigned a grade, which ranges from FS-06
to FS-01, corresponding from entry-level to midlevel, respectively.
According to State, officers between grades 6 through 4 are classified as
junior officers, while grades 3 through 1 are midlevel officers.

37We selected posts that had either (1) recently reported wait times of 60
days or more, (2) had previously experienced longstanding wait time
problems, (3)were projected to experience a large future volume of visa
adjudications, or (4) were able to process a large volume of visas with
little or no wait for applicant interviews. The analysis was not intended
to be representative of all posts.

38For the purpose of this report, consular staff includes both Foreign
Service consular officers and locally engaged staff working in the
consular section.
			  
			  State Has Implemented Consular Facilities Improvements at Many Overseas Posts

           State has improved a number of consular sections at embassies and
           consulates worldwide.39 According to the Bureau of Overseas
           Buildings Operations, since September 2001, State has improved
           almost 100 embassies and consulates, improving the consular
           section facilities at a number of these locations. For example,
           between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, State obligated $26.9 million
           to fund consular workspace improvement projects at 101 posts.
           Although these improvement projects have been completed, according
           to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, most were designed as temporary
           solutions that may require additional construction in the future.
           Moreover, although some consular improvement projects were
           recently completed or were under way when we visited Mumbai and
           Chennai, India, these posts did not have adequate office, waiting
           room, security screening, or window space to accommodate the
           volume of visa applicants. State's construction project in Chennai
           to add windows and additional processing areas was expected to be
           completed by May 2007, and State has begun construction on a new
           consulate in Mumbai that will be completed in 2008 and will add
           more space for additional consular staff and 26 more windows for
           interviewing. In addition, State is planning new consulate and
           embassy construction projects for New Delhi and Hyderabad,
           India,40 as well as at a number of other posts.

39In 2003, Congress directed the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
to improve the overall working environment for consular officers through
the Consular Workspace Improvement Initiative.

40The new consulate in Hyderabad, India, is expected to be operational by
fiscal year 2008.

           We also found that a number of posts we reviewed currently face
           facility constraints, which limit the number of visa interviews
           that can take place in a given day and, in some cases, prevent
           posts from keeping pace with the current or expected future demand
           for visas. For example, 21 of 32 posts reported, in their consular
           packages, that limitations to their facilities affected their
           ability to increase the number of applicants they could interview,
           which can contribute to longer wait times.

           Although State has taken steps to improve consular facilities and
           has plans to rebuild a number of posts, it is unclear whether the
           facilities will be adequate to handle the future demand. Two posts
           that we reviewed are already predicting that future increased
           demand will outstrip visa processing capacities given existing
           facilities constraints. For example, in Seoul, South Korea, post
           officials report that, despite recent improvements to the
           facility, the post will soon have no additional space to
           accommodate future applicant growth. Moreover, there is no current
           viable option to build a new facility due to continuing land
           negotiations between the U.S. and South Korean governments. In
           addition, a number of State's recent facilities projects have not
           incorporated planned projections of increased workload growth and
           are expected to soon face challenges meeting demand. For example,
           even though a new embassy construction project is currently under
           way in Beijing, China, State officials indicated that the number
           of planned interviewing windows and space in the new facility will
           be insufficient to allow for future increases in visa demand.41 In
           addition, in Shanghai, China, even though the consular section was
           moved to an off-site location to process visa applications, the
           post has indicated that it already has reached visa-adjudicating
           capacity because it cannot add any more interviewing windows in
           the current space, and construction on a new consulate will not
           begin until 2009. According to the Director and Chief Operating
           Officer of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, the bureau
           designs and constructs consular facilities with input from
           Consular Affairs; therefore, Consular Affairs needs to provide
           more defined assessments of future needs at a facility. The
           director stated that proper planning and stronger estimates of
           future needs will help in building facilities that can better
           address wait times at post over the long term.
			  
			  Some Visa Processing and Workload Management Practices Established
			  but Not Widely Shared Among Posts

           Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have
           initiated a series of changes to visa policies and procedures,
           which have added to the complexity of consular officers' workload
           and, in turn, exacerbated State's consular staffing and facilities
           constraints. For example, most visa applicants are required to be
           interviewed by a consular officer at post, and applicants'
           fingerprints must be scanned. Furthermore, additional procedural
           changes are expected, including the expansion of the electronic
           fingerprinting program to the 10-fingerscan standard, which could
           further increase the workload of officers and the amount of time
           needed to adjudicate an application. For example, consular
           officers in London, which is one of the posts piloting the
           10-fingerprint scanners, indicated that the 10-fingerscan standard
           would significantly affect other posts' operations given that they
           had experienced about a 13 percent reduction in the number of
           applicants processed in a day. However, as each post faces
           slightly different circumstances, it is unclear whether this
           reduction would take place at all posts.

           To lessen the increase in wait times caused by of some of these
           legislative and policy changes, State has promoted some
           initiatives to aid posts in processing legitimate travelers. For
           example, State has urged all posts to establish business and
           student facilitation programs intended to expedite the interviews
           of legitimate travelers. State also continues to use Consular
           Management Assistance Teams to conduct management reviews of
           consular sections worldwide, which have provided guidance to posts
           on standard operating procedures, as well as other areas where
           consular services could become more efficient. In addition,
           according to State officials, State has developed a Two-Year Plan,
           an overall visa processing strategy to coordinate changes to the
           visa process that will ensure consular officers focus on tasks
           that can only be accomplished overseas, and is also contemplating
           other changes to reduce the burden placed on applicants and
           consular officers. These changes include the following:

           o the deployment of a worldwide appointment system,

           o use of a domestic office to verify information on visa
           petitions,

           o a revalidation of fingerprints for applicants who have already
           completed the 10-fingerprint scan, and

           o the implementation of an entirely paperless visa application
           process42

           and remote or off-site interviewing of visa applicants.

41The new embassy compound in Beijing is scheduled to open in the summer
of 2008. According to Beijing reports, the new facility will meet consular
section needs when it first opens, but the post expects to quickly outgrow
the new space as workload will soon require an additional six interview
windows.

42State introduced an electronic visa application form and mandated its
use at consulates worldwide in November 2006. Use of the application form
reduces data entry errors, eliminates duplicative data entries, and
increases the number of applicants consular staff can interview daily.
Building on its recent implementation of this application form, State
anticipates moving to an entirely paperless, electronic visa application
process by the end of 2007.
 
           Furthermore, some posts have taken action to reduce their
           increased workload. For example, the following actions have been
           taken:

           o The consular sections in South Korea and Brazil have established
           expedited appointment systems for certain applicant groups,
           including students.

           o Consular officers in Manila, Philippines, redesigned the flow of
           applicants through the facility to ease congestion and utilized
           space designated to the immigrant visa unit to add three new visa
           processing stations.

           o Posts in Brazil have waived interviews for applicants who were
           renewing valid U.S. visas that were expiring within 12 months and
           had met additional criteria under the law.43

           o The embassy in Seoul, South Korea, implemented a ticketing
           system that tracks applicants through the various stages of
           processing and provides notification to consular section
           management if backups are occurring. The system will also
           automatically assign applicants to the first available
           interviewing window in order to balance the workload of applicant
           interviews between all available interviewing windows.

           o The embassies in El Salvador and South Korea have conducted
           workflow studies in order to identify obstructions to efficient
           applicant processing.

           Although State has recently implemented a number of policy and
           procedural changes to address increased consular workload and is
           considering additional adjustments, more could be done to assist
           posts in their workload management. Moreover, the effective
           practices and procedures implemented by individual posts that help
           manage workload and assist in improving applicant wait times are
           not consistently shared with the other consular posts. While
           recognizing that not all the policies and procedures used by posts
           to help manage visa workload are transferable to other posts,
           State officials indicated that, although there is currently not a
           forum available for consular officers to share such ideas, State
           is in the process of developing some online capabilities for posts
           to share visa practices and procedures.

43The personal appearance requirement can generally be waived under the
following circumstances: (1) if the alien is applying at a post in his
resident country, the applicant has complied with U.S. immigration laws
and regulations, the prior visa expired less than 12 months ago, and the
alien is applying for the same visa classification; (2) if the alien is
applying for a visa as a foreign government official or an official to an
international organization; (3) if the alien is applying for a NATO visa;
(4) if the alien is granted a diplomatic or official visa on a diplomatic
or official passport; (5) if the alien is applying as a foreign government
official or member of the immediate family, attendant, servant, or
personal employee, in transit; or (6) if the Secretary of State determines
that the waiver is either in U.S. national interest or is necessary as a
result of unusual or emergent circumstances. Regardless of the
circumstances mentioned above, there are also certain circumstances under
which the interview cannot be waived.

           State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth in
			  Visa Demand

           With worldwide nonimmigrant visa demand rising closer to pre-9/11
           levels, and current projections showing a dramatic increase in
           demand over time, State will continue to face challenges in
           managing its visa workload and maintaining its goal of keeping
           interview wait times under 30 days at all posts. State has not
           developed a strategy for addressing increasing visa demand that
           balances such factors as available resources and the need for
           national security in the visa process against its goal that visas
           are processed in a reasonable amount of time.
			  
			  Dramatic Increase in Visa Demand Is Expected and Will Continue to
			  Impact Visa Wait Times

           In 2005, State contracted with an independent consulting firm to
           analyze several factors to help predict future visa demand in 20
           select countries, which, according to State officials, constituted
           approximately 75 percent of the visa workload at the time.44 The
           consulting firm identified some demographic, economic, political,
           commercial, and other factors that it believed would affect visa
           demand over a 15-year period, beginning in 2005, and estimated a
           likely rate of growth in demand in those select countries. The
           study predicted the growth in demand in these countries would
           range between 8 percent and 232 percent, with Argentina, Brazil,
           China, India, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia all projected to experience
           significant growth of more than 90 percent (see fig. 5).45 State
           officials indicated that they used the futures study to assist in
           determining consular resource allocations and in the repositioning
           of consular staff in State's review of consular positions in
           February 2007. However, State has not analyzed the 5-, 10-, or
           20-year future staffing and other resource needs based on the
           demand projections found in the study.
			  
44The study was conducted by Change Navigators, Inc., between July and
September 2005.

45The projected growth is: Argentina-96 percent, Brazil-196 percent,
China-232 percent, India-109 percent, Mexico-99 percent, and Saudi
Arabia-136 percent.

Figure 5: Actual 2006 Visa Adjudications and Projected Growth in Applicant
Volume for 2020 from State's Consular Futures Study

Although officials indicated that State continues to use the visa demand
projections in the Consular Affairs Futures Study to assist in making
staffing and resource decisions, some of the study's projections have
already been proven to underestimate growth in demand. In addition, State
has not taken action to update the study to reflect changes in visa
workload since 2005. More than half of the countries reviewed are already
facing surges in visa demand greater than the levels predicted in the
Consular Affairs Futures Study for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. For
example, Brazil adjudicated more visas in 2006 than the volume of
applications the study projected for Brazil for 2010. In addition, Mexico
adjudicated approximately 126,000 more visas in 2006 than the study
projected. Also, the Ambassador to India recently stated that all posts in
India would process over 800,000 applications in 2007, which exceeds the
study's forecasts for India's demand in 2016.

State's Plans Do Not Fully Address Future Visa Demand

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services testified to Congress in
March 2007 of the need to consider and implement viable long-term
solutions for posts with high visa demand and indicated that State needed
to ensure it aligns consular assets to meet the demand. In November 2006,
State developed a plan for improving the visa process that details several
steps it intends to implement, or pilot, by 2009.46 Although the visa
improvement plan can assist State in improving the visa process, and State
has taken some steps to address wait times at a number of overseas posts,
State has not determined how it will keep pace with continued growth in
visa demand over the long term. For example, the strategies in the plan do
not identify the resources State would need to increase staff or construct
adequate facilities to handle the projected demand increases. Moreover,
State has not proposed plans to significantly reduce the workload of
available officers or the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa if
such resources are not available. Without a long-term plan to address
increasing demand, State does not have a tool to make decisions that will
maximize efficiency, minimize wait times, and strengthen its ability to
support and sustain its funding needs.

In order to develop a strategy addressing future visa demand, State may
want to make use of operations research methods and optimization modeling
techniques. These approaches can allow State to develop a long-term plan
that takes into account various factors--such as State's security
standards for visas, its policies and procedures to maximize efficiency
and minimize waits, and available resources. Researchers have developed
statistical techniques to analyze and minimize wait times in a wide
variety of situations, such as when cars queue to cross toll bridges or
customers call service centers. These techniques consider the key
variables that influence wait times, such as the likely demand, the number
of people already waiting, the number of staff that can provide the
service required, the time it takes to process each person, and the cost
of each transaction; consider a range of scenarios; and provide options to
minimize wait times, bearing in mind the relevant factors. The analyses
can, for instance, provide quantitative data on the extent to which wait
times could be reduced if more staff were assigned or the time for each
transaction were decreased.

46The plan calls for State to implement a number of steps, including the
following: (1) worldwide appointment scheduling system, which would make
more management information on visa demand available; (2) electronic visa
applications that can be reviewed prior to the interview; (3) remote
interviewing of applicants, where applicable, for potential cost savings;
and (4) visa "surge teams," or temporary duty staff, to assist posts that
face problems with wait times exceeding 30 days.

For example, State could determine the approximate number of additional
resources it would need in order to meet its stated goal of providing an
appointment to all applicants within 30 days despite increased visa
demand. Such a response would either require State to provide additional
staff through new hires or by using other staffing methods, such as
utilizing civil servants to adjudicate visas overseas. Alternatively,
State could require consular officers to process applicants more
efficiently and quickly. State may require multiple new facilities to
support an increase in the number of Foreign Service officers and allow
posts to process more applicants daily. However, if State were to
determine that a significant increase in resources for staffing and
facilities is not feasible, then State would have to evaluate the efficacy
of its 30-day standard for visa appointments or consider requesting
Congress to allow for changes in the adjudication process, such as
allowing additional flexibility in the personal appearance requirement for
visa applicants. It is dependent upon State to determine the specific
techniques and appropriate variables or factors required to optimize its
capability to address the demand for visas.

Conclusions

Expediting the adjudication of NIV applications is important to U.S.
national interests because legitimate travelers forced to wait long
periods of time for a visa interview may be discouraged from visiting the
country, potentially costing the United States billions of dollars in
travel and tourism revenues over time. Moreover, State officials have
previously testified that long waits for visa appointments can negatively
impact our image as a nation that openly welcomes foreign visitors. Given
projected increases in visa demand, State should develop a strategy that
identifies the possible actions that will allow it to maintain the
security of the visa process and its interest in facilitating legitimate
travel in a timely manner. The development of such a plan will strengthen
State's ability to manage visa demand, support and sustain its funding
needs, encourage dialogue with relevant congressional committees on the
challenges to addressing waits, and promote consensus by decision makers
on funding levels and expectations for eliminating visa delays.
Furthermore, there are several measures State could take in the short run
to improve the wait times for interviews of NIV applicants and the
reliability of visa waits information for management purposes.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the Bureau of Consular Affair's oversight and management of
visa-adjudicating posts, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the
following actions:

           o Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand
           that balances the security responsibility of protecting the United
           States from potential terrorists and individuals who would harm
           U.S. interests with the need to facilitate legitimate travel to
           the United States. In doing so, State should take into
           consideration relevant factors, such as the flow of visa
           applicants, the backlog of applicants, the availability of
           consular officers, and the time required to process each visa
           application. State's analysis should be informed by reliable data
           on the factors that influence wait times. State should update any
           plan annually to reflect new information on visa demand.

           o Improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data by
           defining collection standards and ensuring that posts report the
           data according to the standards.

           o Identify practices and procedures used by posts to manage
           workload and reduce wait times and encourage the dissemination and
           use of successful practices.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and
           Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security did not
           comment on the draft but provided a technical comment. State
           provided written comments on the draft that are reprinted with our
           comments in appendix II of this report.

           State concurred with our recommendations to enhance methods of
           disseminating effective management techniques, to improve the
           reliability and utility of visa waits data, and to develop a
           strategy to address increases in visa demand. State noted that any
           appropriate strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand
           must address the need for resources to meet national security
           goals for both travel facilitation and border security.
           Furthermore, State said that any suggestion of trade-offs between
           these two goals would be inappropriate. Clearly we agree that in
           developing a strategy, State must maintain its security
           responsibilities while also facilitating legitimate travel to the
           United States. Our report does not suggest that one of these goals
           should be sacrificed at the expense of the other. State also
           provided a number of technical comments, which we have
           incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.

           As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
           contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
           until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send
           copies of this report to interested congressional committees. We
           will also send copies to the Secretary of State and the Secretary
           of Homeland Security. We also will make copies available to others
           upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
           charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

           If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected]. Contact points for
           our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
           found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
           contributions are listed in appendix III.

           Jess T. Ford
			  Director, International Affairs and Trade
			  
			  Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

           We reviewed (1) Department of State (State) data on the amount of
           time visa applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2)
           actions State has taken to address visa wait times, and (3)
           State's strategy for dealing with projected increases in visa
           demand. To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed officials
           from State's bureaus of Consular Affairs, Human Resources, and
           Overseas Buildings Operations. We also interviewed officials from
           the Department of Commerce's Office of Travel and Tourism
           Industries. In addition, we observed consular operations and
           interviewed U.S. government officials at 11 posts in eight
           countries--Brazil, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras,
           India, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. For our site visits,
           we selected posts that had either (1) recently reported wait times
           of 60 days or more, (2) had previously experienced long-standing
           wait time problems, (3) were projected to experience a large
           future volume of visa adjudications, or (4) were able to process a
           large volume of visas with little or no wait for applicant
           interviews. During these visits, we observed visa operations;
           interviewed consular staff and embassy management about visa
           adjudication policies, procedures, and resources; and reviewed
           documents and data. In addition, to obtain a broader view of visa
           workload, consular staffing and facilities, as well as other
           issues affecting visa wait times in consular sections, we selected
           an additional 21 posts for a document review based on the same
           selection criteria we used for selecting our site visits.1 Our
           selection of posts was not intended to provide a generalizable
           sample but allowed us to observe consular operations under a wide
           range of conditions.

           To determine the amount of time visa applicants were waiting to
           obtain a visa interview, we analyzed interview wait times data for
           applicants applying for visas for temporary business or tourism
           purposes, but not for other types of visas, including student
           visas. Specifically, the data provided to us showed the minimum
           and maximum wait times for visa-issuing posts for the period
           January 2006-February 2007. Data were also provided for the same
           period that indicated the number of posts that reported maximum
           wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month and the number
           that reported wait times in excess of 30 days for this entire
           6-month period.2 In addition, at various points-in-time, we
           received information on the most recently reported wait times for
           visa-issuing posts and the date of last entry. To determine the
           reliability of State's data on wait times for applicant
           interviews, we reviewed the department's procedures for capturing
           these data, interviewed the officials in Washington who monitor
           and use these data, and examined data that was provided to us
           electronically. In addition, we interviewed the corresponding
           officials from our visits to select posts overseas and in
           Washington, who input and use the visa waits data. We found that
           data was missing throughout the 13-month period because posts were
           not reporting each week. Based on our analysis, we determined that
           the data were not sufficiently reliable to determine the exact
           magnitude of the delays because the exact number of posts with a
           wait of 30 days or more at any given time could not be determined.
           Consular officials who manage consular sections overseas
           acknowledged that many posts are not reporting on a weekly basis.
           However, we determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for
           providing a broad indication of posts that have had problems with
           wait times over a period of time and for general trends in the
           number of posts that have had problems with wait times over the 13
           months we reviewed.
			  
1We reviewed consular reports and data from a total of 32 posts including:
New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang,
Chengdu, Guangzhou, Bogota, Cairo, Seoul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo,
Manila, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Islamabad, Monterrey, Mexico City,
Guadalajara, Ciudad Juarez, London, Santo Domingo, Tegucigalpa, San Jose,
San Salvador, Riyadh, Quito, Paris, Port au Prince, and Johannesburg.

           To determine the actions State has taken to address visa wait
           times and its strategy for addressing waits, we analyzed consular
           policies and procedures cables and staffing and facilities plans
           developed by the department. In addition, we analyzed consular
           workload and staffing data. We also reviewed the methodology for
           the Change Navigations Study and found it to be one of a number of
           fairly standard approaches that are available for a forecasting
           exercise of this nature. However, we did not attempt to replicate
           the methodology or test alternative models that relied on
           different techniques, data, or assumptions.

           We conducted our work from August 2006 through May 2007 in
           accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
			  
2According to consular officials, in cases where posts report wait time
data more than once in a given month, State's data are the maximum wait
time reported that month.

           Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
			  
			  Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.

See comment 3.

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 2.

See comment 7.

See comment 6.

See comment 9.

See comment 8.

See comment 11.

See comment 10.

See comment 12.

See comment 12.

See comment 12.

           The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's
           letter dated June 25, 2007.
			  
			  GAO Comments
			  
                        1. State's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa
                        Services has acknowledged that visa applicants may be
                        deterred from visiting the United States by long
                        appointment wait times and that this could have
                        negative economic consequences and could adversely
                        affect foreign opinions of our country. The
                        Department of Commerce points out that foreign
                        visitors bring economic benefits to our country in
                        excess of $100 billion each year. We agree that it is
                        difficult to correlate visa wait times with specific
                        dollar value losses in travel and tourism revenues.
                        However, given that wait times for interviews are
                        very high at a number of posts, we believe that the
                        loss in economic benefits to our country over time
                        could potentially be significant. Our report
                        acknowledges that visa issuances have increased over
                        the last several years.
                        2. We believe our report, as well as past GAO
                        reports, shows that long waits for visa interviews
                        have been a long-standing problem for the department.
                        Furthermore, State's data show that there have been
                        long waits at some posts during peak and nonpeak
                        periods (see fig. 2) and that long waits are not
                        solely cyclical in nature. State acknowledges a
                        number of cyclical factors that affect visa demand
                        and resource availability, such as staffing gaps and
                        the personnel transfer cycle. We believe these and
                        other factors can contribute to chronic as well as
                        cyclical backlogs. In addition, we have modified the
                        draft to acknowledge the fact that wait times may
                        reoccur cyclically as well as unexpectedly. However,
                        the report points toward the need for a strategy for
                        addressing such delays, which State has not developed
                        to address either cyclical or chronic visa waits.
                        3. We agree that increasing consular staff levels may
                        ultimately be necessary to address increasing visa
                        demand. This is why we recommended that State develop
                        a strategy to address wait times and that, in doing
                        so, identify its resource needs. Such actions could
                        promote consensus by decision makers on funding
                        levels and expectations for eliminating visa delays.
                        4. We agree that State has taken a number of actions
                        to share information with posts on reducing wait
                        times. However, as noted in the report, during our
                        fieldwork, we found that there were instances where
                        posts were not aware of certain practices and
                        procedures implemented by other posts to help manage
                        workload and assist in improving applicant wait
                        times. We understand that all practices may not be
                        transferable to all posts, but we believe that all
                        posts would benefit from knowing the options that are
                        available for more efficient operations.
                        5. Our report discusses State's efforts to estimate
                        visa demand and gives ample credit to the 2006
                        repositioning exercise to shift some consular
                        staffing to posts with the greatest need.
                        Furthermore, neither the annual consular package
                        exercise nor the Consular Affairs Future Study
                        estimated the resources needed to meet long-term
                        future demand. Our point is that State has not
                        estimated what resources will be required to keep up
                        with the increase in future demand that State
                        forecasts. Because these resources could be
                        substantial, we think it is incumbent on State to
                        develop a long-term strategy now.
                        6. We based our statements on the testimony of
                        State's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services
                        before Congress in March 2007, where he stated, "we
                        strive to constantly strike the right balance between
                        protecting America's borders and preserving America's
                        welcome to international visitors." We acknowledge
                        that in striking this balance security is the primary
                        concern. Clearly the time it takes to process an
                        application affects how many applications an officer
                        can process in a given day. We are not suggesting
                        that State sacrifice security in order to avoid visa
                        waits, but rather that State develop a plan for how
                        it will cope with rising demand, taking these various
                        circumstances and responsibilities into
                        consideration.
                        7. We agree that these are important factors and have
                        modified the text accordingly.
                        8. We understand that there are spikes in visa demand
                        for various reasons, some of which are difficult to
                        predict. However, State is aware that such spikes in
                        visa demand can occur. We believe that State needs a
                        strategy to address growing visa demand that includes
                        consideration of how it will meet unanticipated
                        spikes in demand. The development of such a plan
                        would allow State to use its visa surge teams of
                        temporary duty staff to deal with unanticipated
                        spikes, rather than using them to handle the
                        anticipated increasing demand.
                        9. We have modified language in the report. State's
                        comment reinforces our belief that it is time for
                        State to develop a strategy for addressing long-term
                        visa demand. If State determines it needs more staff
                        to handle projected demand, then it should detail
                        these needs in its strategy.
                        10. We based our comment on a cable prepared by the
                        U.S. Embassy in London. State acknowledges that the
                        10-fingerprint requirement could reduce the number of
                        applicants processed. Applicants are not interviewed
                        until after their fingerprints are taken, so a
                        reduction in the number of applicants processed would
                        subsequently result in a reduction of applicants
                        interviewed. We have modified language in the draft
                        to clarify our point.
                        11. We have incorporated information on the Visa
                        Office's Two-Year Plan into the report.
                        12. State does not have a plan that outlines how it
                        will cope with growing visa demand, which is why we
                        recommend that State develop a strategy that
                        identifies the actions it will take to address
                        increasing demand. We believe that there may be
                        opportunities to achieve efficiencies at some posts
                        and that more resources may be needed. The
                        short-term, temporary measures that State is
                        currently taking to address visa demand are not
                        adequate to handle the projected visa demand. We
                        suggest that State take advantage of available
                        analytical tools in order to identify options for the
                        development of an overall strategy that will address
                        the projected increase in visa demand worldwide. A
                        wide range of sophisticated techniques are available
                        to help manage customer waiting times in many areas
                        of government operations, such as testing drivers at
                        departments of motor vehicles and treating patients
                        at public health clinics. Our report does not
                        recommend that State reduce the processing time at
                        the expense of security. We agree that State must
                        maintain its security responsibilities while
                        facilitating legitimate travel to the United States.
								
           Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact

           Jess Ford, (202) 512-4128, [email protected]
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant
           Director; Joe Brown; Joe Carney; Martin de Alteriis; Jeff Miller;
           Mary Moutsos; and Melissa Pickworth made key contributions to this
           report.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [35]www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to [36]www.gao.gov and
           select "Subscribe to Updates."
			  
			  Order by Mail or Phone

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
			  TDD: (202) 512-2537
			  Fax: (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [37]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
			  E-mail: [38][email protected]
			  Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [39][email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [40][email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

(320441)

[41]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-847 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-4128 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [42]GAO-07-847 , a report to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives

July 2007

BORDER SECURITY

Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of State
(State) initiated changes to the visa process to increase security, but
these changes also increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a
visa. Although maintaining security is of paramount importance, State has
acknowledged that long waits for visas may discourage legitimate travel to
the United States, potentially costing the country billions of dollars in
economic benefits over time, and adversely influencing foreign citizens'
opinions of our nation. GAO testified in 2006 that a number of consular
posts had long visa interview wait times. This report examines (1) State's
data on visa interview wait times, (2) actions State has taken to address
wait times, and (3) State's strategy for dealing with projected growth in
visa demand.

[43]What GAO Recommends

To improve State's oversight and management of visa-adjudicating
posts--with the goal of facilitating legitimate travel while maintaining a
high level of security to protect our borders--GAO is recommending that
State (1) develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa
demand, (2) improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data, and

(3) identify and disseminate practices and procedures used by posts to
manage workload and reduce wait times. State concurred with our
recommendations.

According to State, the amount of time that applicants must wait for a
visa interview has generally decreased over the last year; however, some
applicants continue to face extensive delays. State's data showed that
between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 consular posts reported
maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, whereas 53
posts reported such waits for the same period 1 year later. However,
despite recent improvements, at times during the past year, a number of
posts reported long wait times, which could be expected to reoccur during
future visa demand surges. In 2007, State announced a goal of providing
applicants an interview within 30 days. Although State's data is
sufficiently reliable to indicate that wait times continue to be a problem
at some posts, GAO identified shortcomings in the way the data is
developed that could mask the severity of the problem.

State has implemented steps to reduce wait times at several posts
including using temporary duty employees to fill staffing gaps at some
posts and repositioning some consular positions to better utilize its
current workforce. However, these measures are not permanent or
sustainable solutions and may not adequately address the increasing demand
for visas worldwide. In addition, State has made improvements to several
consular facilities and has identified plans for improvements at several
other posts with high workload. Some posts have utilized procedures that
enable them to process applications more efficiently. However, not all of
these procedures are shared among posts in a systematic way and,
therefore, not all posts are aware of them.

State has not determined how it will keep pace with growth in visa demand
over the long-term. State contracted for a study of visa demand, in select
countries, over a 15-year period beginning in 2005, which projected that
visa demand will increase dramatically at several posts (see fig.).
However, at some posts, demand has already surpassed the study's projected
future demand levels. State has not developed a strategy that considers
such factors as available resources and the need for maintaining national
security in the visa process, along with its goal that visas are processed
in a reasonable amount of time. Given dramatic increases in workload
expected at many posts, without such a strategy State will be challenged
in achieving its current goal for wait times.

Projected Growth in Visa Demand for Select Countries by 2020

References

Visible links
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-174
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1001
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-174
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-98-69
  32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-371
  33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-542T
  35. http://www.gao.gov/
  36. http://www.gao.gov/
  37. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  38. mailto:[email protected]
  39. mailto:[email protected]
  40. mailto:[email protected]
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-847
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-847
*** End of document. ***