State Department: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve	 
Passport Operations (25-JUL-08, GAO-08-891).			 
                                                                 
In 2007, following the implementation of new document		 
requirements for travelers entering the United States from within
the Western Hemisphere, the Department of State (State) received 
a record number of passport applications. In June 2009 further	 
document requirements are scheduled to go into effect and will	 
likely lead to another surge in passport demand. GAO examined (1)
the extent to which State was prepared for the surge in passport 
demand and how its readiness affected passport operations, (2)	 
State's actions to increase passport production capacity in	 
response to the surge, and (3) State's readiness for near-term	 
surges in demand and its strategy to improve passport operations.
GAO interviewed officials from State and the Departments of the  
Treasury and Homeland Security, conducted site visits, and	 
reviewed data on passport processing times and reports on	 
passport operations.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-891 					        
    ACCNO:   A83075						        
  TITLE:     State Department: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to       
Improve Passport Operations					 
     DATE:   07/25/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Citizenship					 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Cost overruns					 
	     Data entry 					 
	     Documentation					 
	     Federal facilities 				 
	     Functional requirements document			 
	     Information management				 
	     International travel				 
	     Passports						 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Records						 
	     Schedule slippages 				 
	     Travel						 
	     Identification cards				 
	     Cost estimates					 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-891

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

This report was revised on July 25, 2008, because figure 2 on page 10 
(Passports Issued, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2007) was the incorrect 
graphic.  The graphic for figure 2 has been replaced with the correct 
one; no text changes were made.

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

July 2008: 

State Department: 

Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Passport Operations: 

GAO-08-891: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-891, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2007, following the implementation of new document requirements for 
travelers entering the United States from within the Western 
Hemisphere, the Department of State (State) received a record number of 
passport applications. In June 2009 further document requirements are 
scheduled to go into effect and will likely lead to another surge in 
passport demand. GAO examined (1) the extent to which State was 
prepared for the surge in passport demand and how its readiness 
affected passport operations, (2) Stateï¿½s actions to increase passport 
production capacity in response to the surge, and (3) Stateï¿½s readiness 
for near-term surges in demand and its strategy to improve passport 
operations. GAO interviewed officials from State and the Departments of 
the Treasury and Homeland Security, conducted site visits, and reviewed 
data on passport processing times and reports on passport operations. 

What GAO Found: 

State was unprepared for the record number of passport applications it 
received in 2007, leading to significant delays in passport processing. 
State underestimated the increase in demand and consequently was not 
able to provide enough notice to the financial agent it uses for 
passport application payment processing for the agent to prepare for 
the increased workload, further adding to delays. As a result, reported 
wait times reached 10 to 12 weeks in the summer of 2007ï¿½more than 
double the normal waitï¿½with hundreds of thousands of passports taking 
significantly longer. State had difficulty tracking individual 
applications and failed to effectively measure or communicate to 
applicants the total expected wait times, prompting many to re-apply 
and further straining Stateï¿½s processing capacity. 

State took a number of emergency measures and accelerated other planned 
efforts to increase its passport production capacity in 2007. For 
example, to help adjudicate passports, State established four 
adjudication task forces and deployed passport specialists to U.S. 
passport agencies severely affected by the surge. In addition, State 
accelerated hiring and expansion efforts. As a result of these efforts 
and the normal seasonal decline in passport applications, wait times 
returned to normal by October 2007. According to State estimates, these 
emergency measures cost $42.8 million. 

Although State has taken steps to improve its ability to respond to 
near-term surges in passport demand, it lacks a comprehensive strategy 
to improve long-term passport operations. State previously identified 
several deficiencies limiting the efficiency and effectiveness of 
passport operations, such as reliance on a paper-based work flow and 
ineffective communications, and these deficiencies were exposed by 
Stateï¿½s response to the surge. While State also identified a framework 
to guide its modernization efforts, it does not have a comprehensive 
plan to prioritize and synchronize improvements to its passport 
operations. A comprehensive strategy for making these improvementsï¿½for 
example, using a business enterprise approachï¿½would better equip State 
to handle a significantly higher workload in the future. 

Figure: Average Routine Passport Processing Time, 2005-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Average Routine Passport Processing Time, 2005-2007: 

Date: January 2005; 
Business days: 7.43. 

Date: February 2005; 
Business days: 8.24. 

Date: March 2005; 
Business days: 10.26. 

Date: April 2005; 
Business days: 11.41. 

Date: May 2005; 
Business days: 12.67. 

Date: June 2005; 
Business days: 15.18. 

Date: July 2005; 
Business days: 16.21. 

Date: August 2005; 
Business days: 16. 

Date: September 2005; 
Business days: 11.82. 

Date: October 2005; 
Business days: 13.54. 

Date: November 2005; 
Business days: 10.48. 

Date: December 2005; 
Business days: 11.37. 

Date: January 2006; 
Business days: 14.05. 

Date: February 2006; 
Business days: 15.26. 

Date: March 2006; 
Business days: 17.64. 

Date: April 2006; 
Business days: 18.45. 

Date: May 2006; 
Business days: 20. 

Date: June 2006; 
Business days: 21. 

Date: July 2006; 
Business days: 20.08. 

Date: August 2006; 
Business days: 15.39. 

Date: September 2006; 
Business days: 12.15. 

Date: October 2006; 
Business days: 11.44. 

Date: November 2006; 
Business days: 11.82. 

Date: December 2006; 
Business days: 14.66. 

Date: January 2007; 
Business days: 17.49. 

Date: February 2007; 
Business days: 20.9. 

Date: March 2007; 
Business days: 24.37. 

Date: April 2007; 
Business days: 28.7. 

Date: May 2007; 
Business days: 31.33. 

Date: June 2007; 
Business days: 33.74. 

Date: July 2007; 
Business days: 41.01. 

Date: August 2007; 
Business days: 35.22. 

Date: September 2007; 
Business days: 15.97. 

Date: October 2007; 
Business days: 7.82. 

Date: November 2007; 
Business days: 7.37. 

Date: December 2007; 
Business days: 6.08. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive, 
long-term strategy for passport operations using a business enterprise 
approach to prioritize and synchronize its planned improvements. GAO 
also recommends that State track passport applications from the time 
the applicant submits an application in order to provide better 
customer service. State took issue with some of the findings in this 
report, but agreed with its recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-891]. For more 
information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

State Was Unprepared for 2007 Surge in Passport Demand, Leading to 
Lengthy Wait Times for Applicants: 

State Took Emergency Measures and Accelerated Some Planned Efforts to 
Increase Passport Production Capacity: 

Despite Improvements in Its Ability to Handle Near-Term Increases in 
Demand, State Lacks a Comprehensive Long-Term Strategy to Improve 
Passport Operations: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1. State's Performance Goals for Passport Timeliness, 2002-2008: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Passport Application, Adjudication, and Production Process: 

Figure 2: Passports Issued, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2007: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Passport Applications Received by Month: 

Figure 4: Passport Operations, Systems, and Facilities Budget Request, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2009: 

Figure 5: Timeline of WHTI Implementation: 

Figure 6: Average Routine Passport Processing Time, 2005-2007: 

List of Abbreviations: 

CA: Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FMS: Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury: 

NPIC: National Passport Information Center: 

USPS: United States Postal Service: 

WHTI: Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 25, 2008: 

The Honorable Bill Nelson: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy 
and Human Rights: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Thomas Reynolds: 
House of Representatives: 

In early 2007, the Department of State (State) received a record number 
of passport applications, resulting in lengthy delays in passport 
issuances, which inconvenienced thousands of Americans. State officials 
have said that this surge in passport demand was largely a result of 
the January 23, 2007, implementation of the first phase of the Western 
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which established new document 
requirements for travelers entering the United States by air. Although 
State initially budgeted about $185 million to issue an estimated 15 
million passports in fiscal year 2007, it received roughly 18.6 million 
passport applications during this period. 

The second phase of WHTI implementation--which establishes new document 
requirements for travelers entering the United States by land or sea 
and is scheduled to go into effect in June 2009--will likely lead to 
another surge in passport demand. In addition, State began issuing a 
passport card, which is intended to be a lower-cost alternative to the 
passport book, in July 2008. The availability of the passport card may 
also lead to greater passport demand in the near future, as the card is 
expected to serve as a convenient form of identification for citizens 
living in border communities who travel frequently between the United 
States and Canada or Mexico. 

You have expressed interest in State's efforts to determine its 
workload and plan for another large surge in demand. We reviewed (1) 
the extent to which State was prepared for the surge in passport demand 
in 2007 and how State's readiness affected passport operations, (2) how 
State increased its passport production capacity in response to the 
2007 surge, and (3) State's readiness for near-term surges in demand 
and whether State has a comprehensive strategy in place to improve long-
term passport operations. 

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed passport issuance, staffing, 
and processing time data through May 2008. In addition, we reviewed 
State reports on passport demand estimates, lessons learned from the 
2007 surge in passport demand, and the future of passport operations. 
We also analyzed surveys used by State to estimate passport demand in 
2007 and 2008. We observed passport operations and interviewed U.S. 
government officials at six U.S. passport agencies--Hot Springs, 
Arkansas; Charleston, South Carolina; Houston; New Orleans; New York; 
and Washington. We selected these locations based on the size of their 
workload and geographic diversity. We also interviewed officials from 
State's Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA), the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), the Department of the Treasury's Financial Management 
Service (FMS),[Footnote 1] and State contractors involved in the 
passport operations. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 through July 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I contains a more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

State was unprepared for the record number of passport applications it 
received in 2007, leading to significant delays in passport processing. 
Although State had anticipated an increase in passport applications due 
to new document requirements for travelers entering the United States 
from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, State underestimated the 
magnitude of this increase in demand. Because State was unable to 
accurately estimate the increase in applications, it was unable give 
enough notice to the financial agent that it uses for passport 
application payment processing for the agent to prepare for the 
increased workload. Thus, the financial agent was insufficiently 
staffed and equipped to handle the initial surge in applications, 
further contributing to delays. While State's goal for routine passport 
processing times was approximately 5 weeks at the beginning of 2007, 
reported wait times rose to between 10 and 12 weeks in June 2007, with 
hundreds of thousands of passports taking significantly longer. 
According to passport agency officials, these delays disrupted the 
travel plans of and otherwise inconvenienced thousands of Americans. 
Many applicants who were unable to receive timely, accurate information 
on the status of their passport application drove hundreds of miles or 
took flights to retrieve their passports at the passport agencies, 
leading to long lines and crowded waiting rooms at these facilities. At 
some passport agencies, applicants waited in line outside for up to 6 
hours before entering the facility. Contributing to this problem was 
State's difficulty in tracking the status of individual passport 
applications and failure to measure and effectively communicate 
applicants' total wait times. Because applicants found it difficult to 
get accurate information from State on the status of their 
applications, tens of thousands reapplied for passports, further 
straining State's passport processing capacity. 

State employed a number of emergency measures and accelerated other 
planned efforts to increase its passport production capacity in 2007. 
State undertook short-term measures to temporarily augment its passport 
staffing and to bolster customer service functions and contractor 
operations. To help adjudicate passports, State established 
adjudication task forces in Washington, D.C.; Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire; and New Orleans, Louisiana; these task forces were staffed 
by Foreign Service officers, Presidential Management Fellows, retirees, 
and others. It also deployed teams of passport specialists to passport 
agencies severely affected by the surge in passport demand. Consular 
officers at nine overseas posts adjudicated passports remotely, using 
electronic files. State also installed additional telephone lines at 
its customer service center and set up a task force in Washington, 
D.C., for congressional calls as well as task forces in Washington, 
D.C., Kentucky, and Florida to field calls from the general public. In 
addition, in coordination with State, Treasury amended the terms of the 
memorandum of understanding with its financial agent responsible for 
passport application data entry and payment processing, to increase the 
agent's capacity to handle applications at its lockbox facility. State 
also accelerated efforts to hire more permanent staff and open a new 
passport printing facility. Domestic passport agencies also undertook 
specific actions to improve operations, including implementing software 
and tracking systems to more efficiently process applications. State's 
actions, combined with the normal seasonal decline in passport 
applications, helped to reduce wait times to 4 to 6 weeks by October 
2007. According to State's estimates, these and other such measures 
cost the department $42.8 million--for overtime pay for staff, travel 
for temporary duty staff, and other additional costs such as telephone 
services for its call centers. 

Although State has taken steps to improve its ability to respond to 
future surges in passport demand in the near term, it does not have a 
comprehensive strategy in place to improve overall passport operations. 
In 2007, State contracted for a new demand study that surveyed a 
broader population of potential travelers and made other methodological 
improvements over its previous demand study; however, estimating 
passport demand with precision remains very challenging due to periodic 
changes in regulations, economic conditions, and other factors. To 
prepare for future demand, State has increased staffing, opened new 
facilities, and made other improvements to individual components of its 
passport operations. Nonetheless, State has not fully addressed high- 
level strategic issues related to its passport operations. A 2005 study 
commissioned by the department to examine passport practices and 
identify procedural improvements identified several deficiencies 
limiting the efficiency and effectiveness of passport operations. These 
deficiencies included reliance on a manual, paper-based work flow and 
ineffective communications. The study also recommended several 
potential improvements in State's passport processes, such as 
increasing management's visibility over the entire issuance process, 
including over partner organizations, and enhancing State's passport 
Web site to allow customers to submit applications and monitor their 
status online. While this study provides a framework to guide State's 
modernization efforts, State does not have a comprehensive plan to 
prioritize and synchronize improvements to its passport operations. We 
have previously reported that using an enterprise approach--including 
developing a concept of operations to describe how all of an agency's 
business processes should be carried out--would enable that agency to 
develop and prioritize more efficient processes that support its 
overarching needs, rather than distinct and discrete processes 
supporting the agency's individual components. By developing and 
implementing a comprehensive strategy to coordinate its passport 
operations using an enterprise approach, State will be better equipped 
to effectively and efficiently handle increased workload in the future. 

We recommend that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive, long- 
term strategy for passport operations using a business enterprise 
approach to prioritize and synchronize the department's planned 
improvements to passport operations. Specifically, State should develop 
and fully implement a concept of operations document that describes its 
desired end state and addresses how it intends to transition from the 
current state to this end state. We are also recommending that State 
begin tracking individual passport applications from the time a 
customer submits an application in order to maintain better visibility 
over the passport process and provide better customer service to 
passport applicants. In commenting on a draft of this report, State 
concurred with our recommendations, but expressed disappointment at our 
finding that the department lacks a comprehensive strategy to improve 
its passport operations. We have reprinted State's comments in appendix 
II. Additionally, State and Treasury provided technical comments and 
updated information, which we have included throughout this report as 
appropriate. 

Background: 

A passport is an official government document that certifies an 
individual's identity and citizenship and permits a citizen to travel 
abroad. According to State, many people who have no overseas travel 
plans have applied for a passport because it is viewed as the premier 
citizenship and identity document, which allows the bearer to board an 
airplane, prove citizenship for employment purposes, apply for federal 
benefits, and fulfill other needs not related to international travel. 
Under U.S. law, the Secretary of State has the authority to issue 
passports, which may be valid for up to 10 years. Only U.S. nationals 
may obtain a U.S. passport,[Footnote 2] and evidence of nationality is 
required with every passport application. 

State Passport Operations: 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services oversees the 
Passport Services Office, within State's Bureau of Consular Affairs. 
Passport Services, the largest component of Consular Affairs, consists 
of five headquarters offices: Field Operations, Technical Operations, 
Passport Integrity and Internal Controls Program, Planning and Program 
Support, and Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement Liaison. In addition to 
these headquarters offices, State operates 17 passport issuing agencies 
in Aurora, Colorado; Boston; Charleston, South Carolina; Chicago; 
Honolulu; Houston; Los Angeles; Miami; New Orleans; New York; Norwalk, 
Connecticut; Philadelphia; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; San Francisco; 
Seattle; and two offices in Washington, D.C.--a regional passport 
agency and a special issuance agency that handles official U.S. 
government and diplomatic passports.[Footnote 3] State also opened new 
passport production facilities for the personalization of passport 
books in Hot Springs, Arkansas, in March 2007 and in Tucson, Arizona, 
in May 2008. 

As of May 2008, State employed more than 3,300 government and contract 
staff to receive, process, and adjudicate passport applications and 
print and mail out passport books. This number of staff has risen 
dramatically in recent years to handle the increased number of passport 
applications. Between October 2006 and May 2008, the number of passport 
specialists--staff responsible for approving and issuing most U.S. 
passports--more than doubled, to 1,353. In addition, State's passport 
agencies employ roughly 1,500 staff as contractors, who perform 
nonadjudicative support functions such as data entry, printing, and 
mailing out passports. Separately, as of May 2008, State also employed 
about 600 full-and part-time staff at the National Passport Information 
Center (NPIC), which handles customer service inquiries from the 
public. 

Passport Application Process: 

Figure 1 summarizes the passport application process, from the 
submission of an application at an acceptance facility or by mail, 
through payment processing and basic data entry at lockbox facilities 
operated by the financial agent, to adjudication and printing at 
passport agencies around the country. 

Figure 1: Passport Application, Adjudication, and Production Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the Passport Application, 
Adjudication, and Production Process, as follows: 

Passport applicant: Submits passport application in person: 
Acceptance facilities: 
Function: 
* Checks documents; 
* Reviews application; 
* Administers passport oath; 
* Witnesses applicant's signature; 
* Certifies application; 
* Stamps seal on application. 
Location: 
Over 9,400 facilities all over the United States. 
Oversight: State. 
Process: Send submitted applications to Lockbox. 

Passport applicant: Submits passport application via mail: 
Lockbox: 
Function: 
* Opens mail; 
* Sorts and batches; 
* Scans and enters data; 
* Processes payments; 
* Performs workload transfers. 
Location: 
* Culver City, California; 
* Newark, Delaware; 
* Buffalo, New York. 
Oversight: Treasury. 
Process: Distributes workload transfers to Passport agencies. 

Passport applicant: Submits passport application via counter: 
Function: 
* Opens mail; 
* Scans and batches; 
* Enters data; 
* Adjudicates passports; 
* Prints passport book; 
* Conducts quality control; 
* Mails out the passport. 
Location: 
* 15 passport agencies; 
* 2 passport processing centers. 
Oversight: State. 
Process: Sends adjudicated applications to book print. 

Passport book printing center: 
Function: 
* Downloads adjudicated records; 
* Prints passport book; 
* Conducts quality control; 
* Mails out the passport. 
Location: 
* Hot Springs, Arkansas; 
* Tucson, Arizona. 
Oversight: State. 
Process: Mails passport to applicant. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Acceptance: 

State is authorized to designate acceptance facilities--in addition to 
its own passport agencies--to provide passport execution services to 
the American public. The majority of passport applications are 
submitted by mail or in person at passport application acceptance 
facilities nationwide. Passport acceptance facilities are located at 
certain U.S. post offices, courthouses, and other institutions and do 
not employ State personnel. The passport acceptance agents at these 
facilities are responsible for, among other things, verifying whether 
an applicant's identification document (such as a driver's license) 
actually matches that applicant. These agents collect the application 
package, which includes the passport application, supporting documents, 
and payment, and send it to State's centralized lockbox facility. 

According to State, the number of active acceptance facilities changes 
frequently as new facilities are added and others are dropped. In 
recent years, State has expanded its network of acceptance facilities 
to accommodate increasing passport demand. As of June 2008, there were 
over 9,400 such facilities nationwide, an increase from fewer than 
7,000 facilities in March 2005. 

Lockbox: 

Passport acceptance agents send application packages to a lockbox 
facility operated by a Treasury financial agent. The lockbox is 
responsible for opening and sorting passport application packages, 
verifying the completeness of the packages, processing payments, and 
batching the applications.[Footnote 4] In addition, lockbox staff scan 
the first page of the passport application, along with the payment 
check or money order, and apply a processing date to the application. 
Once data on the application are captured by software using character 
recognition and confirmed manually by data entry staff, the information 
is transferred to a server, which passport agencies can access to 
download into their passport issuance system. The physical passport 
application, along with supporting documents such as a birth 
certificate, is also sent via courier to a passport agency. The lockbox 
generally performs all application processing functions within 24 hours 
of receipt of the application from an acceptance facility. 

Adjudication, Personalization, and Delivery: 

Once a passport application has been received by one of the passport 
agencies, it is examined by a passport specialist who determines, 
through a process called adjudication, whether the applicant should be 
issued a passport. Adjudication requires the specialist to scrutinize 
identification and citizenship documents presented by applicants to 
verify their identity and U.S. citizenship. It also includes the 
examination of an application to detect potential indicators of 
passport fraud and the comparison of the applicant's information 
against databases that help identify individuals who may not qualify 
for a U.S. passport. When passport applications are submitted by mail 
or through acceptance facilities, specialists adjudicate the 
applications at their desks. A relatively small number of passport 
applications are submitted directly by applicants to one of the 
passport agencies. Applicants are required to demonstrate imminent 
travel plans to set an appointment for such services at one of the 
issuing agency's public counters. "Counter" adjudication allows 
specialists to question applicants directly or request further 
information on matters related to the application, while "desk" 
adjudication requires contacting the applicants by telephone or mail in 
such cases.[Footnote 5] Once an applicant has been determined eligible 
for a passport by a passport specialist, the passport is personalized 
with the applicant's information at the passport agency or one of the 
centralized printing facilities and then delivered to the applicant. 

Customer Service: 

The National Passport Information Center, located in Dover, New 
Hampshire, and Lansing, Michigan, is State's centralized customer 
service center. NPIC is a contractor-operated center that provides 
information and responds to public inquiries on matters related to 
passport services. Linked electronically to all passport agencies, NPIC 
provides an automated telephone appointment service that customers can 
access nationwide 24 hours a day and an online service for customers to 
check the status of their applications. A separate telephone number and 
e-mail address are dedicated for congressional staff inquiries. 

Historical Passport Trends: 

State has experienced a tremendous increase in the number of passports 
it processes in recent years. Between 2004 and 2007, the number of 
passports issued more than doubled to nearly 18.5 million passports 
(see fig. 2). This rate of increase far surpasses historical trends--a 
2005 study on passport operations noted that the number of passports 
issued in the 30 years between 1974 and 2004 increased just 72 percent. 
Demand for passports is seasonal in nature, with applications usually 
peaking between January and April, as the public prepares for spring 
and summer vacations, and then falling off from September through 
December (see fig. 3). In estimating future demand for passports, State 
factors in this seasonality. 

Figure 2: Passports Issued, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a line graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Number of passports: 6,695,002 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
Number of passports: 6,539,862 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Number of passports: 6,722,202. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Number of passports: 7,292,182 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Number of passports: 7,119,512 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of passports: 7,001,482. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of passports: 7,300,672. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of passports: 8,825,410. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of passports: 10,123,400. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of passports: 12,133,505. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of passports: 18,382,810. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3: Percentage of Passport Applications Received by Month: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a line graph depicting the following data: 

Month: January; 
Percentage: 8.55%. 

Month: February; 
Percentage: 8.91%. 

Month: March; 
Percentage: 11.39%. 

Month: April; 
Percentage: 9.75%. 

Month: May; 
Percentage: 10.01%. 

Month: June; 
Percentage: 9.44%. 

Month: July; 
Percentage: 7.98%. 

Month: August; 
Percentage: 8.86%. 

Month: September; 
Percentage: 7.5%. 

Month: October; 
Percentage: 5.88%. 

Month: November; 
Percentage: 5.63%. 

Month: December; 
Percentage: 6.12%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: These percentages are used by State for planning purposes. 

[End of figure] 

According to State data, about 28 percent of the U.S. population has a 
passport, with 85.5 million U.S. passports in circulation as of 
February 2008. Of these, more than 24 million will expire in the next 5 
years.[Footnote 6] State noted that the number of people applying for 
passport renewal varies depending on the laws and regulations in 
effect, the economy, and other factors. In addition, people may apply 
for a passport renewal before their book expires or up to 5 years after 
it expires. 

In response to this rapid increase in demand for passports, State's 
requested budget for passport activities has increased tenfold since 
2002 (see fig. 4). This request is part of State's Border Security 
Program, which includes funding for passport operations, systems, and 
facilities. The Border Security Program is funded through a combination 
of Machine Readable Visa fees,[Footnote 7] the Western Hemisphere 
Travel surcharge, Enhanced Border Security Program fees, and Fraud 
Prevention fees, as well as through appropriated funds. The majority of 
this funding comes from the Machine Readable Visa fees, which amounted 
to nearly $800 million of the Border Security Program budget in fiscal 
year 2007. State also collects fees for expedited passports and the 
Passport Security surcharge. 

Figure 4: Passport Operations, Systems, and Facilities Budget Request, 
Fiscal Years 2002-2009: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Nominal dollars: $48,357,020. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Nominal dollars: $83,137,048. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Nominal dollars: $78,270,040. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Nominal dollars: $113,828,048. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Nominal dollars: $208,008,080. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Nominal dollars: $185,378,080. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Nominal dollars: $258,998,112. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Nominal dollars: $572,090,304. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: In December 2007, State revised its spending plan for passport 
operations in fiscal year 2008, resulting in a new request totaling 
$460 million. 

[End of figure] 

New Regulations for Travel Documents Contribute to Increase in Passport 
Demand: 

The increased demand for passports is primarily the result of WHTI, 
DHS's and State's effort to specify acceptable documents and implement 
document requirements at 326 air, land, and sea ports of entry. 
[Footnote 8] When fully implemented, WHTI will require all citizens of 
the United States and nonimmigrant citizens of Canada, Mexico, and 
Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted travel document that 
establishes the bearer's identity and citizenship to enter or re-enter 
the United States at all ports of entry when traveling from within the 
Western Hemisphere. Prior to this legislation, U.S. citizens did not 
need a passport to enter the United States if they were traveling from 
within the Western Hemisphere, except from Cuba.[Footnote 9] 

DHS is implementing WHTI in two phases: first, for air ports of entry, 
and second, for land and sea ports of entry (see fig. 5). On January 
23, 2007, DHS implemented WHTI document requirements at air ports of 
entry. On January 31, 2008, DHS began implementing the second phase of 
WHTI at land and sea ports of entry by ending the routine practice of 
accepting credible oral declarations as proof of citizenship at such 
ports. DHS is required by law to implement WHTI document requirements 
at the land and sea ports of entry on the later of two dates: June 1, 
2009, or 3 months after DHS and State certify that certain 
implementation requirements have been met.[Footnote 10] 

Figure 5: Timeline of WHTI Implementation: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the Timeline of WHTI Implementation, 
as follows: 

2004: 
* December 17: Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
requires DHS, in consultation with State, to develop and implement a 
plan to require U.S. citizens to present a passport or other document 
to enter the United States. 

2005: 
* April 5: DHS and State announce WHTI implementation strategy. 

2006: 
* October 17: Proposed rule for passport card released; 
* November 24: Final rule for WHTI requirements at airports. 

2007: 
* January 23Implementation of WHTI requirements at airports; 
* June 8 ï¿½ September 30: Temporary suspension of WHTI passport 
requirement at airports, substituting specific proof of passport 
application in process, due to passport application backlog. 

2008: 
* January 31: Phase-in of WHTI requirements for land and sea ports of 
entry. 

2009: 
* June 1: Date for full implementation of WHTI documentation 
requirements so long as certification is complete. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

During the 2007 surge in passport demand, due to the passport 
application backlog, certain WHTI requirements were suspended. 
Specifically, on June 8, 2007, State and DHS announced that U.S. 
citizens traveling to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda who 
have applied for but not yet received passports could temporarily enter 
and depart from the United States by air with a government-issued photo 
identification and Department of State official proof of application 
for a passport through September 30, 2007. 

Passport Card: 

In October 2006, to meet the documentation requirements of WHTI and to 
facilitate the frequent travel of persons living in border communities, 
State announced plans to produce a passport card as an alternative 
travel document for re-entry into the United States by U.S. citizens at 
land and sea ports of entry.[Footnote 11] The passport card is being 
developed as a lower-cost means of establishing identity and 
nationality for American citizens and will be about the size of a 
credit card. Individuals may apply for either a traditional passport 
book or a passport card, or both. Applications for the passport card 
will undergo the same scrutiny and security checks as applications for 
the traditional passport book, and the card will incorporate security 
features similar to those found in the passport book. State began 
accepting applications for the passport card in February 2008 and began 
producing the card in July 2008. State and other officials have 
suggested that the availability of the passport card may generate 
additional demand, as individuals may apply for a card for 
identification for nontravel purposes, such as voting. 

State Was Unprepared for 2007 Surge in Passport Demand, Leading to 
Lengthy Wait Times for Applicants: 

State was unprepared for the record number of passport applications it 
received in 2007 because it underestimated overall demand for passports 
and did not anticipate the timing of this demand. Consequently, State 
struggled to process this record number of passports, and wait times 
rose to record levels.[Footnote 12] State's efforts to respond to the 
demand for passports were complicated by communications challenges, 
which led to large numbers of applicants being unable to determine the 
status of their applications. 

State Was Unprepared for Record Number of Passport Applications in 
2007: 

State's initial estimate for passport demand in fiscal year 2007, 15 
million applications, was significantly below its actual receipt of 
about 18.6 million passport applications, a record high. Because of its 
inability to accurately determine the increase in applications, State 
was unable to provide revisions in its estimates to the lockbox 
financial agent in enough time for the lockbox to prepare for the 
increased workload, leading to significant backlogs of passport 
applications. 

State Underestimated Demand for Passports: 

State was largely unprepared for the unprecedented number of passport 
applications in 2007 because it did not accurately estimate the 
magnitude or the timing of passport demand. In January 2005, State 
estimated that it would receive 15 million passport applications in 
fiscal year 2007--about 44 percent more than it received in fiscal year 
2005. However, actual receipts totaled about 18.6 million applications 
in fiscal year 2007, about 23 percent more than State had originally 
estimated. According to State officials, planning efforts to respond to 
increased demand are predicated on demand estimates, highlighting the 
need for accurate estimates. 

Limitations in the survey methodology used by State's contractor 
responsible for collecting survey data on passport demand contributed 
to State's underestimate.[Footnote 13] State based its estimate partly 
on a survey of an unrepresentative sample of land border crossers. 
[Footnote 14] This survey initially estimated an increase over the 
baseline demand for passports of more than 4 million applications in 
fiscal year 2007 due to implementation of the first phase of WHTI. 
However, our analysis of the survey methodology found several 
limitations. First, the survey was conducted in July 2005, over a year 
before the beginning of fiscal year 2007 and roughly 2 years before the 
peak of the surge in demand. According to contractor officials, many 
respondents have a limited ability to estimate their likely travel 
plans that far in advance.[Footnote 15] Moreover, State officials noted 
that travel document requirements were changed several times by 
Congress and by regulation between 2005 and 2007, likely affecting 
passport demand. Second, the 2005 survey did not estimate total 
passport demand because it did not collect new data on air and sea 
travelers. Third, the survey was unable to provide estimates on when 
the increased demand would occur. To refine its estimate, State 
adjusted the figures provided by the survey by using monthly 
application trends from previous years. According to these trends, 
State expected to receive 4.7 million passport applications in the 
first 3 months of 2007. However, demand for passports in 2007 did not 
follow previous seasonal trends, and State ultimately received about 
5.5 million applications during those first 3 months. According to the 
then-Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, this unprecedented level 
of demand in a compressed period contributed to State's inability to 
respond to demand. 

State's efforts to estimate demand for passports were also complicated 
by several external factors, including preparations for the 
introduction of the passport card for land border crossers and changes 
in implementation timelines for WHTI. For example, in its fiscal year 
2007 budget request and Bureau Performance Plan for Consular Affairs, 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in January 2005, State 
anticipated the receipt of 15 million passport applications in 2007 and 
requested $185 million for passport operations, facilities, and systems 
to meet this demand. However, due to these changing circumstances, 
State revised the 2007 estimates in subsequent planning and budget 
documents, estimating 16.2 million receipts in April 2006 and 17.7 
million receipts in March 2007. 

State Did Not Communicate Effectively with the Lockbox Facility: 

State's fluctuating demand estimates also complicated efforts to 
prepare for the surge in demand at the lockbox operated by the 
financial agent, which provides passport application data entry and 
payment processing services.[Footnote 16] According to lockbox agent 
documents, between May 2006 and February 2007, State provided lockbox 
officials with at least five sets of estimates of passport applications 
for fiscal year 2007. Although the lockbox agent began preparing for an 
increased workload in the end of 2006, lockbox officials told us that 
they had difficulty adjusting to these changing estimates, because it 
takes roughly 60 to 90 days to prepare for increased demand, such as by 
hiring additional staff and ordering additional scanners. Further, 
these officials told us they did not expect the volume of applications 
they eventually did receive. According to State officials, the lockbox 
agent planned to process 325,000 applications per week, but actual 
workload peaked at 500,000 applications per week, an increase of over 
50 percent. As a result, large numbers of passport applications 
accumulated at the lockbox facility, and applications took far longer 
to be processed than the typical 24 hours. In April 2007, according to 
lockbox data, many applications took as long as 3 weeks to process 
before being sent to passport agencies for adjudication.[Footnote 17] 
The primary issues contributing to this backlog, according to lockbox 
officials, were incorrect demand estimates from State and insufficient 
lead time. 

State Struggled to Process a Record Number of Passport Applications in 
2007: 

State issued a record number of passports in fiscal year 2007, but 
deficiencies in its efforts to prepare for this increased demand 
contributed to lengthy backlogs and wait times for passport applicants. 
Reported wait times for routine passport applications peaked at 10 to 
12 weeks in the summer of 2007--with hundreds of thousands of 
applications taking significantly longer--compared to 4 weeks in 2006. 

State Issued a Record Number of Passports in 2007: 

According to State data, the department issued a record number of 
passports in fiscal year 2007--about 18.5 million passports, over 50 
percent more than the 12.1 million passports it issued in fiscal year 
2006. State officials characterized the increase in passport demand as 
exponential over the past few years and attributed it mostly to the 
increased number of applications from Americans complying with the WHTI 
requirements. As noted earlier, the number of passports issued doubled 
between 2004 and 2007. 

In January 2007, State began to notice a sharp increase in passport 
applications. Department officials initially believed this increase was 
temporary because of their efforts, initiated in December 2006, to 
publicize new travel document requirements related to the WHTI; 
however, State reported that the number of applications it received 
increased from about 1.5 million per month in January and February 2007 
to about 1.8 million or more in each of the following 3 months. 
Additionally, as noted in a 2007 study, passport applications in 2007 
did not conform to historical trends, contributing to State's lack of 
preparedness. 

Wait Times Reached Record Highs in 2007 due to Unprecedented Demand: 

As a result of the increased number of passport applications in the 
first half of 2007, reported wait times more than doubled, causing 
applicants to wait 10 to 12 weeks for their passports on average, 
though many applicants waited significantly longer. According to State 
data, the average time to process a passport--from the time one of 
State's passport agencies receives the application until the time it 
mails the passport to the applicant--was about 3ï¿½ weeks in January 
2007, better than the goal of 5 weeks that State had during that 
period. However, by the summer of 2007, processing times had risen to 
about 8ï¿½ weeks, which, according to State officials, led to wait times 
of between 10 and 12 weeks.[Footnote 18] Further, data provided by 
State show that 373,000 applications--or about 12 percent of all 
routine applications--took over 12 weeks to process during the peak of 
the surge in July and August 2007. By contrast, average processing 
times peaked at just over 4 weeks in 2006 and just over 3 weeks in 2005 
(see fig. 6). Furthermore, expedited passport applications, which State 
guaranteed would be processed within 3 business days of receipt, took 
an average of over 6 days to process in July 2007, leading to reported 
wait times of 2 to 3 weeks for expedited applications. [Footnote 19] 

Figure 6: Average Routine Passport Processing Time, 2005-2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Average Routine Passport Processing Time, 2005-2007: 

Date: January 2005; 
Business days: 7.43. 

Date: February 2005; 
Business days: 8.24. 

Date: March 2005; 
Business days: 10.26. 

Date: April 2005; 
Business days: 11.41. 

Date: May 2005; 
Business days: 12.67. 

Date: June 2005; 
Business days: 15.18. 

Date: July 2005; 
Business days: 16.21. 

Date: August 2005; 
Business days: 16. 

Date: September 2005; 
Business days: 11.82. 

Date: October 2005; 
Business days: 13.54. 

Date: November 2005; 
Business days: 10.48. 

Date: December 2005; 
Business days: 11.37. 

Date: January 2006; 
Business days: 14.05. 

Date: February 2006; 
Business days: 15.26. 

Date: March 2006; 
Business days: 17.64. 

Date: April 2006; 
Business days: 18.45. 

Date: May 2006; 
Business days: 20. 

Date: June 2006; 
Business days: 21. 

Date: July 2006; 
Business days: 20.08. 

Date: August 2006; 
Business days: 15.39. 

Date: September 2006; 
Business days: 12.15. 

Date: October 2006; 
Business days: 11.44. 

Date: November 2006; 
Business days: 11.82. 

Date: December 2006; 
Business days: 14.66. 

Date: January 2007; 
Business days: 17.49. 

Date: February 2007; 
Business days: 20.9. 

Date: March 2007; 
Business days: 24.37. 

Date: April 2007; 
Business days: 28.7. 

Date: May 2007; 
Business days: 31.33. 

Date: June 2007; 
Business days: 33.74. 

Date: July 2007; 
Business days: 41.01. 

Date: August 2007; 
Business days: 35.22. 

Date: September 2007; 
Business days: 15.97. 

Date: October 2007; 
Business days: 7.82. 

Date: November 2007; 
Business days: 7.37. 

Date: December 2007; 
Business days: 6.08. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, there were wide variations in routine application 
processing times between the different passport agencies during the 
surge. According to State's data, average processing times for 
individual passport agencies ranged between 13 and 58 days during the 
peak of the surge in July 2007. 

Communications Issues Contributed to Customer Frustration: 

State does not have consistent service standards or goals for 
timeliness of passport processing. During the 2007 surge, many 
applicants found it difficult to get timely, accurate information from 
State regarding wait times for passports; as a result, State 
experienced a record number of customer service inquiries from the 
public and Congress during the surge, drawing resources away from 
adjudicating passports and increasing wait times. In addition, State 
does not systematically measure applicants' wait times--measuring 
instead processing time, which does not include the applicant's total 
wait time--further contributing to the confusion and frustration of 
many applicants. 

State Does Not Have a Consistent Customer Service Standard for Passport 
Processing Times: 

State does not provide passport applicants with a committed date of 
issuance for passports; rather, it publishes current processing times 
on the department Web site. Over the past year, State has changed the 
information provided on its Web site from estimated wait time to 
expected processing time. Because these processing times fluctuate as 
passport demand changes, applicants do not know for certain when they 
will receive their passports. For example, at the beginning of the 
surge, reported wait times were 6 to 8 weeks. By the summer of 2007, 
however, reported wait times had risen to 10 to 12 weeks before falling 
to 6 to 8 weeks in September and 4 to 6 weeks in October 2007.[Footnote 
20] According to passport agency staff, however, the times on State's 
Web site were not updated frequently enough during the surge, which led 
to inaccurate information being provided to the public. 

Further, State has not had consistent internal performance goals for 
passport timeliness (see table 1). While State generally met its goals 
for passport processing times--which decreased from 25 to 19 days-- 
between 2002 and 2005, the department changed its timeliness goal in 
2007 from processing 90 percent of routine applications within 19 days 
to maintaining an average processing time of 35 days for routine 
applications. According to State officials, the department relaxed its 
goals for 2007 and future years due to the large increase in workload 
and the expectation of future surges in passport demand. However, even 
with the unprecedented demand for passports in 2007 and State's lack of 
preparedness, the department managed to maintain a reported average 
processing time of 25 days over the course of the year, raising 
questions about whether State's 35-day goal is too conservative. 

Table 1: State's Performance Goals for Passport Timeliness, 2002-2008: 

Year: 2002; 
Goal: 25 days; 
Definition: 90% of passport applications processed within this number 
of days from receipt. 

Year: 2003; 
Goal: 23 days; 
Definition: 90% of passport applications processed within this number 
of days from receipt. 

Year: 2004; 
Goal: 21 days; 
Definition: 90% of passport applications processed within this number 
of days from receipt. 

Year: 2005; 
Goal: 19 days; 
Definition: 90% of passport applications processed within this number 
of days from receipt. 

Year: 2006; 
Goal: 19 days; 
Definition: 90% of passport applications processed within this number 
of days from receipt. 

Year: 2007; 
Goal: 35 days; 
Definition: Maintain average processing time within this number of days 
from receipt. 

Year: 2008; 
Goal: 35 days; 
Definition: Maintain average processing time within this number of days 
from receipt. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of table] 

Inaccurate Information on Processing Times Contributed to the Strain on 
Passport Operations: 

During the 2007 surge in passport demand, applicants found it difficult 
to get information about the status of their applications, leading many 
to contact several entities for information or to reapply for their 
passports. Many of the applicants who did not receive their passports 
within their expected time frame called NPIC--State's customer service 
center--overwhelming the center's capacity and making it difficult for 
applicants to get through to a customer service representative. Other 
applicants contacted passport agencies or acceptance facilities 
directly. However, passport agency staff told us that there was little 
or no contact between their customer service representatives and the 
acceptance facilities, leading to applicants receiving inconsistent or 
inaccurate information regarding wait times. Passport agency staff said 
that officials in Washington provided processing time estimates to 
postal facilities that were far below actual processing times. 

In addition to contacting State and State's partners, thousands of 
applicants contacted their Members of Congress for assistance in 
getting their passports on time, according to State data. One Senator 
noted that he increased the number of staff in his office responding to 
passport inquiries from one to seven during the height of the surge in 
passport demand. According to State officials, many applicants made 
inquiries about the status of their passports through multiple 
channels--through NPIC, passport agencies, State headquarters, or 
congressional offices--leading to several cases in which multiple staff 
at State were tasked with searching for the same application. This 
duplication of effort drew resources away from passport adjudication 
and further contributed to delays in processing. 

According to State officials, many applicants who were unable to 
receive timely, accurate information on the status of their passport 
applications appeared in person at passport agencies to resubmit their 
applications--some having driven hundreds of miles and others having 
taken flights to the nearest passport agency. For example, according to 
officials at the New York passport agency, whose workload consists 
primarily of counter applications, the number of in-person applicants 
nearly doubled at the height of the surge. These officials told us they 
generally issue 450 to 550 passports on any given day, but during the 
surge they experienced an extra 400 to 600 daily applicants without 
appointments, most of whom were resubmitting their applications. 
Officials at another passport agency added that customers appearing in 
person at the passport agency stated that they would have made 
alternative arrangements had they known how long the wait time was 
going to be. This high number of resubmissions further slowed State's 
efforts to reduce passport backlogs during the surge. 

The inundation of in-person applicants led to long lines and large 
crowds at many passport agencies during the summer of 2007. For 
example, officials in New York said that customers waited in line 
outside the building for up to 6 hours before appearing at an 
appointment window--and then waited even longer to see a passport 
specialist. According to these officials, this line snaked around the 
building, and the agency had to work with local law enforcement to 
control the crowds. Officials in Houston also said that crowd control 
during the surge was a significant challenge for their agency due to 
the large numbers of applicants appearing without appointments. 

State's Estimated Processing Times Do Not Measure Applicant's Total 
Expected Wait Time: 

The passport processing times that State publishes on its Web site do 
not measure the total length of time between the applicant's submission 
of an application and receipt of a passport. According to State 
officials, processing times are calculated based on passport aging 
statistics--that is, roughly the period beginning when the passport 
agency receives a passport application from the lockbox facility and 
ending when the passport is mailed to the applicant. Consequently, 
State's measure of processing times does not include the time it takes 
an application to be sent from an acceptance facility to the lockbox, 
be processed at the lockbox, or be transferred from the lockbox to a 
passport agency. While this time may be as short as 1 to 2 days during 
nonpeak periods, during the surge, when hundreds of thousands of 
passport applications were held at the lockbox facility for as long as 
3 weeks, this time was significantly longer. Passport agency officials 
told us that during the surge, applicants were confused about the times 
published on State's Web site, as they were not aware that State did 
not start measuring processing times until a passport agency received 
the application from the lockbox facility.[Footnote 21] Finally, 
customers wishing to track the status of their applications are unable 
to do so until 5 to 7 days after they have submitted their passport 
application, because applications do not appear in State's tracking 
system until the department receives them from the lockbox facility. 

State Took Emergency Measures and Accelerated Some Planned Efforts to 
Increase Passport Production Capacity: 

State increased the capacity of its staffing, facilities, customer 
service, and lockbox functions during the surge. Passport agencies also 
developed their own efforts to increase the efficiency and 
effectiveness of passport operations. State's actions, combined with 
seasonal declines in passport applications, decreased wait times to 
normal levels by October 2007. State estimated the cost of the 
emergency measures to respond to the surge to be more than $40 million. 

State Increased the Capacity of its Staffing, Facilities, Customer 
Service, and Lockbox Functions: 

In reaction to the 2007 surge in passport demand, State took a variety 
of actions related to staffing to increase its production capacity. 
State instituted mandatory overtime for all government and contract 
staff and suspended all noncritical training and travel for passport 
staff during the surge.[Footnote 22] State hired additional contract 
staff for its passport agencies to perform nonadjudication functions. 
State also issued a directive that contractor staff be used as 
acceptance agents to free up passport specialist staff to adjudicate 
passport applications,[Footnote 23] and called upon department 
employees--including Foreign Service officers, Presidential Management 
Fellows, retirees, and others--to supplement the department's corps of 
passport specialists by adjudicating passports in Washington and at 
passport agencies around the United States. State also obtained an 
exemption from the Office of Personnel Management to the hiring cap for 
civil service annuitants,[Footnote 24] so that it could rehire 
experienced and well-trained retired adjudicators while it continued to 
recruit and train new passport specialists. In addition, the department 
dispatched teams of passport specialists to high-volume passport 
agencies to assist with walk-in applicants and process pending passport 
applications. These teams also provided customer support, including 
locating and expediting applications of customers with urgent travel 
needs. Finally, consular officers at nine overseas posts also remotely 
adjudicated passports, using electronic files.[Footnote 25] 

In addition, State took steps to increase the capacity of its 
facilities to handle the increased workload. State expanded the hours 
of operations at all of its passport agencies by remaining open in the 
evenings and on weekends. Several agencies also added a second shift, 
and State's two passport processing centers operated 24 hours a day, in 
three shifts. Public counters at passport agencies were also opened on 
Saturdays for emergency appointments, which were scheduled through 
State's centralized customer service call center. In addition to 
increasing work hours, State realigned workspace to make more room for 
adjudication purposes. For example, passport agencies used training and 
conference rooms to accommodate additional passport specialists. One 
passport agency borrowed space from another government agency housed in 
the same building to prescreen applicants. Some passport agencies that 
had more than one shift instituted desk sharing among staff. In some 
instances, because of the lack of workstations, adjudication staff also 
manually adjudicated applications with a pen and paper and entered the 
application's approval into State's information system at a later time. 
In addition, one passport agency renovated its facility by expanding 
the fraud office to add desks for more staff. 

To further increase the capacity of its customer service function, 
State extended NPIC's operating hours and, according to State 
officials, increased the number of its customer service representatives 
from 172 full-time and 48 part-time staff in January 2007 to 799 full- 
time and 94 part-time staff in September 2007. In response to heavy 
call volume at NPIC during the surge, State installed 18 additional 
high-capacity lines, each of which carries 24 separate telephone lines, 
for a total of 432 new lines--25 percent of which were dedicated to 
congressional inquiries, according to State officials. State also 
established an e-mail address for congressional inquiries. To 
supplement NPIC, State also established a temporary phone task force in 
Washington composed of department employees volunteering to provide 
information and respond to urgent requests, augmented an existing 
consular center with about 100 operators working two shifts, and 
temporarily expanded its presence at a federal information center with 
165 operators available to assist callers 7 days a week.[Footnote 26] 

State also took emergency measures in coordination with Treasury to 
bolster the lockbox function in reaction to the surge. First, Treasury 
coordinated with State to amend the terms of its memorandum of 
understanding with its financial agent responsible for passport 
application data entry and payment processing, to increase the agent's 
lockbox capacity. Specifically, under the revised memorandum, the 
financial agent committed to processing up to 3 million applications 
per month at the lockbox. According to Treasury officials, to increase 
its processing capacity, the financial agent increased the number of 
its staff at the lockbox facility from 833 in January 2007 to 994 in 
September 2007; offered a pay incentive to increase the number of its 
employees working overtime;[Footnote 27] and opened an additional 
lockbox facility--operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in three 
shifts. In addition, the financial agent implemented some process 
improvements at the lockbox during the surge, including automating data 
entry, presorting mail by travel date, and implementing a new batching 
process to increase the number of applications processed. The financial 
agent also increased the number of scanners, the capacity of its 
application server and data storage, and the bandwidth of its network 
to accommodate the heavy volume of passport applications. In addition 
to the measures described above, Treasury and State held weekly 
conference calls with the financial agent to discuss concerns and 
determine various courses of action to clear the passport application 
backlog. Treasury and State officials also visited lockbox facilities 
to review operations and received daily status reports from the 
financial agent indicating the processing volumes and holdover 
inventory. 

In addition to the emergency steps that State took, it also accelerated 
some planned efforts such as hiring more permanent staff and opening a 
new passport book printing facility. While State's hiring of additional 
permanent staff was already in CA's long-term planning efforts to 
handle an increase in passport demand, the time frame to do so was 
moved up to respond to the passport demand surge, according to State 
officials. Consequently, State hired an additional 273 staff in the 
last quarter of fiscal year 2007; however, according to State 
officials, not all of these staff were on board at the end of the 
fiscal year because of delays in processing security clearances for new 
hires. Additionally, State opened a new passport book printing center 
in March 2007, ahead of its schedule to open in June 2007, to 
centralize its book printing function and free up space at passport 
agencies for adjudication.[Footnote 28] 

Passport Agencies Took Actions to Improve Their Operations in Reaction 
to the Surge: 

Passport agencies took various actions to meet their specific needs in 
reaction to the surge. During our site visits, State officials told us 
that their passport agencies had undertaken such actions as: 

* developing a software program to better track suspense cases; 
[Footnote 29] 

* creating a batch tracking system whereby each shelf was numbered and 
all batches boxed on this shelf were marked with the same number; 

* developing a "locator card" for customers, which was color-coded to 
indicate different situations--such as customers submitting new 
applications, inquiring about pending applications, and resubmitting 
applications--to enable the agency to locate the application file 
before the customer came into the agency; 

* providing customers with a ticket that provided expedited service if 
they had to return on another day; and: 

* using students for nonadjudication tasks for the summer. 

In addition, according to State officials, some passport agencies used 
security guards to prescreen applicants at the entrance to control 
crowds and improve the efficiency of operations. Finally, other 
agencies organized teams to handle inquiries from congressional staff 
and State headquarters staff. In an effort to document and disseminate 
such initiatives, State compiled a best practices document for passport 
operations during the surge. These best practices were submitted by 
passport agencies on a variety of issues, including work flow 
improvements, counter management, and communication, among others. 

To provide a forum for feedback for passport agencies and improve 
passport operations, State also conducted a lessons learned exercise 
following the surge. State gathered information from passport staff at 
all levels and compiled a lessons learned document, which was made 
available on CA's internal Web site. According to this review, the 
primary lesson learned from the surge was that the United States 
passport is increasingly viewed by the American public not only as a 
travel document, but as an identity document. Accordingly, the lessons 
learned document outlined lessons learned in five main categories-- 
process, communications, technology, human resources, and contracts-- 
to help meet future demand for passports. However, State officials told 
us that this document was a draft and State has not formally embraced 
it. 

State's Actions and Seasonal Decline in Applications Helped Reduce 
Processing Times by October 2007: 

The extraordinary measures that State implemented to respond to the 
surge in passport demand, combined with the normal seasonal decline in 
passport applications between September and January, helped State 
reduce wait times by October 2007. According to data provided by State, 
the department returned to normal passport processing times of 4 to 6 
weeks by October 2007. These data show that State has maintained these 
processing times through July 2008, according to State's Web site. 

Emergency Response to Passport Surge Cost State over $40 Million: 

State estimated the cost of its emergency measures to respond to the 
2007 surge in passport demand to be $42.8 million. This amount included 
$28.5 million for contract-related costs, $7.5 million for overtime pay 
for staff from CA and other bureaus within State, and $3.1 million 
spent on travel to passport agencies for temporary duty staff. In 
addition, State spent $3.2 million on costs associated with buying 
equipment and furniture. State also spent an additional $466,000 on 
costs related to telephone services for its call centers, for rentals, 
and for Office of Personnel Management position announcements for 
hiring additional passport staff during the surge. These estimates do 
not include the costs of other measures such as hiring additional 
staff, which State had already planned but accelerated in order to 
respond to the 2007 surge. 

To cover costs incurred due to the surge, State notified Congress in 
June 2007 of its plans to devote an additional $36.9 million to the 
Border Security Program. According to State officials, this amount 
included $27.8 million for passport operations, such as $15 million for 
a passport processing center, additional costs for Foreign Service 
Institute training for new passport specialists, and salaries for 400 
new staff to be hired in fiscal year 2007. In September 2007, State 
notified Congress of its intent to obligate an additional $96.6 million 
for its Border Security Program, including $54 million for additional 
passport books, according to State officials. In December 2007, State 
sent a revised spending plan for fiscal year 2008 to Congress to 
increase its resources to enable it to handle processing of 23 million 
passports. This plan included an additional 700 personnel to meet 
anticipated passport demand and a new passport adjudication center. The 
plan also provided for three passport gateway agencies to be 
established in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 30] 

Despite Improvements in Its Ability to Handle Near-Term Increases in 
Demand, State Lacks a Comprehensive Long-Term Strategy to Improve 
Passport Operations: 

State has enhanced its capacity for responding to surges in passport 
demand in the near term, such as by improving its efforts to estimate 
passport demand. However, State lacks a comprehensive, long-term 
strategy for improving passport operations. State commissioned a review 
of its passport operations, completed in 2005, that identified several 
deficiencies and proposed a number of potential measures to guide 
modernization efforts; however, State does not have a plan to 
prioritize and synchronize these efforts. We have reported that an 
enterprise approach could help agencies develop more efficient 
processes, and this type of approach could help State improve passport 
operations and better prepare for future changes in passport demand. 

State Has Improved its Ability to Respond to Near-Term Increases in 
Passport Demand: 

State has taken several steps to increase its passport production 
capacity and improve its ability to respond to near-term increases in 
passport demand. As we have noted, State hired more staff and improved 
individual components of passport operations, such as centralizing the 
printing of passport books and upgrading information technology, during 
and following the 2007 surge in passport demand. Additionally, State 
developed two shorter-term plans to address a future increase in 
demand, including an adjudicative capacity plan, which establishes a 
set of triggers for determining when to add capacity. According to 
State officials, the department has completed some preparations for 
future surges in demand, such as opening a second book printing 
facility in May 2008 and creating a reserve adjudication force. State 
also expects to open new passport agencies in Dallas and Detroit by the 
end of 2008 and in Minneapolis by March 2009, according to these 
officials. However, it faces challenges in completing others. For 
example, State hired only 84 out of a planned 400 additional staff 
called for in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Similarly, 
according to officials, State has not yet established an additional 
mega processing center and is behind schedule in renovating and 
expanding some of its existing facilities.[Footnote 31] According to 
these officials, these plans were developed to expand State's capacity 
to issue passports. 

State has also taken several steps to improve future estimates of 
passport demand since it underestimated demand in fiscal year 2007. In 
particular, State's contractor designed a new passport demand survey to 
overcome limitations in its 2005 survey, which was not representative 
of all border crossers and did not include air and sea travelers. The 
contractor's 2007 estimate of total demand for passports in 2008 was 
derived from (1) a land border crosser survey to collect data on the 
impact of WHTI on passport demand in 2008,[Footnote 32] and (2) a 
nationally representative panel survey of 41,000 U.S. citizens, which 
included data on overall passport demand, including for sea and air 
travel and for nontravel identification purposes. State then applied 
average monthly application rates from previous years to the 
contractor's data to estimate the number of passport applications for 
each month and to identify peak demand. We found these methodologies 
sound in terms of survey design, sample selection, contact procedures, 
follow-up, and analysis of nonrespondents. 

However, estimating passport demand faces several limitations. State 
and contractor officials outlined some of these limitations, which 
include the following. 

* It can be difficult for respondents to anticipate travel many months-
-or years--into the future. For example, the most recent surveys were 
conducted in May and September of 2007 and were used to estimate travel 
throughout 2008. 

* Survey respondents tend to overstate their prospective travel and 
thus their likelihood of applying for a passport. While the contractor 
adjusted for this phenomenon in its 2007 survey, it did so based on 
assumptions rather than data. 

* Some survey respondents did not understand certain regulations and 
options for passports and border crossings, such as WHTI requirements, 
suggesting that some of these individuals are unaware of the future 
need to apply for passports for travel to Canada or Mexico. 

* Changes in personal or professional circumstances, or in the economy, 
can lead to changes in individuals' international travel plans. 

* Changes in regulations can affect passport demand. For example, New 
York State signed a memorandum of understanding with DHS to issue 
enhanced driver's licenses that could be used for land border crossings 
and could reduce the demand for passports or passport cards obtained 
solely to meet WHTI requirements. 

State Lacks a Comprehensive Strategy to Improve Long-Term Passport 
Operations: 

A 2005 study of passport operations commissioned by State identified 
several limitations in State's passport operation, many of which were 
exposed during the department's response to the 2007 surge in demand. 
This study and other plans, as described above, have also proposed 
numerous improvements to passport operations--many of which were 
generated by State officials themselves--and the department has begun 
to implement some of them. However, State does not have a long-term 
strategy to prioritize and synchronize these improvements to its 
operation. As we have reported previously, using a business enterprise 
approach that examines a business operation in its entirety and 
develops a plan to transition from the current state to a well-defined, 
long-term goal could help State improve its passport operations in the 
long term. 

Review of Passport Operations Identified Several Deficiencies and 
Proposed Modernization Efforts: 

In 2004, State contracted with an independent consulting firm to study 
its passport operations, which had not been formally examined for over 
25 years. The study, issued in 2005, outlined the current state of 
passport operations and identified several issues that limited the 
efficiency and effectiveness of passport operations. Several of these 
limitations were exposed by State's response to the 2007 surge in 
passport demand, and many of them remain unresolved. For example, the 
study found that State's practice of manually routing the original 
paper passport application through the issuance process--including 
mailing, storage, management, and retrieval of physical batch boxes 
containing paper applications--slowed the process, extended processing 
time, and made upgrade requests difficult to handle. Due to the 
overwhelming number of applications during the surge, a few passport 
agencies told us that there was no extra space available at their 
facilities; according to agency officials, this situation led to 
duplicative efforts. In addition, the study found that limited 
information was available to management and that reporting tools, such 
as Consular Affairs' Management Information System, could not produce 
customized reports. Further, the study found that this system could not 
provide information on the performance of its business partners, such 
as acceptance facilities or the lockbox, resulting in data being 
available only for applications that had been received at a passport 
agency. As a result, during the surge, State was not immediately aware 
of the growing workload at the lockbox. The study also found 
limitations in State's communications, including challenges to 
communicating among passport agencies, providing feedback to 
headquarters in Washington, and conducting public outreach. For 
example, during the surge, State did not effectively disseminate 
management decisions and communicate changes in internal processes and 
resources available to field staff, according to State's lessons 
learned document. 

In addition to identifying limitations, the study proposed a guide for 
State's modernization efforts, including a framework to put in place 
for passport services by the year 2020.[Footnote 33] As part of this 
guide, the study identified key factors that affected State's methods 
for conducting business and the performance of passport operations. For 
example, the study identified increased demand as one such factor, due 
to normal trends in passport demand, the impact of WHTI implementation, 
and the passport's increasing role as an identification document for 
everyday transactions. To address these issues, the study suggests that 
State will have to take steps such as redistributing workload through 
centralization to meet increasing volumes--State has begun to implement 
this suggestion by establishing passport printing facilities in 
Arkansas and Arizona. Additionally, the study notes that passport 
adjudication practices will become an even more important part of 
combating terrorism and other security concerns in the future, which 
will require State to utilize technology and external data to improve 
its risk assessment and fraud detection methods. Finally, the study 
also suggests that State will face changing customer expectations in 
the future, requiring more frequent and effective communications and, 
possibly, changes to service standards. As we previously noted, this 
issue continues to be a challenge for State. 

Although the study proposed several initiatives to improve passport 
operations, State officials told us that the department has not 
developed a formal plan to implement the initiatives, nor does it have 
a strategic plan outlining how it intends to improve its entire 
passport operations. State officials told us that because the 
department has been largely focused on carrying out its day-to-day 
operations--especially as it responded to the 2007 surge in passport 
demand--it has not had time to document its strategic plan. While State 
has taken a few steps to implement some of the proposed initiatives of 
the study--such as developing and implementing the e-Passport,[Footnote 
34] opening two passport adjudication centers, and issuing passports 
remotely--State does not have a systematic strategy to prioritize and 
synchronize these potential improvements to its passport operations. 
Some of these proposed initiatives that State has not implemented could 
be useful to State's current operations, including the following: 

* leveraging electronic work flow management--enabling State to develop 
flexible, streamlined work streams that improve its ability to monitor 
and manage passport operations while reducing manual processes for the 
physical movement and storage of paper applications and supporting 
documentation--to ensure a more efficient work flow that supports the 
issuance of increasing numbers of passports every year; 

* providing management visibility over the end-to-end passport issuance 
process extending across State and partner organizations, to 
effectively manage the process and enforce performance standards; 

* applying validations and identity checks automatically upon receipt 
or modification of an application by consistently applying a 
comprehensive set of business rules, to strengthen an adjudication 
process that supports the integrity of the passport as a primary 
identity document; 

* offering an online point of service with expanded functionality as a 
means for self-service by the public to facilitate a simplified, 
flexible, and well-communicated application process to enhance service 
to the passport customer; and: 

* conducting a comprehensive workforce analysis to define a sustainable 
workforce structure and plans through 2020 and enhancing communications 
within State and its business partners to improve efficiency and 
promote knowledge sharing. 

The recent increases in passport demand have made the need for a plan 
to prioritize the study's proposed initiatives that State intends to 
implement more urgent. While the study assumed that State would issue a 
minimum of 25 million passports by 2020, this time frame has already 
become outdated, as actual issuances were 18.6 million in fiscal year 
2007 and, in July 2007, were estimated by State to reach 30 million as 
early as 2010. 

An Enterprise Approach Could Help State Improve Passport Operations: 

We have reported that using an enterprise approach to examine and 
improve the entirety of a business process can help agencies develop 
more efficient processes.[Footnote 35] An enterprise approach defines 
day-to-day operations in order to meet agency needs and processes that 
result in streamlined operations, rather than simply automating old 
ways of doing business, and effectively implements the disciplined 
processes necessary to manage the project.[Footnote 36] A key element 
of this approach is the concept of operations, which assesses the 
agency's current state, describes its envisioned end state, and 
provides a transition plan to guide the agency from one state to the 
other. An effective concept of operations would also describe, at a 
high level, how all of the various elements of an organization's 
business systems relate to each other and how information flows among 
these systems. Further, a concept of operations would serve as a useful 
tool to explain how all the entities involved in a business system can 
operate cohesively, rather than in a stovepiped manner--in the case of 
passport issuance, this tool would include acceptance agents, the 
lockbox facility, and the various components of passport operations 
within State. Finally, it would provide a road map that can be used to 
(1) measure progress and (2) focus future efforts. 

Using an enterprise approach could provide State with management 
visibility over the passport issuance process extending across its 
entire passport operations, thereby improving these operations in the 
long term. While State has made several improvements to its passport 
operations, it has yet to develop and implement a comprehensive 
strategy for passport operations. The 2005 study, which included a 
proposed concept of operations, recognized the need for a comprehensive 
approach and was designed to analyze the entire passport issuance 
process--including the applicant, passport agency, acceptance facility, 
lockbox facility, passport processing center, and passport book 
printing center. However, according to State officials, State has not 
adopted the framework for improving passport operations proposed by 
this study, nor has it developed an alternative strategy for 
prioritizing and synchronizing its varied efforts to improve these 
operations. 

Conclusion: 

The 2007 surge in passport demand exposed serious deficiencies in 
State's passport issuance process. Passport wait times reached record 
highs, leading to inconvenience and frustration for many thousands of 
Americans. Once it recognized the magnitude of the problem it was 
facing, State took extraordinary measures to reduce wait times to 
normal levels by October 2007. However, these actions were not part of 
a long-term, comprehensive strategy to improve passport operations. 
State estimates that demand for passports will continue to grow 
significantly, making such a strategy an urgent priority. Indeed, a 
study State commissioned to identify potential improvements to its 
passport operations was premised upon demand estimates for 2020 that 
are likely to be surpassed as early as this year. State needs to 
rethink its entire end-to-end passport issuance process, including each 
of the entities involved in issuing a passport, and develop a formal 
strategy for prioritizing and implementing improvements to this 
process. Doing so would improve State's ability to respond to customer 
inquiries and provide accurate information regarding expected wait 
times by increasing its visibility over a passport application from 
acceptance to issuance. It would also encourage greater accountability 
by providing transparency of State's passport operations to the 
American public. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of passport 
operations, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the following 
two actions: 

* Develop a comprehensive, long-term strategy for passport operations 
using a business enterprise approach to prioritize and synchronize the 
department's planned improvements. Specifically, State should fully 
implement a concept of operations document that describes its desired 
end state for passport operations and addresses how it intends to 
transition from the current state to this end state. 

* Begin tracking individual passport applications from the time the 
customer submits an application at an acceptance facility, in order to 
maintain better visibility over the passport process and provide better 
customer service to passport applicants. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

State provided written comments on a draft of our report, which we have 
reprinted in appendix II. State concurred with our recommendations; 
however, it expressed disappointment with our finding that the 
department lacks a comprehensive strategy to improve its passport 
operations. Although the department has developed short-term and 
contingency plans for increasing passport production capacity and 
responding to future surges in demand, we do not believe these efforts 
constitute a comprehensive strategic plan. However, we believe the 
establishment and staffing of the Passport Services Directorate's 
Strategic Planning Division is a step in the right direction, and we 
encourage this office to focus on the modernization efforts discussed 
in this report. State also disputed our characterization of the 2005 
study it commissioned to review existing processes and propose 
recommendations for improving these processes. We did not intend to 
suggest that the department fully adopt all of the recommendations in 
that study and have clarified that point in our findings. State and 
Treasury also provided technical comments and updated information, 
which we have included throughout this report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of State and 
the Treasury and will make copies available to others upon request. We 
will also make copies available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have 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 major contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

In this report, we review (1) the extent to which the Department of 
State (State) was prepared for the surge in passport demand in 2007 and 
how State's readiness affected passport operations, (2) how State 
increased its passport production capacity in response to the 2007 
surge, and (3) State's readiness for near-term surges in demand and 
whether State has a comprehensive strategy in place to improve long- 
term passport operations. 

To determine the extent to which State was prepared for the surge in 
passport demand in 2007, how State's readiness affected passport 
operations, and how State increased its passport production in response 
to the surge, we observed passport operations and interviewed U.S. 
government officials at six passport agencies--Hot Springs, Arkansas; 
Charleston, South Carolina; Houston; New Orleans; New York; and 
Washington. We selected these sites based on their workload volume and 
geographic locations. We visited State's lockbox facility in New 
Castle, Delaware, and interviewed officials from the financial agent 
responsible for providing lockbox functions. We reviewed State's 
passport demand estimates for fiscal year 2007 and analyzed the survey 
methodology supporting these estimates. We also collected and analyzed 
data on passport receipts and issuances, and staffing. In addition, we 
interviewed officials from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, the 
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury's 
Financial Management Service, and State contractors responsible for 
collecting survey data on passport demand. 

To determine State's passport processing times during the 2007 surge in 
demand, we interviewed cognizant officials, analyzed data provided by 
State, and reviewed public statements by State officials and 
information on State's Web site. We determined that these data were 
sufficiently reliable to illustrate the sharp rise in processing times 
that occurred in the summer of 2007, and place that rise in the context 
of yearly and monthly trends from 2005 to 2007. However, we found that 
the rise in application processing time in the summer of 2007 was 
likely understated to some degree. This understatement likely occurred 
because the turnaround time for entering applications into State's data 
system increased greatly at some points during 2007, due to the 
abnormally large volume of applications. 

To determine the reliability of data on passport issuances from 1997 
through 2007, we interviewed cognizant officials and analyzed data 
provided by State. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable to illustrate a relatively stable level of demand for 
passports between 1997 and 2003, followed by a significant increase in 
passport issuances since 2003. 

To determine whether State is prepared to more accurately estimate 
future passport demand and has a comprehensive strategy in place to 
address such demand, we assessed State's passport demand study for 
fiscal year 2008 and beyond, a draft report on lessons learned from the 
2007 surge in passport demand, and State's long-term road map for the 
future of passport operations. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on 
enterprise architecture and business systems management. In addition, 
we interviewed Bureau of Consular Affairs officials in Washington and 
at the regional passport agencies. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 through July 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

July 17, 2008: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "State 
Department: Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Passport 
Operations," GAO Job Code 320522. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Judith Penn, Special Assistant at 202-663-2443 or Traci Moran, Projects 
Officer, Bureau of Consular Affairs at 202-736-9268. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Bradford R. Higgins: 

cc: GAO - Michael Courts; 
CA - Janice Jacobs: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Passport Operations
(GAO Report 08-891, GAO Job Code 320522): 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the report entitled 
"Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Passport Operations." The 
Department appreciates the hard work and extensive time the GAO team 
devoted to this audit. The Department is committed to improving 
passport operations and ensuring timely delivery of passport documents 
to applicants. We appreciate the efforts of GAO and the Committee in 
helping us to improve our process. 

State appreciates the GAO's recognition that the Department made 
extraordinary efforts to increase its passport production capacity in 
2007 and, as a result of these efforts, returned to normal passport 
processing times within a relatively short period. We are disappointed 
that the GAO found that State's efforts to improve passport operations 
have been undertaken in piecemeal fashion and that we lack a 
comprehensive strategy to improve overall passport operations. 

The Department is also concerned that the GAO mischaracterized the 
nature of the 2005 Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) study that State 
commissioned. Contrary to the report's assertion, the study did not 
identify or mention deficiencies. State commissioned the study as an 
independent review of existing practices and processes and to elicit 
recommendations for improving our business processes. The resulting 
report was called "Passport 2020 - A Long-term Roadmap." [See comment 
1] 

Although the Department has implemented or is in the process of 
implementing many of the BAH recommendations made in the report, it did 
not intend or commit to implement all of them. State's intent when 
commissioning the study was to identify potential options to improve 
operations in the long term. The GAO report seems to suggest that the 
Department should have adopted all of the recommendations and that many 
of them would be in place by 2007 or 2008. As information that State 
provided to GAO and the information that follows clearly show, some of 
those recommendations are not feasible at this time given the 
operational structure, resources and technology currently available; 
while other recommendations are not cost-effective. [See comment 2] 

Recommendation 1: That the Department of State develop a comprehensive, 
long-term strategy for passport operations using a business enterprise 
approach to prioritize and synchronize the department's planned 
improvements. Specifically, State should fully implement a concept of 
operations document that describes its desired end state for passport 
operations and addresses how it intends to transition from the current 
state to this end state. 

We concur with this recommendation. We note that State has for many 
years had long-range goals and plans for improving its passport 
operations, and we continue to take actions to implement them. In the 
last decade, the Department of State has made significant changes to 
the passport document, as well as the technology,
capacity, and workforce related to the passport system. These changes 
required comprehensive strategies in order to achieve successful 
implementation. 

The Department is continuing its efforts to modernize the passport 
issuance systems and strengthen management control and accountability 
by leveraging advances in technology to become more efficient and to 
provide better service to U.S. citizens. The short-term crisis in 2007 
pulled resources away from assembling a comprehensive long-term plan. 
However, during that time, we developed a three year plan for 
increasing passport production capacity and improving the efficiency of 
our passport operations, which is currently being successfully 
implemented. As recognized in the report, this short-term strategy will 
provide the staffing levels, infrastructure and advanced technological 
systems necessary to meet future passport demand. The strategy includes 
contingency plans to effectively deal with workload surges in the 
future as tripwires are encountered. This plan will be used on an 
ongoing basis into the future for managing unanticipated surges in 
workload. [See comment 3] 

During the passport application surge in 2007, the Bureau of Consular 
Affairs (CA) continued executing a complex plan to develop and issue a 
completely new travel document - the passport card. The process 
entailed a complicated procurement, a new document, new issuing 
equipment, rulemaking and changes to every IT system related to 
passports. That process could not have been completed without 
comprehensive planning. 

Just prior to the 2007 workload surge, State established a Strategic 
Planning Division in the Passport Services Directorate to provide a 
coordinated focus for the short and long term planning for passport 
operations. A new Office Director and Division Chief have been hired to 
lead this division and provide more focus to our strategic planning. 

Recommendation 2: Begin tracking individual passport applications from 
the time the customer submits an application at an acceptance agent, in 
order to maintain better visibility over the passport process and 
provide better customer service to passport applicants. 

In the long term, the Department concurs with the recommendation to 
track passport applications from the time the customers execute the 
applications at the acceptance facility until the passports are issued 
and the applications are archived. We have made efforts in this area. 

Our most effective efforts to date have been with the Postal acceptance 
facilities applications which comprise approximately 72 percent of the 
total applications received each year. Postal acceptance facilities are 
required to track all envelopes containing passport applications from 
the time the envelopes leave the Postal facilities until they are 
signed for by a lockbox courier. Postal facilities are required to send 
routine applications via Priority Mail with delivery confirmation and 
expedited applications via Express Mail. Each envelope sent is tracked 
daily until the envelopes are delivered to a lockbox courier. For the 
non-postal acceptance facilities, similar procedures are not required 
at this time. However, we have requested that non-postal acceptance 
facilities always mail applications using traceable/tracking service. 

State started the above process for accountability purposes, rather 
than for gauging processing time. We keep track of processing time via 
our system on a daily basis. We also get a comprehensive workload 
report every day from the lockbox, which reports how much work has been 
received there and whether or not the processing time is within the 24-
hours required. Processing time at the lockbox has not exceeded that 
requirement since May 2007. As a result of the surge, the lockbox more 
than doubled their capacity. They acquired new space and built a new 
facility that is dedicated to passport work and was designed to 
maximize efficiency of the workflow for passport applications. They now 
have capacity to process four million applications per month - well 
over workload projections for the foreseeable future. 

The stage of the process that GAO is insisting we capture - between the 
time an application is submitted at an acceptance facility to the time 
it arrives at the lockbox - would track mailing time. This rarely takes 
more than five days, in fact, typically, mailing only takes one to 
three days. Visibility into fluctuations in the volume of work at that 
stage would provide such minimal lead time for adjustments that we do 
not believe the utility would justify the large expenditure of 
resources required for an application involving over 9400 acceptance 
facilities, the lockbox and the Department. [See comment 4] 

GAO Comments: 

1. State said that the 2005 study it commissioned to review existing 
passport processes and propose recommendations for improving these 
processes did not identify or mention deficiencies. We disagree. The 
version of the study provided to us notes that it includes an 
"assessment of the deficiencies of the current state" (p. 3) and 
identifies issues that "limit the efficiency and effectiveness of 
passport operations" (p. 4). These deficiencies included the reliance 
on a manual, paper-based work flow, ineffective communications, and 
inflexible passport systems. 

2. We did not intend to suggest that the department should have adopted 
all of the 2005 study's recommendations and have made slight 
modifications to our finding to clarify this point. Our intent was to 
note that the department has developed a variety of recommendations to 
improve its passport operations--many of which were developed by staff 
in Consular Affairs--but still needs a comprehensive strategy to 
prioritize and synchronize the improvements it intends to undertake. 

3. While our report recognizes that State has developed several plans 
designed to increase passport production capacity, improving the 
department's ability to respond to near-term increases in demand, these 
plans are not the same as a comprehensive strategy for improving 
passport operations. Our recommendation addresses State's need for such 
a strategy to guide its modernization efforts, by using a business 
enterprise approach, and not just to increase capacity. 

4. State notes that it has improved its efforts to track the 72 percent 
of passport applications it receives from U.S. Postal Service 
acceptance facilities for accountability purposes. From a customer 
service standpoint, we believe that the department should track all 
applications from the time of execution in order to give the customer 
an accurate estimate of when to expect his or her passport. Doing so 
would help eliminate customer confusion, which contributed to the 
strain on State's customer service operation experienced during the 
2007 surge. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess T. Ford, Director, (202) 512-4128, [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the person named above, Michael Courts (Assistant 
Director), Robert Ball, Melissa Pickworth, and Neetha Rao made key 
contributions to this report. Technical assistance was provided by Carl 
Barden, Joe Carney, Martin de Alteriis, Chris Martin, and Mary Moutsos. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Treasury oversees all financial agents of the government it 
designates, including the one responsible for passport application data 
entry and payment processing. 

[2] National means a citizen of the United States or a noncitizen owing 
permanent allegiance to the United States. 

[3] Fifteen of these offices are regional passport agencies that 
process in-person applications in addition to applications received by 
mail. The remaining two facilities--Charleston, South Carolina, and 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire--are mega processing centers with no access 
to the public. In this report, we refer to these facilities 
collectively as passport agencies. 

[4] Batch processing involves grouping 20 to 40 applications in a batch 
box, by application type (Routine or Expedite), and then electronically 
assigning a batch number in order to facilitate application tracking. 

[5] Applications accepted and adjudicated at the counter also undergo a 
number of desk adjudication steps to complete the fraud detection 
process before the specialist decides whether to approve each passport. 

[6] For individuals 16 or older, a regular U.S. passport issued on or 
after February 1, 1998, is valid for 10 years from the date of issue; 
it is valid for 5 years for younger applicants. 

[7] The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 
1995, authorizes State to charge a fee for processing machine readable 
nonimmigrant visas and to deposit such fees as offsetting collections 
to any department appropriation to recover the costs of providing 
consular services. 

[8] To help provide better assurance that border officials have the 
tools and resources to establish that people are who they say they are, 
as called for in the 9/11 Commission report (U.S. National Commission 
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report 
[Washington: Government Printing Office, 2004]), the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended, requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to develop and implement a plan that requires a passport or 
other document or combination of documents that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security deems sufficient to show identity and citizenship for 
U.S. citizens and citizens of Bermuda, Canada, and Mexico when entering 
the United States from within the Western Hemisphere. For the purposes 
of WHTI, the Western Hemisphere is defined as North, Central, and South 
America and associated islands and waters. (Pub. L. No. 108-458, ï¿½ 
7209, 118 Stat. 3638, 3823 (2004).) 

[9] While U.S. citizens entering the United States have always been 
required to satisfy the inspecting officers of their identity and 
citizenship, U.S. citizens who depart from or enter the United States 
from within the Western Hemisphere other than from Cuba have 
historically been exempt from the passport requirement. In lieu of a 
passport, travelers claiming U.S. citizenship long have been permitted 
to enter on an oral declaration or to present a variety of documents, 
such as a driver's license, to establish their identity and citizenship 
and right to enter the United States. 

[10] Section 545 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act amends 
ï¿½7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 stating that the WHTI plan may not be implemented earlier than the 
date that is the later of 3 months after the Secretary of State and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security make the certification required, or June 
1, 2009 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 
ï¿½545, 121 Stat. 1844, 2080). For more information on the implementation 
of WHTI, see GAO, Observations on Implementing the Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-
274R] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2007). 

[11] The passport card will not be valid for entering the United States 
by air. 

[12] In this report, we use the term "wait time" to refer to the time 
it takes an applicant to receive his or her passport from the time he 
or she applied. We also use the term "processing time," based on 
State's measure of passport aging, which is intended to quantify the 
period beginning when a passport office receives a passport application 
from the lockbox facility, batches it, and enters it into State's 
Travel Document Information System, and ending when the passport is 
mailed to the applicant. While "wait time" is at best an estimate of an 
applicant's total expected wait time, "processing time" is intended to 
measure the actual time an application takes to be adjudicated and the 
passport to be printed, but does not include the time it takes an 
application to be sent from an acceptance agent to the lockbox facility 
or from the lockbox facility to a passport office, or the time it takes 
to mail the passport back to an applicant. According to State 
officials, because there is no formal procedure for calculating wait 
times, estimates are developed by adding 2 weeks (for mailing and 
lockbox processing) to processing times. State generally provides wait 
times in weeks, while processing times are measured in business days. 
We have converted processing times into weeks based on a 5-business day 
week. Unless otherwise noted, in this report wait times and processing 
times refer to routine, nonexpedited passport applications. 

[13] According to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular 
Affairs, the contractor's data were one of several sources used to 
project increases in passport demand due to WHTI, and State staff made 
the final projections. 

[14] The survey was based on face-to-face interviews at 14 border 
crossing sites on the Canadian and Mexican borders (an additional 2 
sites refused to participate) between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. during a 
2-week period in the summer. Therefore, the survey's results cannot be 
generalized to any other ports, other times of day, other times of 
year, or any air and sea travelers. 

[15] Other challenges to accurately estimating passport demand are 
discussed later in this report. 

[16] According to State officials, about 90 percent of its passport 
workload passes through the lockbox. 

[17] According to lockbox data, the lockbox financial agent eliminated 
its backlog and returned to its normal 24-hour processing times by the 
end of May 2007, which it has maintained through April 2008. 

[18] Our analysis of data provided by State suggests that the average 
processing time during the height of the surge was about 8ï¿½ weeks. 
However, this figure is likely understated because of discrepancies in 
data provided by State and the lockbox provider. Specifically, State's 
data show that the department received about 735,000 more applications 
from the lockbox in August 2007 than the lockbox reported dispatching 
to State. State officials noted that due to the abnormally large volume 
of applications in 2007, turnaround time for entering applications into 
the data system increased greatly at some points in time. As a result, 
actual processing times are likely higher than the 8ï¿½-week average that 
we calculated. 

[19] In August 2007, State amended its standard from 3 business days to 
a number of days as may be published on the department's Web site. As 
of July 2008, the department's Web site indicated that applications 
would be processed within 2 weeks door-to-door. 

[20] As of July 2008, State's Web site indicates that applications will 
be processed in less than 4 weeks from the time of application. 

[21] State now provides information on its Web site regarding when 
customers may expect to receive their passports from the date of 
application. According to State officials, the department has addressed 
the problem experienced during the 2007 surge. 

[22] According to State officials, government staff were required to 
work 16 hours of overtime in every 30-day period and contract staff 
were required to work 10 hours of overtime per week. 

[23] According to State officials, only government employees can 
adjudicate passport applications, while contract staff perform critical 
nonadjudicative functions such as passport book printing and mail-out. 

[24] Annuitants are former civil service employees entitled to an 
annuity under a retirement system established for employees. 

[25] In remote adjudication, passport applications are scanned and 
reviewed by staff at a domestic passport agency and then batched and 
sent to consular posts overseas for adjudication. Consular officers 
abroad then review scanned images of the passport application and 
photograph, compare them with passport records already on file, and 
perform all appropriate name checks. When they have completed these 
checks, consular officers abroad record their decision in State's 
Travel Document Information System. Passports approved for issuance at 
overseas posts are printed at a domestic passport book printing center 
and mailed to the applicant. 

[26] The Federal Citizen Information Center's National Contact Center 
responds to telephone and e-mail inquiries about federal programs, 
benefits, and services, and processes telephone requests for consumer 
publications. 

[27] According to FMS officials, full-time employees worked an average 
of 16 hours of overtime per month during the first quarter of 2007 to 
address the backlog. 

[28] The passport book printing center receives electronic records of 
adjudicated applications from regional passport agencies and passport 
processing centers. The center then prints passports, conducts quality 
control, and mails the passport back to the applicant. 

[29] A suspense case is an application that needs to be temporarily 
removed, or suspended, from the passport issuance process because of 
missing information or unacceptable documentation or photographs. 

[30] To expand State's presence in regions with significant passport 
demand not currently served by a State passport facility, and to serve 
the anticipated needs of a border region or major international travel 
hub, State established the "gateway agency" concept. Gateway agencies-
-now simply called new passport agencies--are intended to serve 
primarily as a passport counter agency, capable of handling 650 cases 
per day and issuing as many as 250,000 passports per year. These 
agencies will be staffed by about 40 to 60 State and contract 
employees. 

[31] Currently, State operates two mega processing centers--the 
National Passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and the 
Charleston Passport Center in Charleston, South Carolina. These centers 
focus on adjudication and are not accessible to the public. 

[32] Unlike the 2005 survey, this survey was designed to be 
generalizable to all land border crossers. 

[33] State officials emphasized that the department had not formally 
adopted this framework and did not consider it department policy. 

[34] The U.S. Electronic Passport, also known as the e-Passport, is the 
same as a regular passport with the addition of a small computer chip 
embedded in the back cover. The chip securely stores the same data 
visually displayed on the photo page of the passport and includes a 
digital photograph, which enables biometric comparison, through the use 
of facial recognition technology, at international borders. The U.S. e- 
Passport also has a new look, incorporating additional anti-fraud and 
security features. Since August 2007, the United States has been 
issuing only e-Passports. 

[35] See GAO, DOD Business Transformation: Lack of an Integrated 
Strategy Puts the Army's Asset Visibility System Investments at Risk, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-860] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 27, 2007), and Business Modernization: NASA Must Consider 
Agencywide Needs to Reap the Full Benefits of Its Enterprise Management 
System Modernization Effort, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-691] (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007). 

[36] These processes are developed to support cross-functional 
enterprise needs and the concept of "one truth"--whereby a system 
generates consistent information regardless of which entity requests 
the information or for what purpose. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

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

*** End of document. ***