prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Several U S  agencies have roles and responsibilities related to the screening and vetting of NIV applicants, as shown in table 1  Key Visa Adjudication Process Terms Validity period: The length of time during which a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) is valid for use by a foreign national seeking to travel to a U S  port of entry and apply for admission into the United States  Entries: The number of applications for admission into the country permitted under a single NIV  Reciprocity arrangements: An understanding or arrangement between the U S  government and another country on the length of time visas issued by either or both nations are valid for admission  There are many NIVs, and for the purposes of this report, we have placed the majority of NIVs into one of seven groups, as shown in table 2  The validity period and number of entries varies depending on (1) the particular NIV and (2) reciprocity arrangement with an individual’s country of nationality, among other factors  For example, a foreign national of one country may be issued a tourist visa valid for 1 year that allows for a single U S  entry, while a foreign national of another country may be issued a tourist visa valid for 5 years and that permits multiple entries  However, the authorized period of stay—that is, the amount of time that the nonimmigrant is permitted to remain in the United States after being admitted—has no relation to the validity period  For more information on the various NIVs, see appendix I  State is generally responsible for the adjudication of NIV applications, and manages the NIV application process, including the consular officer corps and its functions at more than 220 visa-issuing posts overseas  Depending on various factors, such as the particular NIV sought, the applicant’s background, and visa demand, State officials noted that the length of the visa adjudication process can vary from a single day to months  This screening and vetting process for determining who will be issued or refused a visa contains several steps, as shown in figure 1: Petitions  Prior to State’s adjudication process, some NIVs require applicants to first obtain an approved petition from U S  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as shown in table 3  For example, applicants seeking an employment-based NIV or a U S  citizen’s foreign national fiancé(e) seeking U S  entry to conclude a valid marriage, must obtain an approved petition from USCIS prior to applying for their NIV  The petitioner (i e , a U S  citizen, organization or business entity) completes the petition on behalf of the applicant (i e , the beneficiary), and the petition would be submitted to a U S -based USCIS service center for adjudication  USCIS Background Checks  As part of the adjudication process for visas requiring a USCIS-approved petition before the NIV application is submitted to State, USCIS conducts background checks on U S - based petitioners and foreign beneficiaries  For example, petitioner and beneficiary information is screened against TECS—DHS’s principal law enforcement and antiterrorism database that includes enforcement, inspection, and operational records  Further, for U S  citizens petitioning for a K-1 visa on behalf of their fiancé(e), an FBI fingerprint check may also be required of the U S  citizen petitioner  If the background checks identify a potential match to derogatory information, the background check unit at the USCIS service center that received the petition is to conduct further research to confirm the match, such as running checks against other government systems and collaborating with other government agencies  If all background check hits have been resolved and documented, and there is no reason not to proceed, USCIS will adjudicate the petition  In fiscal year 2017, USCIS reported that it received about 640,000 petitions for NIVs, and approved over 550,000  NIV Application  After having obtained USCIS approval of the NIV petition, as applicable, the foreign national begins the consular process by completing an online NIV application, known as a DS-160  Upon submitting an application, the applicant can schedule an interview at a post overseas and pays the processing fee  Key Visa Adjudication Process Terms Inadmissible: Individuals are inadmissible to the United States if they fall within the classes of foreign nationals defined as such under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, Pub  L  No  82-414, tit  II, ch  2, § 212(a), 66 Stat  163, 182-87 (1952) (classified, as amended, at 8 U S C  § 1182(a)), such as foreign nationals who have engaged in terrorist or criminal activities or previously violated U S  immigration law  If a visa applicant is found inadmissible, and has not obtained a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security, the applicant would be statutorily ineligible for a visa  Ineligible: An individual is ineligible for a visa if it appears to the Department of State consular officer, based on the application or supporting documentation, that the applicant is not qualified to receive a visa under any provision of law  If the consular officer decides that an applicant is ineligible for visa issuance, the refusal may be based on statutory grounds of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a), or may be due to the individual’s failure to otherwise satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements for the particular visa, as defined in the INA  For example, a consular officer may refuse a J-1 exchange visitor visa to an applicant coming to the United States to perform services as a member of the medical profession if the applicant does not either demonstrate competency in oral and written English or hold a degree from an accredited school of medicine, as required of such visa applicants under INA § 212(j)  eligibility concerns related to visa applicants  Prior to adjudicating the visa application, consular officers must review all such security check results  Some applicants are not subjected to all of the security checks depending on certain characteristics, such as age and visa category  For example, State does not generally require that fingerprints be collected for applicants who are either under 14 years old or over 79 years old, or for foreign government officials seeking certain visas  As needed, some applicants undergo an interagency review process called a security advisory opinion (SAO), which is a multi-agency, U S-based review process for certain NIV applicants  For example, SAOs are mandatory in cases of certain security check hits, a foreign national’s background, or a foreign national’s intention while in the United States  In addition, consular officers have the discretion to request an SAO for any visa applicant  Through the SAO process, consular officers send additional information on applicants to U S - based agencies, who review that information against their holdings  Department of State data indicate that consular officers made over 180,000 requests for SAOs for NIV applicants in fiscal year 2017  Adjudication  If the consular officer determines that the applicant is eligible for the visa on the basis of the application, supporting documentation, and other relevant information such as statements made in an interview, he or she will take the applicant’s passport for final processing, but the visa cannot be printed until all security checks have been returned and reviewed  If the consular officer determines that the applicant is inadmissible to the United States or otherwise ineligible under the applicable visa eligibility criteria, he or she informs the applicant that the visa has been refused, and identifies the provision(s) of law under which the visa was refused  Recurrent vetting  In March 2010, shortly after the December 2009 attempted bombing by a foreign national traveling to the United States on a valid visa, CBP began vetting individuals with NIVs on a recurrent basis  This program has led State to revoke visas after they have been issued when information was later discovered that rendered the individual inadmissible to the United States or otherwise ineligible for the visa  In addition, CBP analysts may take other actions as needed after identifying new derogatory information, such as recommending that the airline deny boarding to the traveler because the traveler is likely to be deemed inadmissible upon arrival in the United States (known as a no-board recommendation) or making a referral to ICE, which may seek to remove the individual if already within the United States  According to NCTC, KFE also conducts recurrent vetting of NIV holders against emerging threat information  The total number of NIV applications that consular officers adjudicated annually (or, NIV adjudications) peaked at about 13 4 million in fiscal year 2016, which was an increase of approximately 30 percent since fiscal year 2012  In fiscal year 2017, NIV adjudications decreased by about 880,000 adjudications, or about 7 percent  Figure 2 shows the number of applications adjudicated each year from fiscal year 2012 through 2017  Appendix II includes additional data on NIV adjudications related to this and the other figures in this report  Annual Monthly Trends  State data from fiscal years 2012 through 2016 indicate that NIV adjudications generally followed an annual cycle, ebbing during certain months during the fiscal year; however, adjudications in fiscal year 2017 departed slightly from this trend  Specifically, from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the number of NIV adjudications typically peaked in the summer months  State officials noted that the summer peak is generally due to international students who are applying for their visas for the coming academic year  However, in fiscal year 2017, the summer months did not experience a similar increase from previous months, departing from the trend over the previous five fiscal years, according to State data  Instead, NIV adjudications peaked in December of fiscal year 2017  State officials attributed some of the decline in fiscal year 2017 to a decrease in Chinese NIV applicants, which we discuss later in this report  Figure 3 shows monthly NIV adjudications for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  State data on NIV applications adjudicated from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 indicate that the number of adjudications by visa group, applicant’s country of nationality, and location of adjudication were generally consistent, with some exceptions  Visa Group  From fiscal years 2012 through 2017, about 80 percent of NIV adjudications were for tourist and business visitors as shown in figure 4  The next largest groups were visas for students and exchange visitors and temporary workers, which accounted for an average of 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively, of all adjudications during this time period  Although adjudications for visas in some categories increased, others decreased over time  For example, as shown in figure 5, NIV adjudications for temporary workers increased by approximately 50 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (592,000 to 885,000)  During the same time period, adjudications for tourist and business visitors also increased by approximately 20 percent overall (from 8 18 million to 9 97 million), but decreased from fiscal years 2016 to 2017  However, NIV adjudications for student and exchange visitor visas decreased by about 2 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (1 01 million to 993,000) overall, but experienced a peak in fiscal year 2015 of 1 2 million  Appendix I includes additional information on NIV adjudication by visa group from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  State officials identified reasons to explain these trends: Temporary Workers  Although there was an increase in adjudications across all types of temporary worker visas, the largest percentage increase was for H-2A visas, which are for foreign workers seeking to perform agricultural services of a temporary or seasonal nature  Specifically, adjudications of H-2A visas increased by 140 percent from fiscal years 2012 to 2017 (from about 71,000 to 170,000)  State officials noted that H-2A visas are not numerically limited by statute  Further, State officials stated that they believe U S  employers are increasingly less likely to hire workers without lawful status and are petitioning for lawfully admitted workers, which in part led to an increase in H-2A visa demand  Tourist and Business Visitors  State officials partly attributed the overall changes to tourist and business visitor visas to the extension of the validity period of such visas for Chinese nationals, which represented the largest single country of nationality for tourist and business visitor visas in fiscal year 2017 (17 7 percent)  In November 2014, the United States and the People’s Republic of China reciprocally increased the validity periods of multiple-entry tourist and business visitor visas issued to each other’s citizens for up to 10 years  The change in policy was intended to support improved trade, investment, and business by facilitating travel between the two countries  According to State officials, extending validity periods can create an initial increase in demand for such visas, followed by a period of stabilization or even decline as NIV holders would be required to apply for renewal less frequently  According to State officials, in early fiscal year 2015, the increase in the validity period to 10 years for such visas created a spike in Chinese demand in fiscal year 2015, and by fiscal year 2016, the initial demand for these visas had been met and Chinese economic growth was simultaneously slowing, resulting in fewer adjudications for such visas in fiscal year 2017  State data for this time period indicate that the number of adjudications for tourist and business visitor visas for Chinese nationals increased from 1 58 million in fiscal year 2014 to 2 54 million in fiscal year 2015, followed by a decline to 2 34 million in fiscal year 2016 and 1 76 million in fiscal year 2017  Student and Exchange Visitors  Similar to tourist and business visitors, State officials partly attributed the overall changes in student and exchange visitor visa adjudications to the extension of the validity period of such visas for Chinese nationals, which represented the largest single country of nationality for student and exchange visitor visas in fiscal year 2017 (19 percent)  In November 2014, the United States extended the validity period of the F visa for academic students from 1 year to 5 years  State officials noted that similar to tourist and business visitor visas, there was an initial surge in Chinese F-visa applicants due to the new 5-year F-visa validity period that began in fiscal year 2015, but the number dropped subsequently because Chinese students with such 5-year visas no longer needed to apply as frequently for F visas  State data for this time period indicate that the number of visa adjudications for F visas for Chinese nationals increased from about 267,000 in fiscal year 2014 to 301,000 in fiscal year 2015, followed by a decline of 172,000 in fiscal year 2016 and 134,000 in fiscal year 2017  Applicant’s Country of Nationality  In fiscal year 2017, more than half of all NIV adjudications were for applicants of six countries of nationality: China (2 02 million, or 16 percent), Mexico (1 75 million, or 14 percent), India (1 28 million, or 10 percent), Brazil (670,000, or 5 percent), Colombia (460,000, or 4 percent), and Argentina (370,000, or 3 percent), as shown in figure 6  Location of Adjudication  State data indicate that the geographic distribution of NIV adjudications across visa-issuing posts worldwide remained relatively consistent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV adjudications from visa-issuing posts in the Western Hemisphere comprised the largest proportion worldwide during this time period; however, this proportion decreased from 48 8 percent in fiscal year 2012 to 41 7 percent in fiscal year 2017  During the same time period, the proportion of NIV adjudications at visa-issuing posts in other regions increased slightly  For example, the percentage of NIV adjudications from posts in Africa increased from 3 8 percent to 5 5 percent, and the percentage of adjudications from posts in South and Central Asia increased from 7 9 percent to 11 2 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Figure 7 provides the proportion of NIV adjudications at visa- issuing posts from each region from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  The percentage of NIVs refused—known as the refusal rate—increased from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, and was about the same in fiscal year 2017 as the previous year  As shown in figure 8, the NIV refusal rate rose from about 14 percent in fiscal year 2012 to about 22 percent in fiscal year 2016, and remained about the same in fiscal year 2017; averaging about 18 percent over the time period  As a result, the total number of NIVs issued peaked in fiscal year 2015 at about 10 89 million, before falling in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 to 10 38 million and 9 68 million, respectively  The NIV refusal rate can fluctuate from year to year due to many factors  For example, according to State officials, removing a large, highly- qualified set of travelers from the NIV applicant population can drive up the statistical refusal rate  State officials also noted that when a country joins the Visa Waiver Program or a visa for certain nationalities increase from 1-year to 10-year visa validity periods, these individuals no longer apply for visas and affect the overall refusal rate  Further, State officials noted that changes in political and economic conditions in individual countries can affect visa eligibility, which in turn affects the overall refusal rate  State officials noted that the degree to which an applicant might seek to travel to the United States unlawfully is directly related to political, economic, and social conditions in their countries  For example, if global or regional economic conditions deteriorate, more applicants may have an incentive to come to the United States illegally by, for example, obtaining a NIV with the intent to unlawfully stay for a particular time period or purpose other than as permitted by their visa, which then would increase the number of NIV applications that consular officers are refusing  From fiscal years 2012 through 2017, the refusal rate varied by visa group  The highest refusal rate was for tourists and business visitors, which rose from about 15 percent in fiscal year 2012 to over 25 percent in fiscal year 2017, as shown in figure 9  Other visa categories, such as foreign officials and employees, transit and crewmembers, and fiancé(e)s and spouses, had refusal rates below 5 percent during this time period  State officials noted that because different visa categories have different eligibility and documentary requirements, they have different refusal rates  For example, F, J, and H visas require documentation of eligibility for student, exchange, or employment status, respectively  According to State data, while the majority of NIV refusals from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 were a result of consular officers finding the applicants ineligible, a relatively small number of refusals were due to terrorism and other security-related concerns  NIV applicants can be refused a visa on a number of grounds of inadmissibility or other ineligibility under U S  immigration law and State policy  For the purposes of this report, we have grouped most of these grounds for refusal into one of seven categories, as shown in table 4  State data indicate the more than 90 percent of NIVs refused each year from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 were based on the consular officers’ determination that the applicants were ineligible nonimmigrants—in other words, the consular officers believed that the applicant was an intending immigrant seeking to stay permanently in the United States, which would generally violate NIV conditions, or that the applicant otherwise failed to demonstrate eligibility for the particular visa he or she was seeking  For example, an applicant applying for a student visa could be refused as an ineligible nonimmigrant for failure to demonstrate possession of sufficient funds to cover his or her educational expenses as required  Similarly, an applicant could be refused as an ineligible nonimmigrant for indicating to the consular officer an intention to obtain a student visa to engage in unsanctioned activities while in the United States, such as full-time employment instead of pursuing an approved course of study  According to State data, the second most common reason for refusal during this time period was inadequate documentation, which accounted for approximately 5 percent of refusals each year  In such cases, a consular officer determined that the application failed to include necessary documentation for the consular officer to ascertain whether the applicant was eligible to receive a visa at that time  If, for example, the applicant provides sufficient additional information in support of the application, a consular officer may subsequently issue the visa, as appropriate  Our analysis of State data indicates that relatively few applicants— approximately 0 05 percent—were refused for terrorism and other security-related reasons from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Security- related reasons can include applicants who have engaged in genocide, espionage, or torture, among other grounds  Terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility include when an applicant has engaged in or incited terrorist activity, is a member of a terrorist organization, or is the child or spouse of a foreign national who has been found inadmissible based on terrorist activity occurring within the last five years, among other reasons  As shown in figure 10, in fiscal year 2017, State data indicate that 1,256 refusals (or 0 05 percent) were based on terrorism and other security-related concerns, of which 357 refusals were specifically for terrorism-related reasons  In calendar year 2017, the President issued two executive orders and a presidential proclamation that required, among other actions, visa entry restrictions for nationals of certain countries of concern, a review of information needed for visa adjudication, and changes to visa (including NIV) screening and vetting protocols and procedures (see timeline in figure 11)  Initially, the President issued Executive Order 13769, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (EO-1), in January 2017  In March 2017, the President revoked and replaced EO-1 with the issuance of Executive Order 13780 (EO-2), which had the same title as EO-1  Among other things, EO-2 suspended entry of certain foreign nationals for a 90 day period, subject to exceptions and waivers  It further directed federal agencies—including DHS, State, DOJ and ODNI—to review information needs from foreign governments for visa adjudication and develop uniform screening and vetting standards for U S  entities to follow when adjudicating immigration benefits, including NIVs  In September 2017, as a result of the reviews undertaken pursuant to EO-2, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats (Proclamation), which imposes certain conditional restrictions and limitations on the entry of nationals of eight countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen—into the United States for an indefinite period  These restrictions are to remain in effect until the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State determine that a country provides sufficient information for the United States to assess adequately whether its nationals pose a security or safety threat  Challenges to both EOs and the Proclamation have affected their implementation and, while EO-2’s entry restrictions have expired, the visa entry restrictions outlined in the Proclamation continue to be fully implemented as of June 2018, consistent with the U S  Supreme Court’s June 26, 2018, decision, which held that the President may lawfully establish nationality-based entry restrictions under the INA, and that Proclamation 9645 itself “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority ” A more detailed listing of the executive actions and related challenges to those actions brought in the federal courts can be found in appendix III  Our analysis of State data indicates, out of the nearly 2 8 million NIV applications refused in fiscal year 2017, 1,338 were refused due to visa entry restrictions implemented in accordance with the executive actions  To implement the entry restrictions, in March 2017, State directed its consular officers to continue to accept all NIV applications and determine whether the applicant was otherwise eligible for a visa without regard to the applicable EO or Proclamation  If the applicant was ineligible for the visa on grounds unrelated to the executive action, such as having prior immigration violations, the applicant was to be refused on those grounds  If the applicant was otherwise eligible for the visa, but fell within the scope of the nationality-specific visa restrictions implemented pursuant to the applicable EO or Proclamation and was not eligible for a waiver or exception, the consular officer was to refuse the visa and enter a refusal code into State’s NIV database indicating that the applicant was refused solely due to the executive actions  More than 90 percent of the NIV applications refused in fiscal year 2017 pursuant to an executive action were for tourist and business visitor visas, and more than 5 percent were for students and exchange visitors  State data also indicate that the number of applications adjudicated for nationals of the 7 countries identified in EO-1—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen—decreased by 22 percent in fiscal year 2017, as compared to a 7 percent general decrease in NIV adjudications worldwide that year  For example, as shown in table 5, the decrease in adjudications from fiscal years 2016 to 2017 for nationals of the 7 countries identified in EO-1 ranged from around 12 percent to more than 40 percent  As directed by the executive actions, DHS, State, DOJ, and ODNI took several steps to enhance NIV screening and vetting processes given their responsibilities for implementing the presidential actions  Among other things, the responsibilities included: (1) a review of information needed for visa adjudication; (2) the development of uniform screening standards for immigration programs; and (3) implementation of enhanced visa screening and vetting protocols and procedures  Review of information needed for visa adjudication  In accordance with EO-2, DHS conducted a worldwide review, in consultation with State and ODNI, to identify additional information needed from foreign countries to determine that an individual is not a security or public-safety threat when adjudicating an application for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit  According to State officials, an interagency working group composed of State, DHS, ODNI, and National Security Council staff was formed to conduct the review  To conduct this review, DHS developed a set of criteria for information sharing in support of immigration screening and vetting, as shown by table 6  According to DHS officials, to develop these criteria, DHS, in coordination with other agencies, identified current standards and best practices for information collection and sharing under various categories of visas to create a core list of information needed from foreign governments in the visa adjudication process  For example, State sent an information request to all U S  posts overseas requesting information on host nations’ information sharing practices, according to State officials  To assess the extent to which countries were meeting the newly established criteria, DHS officials stated that they used various information sources to preliminarily develop a list of countries that were or were not meeting the standards for adequate information sharing  For example, DHS officials stated that they reviewed information from INTERPOL on a country’s frequency of reporting lost and stolen passport information, consulted with ODNI for information on which countries are terrorist safe havens, and worked with State to obtain information that State officials at post may have on host nations’ information sharing practices  According to the Proclamation, based on DHS assessments of each country, DHS reported to the President on July 9, 2017, that 47 countries were “inadequate” or “at risk” of not meeting the standards  DHS officials identified several reasons that a country may have been assessed as “inadequate” with regard to the criteria  For example, some countries may have been willing to provide information, but lacked the capacity to do so  Or, some countries may not have been willing to provide certain information, or simply did not currently have diplomatic relations with the U S  government  As was required by EO-2, State engaged with foreign governments on their respective performance based on these criteria for a 50-day period  In July 2017, State directed its posts to inform their respective host governments of the new information sharing criteria and request that host governments provide the required information or develop a plan to do so  Posts were directed to then engage more intensively with countries DHS’s report preliminarily deemed “inadequate” or “at risk”  Each post was to submit an assessment of mitigating factors or specific interests that should be considered in the deliberations regarding any travel restrictions for nationals of those countries  DHS officials stated that they reviewed the additional information host nations provided to State and then reevaluated the initial classifications to determine if any countries remained “inadequate ” On September 15, 2017, in accordance with EO-2, DHS submitted to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a presidential proclamation that would prohibit certain categories of foreign nationals of such countries from entering the United States  The countries listed were Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen— which were assessed as “inadequate,” and Somalia, which was identified as a terrorist safe haven  The Presidential Proclamation indefinitely suspended entry into the United States of certain nonimmigrants from the listed countries (see table 7) and directed DHS, in consultation with State, to devise a process to assess whether the entry restrictions should be continued, modified or terminated  In September 2017, State issued additional guidance to posts on implementation of the Presidential Proclamation  As of July 2018, State continues to accept and process the NIV applications of foreign nationals from the eight countries covered by the Proclamation  Such applicants are to be interviewed, according to State guidance, and consular officers are to determine if the applicant is otherwise eligible for the visa, meets any of the proclamation’s exceptions, or qualifies for a waiver  Development of uniform screening standards for U S  immigration benefit programs  Consistent with EO-2, State, DHS, DOJ, and ODNI developed a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures by the U S  government  According to State officials, an interagency working group comprised of State, DHS, DOJ, and ODNI staff is implementing these requirements  Based on its review of existing screening and vetting processes, DHS officials stated that the working group established uniform standards for (1) applications, (2) interviews, and (3) security system checks (i e , biographic and biometric)  Regarding applications, DHS officials stated that the group identified data elements against which applicants are to be screened and vetted  In February 2018, DHS Office of Policy officials stated that they had taken steps to create more consistency across U S  government forms that collect information used for screening and vetting purposes, such as State’s DS-160 NIV application as well as 12 DHS forms  For example, officials stated that they anticipate issuing Federal Register notices announcing the intended changes to such forms  Regarding interviews, DHS officials stated that the working group established a requirement for all applicants seeking an immigration benefit, including NIV applicants, to undergo a baseline uniform national security and public safety interview  DHS officials stated that the working group modeled its interview baseline on elements of the refugee screening interview  To help implement this standard, DHS officials stated that the department is offering more training courses in enhanced communications (i e  detecting deception and eliciting responses) and making such courses accessible to other U S  government entities and U S  officials overseas  Regarding security checks, the working group identified certain checks that should be conducted for all applicants seeking an immigration benefit, including NIV applicants  For example, DHS officials stated that the working group concluded that all applicants for U S  immigration benefits should be screened against DHS’s TECS, among other federal databases  In February 2018, DHS Office of Policy officials stated that they were also exploring the extent to which current screening and vetting technologies can be expanded  For example, technology that is being used to screen applicants for counterterrorism concerns can potentially be modified to screen applicants for other concerns such as public safety or participation in transnational organized crime  However, these officials noted such changes to technology can take a long time  DHS officials stated that each department and agency is responsible for implementing the uniform standards for their relevant immigration programs  For example, with regard to maintaining information electronically, State officials stated that for nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, as of May 2018, they collected most, but not all, of the application data elements  In addition to executive actions taken in calendar year 2017, the President issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 9 on February 6, 2018, which directed DHS, in coordination with State, DOJ, and ODNI, to establish a National Vetting Center to optimize the use of federal government information in support of the national vetting enterprise  This memorandum stated that the U S  government must develop an integrated approach to the use of intelligence and other data, across national security components, in order to improve how departments and agencies coordinate and use information to identify individuals presenting a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety  The center is to be overseen and guided by a National Vetting Governance Board, consisting of six senior executives designated by DHS, DOJ, ODNI, State, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense  Further, within 180 days of the issuance of the memorandum, these six departments and agencies, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, are to jointly submit to the President for approval an implementation plan for the center, addressing, among other things, the initial scope of the center’s vetting activities; the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in the center; a resourcing strategy for the center; and a projected schedule to reach both initial and full operational capability  On February 14, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security selected an official to serve as the Director of the National Vetting Center and delegated the center’s authorities to CBP  DHS Office of Policy officials stated in February 2018 that the center is intended to serve as the focal point of the larger screening and vetting enterprise, and will coordinate policy and set priorities  The center will use the uniform baselines for screening and vetting standards and procedures established per EO-2 to set short- and long-term priorities to improve screening and vetting across the U S  government  Further, these officials stated screening and vetting activities will continue to be implemented by the entities that are currently implementing such efforts, but roles and responsibilities for screening and vetting for immigration benefits may be modified in the future based on the work of the center  According to DHS Office of Policy officials, efforts to implement National Security Presidential Memorandum 9, such as the development of an implementation plan, are ongoing as of June 2018  Implementation of new visa screening and vetting protocols and procedures  In response to the EOs and a March 2017 presidential memorandum issued the same day as EO-2, State has taken several actions to implement new visa screening and vetting protocols and procedures  For example, State sought and received emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget in May 2017 to develop a new form, the DS-5535  The form collects additional information from a subset of visa applicants to more rigorously evaluate applicants for visa ineligibilities, including those related to national security and terrorism  The new information requested includes the applicant’s travel history over the prior 15 years, all phone numbers used over the prior 15 years, and all email addresses and social media handles used in the last 5 years  State estimated that, across all posts, the groups requiring additional vetting represented about 70,500 individuals per year  We provided a draft of the sensitive version of this report to DHS, DOJ, State, and ODNI  DHS, DOJ, and State provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until seven days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777or GamblerR@gao gov  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV  There are many nonimmigrant visas (NIV), which are issued to foreign nationals such as tourists, business visitors, and students seeking temporary admission into the United States  For the purposes of this report, we placed the majority of NIVs into one of seven groups  In the following enclosures, we provide a descriptive overview of each group on the basis of our analysis of the Department of State’s (State) fiscal years 2012 through 2017 NIV data  Each enclosure also contains the following: Description of the group  In this section, we provide a narrative description of the group, as well as a table of the specific NIVs that comprise the group  Characteristics of the applicants  In this section, we provide the number of annual NIV adjudications for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, the specific NIVs adjudicated in fiscal year 2017 within the group, the regions to which applicants applied for these NIVs in fiscal year 2017, and the top five nationalities that applied for NIVs in the group in fiscal year 2017  Issuances  In this section, we provide the number of NIVs issued within this group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Refusals  In this section, we provide the refusal rate for the entire NIV group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  For the NIVs that were refused in fiscal year 2017 for this group, we also provide the top ground for refusal  NIV applicants can be refused a visa on a number of grounds of inadmissibility or other ineligibility under U S  immigration law and State policy  However, across all visa groups, the top categories were either ineligible nonimmigrant or inadequate documentation: Ineligible nonimmigrant  For most NIV categories, the applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant until the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she is entitled to a nonimmigrant status  An applicant may be refused under this provision if, among other things, the consular officer determines the applicant lacks sufficient ties to his or her home country, or intends to abandon foreign residence; that evidence otherwise indicates an intent to immigrate to the United States permanently; or that the applicant is likely to violate the terms of the visa after being admitted  Inadequate documentation  The consular officer determined that the application is not in compliance with the INA because, for example, it lacks necessary documentation to allow the consular officer to determine visa eligibility  In such cases, the applicant would not be found eligible for the visa unless and until satisfactory documentation is provided to the consular officer or after the completion of administrative processing, such as security advisory opinions  Visa types (FY 2017) (9,968,157 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (9,968,157 adjudications) percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2015, and declined by about 13 percent from fiscal years 2015 to 2017  ● The refusal rate for tourist and business visitor visas generally increased each year from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017  ● The vast majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (992,855 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (992,855 adjudications) ● The refusal rate for student and exchange visitor issuances decreased each year from fiscal years 2015 through 2017  visas peaked in fiscal year 2016, and slightly declined in fiscal year 2017  ● The vast majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (884,667 adjudications) 19% 10% 16% Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (884,667 adjudications) ● Generally, the refusal rates for temporary worker years 2012 through 2017  visas decreased from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Department of State officials noted, for example, that H-2A visas are not numerically limited by statute  They also stated that they believe U S  employers are increasingly less likely to hire workers without lawful status and are petitioning for lawfully admitted workers  ● In fiscal year 2017, temporary worker visas were most frequently refused because the applicant did not provide adequate documentation to the consular officer  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (330,117 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (330,117 adjudications) ● The refusal rates for transit and crewmember visas about 8 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (from about 295,000 to 320,000)  varied over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Specifically, issued C-1/D visas increased over the ● The majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were same time period, but the number of issued visas for the remaining visa types in this category have decreased  due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of his or her intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (166,187 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (166,187 adjudications) ● The refusal rates for foreign official and employee visas remained under 4 percent  ● In fiscal year 2017, foreign official and employee visas were most frequently refused because the applicant did not provide adequate documentation to the consular officer  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (68,580 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (68,580 adjudications) ● Generally, refusal rates for treaty trader and investor increased over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  visas increased slightly over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Issuances for E-3 visas nearly doubled from fiscal ● The majority of refusals in fiscal year 2017 were year 2012 through 2017, but comprise a small percentage of this category overall  due to the applicant’s inability to overcome the presumption of their intent to immigrate or meet the visa’s eligibility criteria  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Visa types (FY 2017) (40,533 adjudications) Region in which applicant applied (FY 2017) (40,533 adjudications) ● Refusal rates for fiancé(e) and spouse visas were fluctuated over the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017, but increased overall during this time period  relatively low during the period of fiscal years 2012 through 2017  ● Most refusals in fiscal year 2017 were due to inadequate documentation from the visa applicant, potentially indicating that such applications failed to include necessary documentation for the consular officer to ascertain whether the applicant was eligible to receive a visa at that time  Issued visas, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (in thousands) Visa refusal rates, fiscal years 2012 through 2017 (percentage) Nonimmigrant visas (NIV) are issued to foreign nationals such as tourists, business visitors, and students seeking temporary admission into the United States  The Department of State (State) is generally responsible for the adjudication of NIV applications, and manages the application process, including the consular officer corps and its functions at more than 220 U S  embassies and consulates (i e , visa-issuing posts) overseas  Depending on various factors, such as the particular NIV sought, the applicant’s background, and visa demand, State officials noted that the length of the visa adjudication process can vary from a single day to months  This appendix provides descriptive statistics of NIV adjudications, issuances, and refusals for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  Specific details are shown in table 8 below  State data from fiscal years 2012 through 2016 indicate that NIV adjudications generally followed an annual cycle, ebbing during certain months during the fiscal year; however, adjudications in fiscal year 2017 departed slightly from this trend  Specifically, from fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the number of NIV adjudications typically reached its highest peak in the summer months, as shown in table 9  For example, State officials noted that a summer peak is generally due to international students who are applying for their visas for the coming academic year  There are many NIVs, and for the purposes of this report, we have placed the majority of NIVs into one of seven groups  Table 10 includes the annual NIV adjudications, issuances, and refusal rates, for each visa group for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants seeking to travel to the United States represent many different nationalities, but the countries of nationality with the most NIV adjudications have remained relatively consistent in recent years  Table 11 provides the top 25 countries of nationality for NIV adjudications for fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants can apply for their NIVs at more than 220 visa-issuing U S  posts overseas  Table 12 describes the regions to which NIV applicants applied from fiscal years 2012 through 2017  NIV applicants can be refused a visa on a number of grounds of inadmissibility or other ineligibility under U S  immigration law and State policy  For the purposes of this report, we have grouped most of these grounds for refusal into one of seven categories, and group the remaining into a miscellaneous category, as shown in table 13  From January through October 2017, the administration took various executive actions establishing nationality-based entry restrictions for certain categories of foreign nationals from designated countries  This appendix supplements information included in this report to provide a more comprehensive presentation of changes to U S  immigration policy affecting nonimmigrant and immigrant entry into the United States, and outlines the legal standards applied, and precedent developed and relied upon, by federal courts in resolving challenges to the executive actions  In particular, it describes relevant aspects of the executive actions specifically addressed in this report—Executive Orders 13769 and 13780, both titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats—that imposed visa entry restrictions on certain countries’ nationals and included provisions addressing NIV screening and vetting, as well as other executive actions on immigration issued by the current administration  Furthermore, this appendix provides a detailed account of the interrelated challenges to these executive actions brought in the federal courts through June 2018  In summary, on March 6, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which instituted visa and refugee entry restrictions, and an accompanying memorandum addressed to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, calling for heightened screening and vetting of visa applications and other immigration benefits  EO 13780 stated that it is U S  policy to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and U S  Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)  Enforcement of sections 2(c) and 6(a) of EO 13780 which established visa entry restrictions for nationals of six countries of particular concern—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for a 90-day period, and suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days, was enjoined by federal district court orders issued in March 2017  On appeal, the U S  Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits generally upheld these decisions  Upon review by the U S  Supreme Court in June 2017, the injunction was partially lifted except with respect to foreign nationals who have bona fide ties to the United States Implementation of EO 13780 commenced on June 29, 2017  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats  This proclamation restricts entry into the United States of certain categories of foreign nationals from eight countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—for an indefinite period  Preliminary injunctions issued by the U S  District Courts for the Districts of Maryland (Maryland federal district court) and Hawaii (Hawaii federal district court) in October 2017 prohibited implementation of these visa entry restrictions except with respect to North Korean and Venezuelan nationals  On December 4, 2017, the U S  Supreme Court issued two orders staying these district court injunctions; and on January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for review of the December 22, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit, which partially affirmed the Hawaii federal district court’s preliminary injunction  As of June 2018, these latest visa entry restrictions continue to be fully implemented consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2018, decision, which held that the President may lawfully establish nationality-based entry restrictions, and that Proclamation 9645 itself “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority ” The following sections describe these executive actions and related litigation in greater detail  On January 27, 2017, the President issued EO 13769, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which directed a review of information needs for adjudicating visas and other immigration benefits to confirm individuals seeking such benefits are who they claim to be, and are not security or public-safety threats  To temporarily reduce investigative burdens during the review period, the EO suspended U S  entry for nationals of seven countries of particular concern—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen  In addition, EO 13769 put USRAP on hold for 120 days and indefinitely barred admission of Syrian refugees  Shortly after its issuance, however, the EO faced numerous legal challenges in federal courts across the country involving various constitutional and statutory issues such as detainee applications for writs of habeas corpus, alleged religious or nationality-based discrimination, and the extent of the EO’s applicability to certain categories of foreign nationals, including U S  lawful permanent residents (LPR) and dual nationals holding passports issued by a listed country as well as another nation not subject to visa entry restrictions  On February 3, 2017, the Washington federal district court entered a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting enforcement of the EO’s entry restrictions  In rejecting the government’s argument that a TRO only cover the particular states at issue, the court reasoned that partial implementation would “undermine the constitutional imperative of ‘a uniform Rule of Naturalization’ and Congress’s instruction that the ‘immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly ’” On February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide injunction, thereby denying the government’s emergency motion for a stay of the Washington federal district court’s TRO pending appeal, because the government did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, or that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury  On March 6, 2017, however, the President issued EO 13780, which revoked and replaced EO 13769, and established revised restrictions on entry for nationals of the same countries of particular concern, except Iraq  On March 6, 2017, the President signed EO 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which revoked and replaced EO 13769 and put in place revised visa and refugee entry restrictions, and issued an accompanying memorandum calling for heightened screening and vetting of visa applications and other immigration benefits  In general, sections 2(c) and 6(a) of EO 13780 barred visa travel for nationals of six designated countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—for 90 days, and all refugee admission for 120 days  On March 15, 2017, sections 2 and 6 of the EO were enjoined on statutory grounds (i e , based on potential violation of U S  immigration law) pursuant to the order of the Hawaii federal district court granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO  On March 16, 2017, the Maryland federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of visa entry restrictions on a nationwide basis with respect to nationals of the six listed countries  On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Maryland federal district court’s injunction on constitutional grounds (i e , based on potential violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U S  Constitution)  On June 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit generally affirmed the Hawaii federal district court’s ruling, but vacated the district court’s order to the extent it enjoined internal review procedures not burdening individuals outside the Executive Branch, therefore permitting the administration to conduct the internal reviews of visa information needs as directed in the EO  On June 14, 2017, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Director of National Intelligence, directing that sections 2 and 6 of EO 13780 were to be implemented 72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed  On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted, in part, the government’s application to stay the March 15 and 16 injunctions of the Hawaii and Maryland federal district courts, as generally upheld on May 25 and June 12 by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits  The Court explained that the administration may enforce visa and refugee travel restrictions under sections 2 and 6 except with respect to an individual who can “credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States ” In the case of a visa or refugee applicant who is the relative of a person in the United States, such foreign national would be exempt from entry restrictions provided the family connection with their U S  relative meets the “close familial relationship” standard  The Court further explained that a qualifying relationship with a U S  entity would have to be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, and not for the purpose of evading EO 13780  On June 29, 2017, the day that implementation of EO 13780 began, the State Department issued guidance providing that a close familial relationship exists for the parents, spouse, children, adult sons or daughters, sons and daughters-in-law, and siblings of a person in the United States, but not for such person’s grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law or other relatives  The State of Hawaii filed a motion with the Hawaii federal district court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the partial injunction in place after the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited application of travel restrictions to fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States  On July 13, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court ruled, among other things, that section 2 of the EO, generally barring travel to the United States for nationals of certain countries, does not apply to the grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of persons in the United States, who were initially excluded from the administration’s interpretation of “close family ” The government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court  On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the government’s motion seeking further clarification of its June 26 ruling, stayed the Hawaii federal district court’s order to the extent it included refugees covered by a formal assurance from a U S -based resettlement agency within the scope of the preliminary injunction, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and left unchanged the district court’s broader formulation of exempt “close family ” On September 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Hawaii federal district court’s definition of close family members who are not to be subjected to travel restrictions, and rejected the government’s argument that refugees who had undergone a stringent review process and been approved by U S -based resettlement agencies lack a bona fide relationship to the United States, thus allowing admission of such refugees  On September 11, 2017, the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined aspects of the Hawaii federal district court’s holding that would permit admission of certain refugees with formal assurances from a U S  resettlement entity  The next day, on September 12, 2017, the Supreme Court indefinitely stayed the Ninth Circuit’s September 7 ruling with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, thereby permitting the administration to suspend entry of such refugees  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats, which expanded the scope and duration of visa entry restrictions from six to eight countries, and from a 90-day to an indefinite period for the listed countries  On September 25, 2017, in light of the September 24 proclamation, the Supreme Court directed the parties to file briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the cases before it regarding EO 13780 are moot  On October 10, 2017, after receiving the parties’ supplemental briefs, the Supreme Court decided that because section 2(c) of EO 13780 expired on September 24, there was no live case or controversy; and without expressing a view on the merits, the Court vacated and remanded the Maryland case to the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to EO 13780  On October 24, 2017, consistent with its October 10 ruling, the Supreme Court also vacated and remanded the Hawaii case related to EO 13780 to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss it as moot  Consequently, after challenges to EO 13780 visa and refugee entry restrictions, as curtailed by the Supreme Court’s ruling of June 26, 2017, were rendered moot, litigation continued with respect to the President’s proclamation of September 24, 2017  On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of EO 13780, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the Proclamation), Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats, which imposes certain conditional restrictions and limitations on entry into the United States of nationals of eight countries—Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—for an indefinite period  According to the Proclamation, travel restrictions are tailored to each nation’s information sharing and identity management deficiencies based on standard immigration screening and vetting criteria established by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and are to remain in effect until such time as the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State determine that a country provides sufficient information for the United States to assess adequately whether its nationals pose a security or safety threat  On October 17, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court issued a TRO, on statutory grounds, enjoining on a nationwide basis the implementation and enforcement of travel restrictions provided for under the Proclamation, except with respect to North Korean or Venezuelan nationals  On the same day, the Maryland federal district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, primarily on constitutional grounds, thereby prohibiting implementation of visa entry restrictions nationwide, except for nationals of North Korea and Venezuela as well as other covered foreign nationals who lack a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States  On October 20, 2017, the Hawaii federal district court converted its October 17 TRO into a preliminary injunction, thereby continuing the nationwide prohibition on enforcement or implementation of the suspension on entry for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen  The district court did not stay its ruling or hold it in abeyance should an appeal be filed in the Ninth Circuit  On November 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted, in part, the government’s request for an emergency stay of the Hawaii federal district court’s preliminary injunction, thereby allowing visa entry restrictions to go into effect with respect to the nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen  However, consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 2017 ruling, the court ordered that those with a bone fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States not be subject to such travel restrictions  On November 20, 2017, the government petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the Hawaii federal district court, pending consideration and disposition of the government’s appeal from that injunction to the Ninth Circuit and, if that court affirms the injunction, pending filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court  On November 28, 2017, plaintiffs in the challenge to the Proclamation arising out of Hawaii asked that the Supreme Court deny the government’s request to lift the partial injunction left in place by the Ninth Circuit  On the same day, plaintiffs in the case arising out of Maryland requested that the Supreme Court not grant a stay of the federal district court’s preliminary injunction  In both cases, plaintiffs assert that the more expansive visa entry restrictions violate U S  immigration law; additionally, for the Maryland case, plaintiffs argue that such restrictions are unconstitutional as a form of discrimination based on national origin  On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court issued two orders staying the Maryland and Hawaii federal district courts’ orders of October 17 and 20 that preliminarily enjoined implementation of the Proclamation, pending decisions of the Ninth and Fourth Circuits in the government’s appeals, and of the Supreme Court regarding a petition for a writ of certiorari (if sought)  As a result, the Proclamation’s visa entry restrictions were permitted to go into full effect unless and until they are either enjoined by the courts of appeals and a writ of certiorari is not sought thereafter, or the Supreme Court either denies a petition for certiorari (thereby resulting in termination of the Supreme Court’s stay order) or grants such petition followed by a final injunction prohibiting current or future implementation of the Proclamation’s restrictions  The Supreme Court further noted its expectation that the courts of appeals will render decisions “with appropriate dispatch,” in light of both courts having decided to consider their respective cases on an expedited basis  On December 8, 2017, the Department of State announced that it began fully implementing the Proclamation, as permitted by the Supreme Court, at the opening of business at U S  embassies and consulates overseas  On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the Hawaii federal district court’s October 20 order enjoining enforcement of visa entry restrictions under the Proclamation, while limiting the preliminary injunction’s scope to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States  Without reaching plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the court of appeals concluded that the Proclamation exceeded the scope of authority delegated to the President by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in particular, sections 202(a)(1)(A) (immigrant visa nondiscrimination) and 212(f) (presidential suspension of, or imposition of restrictions on, alien entry), by deviating from statutory text, legislative history and prior executive practice; not including the requisite finding that entry of certain foreign nationals would be detrimental to U S  interests; and contravening the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas  However, the court stayed its decision, given that the Supreme Court’s December 4 order lifted the federal district courts’ injunctions pending not only review by the courts of appeals, but also “disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought ” On January 5, 2018, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the December 22, 2017, judgment of the Ninth Circuit which left in place the Hawaii federal district court injunction of the Proclamation’s visa entry restrictions for individuals with bona fide ties to the United States  On January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the government’s certiorari petition and will therefore consider, and issue an opinion on the merits of, the Ninth Circuit’s decision  On February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction granted by the Maryland federal district court on constitutional grounds, but stayed its decision pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit case before the Supreme Court  The court of appeals found that “laintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President has openly and often expressed his desire” to bar the entry of Muslims into the United States  Therefore, the court concluded that, in light of the President’s official statements, the Proclamation likely violates the Establishment Clause as it “fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose,” and also goes against the basic principle that government is not to act with religious animus  On February 23, 2018, Fourth Circuit challengers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking for the Supreme Court to consolidate their case with the Court’s ongoing review of the Ninth Circuit decision  These petitioners requested that the Court additionally consider their argument that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States  On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted Fourth Circuit petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their certiorari petition  On April 10, 2018, the President issued a proclamation announcing that because Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet U S  baseline security standards, nationals of Chad will again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States  On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the President lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under INA § 212(f) (presidential suspension of, or imposition of restrictions on, alien entry), by issuing Proclamation No  9645, which established nationality-based visa entry restrictions applicable to categories of foreign nationals from eight (now seven) countries for an indefinite period  In addition, while three individual plaintiffs had standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to entry restrictions prohibiting their relatives from coming to the United States, the Court found the Proclamation to be legitimate on its face as a way to prevent entry of certain foreign nationals where the government determines there is insufficient information for visa vetting  As a result of the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2018, decision, which held that the establishment of nationality-based entry restrictions is a lawful exercise of the President’s broad discretion in matters of immigration and national security, the visa entry restrictions imposed on categories of foreign nationals from certain countries pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645 continue to be fully implemented , as they have been since the Supreme Court’s December 4, 2017, orders staying the lower courts’ injunctions  On October 24, 2017, the same day the 120-day suspension of refugee admissions under EO 13780 expired, the President signed EO 13815, Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions program With Enhanced Vetting Capabilities, which resumed USRAP and directed that special measures be applied to certain categories of refugees posing potential threats to the security and welfare of the United States  On December 23, 2017, the Washington federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on aspects of EO 13815 (and its accompanying memorandum), thus prohibiting the administration from: (1) temporarily suspending admission of refugees from 11 previously identified countries of concern, and reallocating resources from the processing of their applications during the 90-day review period (except for those lacking a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States); and (2) indefinitely barring admission of, and application processing for, all following-to-join refugees  On January 5, 2018, the Washington federal district court denied the government’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s December 23, 2017, order temporarily halting enforcement of refugee entry restrictions that were to be implemented as part of the resumption of USRAP under the EO  Specifically, the government “ask the court to ‘modify its preliminary injunction to exclude from coverage refugee applicants who seek to establish a on the sole ground that they have received a formal assurance from a resettlement agency ’” In denying the government’s motion for reconsideration, the court relied on the September 7, 2017, decision of the Ninth Circuit which, among other things, rejected the notion that refugees with formal assurances from U S -based resettlement agencies do not meet the Supreme Court’s bona fide relationship standard  The court treated this Ninth Circuit ruling as binding precedent given that the Supreme Court’s indefinite stay of September 12 neither vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, nor provided any underlying reason(s) that would allow another court to discern its rationale  On January 9, 2018, the Washington federal district court also denied the government’s emergency motion for a stay of the court’s December 23, 2017, preliminary injunction, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit  On January 31, 2018, DHS announced additional security measures to prevent exploitation of USRAP  Specifically, these security measures include additional screening for certain nationals of high-risk countries, a more risk-based approach to administering USRAP, and a periodic review and update of the refugee high-risk countries list and selection criteria  Therefore, as of June 2018, while the administration has announced additional security measures to strengthen the integrity of USRAP, the Washington federal district court’s December 23, 2017, preliminary injunction of EO 13815 continues to: (1) prohibit implementation of the temporary suspension of admission, and reallocation of resources from processing applications, of refugees from 11 previously identified countries of concern; and (2) forbid enforcement of the indefinite bar on entry of following-to-join refugees  In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant Director), Colleen Corcoran, Eric Hauswirth, Thomas Lombardi, Amanda Miller, Sasan J  “Jon” Najmi, Erin O’Brien, Garrett Riba, and Dina Shorafa made significant contributions to this report 


Report 2: The LDA requires lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and to file quarterly reports disclosing their respective lobbying activities  Lobbyists are required to file their registrations and reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House through a single entry point  Registrations and reports must be publicly available in downloadable, searchable databases from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  No specific statutory requirements exist for lobbyists to generate or maintain documentation in support of the information disclosed in the reports they file  However, guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House recommends that lobbyists retain copies of their filings and documentation supporting reported income and expenses for at least 6 years after they file their reports  The LDA requires that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House guide and assist lobbyists with the registration and reporting requirements and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for LDA compliance  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House review the guidance semiannually  It was last revised January 31, 2017, to (among other issues) update the registration threshold to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, and clarify the identification of clients and covered officials and issues related to rounding income and expenses  The guidance provides definitions of LDA terms, elaborates on registration and reporting requirements, includes specific examples of different scenarios, and provides explanations of why certain scenarios prompt or do not prompt disclosure under the LDA  The offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House told us they continue to consider information we report on lobbying disclosure compliance when they periodically update the guidance  In addition, they told us they e-mail registered lobbyists quarterly on common compliance issues and reminders to file reports by the due dates  The LDA defines a lobbyist as an individual who is employed or retained by a client for compensation, who has made more than one lobbying contact (written or oral communication to covered officials, such as a high ranking agency official or a Member of Congress made on behalf of a client), and whose lobbying activities represent at least 20 percent of the time that he or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter  Lobbying firms are persons or entities that have one or more employees who lobby on behalf of a client other than that person or entity  Figure 1 provides an overview of the registration and filing process  Lobbying firms are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for each client if the firms receive or expect to receive more than $3,000 in income from that client for lobbying activities  Lobbyists are also required to submit an LD-2 quarterly report for each registration filed  The LD-2s contain information that includes: the name of the lobbyist reporting on quarterly lobbying activities; the name of the client for whom the lobbyist lobbied; a list of individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client during the reporting period; whether any lobbyists served in covered positions in the executive or legislative branch such as high-ranking agency officials or congressional staff positions, in the previous 20 years; codes describing general issue areas, such as agriculture and education; a description of the specific lobbying issues; houses of Congress and federal agencies lobbied during the reporting reported income (or expenses for organizations with in-house lobbyists) related to lobbying activities during the quarter (rounded to the nearest $10,000)  The LDA also requires lobbyists to report certain political contributions semiannually in the LD-203 report  These reports must be filed 30 days after the end of a semiannual period by each lobbying firm registered to lobby and by each individual listed as a lobbyist on a firm’s lobbying report  The lobbyists or lobbying firms must: list the name of each federal candidate or officeholder, leadership political action committee, or political party committee to which he or she contributed at least $200 in the aggregate during the semiannual period; report contributions made to presidential library foundations and presidential inaugural committees; report funds contributed to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize an official who was previously in a covered position, funds paid to an entity named for or controlled by a covered official, and contributions to a person or entity in recognition of an official, or to pay the costs of a meeting or other event held by or in the name of a covered official; and certify that they have read and are familiar with the gift and travel rules of the Senate and House and that they have not provided, requested, or directed a gift or travel to a member, officer, or employee of Congress that would violate those rules  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with USAO, are responsible for ensuring LDA compliance  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House notify lobbyists or lobbying firms in writing that they are not complying with the LDA reporting  Subsequently, they refer those lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate response to USAO  USAO researches these referrals and sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyists or lobbying firms, requesting that they file reports or terminate their registration  If USAO does not receive a response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal case against each noncompliant lobbyist  A civil case could lead to penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal case—usually pursued if a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and corrupt—could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison  Generally, under the LDA, within 45 days of being employed or retained to make a lobbying contact on behalf of a client, the lobbyist must register by filing an LD-1 form with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  Thereafter, the lobbyist must file quarterly disclosure (LD-2) reports detailing the lobbying activities  Of the 3,433 new registrations we identified for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we matched 2,995 of them (87 2 percent) to corresponding LD-2 reports filed within the same quarter as the registration  These results are consistent with the findings we have reported in prior reviews  We used the House lobbyists’ disclosure database as the source of the reports  We also used an electronic matching algorithm that allows for misspellings and other minor inconsistencies between the registrations and reports  Figure 2 shows lobbyists filed disclosure reports as required for most new lobbying registrations from 2010 through 2017  For selected elements of lobbyists’ LD-2 reports that can be generalized to the population of lobbying reports, our findings have generally been consistent from year to year  Most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income or expenses provided written documentation to varying degrees for the reporting elements in their disclosure reports  Figure 3 shows that for most LD-2 reports, lobbyists provided documentation for income and expenses for sampled reports from 2010 through 2017  However, in recent years our findings showed some variation in the estimated percentage of lobbyists who have reports with documentation for income and expense supporting lobbying activities  Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016  Figure 4 shows that for some LD-2 reports, lobbyists did not round their income or expenses as the guidance requires  In 2017, we estimate 25 percent of reports did not round reported income or expenses according to the guidance  We have found that rounding difficulties have been a recurring issue on LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017  As we previously reported, several lobbyists who listed expenses told us that based on their reading of the LD-2 form they believed they were required to report the exact amount  While this is not consistent with the LDA and the guidance, this may be a source of some of the confusion regarding rounding errors  In 2016, the guidance was updated to include an additional example about rounding expenses to the nearest $10,000  In 2017, 11 percent of lobbyists reported $10,000 or more in income or expenses  The LDA requires lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts made with federal agencies on behalf of the client for the reporting period  This year, of the 98 LD-2 reports in our sample, 51 reports disclosed lobbying activities at federal agencies  Of those, lobbyists provided documentation for all lobbying activities at executive branch agencies for 34 LD-2 reports  Figures 5 through 8 show that lobbyists for most LD-2 reports provided documentation for selected elements of their LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017  Lobbyists for an estimated 93 percent of LD-2 reports filed year-end 2016 for all lobbyists listed political contributions on the report as required  Figure 9 shows that lobbyists for most lobbying firms filed contribution reports as required in our sample from 2010 through 2017  All individual lobbyists and lobbying firms reporting lobbying activity are required to file LD-203 reports semiannually, even if they have no contributions to report, because they must certify compliance with the gift and travel rules  The LDA requires a lobbyist to disclose previously held covered positions in the executive or legislative branch, such as high ranking agency officials and congressional staff, when first registering as a lobbyist for a new client  This can be done either on a new LD-1 or on the quarterly LD- 2 filing when added as a new lobbyist  This year, we estimate that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed previously held covered positions as required  As in our other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions  Figure 10 shows the extent to which lobbyists may not have properly disclosed one or more covered positions as required from 2010 through 2017  Lobbyists amended 15 of the 98 LD-2 disclosure reports in our original sample to change previously reported information after we contacted them  Of the 15 reports, 7 were amended after we notified the lobbyists of our review, but before we met with them  An additional 8 of the 15 reports were amended after we met with the lobbyists to review their documentation  We consistently find a notable number of amended LD-2 reports in our sample each year following notification of our review  This suggests that sometimes our contact spurs lobbyists to more closely scrutinize their reports than they would have without our review  Table 1 lists reasons lobbying firms in our sample amended their LD-1 or LD-2 reports  As part of our review, we compared contributions listed on lobbyists’ and lobbying firms’ LD-203 reports against those political contributions reported in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database to identify whether political contributions were omitted on LD-203 reports in our sample  The sample of LD-203 reports we reviewed contained 80 reports with contributions and 80 reports without contributions  We estimate that overall for 2017, lobbyists failed to disclose one or more reportable contributions on 12 percent of reports  Additionally, ten LD-203 reports were amended in response to our review  For this element in prior reports, we reported an estimated minimum percentage of reports based on a one-sided 95 percent confidence interval rather than the estimated proportion as shown here  Estimates in the table have a maximum margin of error of 11 percentage points  The year to year differences are not statistically significant  Table 2 illustrates that from 2010 through 2017 most lobbyists disclosed FEC reportable contributions on their LD-203 reports as required  As part of our review, 88 different lobbying firms were included in our 2017 sample of LD-2 disclosure reports  Consistent with prior reviews, most lobbying firms reported that they found it “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to comply with reporting requirements  Of the 88 different lobbying firms in our sample, 34 reported that the disclosure requirements were “very easy,” 40 reported them “somewhat easy,” and 13 reported them “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” (see figure 11)  Most lobbying firms we surveyed rated the definitions of terms used in LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand with regard to meeting their reporting requirements  This is consistent with prior reviews  Figures 12 through 16 show what lobbyists reported as their ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements from 2012 through 2017  U S  Attorney’s Office (USAO) officials stated that they continue to have sufficient personnel resources and authority under the LDA to enforce reporting requirements  This includes imposing civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance  Noncompliance refers to a lobbyist’s or lobbying firm’s failure to comply with the LDA  However, USAO noted that the number of assigned personnel has decreased due to attrition  USAO officials stated that lobbyists resolve their noncompliance issues by filing LD-2, LD-203, or LD-2 amendments, or by terminating their registration, depending on the issue  Resolving referrals can take anywhere from a few days to years, depending on the circumstances  During this time, USAO creates summary reports from its database to track the overall number of referrals that are pending or become compliant as a result of the lobbyist receiving an e-mail, phone call, or noncompliance letter  Referrals remain in the pending category until they are resolved  The pending category is divided into the following areas: “initial research for referral,” “responded but not compliant,” “no response/waiting for a response,” “bad address,” and “unable to locate ” The USAO attempts to review and update all pending cases every six months  USAO focuses its enforcement efforts primarily on the “responded but not compliant” and the “no response/waiting for a response” groups  Officials told us that, if the USAO, after several unsuccessful attempts, has been unsuccessful in contacting the non-compliant firm or its lobbyist, USAO confers with both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to determine whether further action is needed  In the cases where the lobbying firm is repeatedly referred for not filing disclosure reports but does not appear to be actively lobbying, USAO suspends enforcement actions  USAO officials reported they will continue to monitor these firms and will resume enforcement actions if required  USAO received 3,213 referrals from both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for failure to comply with LD-2 reporting requirements cumulatively for filing years 2009 through 2015  Table 4 shows the number and status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance  Enforcement actions include USAO attempts to bring lobbyists into compliance through letters, e-mails, and calls  About 45 percent (1,450 of 3,213) of the total referrals received are now compliant because lobbying firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations  In addition, some of the referrals were found to be compliant when USAO received the referral  Therefore, no action was taken  This may occur when lobbying firms respond to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House after USAO received the referrals  About 55 percent (1,752 of 3,213) of referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbying firm, did not receive a response from the firm after an enforcement action, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbying firm  The remaining 11 referrals did not require action or were suspended because the lobbyist or client was no longer in business or the lobbyist was deceased  LD-203 referrals consist of two types: (1) LD-203(R) referrals represent lobbying firms that have failed to file LD-203 reports for their lobbying firm and (2) LD-203 referrals represent the lobbyists at the lobbying firm who have failed to file their individual LD-203 reports as required  USAO received 2,255 LD-203(R) referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2015) and 3,716 LD-203 referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2014 from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for lobbying firms and lobbyists for noncompliance with reporting requirements)  LD- 203 referrals are more complicated than LD-2 referrals because both the lobbying firm and the individual lobbyists within the firm are each required to file a LD-203  Lobbyists employed by a lobbying firm typically use the firm’s contact information and not the lobbyists’ personal contact information  This makes it difficult to locate a lobbyist who is not in compliance and may have left the firm  USAO officials reported that, while many firms have assisted USAO by providing contact information for lobbyists, they are not required to do so  According to officials, USAO has difficulty pursuing LD-203 referrals for lobbyists who have departed a firm without leaving forwarding contact information with the firm  While USAO utilizes web searches and online databases, including social media, to find these missing lobbyists, it is not always successful  Table 5 shows the status of LD-203 (R) referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance  A little more than 44 percent (998 of 2,255) of the lobbying firms referred by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for noncompliance from calendar years 2009 through 2015 are now considered compliant because firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations  About 56 percent (1,251 of 2,255) of the referrals are pending further action  Table 6 shows that USAO received 3,716 LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for calendar years 2009 through 2014  It also shows the status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbyists into compliance  In addition, table 6 shows that about 47 percent (1,741 of 3,716) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist  About 53 percent (1,966 of 3,716) of the referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbyist, did not receive a response from the lobbyist, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyist  Table 7 shows that USAO received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for 4,991 lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for any filing year from 2009 through 2014  It also shows the status of compliance for individual lobbyists listed on referrals to USAO  About 51 percent (2,526 of 4,991) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist  About 50 percent (2,465 of 4,991) of the referrals are pending action because USAO could not locate the lobbyists, did not receive a response from the lobbyists, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyists  USAO officials said that many of the pending LD-203 referrals represent lobbyists who no longer lobby for the lobbying firms affiliated with the referrals, even though these lobbying firms may be listed on the lobbyist’s LD-203 report  According to USAO officials, lobbyists and lobbying firms who repeatedly fail to file reports are labeled chronic offenders and referred to one of the assigned attorneys for follow-up  USAO also receives complaints regarding lobbyists who are allegedly lobbying but never filed an LD-203  USAO officials added that USAO monitors and investigates chronic offenders to ultimately determine the appropriate enforcement actions, which may include settlement or other civil actions  In regards to the four active cases involving chronic offenders they reported to us in 2016, USAO officials noted that the agency is investigating one case, negotiating a resolution that will include a civil penalty in another case, and closing two other investigations without further action  In addition, USAO is reviewing its records to identify additional chronic offenders for further action due to noncompliance  We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment  The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House of Representatives, and interested congressional committees and members  In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA) by providing documentation to support information contained on registrations and reports filed under the LDA; to identify challenges and potential improvements to compliance, if any; and to describe the resources and authorities available to the U S  Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO), its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts it has made to improve LDA enforcement  We used information in the lobbying disclosure database maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the House)  To assess whether these disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we reviewed relevant documentation and consulted with knowledgeable officials  Although registrations and reports are filed through a single web portal, each chamber subsequently receives copies of the data and follows different data-cleaning, processing, and editing procedures before storing the data in either individual files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate)  Currently, there is no means of reconciling discrepancies between the two databases caused by the differences in data processing  For example, Senate staff told us during previous reviews they set aside a greater proportion of registration and report submissions than the House for manual review before entering the information into the database  As a result, the Senate database would be slightly less current than the House database on any given day pending review and clearance  House staff told us during previous reviews that they rely heavily on automated processing  In addition, while they manually review reports that do not perfectly match information on file for a given lobbyist or client, staff members approve and upload such reports as originally filed by each lobbyist, even if the reports contain errors or discrepancies (such as a variant on how a name is spelled)  Nevertheless, we do not have reasons to believe that the content of the Senate and House systems would vary substantially  Based on interviews with knowledgeable officials and a review of documentation, we determined that House disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for identifying a sample of quarterly disclosure reports (LD-2) and for assessing whether newly filed lobbyists also filed required reports  We used the House database for sampling LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, as well as for sampling year-end 2016 and midyear 2017 political contributions reports (LD-203)  We also used the database for matching quarterly registrations with filed reports  We did not evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House, both of which have key roles in the lobbying disclosure process  However, we did consult with officials from each office  They provided us with general background information at our request  To assess the extent to which lobbyists could provide evidence of their compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a stratified random sample of 98 LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017  The sample size of 98 LD-2 reports for this year’s review represents an increase from the sample size selected for the 2015 and 2016 reviews, and is a return to the sample size selected in reviews prior to 2015  We increased the sample size because, in 2016, we observed a change in the estimate of the percentage of reports that had documentation of income and expenses (83 percent down from 92 percent in 2015)  At that time, we were unable to state that this was a statistically significant change because, in part, the reduced sample size of 80 did not give us enough power to detect and report on the change of that size  We excluded reports with no lobbying activity or with income or expenses of less than $5,000 from our sampling frame  We drew our sample from 45,818 activity reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017 available in the public House database, as of our final download date for each quarter  Our sample of LD-2 reports was not designed to detect differences over time  However, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 for the generalizable elements of our review  We found that results were generally consistent from year to year and there were few statistically significant changes after using a Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiple comparisons  For this year’s review, we identified that the estimated change in the percent of LD-2 reports that provided written documentation for the income and expenses from 2016 to 2017 is notable  In recent years, our findings show some variation in the estimate percentage of reports with documentation  Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016  These changes are identified in the report  The inability to detect significant differences from year to year in our results may be related to sampling error alone or the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and was designed only for cross-sectional analysis  Our sample is based on a stratified random selection and is only one of a large number of samples that we may have drawn  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval  This interval would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have drawn  The percentage estimates for LD-2 reports have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer of the estimate itself  We contacted all the lobbyists and lobbying firms in our sample and, using a structured web-based survey, asked them to confirm key elements of the LD-2 and whether they could provide written documentation for key elements in their reports, including the amount of income reported for lobbying activities; the amount of expenses reported on lobbying activities; the names of those lobbyists listed in the report; the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied, and the issue codes listed to describe their lobbying activity  After reviewing the survey results for completeness, we interviewed lobbyists and lobbying firms to review the documentation they reported as having on their online survey for selected elements of their respective LD- 2 report  Prior to each interview, we conducted a search to determine whether lobbyists properly disclosed their covered position as required by the LDA  We reviewed the lobbyists’ previous work histories by searching lobbying firms’ websites, LinkedIn, Leadership Directories, Legistorm, and Google  Prior to 2008, lobbyists were only required to disclose covered official positions held within 2 years of registering as a lobbyist for the client  The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 amended that time frame to require disclosure of positions held 20 years before the date the lobbyists first lobbied on behalf of the client  Lobbyists are required to disclose previously held covered official positions either on the client registration (LD-1) or on an LD-2 report  Consequently, those who held covered official positions may have disclosed the information on the LD-1 or a LD-2 report filed prior to the report we examined as part of our random sample  Therefore, where we found evidence that a lobbyist previously held a covered official position, and that information was not disclosed on the LD-2 report under review, we conducted an additional review of the publicly available Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House database to determine whether the lobbyist properly disclosed the covered official position on a prior report or LD-1  Finally, if a lobbyist appeared to hold a covered position that was not disclosed, we asked for an explanation at the interview with the lobbying firm to ensure that our research was accurate  In previous reports, we reported the lower bound of a 90 percent confidence interval to provide a minimum estimate of omitted covered positions and omitted contributions with a 95 percent confidence level  We did so to account for the possibility that our searches may have failed to identify all possible omitted covered positions and contributions  As we have developed our methodology over time, we are more confident in the comprehensiveness of our searches for these items  Accordingly, this report presents the estimated percentages for omitted contributions and omitted covered positions, rather than the minimum estimates  As a result, percentage estimates for these items will differ slightly from the minimum percentage estimates presented in prior reports  In addition to examining the content of the LD-2 reports, we confirmed whether the most recent LD-203 reports had been filed for each firm and lobbyist listed on the LD-2 reports in our random sample  Although this review represents a random selection of lobbyists and firms, it is not a direct probability sample of firms filing LD-2 reports or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports  As such, we did not estimate the likelihood that LD-203 reports were appropriately filed for the population of firms or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports  To determine if the LDA’s requirement for lobbyists to file a report in the quarter of registration was met for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we used data filed with the Clerk of the House to match newly filed registrations with corresponding disclosure reports  Using an electronic matching algorithm that includes strict and loose text matching procedures, we identified matching disclosure reports for 2,995, or 87 2 percent, of the 3,433 newly filed registrations  We began by standardizing client and lobbyist names in both the report and registration files (including removing punctuation and standardizing words and abbreviations, such as “company” and “CO”)  We then matched reports and registrations using the House identification number (which is linked to a unique lobbyist-client pair), as well as the names of the lobbyist and client  For reports we could not match by identification number and standardized name, we also attempted to match reports and registrations by client and lobbyist name, allowing for variations in the names to accommodate minor misspellings or typos  For these cases, we used professional judgment to determine whether cases with typos were sufficiently similar to consider as matches  We could not readily identify matches in the report database for the remaining registrations using electronic means  To assess the accuracy of the LD-203 reports, we analyzed stratified random samples of LD-203 reports from the 30,594 total LD-203 reports  The first sample contains 80 reports of the 9,474 reports with political contributions and the second contains 80 reports of the 20,335 reports listing no contributions  Each sample contains 40 reports from the year- end 2016 filing period and 40 reports from the midyear 2017 filing period  The samples from 2017 allow us to generalize estimates in this report to either the population of LD-203 reports with contributions or the reports without contributions to within a 95 percent confidence interval of within plus or minus 11 percentage points or fewer  Although our sample of LD- 203 reports was not designed to detect differences over time, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 and found no statistically significant differences after adjusting for multiple comparisons  While the results provide some confidence that apparent fluctuations in our results across years are likely attributable to sampling error, the inability to detect significant differences may also be related to the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and designed only for cross- sectional analysis  We analyzed the contents of the LD-203 reports and compared them to contribution data found in the publicly available Federal Elections Commission’s (FEC) political contribution database  We consulted with staff at FEC responsible for administering the database  We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives  We compared the FEC-reportable contributions on the LD-203 reports with information in the FEC database  The verification process required text and pattern matching procedures so we used professional judgment when assessing whether an individual listed is the same individual filing an LD-203  For contributions reported in the FEC database and not on the LD-203 report, we asked the lobbyists or organizations to explain why the contribution was not listed on the LD-203 report or to provide documentation of those contributions  As with covered positions on LD-2 disclosure reports, we cannot be certain that our review identified all cases of FEC-reportable contributions that were inappropriately omitted from a lobbyist’s LD-203 report  We did not estimate the percentage of other non-FEC political contributions that were omitted because they tend to constitute a small minority of all listed contributions and cannot be verified against an external source  To identify challenges to compliance, we used a structured web-based survey and obtained the views from 88 different lobbying firms included in our sample on any challenges to compliance  The number of different lobbying firms is 88, which is less than our original sample of 98 reports because some lobbying firms had more than one LD-2 report included in our sample  We calculated responses based on the number of different lobbying firms that we contacted rather than the number of interviews  Prior to our calculations, we removed the duplicate lobbying firms based on the most recent date of their responses  For those cases with the same response date, the decision rule was to keep the cases with the smallest assigned case identification number  To obtain their views, we asked them to rate their ease with complying with the LD-2 disclosure requirements using a scale of “very easy,” “somewhat easy,” “somewhat difficult,” or “very difficult ” In addition, using the same scale we asked them to rate the ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements  To describe the resources and authorities available to the U S  Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) and its efforts to improve its LDA enforcement, we interviewed USAO officials  We obtained information on the capabilities of the system officials established to track and report compliance trends and referrals and on other practices established to focus resources on LDA enforcement  USAO provided us with reports from the tracking system on the number and status of referrals and chronically noncompliant lobbyists and lobbying firms  The mandate does not require us to identify lobbyists who failed to register and report in accordance with the LDA requirements, or determine for those lobbyists who did register and report whether all lobbying activity or contributions were disclosed  Therefore, this was outside the scope of our audit  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 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  The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based on unique combination of House ID, lobbyist, and client names (see table 8)  See table 9 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports with contributions  See table 10 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports without contributions  In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G  Douglas Jr  (Assistant Director), Shirley Jones (Assistant General Counsel) and Ulyana Panchishin (Analyst-In-Charge) supervised the development of this report  James Ashley, Ann Czapiewski, Krista Loose, Kathleen Jones, Amanda Miller, Sharon Miller, Stewart W  Small, and Kayla L  Robinson made key contributions to this report  Assisting with lobbyist file reviews were Justine Augeri, Matthew Bond, James A  Howard, Jesse Jordan, Sherrice Kerns, Dalton Matthew Lauderback, Alexandria Palmer, Alan Rozzi, Shane Spencer, Jessica Walker, Ralanda Winborn, and Kate Wulff  Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with New Disclosure Requirements  GAO-08-1099  Washington, D C: September 30, 2008  2008 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-09-487  Washington, D C: April 1, 2009  2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-10-499  Washington, D C: April 1, 2010  2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-11-452  Washington, D C: April 1, 2011  2011 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-12-492  Washington, D C: March 30, 2012  2012 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-13-437  Washington, D C: April 1, 2013  2013 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-14-485  Washington, D C: May 28, 2014  2014 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-15-310  Washington, D C : March 26, 2015  2015 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-16-320  Washington, D C : March 24, 2016  2016 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-17-385  Washington, D C : March 31, 2017 

ground_truth: Previous attempted and successful terrorist attacks against the United States have raised questions about the security of the U.S. government's process for adjudicating NIVs, which are issued to foreign nationals, such as tourists, business visitors, and students, seeking temporary admission into the United States. For example, the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, California, led to concerns about NIV screening and vetting processes because one of the attackers was admitted into the United States under a NIV. In 2017, the President issued executive actions directing agencies to improve visa screening and vetting, and establishing nationality-based visa entry restrictions, which the Supreme Court upheld in June 2018. GAO was asked to review NIV screening and vetting. This report examines (1) outcomes and characteristics of adjudicated NIV applications from fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and (2) key changes made to the NIV adjudication process in response to executive actions taken in 2017. GAO analyzed State NIV adjudication data for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, the most recent and complete data available. GAO visited seven consular posts selected based on visa workload and other factors. GAO reviewed relevant executive orders and proclamations, and documents related to implementing these actions. This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in June 2018. Information that DHS, State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence deemed sensitive has been removed. The total number of nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applications that Department of State (State) consular officers adjudicated annually peaked at about 13.4 million in fiscal year 2016, and decreased by about 880,000 adjudications in fiscal year 2017. NIV adjudications varied by visa group, country of nationality, and refusal reason: Visa group. From fiscal years 2012 through 2017, about 80 percent of NIV adjudications were for tourists and business visitors. During this time, adjudications for temporary workers increased by about 50 percent and decreased for students and exchange visitors by about 2 percent. Country of nationality. In fiscal year 2017, more than half of all NIV adjudications were for applicants of six countries of nationality: China (2.02 million, or 16 percent), Mexico (1.75 million, or 14 percent), India (1.28 million, or 10 percent), Brazil (670,000, or 5 percent), Colombia (460,000, or 4 percent), and Argentina (370,000, or 3 percent). Refusal reason. State data indicate that over this time period, 18 percent of adjudicated applications were refused; more than 90 percent were because the applicant did not qualify for the visa sought, and a small percentage (0.05 percent) were due to terrorism and security-related concerns. In 2017, two executive orders and a proclamation issued by the President required, among other actions, visa entry restrictions for nationals of certain listed countries of concern, the development of uniform baseline screening and vetting standards, and changes to NIV screening and vetting procedures. GAO's analysis of State data indicates that, out of the nearly 2.8 million NIV applications refused in fiscal year 2017, 1,338 applications were refused due to visa entry restrictions implemented per the executive actions. State, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and others developed standards for screening and vetting by the U.S. government for all immigration benefits, such as for the requirement for applicants to undergo certain security checks. Further, State sought and received emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget in May 2017 to develop a new form to collect additional information from some visa applicants, such as email addresses and social media handles.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The issue of who gets disciplined and why is complex  Studies we reviewed suggest that implicit bias—stereotypes or unconscious associations about people—on the part of teachers and staff may cause them to judge students’ behaviors differently based on the students’ race and sex  Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make case- by-case decisions about whether to discipline, and the form of discipline to impose in response to student behaviors, such as disobedience, defiance, and classroom disruption  Studies show that these decisions can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined than others  Further, the studies found that the types of offenses that Black children were disciplined for were largely based on school officials’ interpretations of behavior  For example, one study found that Black girls were disproportionately disciplined for subjective interpretations of behaviors, such as disobedience and disruptive behavior  A separate study used eye-tracking technology to show that, among other things, teachers gazed longer at Black boys than other children when asked to look for challenging behavior based on video clips  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that this research has highlighted implicit bias as a contributing factor in school discipline and may shed some light on the persistent disparities in expulsion and suspension practices, even though the study did not find that teacher gazes were indicative of how they would discipline students  Children’s behavior in school may be affected by health and social challenges outside the classroom that tend to be more acute for poor children, including minority children who experience higher rates of poverty  Research shows that experiencing trauma in childhood may lead to educational challenges, such as lower grades and more suspensions and expulsions; increased use of mental health services; and increased involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, according to HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)  Further, a substantial share of children nationwide are estimated to have experienced at least one trauma, referred to as an adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to the National Survey of Children’s Health  Additionally, as we recently reported, there has been an increase in certain mental health issues within the school age population  For example, from 2005 to 2014, the suicide rate of youth ages 15 to 19 rose slightly, with older youth having a much higher rate of suicide than younger youth, and since 2007, the percentage of youth ages 12-17 experiencing a major depressive episode increased  About 50 million students were enrolled in K-12 public schools during the 2013-14 school year, according to the CRDC  About 90 percent of students attended traditional public schools; the remainder were enrolled at public charters, magnets, and other types of schools (see table 1)  About half of all public school students were White and the other half fell into one of several minority groups, with Hispanic and Black students being the largest minority groups (see fig  1)  The number of boys and girls in public schools was almost evenly split  A larger percentage of boys were students with disabilities  Nearly half of all public school students went to schools where 50 percent or more of the students were low-income, and about a quarter went to schools where 75 percent or more of the students were low-income (see table 2)  Discipline of students dropped between 2011-12 and 2013-14 over the six broad categories of discipline reported in Education’s CRDC, which were (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school- related arrests  For example, in school year 2011-12 about 3 4 million (or 6 9 percent) of K-12 public school students were suspended out-of-school at least once, and in school year 2013-14 these suspensions fell to about 2 8 million (or 5 7 percent)  Other disciplinary actions affected a much smaller portion of the student body—specifically, less than 0 5 percent of all K-12 public school students were expelled, referred to law enforcement, had a school-related arrest, or experienced corporal punishment in 2013-14, according to Education’s reported data  Education’s Office for Civil Rights and Justice’s Civil Rights Division are responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws, which protect students from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (see table 3)  As part of their enforcement responsibilities, both agencies conduct investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible discrimination  Education also carries out agency-initiated investigations, which are called compliance reviews and which target problems that Education has determined are particularly acute  Education may also withhold federal funds if a recipient is determined to be in violation of the civil rights laws and the agency is unable to reach agreement with the parties involved  In addition, Justice has the authority to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education  Education and Justice have also issued guidance to assist public schools in meeting their obligations under federal law to administer school discipline without unlawfully discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin  According to the guidance, public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating in the administration of student discipline based on protected characteristics  Further, Education and Justice have noted in their guidance that disciplinary policies and practices can result in unlawful discrimination based on race, for example, in two ways: first, if students are intentionally subject to different treatment on account of their race; and second, if a policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race, referred to as disparate impact  According to Education and Justice guidance, significant and unexplained racial disparities in student discipline give rise to concerns that schools may be engaging in racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws; however, data showing such disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  Two significant, recently enacted laws include provisions related to school discipline: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG Act of 2014)  ESSA, enacted in December 2015, amended Title I program requirements to allow states’ accountability systems to use multiple indicators of success, which can include measures of school climate and safety  As we previously reported in 2017, some states were considering measures related to suspension rates or school attendance  Additionally, ESSA amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program, under which school districts may use grant funding to, among other things, design and implement a locally-tailored plan to reduce exclusionary discipline practices in elementary and secondary schools  These grants also allow the use of funding to expand access to school- based mental health services, including counseling  In addition, the CCDBG Act of 2014 allows states to use certain funds to support the training and professional development of child care workers through activities such as behavior management strategies and training that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors, including reducing expulsions of young children for those behaviors  Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined in K-12 public schools, according to our analysis of Education’s most recent CRDC data  This pattern of disproportionate discipline persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school these students attended  Across each disciplinary action, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities experienced disproportionate levels of discipline  Black students were particularly overrepresented among students who were suspended from school, received corporal punishment, or had a school- related arrest (see fig  2)  For example, Black students represented 15 5 percent of all public school students and accounted for 39 percent of students suspended from school, an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points  Differences in discipline were particularly large between Black and White students  Although there were approximately 17 4 million more White students than Black students attending K-12 public schools in 2013-14, nearly 176,000 more Black students than White students were suspended from school that school year  See appendix IV, table 12 for additional data on the disciplinary experiences of different racial or ethnic groups  For example, American Indian and Alaska Native students had higher than average rates of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions  This pattern of disproportionate discipline affected both Black boys and Black girls—the only racial group for which both sexes were disproportionately disciplined across all six actions  For example, Black girls were suspended from school at higher rates than boys of multiple racial groups and every other racial group of girls (see fig  3)  Further, boys as a group were overrepresented, while girls were underrepresented among students disciplined across each action  Specifically, boys accounted for just over half of all public school students, but were at least two-thirds of students disciplined across each of the six actions, according to our analysis of Education’s school year 2013-14 data  Boys were particularly overrepresented among students who received corporal punishment, by about 27 percentage points (see fig  4)  These kinds of disparities presented as early as pre-school (see sidebar)  Additional information about discipline for pre-school students is in appendix IV, table 17  Regardless of the level of school poverty, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were suspended from school at disproportionately higher rates than their peers (see fig  6)  This was particularly acute for Black students in high-poverty schools, where they were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions from school  This pattern persisted across all six disciplinary actions, as well  A similar pattern emerged for boys and students with disabilities  However, unlike Black students, boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from low-poverty public schools (poverty less than 25 percent)  Effect of School Poverty on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of school poverty on discipline in school year 2013-14  The model showed that increases in the percentage of low-income students in a school were generally associated with significantly higher rates for each of the six disciplinary actions GAO reviewed (in-school and out-of-school suspensions, referrals to law enforcement, expulsions, corporal punishment, and school- related arrests)  In these schools, boys and students with disabilities were overrepresented by approximately 24 and 20 percentage points, respectively  See appendix IV, table 14 for more information on discipline by the poverty level of the school  In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to poverty and school discipline  Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10  Regardless of the type of public school a student attended—traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, or special education—Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disciplined at disproportionately higher rates than their peers, with few exceptions (see fig  7)  For example, Black students were disproportionately suspended from all types of public schools, and this was particularly acute in charter schools  That is, although they represented about 29 percent of all students in charter schools, Black students accounted for more than 60 percent of the students suspended from charter schools (about 32 percentage points higher than their representation in those schools)  Boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from traditional public schools (roughly 19 and 14 percentage points, respectively, above their representation in traditional public schools)  Effect of School Type on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of attending different types of public schools on disciplinary outcomes  The model showed several significant associations between school type and the likelihood of receiving discipline  For example, attending an alternative school was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of being suspended (in-school or out-of-school), expelled, referred to law enforcement, or arrested for a school-related incident, compared to attending a traditional public school  The model also showed that students were significantly less likely to be suspended (in-school or out-of-school) if they attended a magnet, charter, or special education school as compared to a traditional public school  We found a few exceptions to the general pattern of Black students, boys, and students with disabilities receiving disproportionately high rates of discipline by school type  For example, Black students attending special education schools did not receive corporal punishment at disproportionate levels  See appendix IV, table 15 for additional information on discipline by the type of public school  In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to school type and school discipline  Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10  We also found a regional component to discipline in public schools  For example, corporal punishment generally occurred in southern states  See appendix II for maps showing the rates of disciplinary actions by public school district  We spoke with school officials at five school districts about how they are addressing discipline, including challenges they face in responding to student conduct given the complex issues influencing student behavior  Several school officials noted a range of issues, including complex issues such as the effects of poverty, mental health issues, and family dysfunction, that they said contributed to behavior that leads to discipline (see fig  8)  For example, officials at a high-poverty Georgia high school said that their students have additional responsibilities, such as raising or watching siblings or working to support their family, which may cause students to be late to, or skip, class  This observation is consistent with our recent report on child well-being, which cited research showing that children in poverty are more likely to face academic and social challenges than their peers, and with our analysis of CRDC data, which showed that rates of chronic absenteeism (being absent 15 or more days in a school year), were higher in high-poverty schools  See appendix IV, table 19 for detailed data on chronic absenteeism  At one high school in Georgia, officials said that attendance issues were the reason for a majority of disciplinary actions at their school  They said that if students were repeatedly late to school or did not get to their next class within the set amount of time, students could amass enough infractions to warrant suspension from school  In contrast, an official at an elementary school in Georgia said that they usually do not discipline their students for being late to school, as they have found that it was often due to circumstances beyond the child’s control  According to several school officials, some groups such as homeless youth, American Indian, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning (LGBTQ) students have had greater attendance problems than others  For example, education officials in California said that homeless and foster youth frequently miss school because of all the transitions and instability in their lives  In a school in Texas, officials also reported attendance issues with students who are homeless or in foster care because they lack transportation and clothing  Similarly, we previously reported that American Indian students face school attendance challenges, including access to reliable transportation  In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native students had the highest rates of chronic absenteeism in school year 2013-14, compared to students of other races, according to our analysis of CRDC data (see appendix IV)  LGBTQ students are at a high risk of suicide and other emotional issues during adolescence, and often feel disconnected from their peers and families, according to county education officials in California  According to these officials, this can contribute to attendance problems  Officials in our five selected school districts also described what they perceived as a growing trend of behavioral challenges or provided examples related to mental health and trauma, such as increased anxieties, thoughts of and attempts at suicide, and depression among students  For example, state education officials in Georgia said they viewed a growing number of their students as being “trauma complex ” Officials at one school in Massachusetts said that they involve the mental health clinicians or social worker for additional support when students are dealing with traumatic experiences, depression, or are struggling to self- regulate  Further, officials at another school in Massachusetts said that many of their students have experienced trauma and this may lead to more aggressive behaviors at the elementary school level, and to more self-destructive behaviors at the middle school level  Specifically, these officials said that children who have experienced trauma may kick, bite, and punch others when they are younger and cut themselves or become suicidal when older  Similarly, officials at a school in Texas said that they have seen a growth in suicidal ideation and self-harm among the students  Some school officials also said that they felt ill-equipped or that schools lacked resources to deal with the increase in students with mental health issues and the associated behaviors  School officials in all five of the selected states also said that social media results in conflicts or related behavioral incidents among students, such as related bullying and arguments  Officials at a school in Georgia said that social media arguments can cause students who were not part of the original situation to be pulled in, creating classroom disruptions that end in discipline for a larger group  Moreover, officials in a North Dakota middle school said that disagreements on social media last for longer periods of time  They said that social media has also been used to facilitate the purchase of illegal drugs, which can result in students being arrested in school and expelled  Use of Corporal Punishment in School for Five Selected States California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota: Corporal punishment in schools is prohibited  Texas: If a school district adopts a policy to permit corporal punishment, school staff may use corporal punishment unless the student’s parent has provided a written, signed statement prohibiting it  None of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials  Georgia: Boards of education are authorized to determine policies related to corporal punishment, including allowing school staff, at their discretion, to administer corporal punishment in order to maintain discipline  However, none of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials  School district officials from three of the five selected districts we visited stated that officials at individual schools generally have a lot of discretion in determining what discipline a student receives  In several schools, officials said they often try other avenues first to address behavior, such as detention, alerting or having a discussion with the parent, or taking away certain privileges such as making the student eat lunch with the teacher instead of with their friends  However, for certain offenses, officials in most districts said that discipline was automatically more severe  Gun possession, for example, prompts an automatic expulsion at most of the school districts we visited  In another example, school district officials in Texas said drug-related incidents, physical assault of a teacher or student, or extreme sexual behaviors can result in a student being placed in an alternative school  School officials at one alternative school we visited stated that 80 to 90 percent of their students are there due to drug-related incidents  Officials in several of the school districts said their districts had School Resource Officers who only become involved in school disciplinary issues when requested by school administrators  In a Texas high school with over 3,800 students, a school official said School Resource Officers patrol school grounds, monitor gang activity, and may become involved when there are illegal drug issues  Officials also said that School Resource Officers sometimes provide trainings for students, parents, or school staff on subjects such as safety, good decision making, substance abuse, and peer pressure  Further, although corporal punishment was legal in two of the five states we visited (see sidebar), the school district officials with whom we spoke in those states said it was not used anymore in their districts  Our analysis of schools nationwide using school year 2013-14 data showed that corporal punishment tended to be most prevalent in southern states (see maps in appendix II)  While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing challenging student behavior, or to the evident disparities in discipline for certain student groups, officials in two school districts we visited told us they recognize the importance of finding alternatives to discipline that unnecessarily removes children from the learning environment  Some school officials said they have begun to specifically address disparities for certain student groups  Officials in all selected school districts reported they are implementing efforts to better address student behavior or reduce the use of exclusionary discipline  For example, officials in all school districts said that they are implementing alternative discipline models that emphasize preventing challenging student behavior and focus on supporting individuals and the school community, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice practices, and social emotional learning (SEL) (see sidebar)  For example, officials at a selected school district in Texas said they have implemented a classroom management model that uses positive behavior techniques  Texas state law allows schools to develop and implement positive behavior programs as disciplinary alternatives for very young students  This was also true in California, where state law specifically lists suggested alternatives to suspension, including restorative justice, a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions, and enrollment in programs that teach positive social behavior or anger management  Examples of Alternatives to Discipline that Removes Students from the Classroom Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A school-wide framework that focuses on positive behavioral expectations  By teaching students what to do instead of what not to do, the school can focus on the preferred behaviors  All of the selected school districts used some form of positive behavioral intervention and supports  One school official told us that PBIS has significantly reduced their discipline referral numbers and provided teachers more tools to get behavior situations under control  Restorative Justice Practices: This approach focuses on repairing harm done to relationships and people  The aim is to teach students empathy and problem-solving skills that can help prevent inappropriate behavior in the future  For example, according to officials we interviewed at one school, their restorative practices help students take ownership of their actions and work collaboratively to restore relationships that may have been strained  Officials at another school said schools use mediation techniques as alternatives to suspensions  Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): SEL enhances students’ abilities to deal effectively and ethically with daily tasks and challenges  SEL integrates the following five core competencies: self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making  At a school implementing this model, officials said that they are strengthening their SEL program to improve the whole child instead of treating discipline and mental and behavioral health separately  With regard to directly addressing disparities in school discipline, officials at one school district in California said they created a new leadership team for equity, culture, and support services, and developed a district- wide equity plan that includes mandatory training on implicit bias for principals  Officials from that district also said they had recently changed a policy to increase the consistency of discipline actions across the district’s schools  Similarly, officials at a school district in Massachusetts reported they were working to build awareness among school leadership to address racial bias and the achievement gap through multiyear trainings  Officials we spoke with at a school within that district said they conduct trainings for staff on implicit bias and other related issues to reduce school discipline disparities  As some of the schools and districts we visited have begun implementing alternative discipline models and efforts to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline in recent years, we heard from officials in two districts that there has been difficulty with implementation due to limited resources, staffing turnover, and resistance on the part of some parents  During our visits to schools, we observed classroom spaces that school officials used to manage student behavior, including through various alternative approaches to discipline (see fig  9)  Officials in two school districts said they are moving away from exclusionary discipline because it decreases the amount of academic instruction  Officials at one school district in Georgia said that the district had a history of overusing exclusionary discipline and they understood that schools cannot “suspend their way out of behavioral and discipline issues ” Officials at that district said they are currently rolling out PBIS to their schools, although progress has been slow  While they said discipline rates have decreased and they have received fewer parent and staff complaints, change is difficult because of limited resources, staff turnover, and some resistance to alternative discipline versus punitive discipline on the part of both some school staff and parents  State education officials in all five states said that changes to state law were made or considered related to school discipline in the past several years  For example, California officials said that state law now prohibits suspensions and expulsions for children in grades K-3 for willful defiance  For all ages suspensions may only be used when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct  Similarly, Massachusetts law requires that during a student meeting or a hearing to decide disciplinary consequences for a student, school administrators consider ways to re-engage students in the learning process and that expulsion only be used after other remedies and consequences have failed  Massachusetts also revised its state law effective July 2014 to require that schools provide educational services for expelled students  Georgia state law includes a preference for reassignment of disruptive students to alternative educational settings in lieu of suspending or expelling such students  In addition, most of the selected states plan to include school discipline or absenteeism as measures of school quality in their state ESSA Title I plans (see sidebar)  According to administrative data from Education, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolved over 2,500 K-12 school discipline cases between 2011 and summer 2017 through several means, including voluntary resolution (leading to agreed-upon actions and subsequent monitoring), dismissal, or closure due to insufficient evidence  These cases stemmed both from external complaints and reviews self-initiated by Education  When we analyzed a non-generalizable sample of resolved cases, we found that most of them focused on alleged racial discrimination or disability status  In the four cases we selected for more in-depth review, the school districts agreed to address discipline issues by, for example, designating a discipline supervisor, training staff, revising district policies, holding student listening sessions, and regularly reviewing data to identify disparities (see case descriptions below)  Some of these remedies are designed to reduce exclusionary discipline or improve overall school climate, and others are more directly focused on addressing disparities in school discipline  For example, having school leadership regularly review data, particularly when disaggregated by race and other student characteristics, would increase awareness of disparities  Education Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Mississippi School District  OCR’s 2014 investigation of the Tupelo Public School District found that Black students were disproportionately disciplined in nearly all categories of offenses  These commonly included subjective behaviors like disruption, defiance, disobedience, and “other misbehavior as determined by the administration ” The consequences for “other misbehavior” in high school could be severe, ranging from detention to referral to an alternative school  Once at the alternative school, students were searched thoroughly each day upon entry, escorted by security officers when changing classes, and not allowed to carry purses or book bags  OCR concluded that the district’s discipline codes afforded administrators broad discretion, and found different treatment of Black students when looking at specific disciplinary records  For example, among several students who were disciplined for the first offense of using profanity, Black students were the only ones who were suspended from school, while White students received warnings and detention for substantially similar behavior  To address these issues, the district entered into a voluntary resolution agreement whereby it committed to taking specific actions to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to learn in school  It agreed, among other things, to revise its student discipline policies, practices, and procedures to include clear and objective definitions of misconduct, eliminate vague and subjective offense categories, and describe criteria for selection within the range of possible penalties when imposing sanctions  The district also agreed to require that alternatives to suspension and other forms of exclusionary discipline be considered in all cases except where immediate safety of students or staff is threatened, and where the behavior in question is such that the disruption to the educational environment can only be remedied by removal, or where the student’s removal is a result of the district’s progressive discipline policy  Education Case 2: Disability and Restraint & Seclusion in a Non- Public California School  This 2016 OCR investigation focused on restraint and seclusion of a student with disabilities who was placed at the non-public school with which Oakland Unified School District contracted to provide the student with certain services, including developing and implementing behavior intervention plans  OCR found the use of prone restraint on this student to be severe, persistent, and pervasive: staff held the student face-down 92 times over a period of 11 months, with the longest duration of a single face-down restraint being 93 minutes  Examples of behaviors that led to the use of restraint included disruptive behavior, not following directions, pushing desks, and ripping up assignments  Staff said that the student wanted to be disciplined and understood prone restraint to be disciplinary  OCR determined that the district allowed the student to be treated differently for non-dangerous behavior on the basis of disability  The district entered into a resolution agreement, committing to resolve these issues by offering individual relief to the student—arranging for an evaluation of the student for adverse effects of the restraint and seclusion, with recommendations for addressing areas of harm—and implementing district-wide policy changes related to restraint and seclusion  The latter included establishing a protocol for responding to any contracted non-public schools’ reports of restraining or secluding district students, and providing training on positive interventions  Excerpt from Christian County, KY Case An African American 10th grader was assigned 1-day out-of-school suspension for skipping school  In comparison, a white 12th grader was assigned a conference with the principal for skipping school  The African American student had 19 previous disciplinary referrals, while the white student had 28 previous disciplinary referrals  Education reported that it would be difficult for the district to demonstrate how excluding a student from attending school in response to the student’s efforts to avoid school meets an important educational goal  Education Case 3: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Kentucky School District  In this 2014 case, OCR found that Christian County School District disciplined Black students more frequently or harshly than similarly situated White students  Specifically, Black students were more than 10 times more likely than White students to receive out-of-school suspension for disorderly conduct, and Black students were more likely to be assigned to an “Isolated Classroom Environment” when discipline was for a violation that afforded discretion  OCR also found that the district’s discipline code did not define 61 types of violations, including ones that involve interpretation, such as disorderly conduct, failure to follow directions, deliberate classroom disruption, and profanity  OCR found that administrators had wide discretion in determining the consequences for such actions, and noted that the discipline code allowed for virtually every type of sanction, including expulsion, for each type of violation  OCR also found inconsistencies in treatment of students in different racial groups when looking at individual records (see sidebar)  Although district officials said they were aware of the higher rates of discipline for Black students, OCR found that there were no safeguards to ensure that discretion would be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner  To resolve these issues, the district agreed to ensure as much as possible that misbehavior is addressed in a way that avoids exclusionary discipline, collaborate with experts on research-based strategies to prevent discrimination in discipline, and provide support services to decrease behavioral difficulties, among other things  Education Case 4: Race and Informal Removals in a California Charter School  In this 2015 case, OCR investigated whether Black students were disproportionately disciplined at a charter school which emphasizes Hmong culture and language  The complaint noted that the student’s parents had been asked to take him home on a few occasions because he was disruptive in class  School administrators confirmed the practice of “early dismissal” in response to misbehavior, but said they did not consider the dismissal to be disciplinary  Because the school did not maintain records of these removals, OCR was unable to determine if the student was subjected to discriminatory discipline  However, OCR noted that the practice of removing students from school for disciplinary reasons without appropriate recordkeeping and due process makes it almost impossible for the school to assess whether it is fully meeting its duty of ensuring nondiscrimination with respect to discipline  To resolve these issues, the school agreed, among other things, to revise its discipline policies, provide due process and alternatives to exclusionary discipline, and clearly prohibit the kinds of informal suspensions that OCR observed  Justice also investigates discrimination in school discipline based on complaints filed under federal civil rights statutes and as part of monitoring desegregation orders  Three recently-resolved cases investigated exclusionary discipline or restraint and seclusion for students of color and those with disabilities (see case descriptions below)  Justice Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in an Arkansas School District  This Justice case, originally stemming from a desegregation order, focused on whether the Watson Chapel School District was discriminating against Black students in its administration of school discipline  Justice found that the district suspended and expelled Black students at significantly higher rates than White students, and that district policies and procedures were responsible for this difference  The parties signed a Consent Order in 2016, under which the school district agreed to implement positive interventions and supports, transition away from exclusionary discipline, revise the code of conduct to list specific levels of disciplinary infractions and consequences, prohibit corporal punishment, establish a memorandum of agreement with any law enforcement agency that supplies school resource officers, and provide training to staff  In addition, the district agreed to provide due process before students receive out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to the alternative education program because of disruptive behavior  Justice Case 2: Race and Disability in a Maryland School District  Justice investigated complaints that discipline policies in the Wicomico County Public School District resulted in the discriminatory suspension of Black and Latino students and students with disabilities  After the investigation, Justice and the district negotiated and entered into a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement in January 2017  The district agreed to hire a consultant to implement positive behavioral interventions and supports and restorative practices, revise the code of conduct to include objective definitions of behavioral infractions and incorporate alternatives to exclusionary discipline, establish clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate, and provide appropriate due process procedures  Justice Case 3: Race and Restraint & Seclusion in a Kentucky School District  This 2017 Justice case investigated whether Covington Independent Schools’ disciplinary practices, including the use of exclusionary discipline, restraint, and seclusion, discriminated on the basis of race, national origin, or disability  The parties agreed to negotiate a settlement agreement under which the district agreed to develop a process to regularly identify students who disproportionately had disciplinary referrals, with a focus on offenses that may be the result of unaddressed behavioral needs such as disruptive behavior or aggression, defiance, and being “beyond control ” The district also agreed to discontinue the use of “calm rooms” (where students are isolated during an episode of misbehavior) and prohibit the use of physical restraint except in the case of imminent danger that could not be addressed through de-escalation techniques  The district agreed to adopt an intervention procedure to meet the needs of students with disabilities who may need support beyond the standard discipline policies  In addition, if parents of students with disabilities were asked to come to the school to become involved in an ongoing instance of misbehavior, the district could no longer require the parent to take the student home unless the student had been assigned an out-of-school suspension or expulsion  Education and Justice collaborated on a “Rethink Discipline” campaign in 2014 to address what they viewed as widespread overuse of suspensions and expulsions  This awareness campaign included comprehensive guidance to help states and schools implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline, reduce discrimination, and identify root causes of disparities (see sidebar)  The agencies have also collaborated to provide guidance encouraging school districts that use school resource officers to formalize partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and clarify that school resource officers should not administer discipline in schools  Education has also issued special guidance related to the discipline of students with disabilities, including an explanation of the requirement to provide appropriate strategies to address behavior in students’ individualized education programs (IEPs)  This guidance stated that when a student with a disability is regularly sent home early from school for behavior reasons, it is likely that the child’s opportunity to make progress in the general education curriculum is significantly impeded (see sidebar)  The guidance states that being sent home regularly in this way constitutes a disciplinary removal, which comes with statutory reporting obligations and other considerations  For further information on available federal guidance related to discipline in public schools, see appendix III  available could result in an inappropriately restrictive placement  demonstrates that disciplinary measures such as short-term removals from the current placement (e g , suspension), or other exclusionary disciplinary measures that significantly impede the implementation of the individualized education program (IEP), generally do not help to reduce or eliminate reoccurrence of the misbehavior  Education and other federal entities have also awarded grants and established special initiatives related to student behavior and school discipline, many of which started around the same time as the federal Rethink Discipline campaign and were designed to be complementary


Report 2:  For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to improve behavioral outcomes  According to Education, nearly 3,000 schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals  In addition, Education awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive violence  According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over 5,000 students  Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the school-to-prison pipeline  More recently, Education collaborated with HHS to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data systems to understand equity issues  For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)  For example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments provides information and resources on addressing school discipline, mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement, and other related issues  Justice funds a technical assistance center on school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement officials  This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement  For a list of other technical assistance centers related to student behavior or discipline, see appendix III  Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through the CRDC  The agency publicly releases highlights from these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports, which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability status)  Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school  Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by various student demographics and examine it for disparities  In addition, Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B  This IDEA report provides the public with information on whether districts had significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of students with disabilities  We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and Justice for review and comment  These agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We also provided selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state agencies, school districts, and school officials  We received technical comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school discipline  To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3) interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation, federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection of resolved school discipline cases  To inform all aspects of our work, we interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American Indian communities  We also met with academic subject matter experts to discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline  In addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school discipline issues and programs  We evaluated the methods used in the research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not appropriate or rigorous  The following sections contain detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report  To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e g , race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e g , school type, such as charter or magnet school)  Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The CRDC is a biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the United States  Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school environment, such as incidents of bullying  CRDC data are self-reported by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for misreporting of information  In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14)  Using the public-use data file of the CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis  We also compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to analyze how discipline may have changed over that period  The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests  The CRDC did not collect data on less severe forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or field trips  As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC  For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student demographic characteristics  Specifically, we examined counts and rates for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and English Language Learners  Using the CRDC, we also examined race and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or White girls  In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the 2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the 2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data  The CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation  A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty level and the size of the family  State education agencies supply these data for their schools and school districts  We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25 percent, 25 1 to 49 9 percent, 50 to 74 9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent (see table 6)  The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and also aligned with how Education analyzed its data  To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information  The 2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education, magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7)  The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school  To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we applied the following criteria: Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well  Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type  Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type and/or the special education school type  Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter school type  Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in the CRDC  Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the 2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria  For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities in disciplinary rates by student demographics  Specifically, we compared each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their representation in the overall student population  For example, if boys accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points  We also compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all students  We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students  The disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for K-12 students  Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions  Findings from our analysis of pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17  In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent 15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could include for suspensions and expulsions  The CRDC also collected data on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and mechanically—or secluded at school  Education has provided a resource document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and should never be used as punishment or discipline  However, multiple sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with disabilities  We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV, tables 18 and 19  We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics  For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors in the original data previously submitted by several school districts  We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary action  Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant  We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables) for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables)  Table 9 lists the variables we included in our regression model  We conducted a separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an outcome variable  We excluded some schools from our regression model  Specifically, we excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria: Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas  School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above  School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in the CRDC  School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC  In the 2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility, and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i e , traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education schools)  Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our regression model  School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates  In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools to 86,769 public schools  All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the limitations included: Data we analyzed were by school rather than student  Consequently, we were not able to describe the association between our independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student, such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level  Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of students who are boys or are Black  Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline are not available in the data  For example, in this context, it could be that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed  Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics  Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage of Black students  An estimated incidence rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary action when a factor is present  Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary outcomes  For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics  For example, the results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional schools to be suspended out of school  For continuous variables (i e , those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased  For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions also increased  It should be noted that interactions (i e , where we combine both race and sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in table 10  Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction  For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than average percentage of Black students and a higher than average percentage of boys was positive  Since the contribution for an interaction coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether, despite the negative interaction  To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples  To select school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections  With regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all students attending public schools in school year 2013-14: Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34 7% of all students in 2013-14) Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33 2% of all students in 2013-14) Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32 1% of all students in 2013-14) Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC)  Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual instructional or learning environment  Selecting districts with a range of out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may employ alternatives  For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways  First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities  Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and address such disparities  Second, we grouped school districts by whether their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between 2011-12 and 2013-14  Exploring school districts that changed in different ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing disparate discipline  Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following categories: Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14 Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14  After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting school districts  In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to consider other key factors in school discipline  Specifically, we checked for variety in: types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district  To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above post-checks  We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to participate in this review  When school districts were unresponsive to our outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final selections  This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see table 11)  We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in school discipline and school climate initiatives  These officials included superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and directors of applicable district departments (e g , student support services and special education)  We also reviewed district-level discipline data, school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district  In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19 schools  At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource officers (i e , law enforcement officers), and teachers  In each district, we selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type, and disciplinary data  For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions  In California, we also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local school district accountability structure  Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide  To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data, reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases)  With both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them  We also discussed each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e g , grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities  In addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and guidance documents  We also requested and reviewed Education’s data on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better understand the scope of the agency’s efforts  Education provided these data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases as being related to school discipline  We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes  To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline  We then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases reflected recent policies and practices in each agency  We also excluded cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were outside the scope of this review  This resulted in a list of 12 relevant resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice  From this list, we selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative examples in our report  We selected 4 cases from Education that provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e g , race or disability) and type of discipline (e g , suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc )  We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice  For each case, we reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address findings  In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the cases  We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March 2018 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  This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 2013-14  Funded by Department of Education (Education): National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments: offers information and technical assistance focused on improving student supports and academic enrichment  This includes resources on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of physical learning environments  https://safesupportivelearning ed gov/  National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center: a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate high school prepared for college, career, and civic life  It offers webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and improving attendance for vulnerable students  http://new every1graduates org/nsaesc/ National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works to improve education services for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk  This includes running the Supportive School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices  https://www neglected-delinquent org/ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support  In addition, it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior support systems, among other issues  https://www pbis org/  Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in promoting mental health and school readiness  It provides training to leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school readiness issues  https://www samhsa gov/iecmhc Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for youth  This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and Service Administration  http://csmh umaryland edu/ National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of trauma-informed approaches  https://www samhsa gov/nctic National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events  The group provides a comprehensive focus on childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health, education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military family service systems  http://nctsn org/ National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall child wellness and prevent youth violence  http://www healthysafechildren org/ Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants  https://www samhsa gov/nitt-ta/about-us Funded by Department of Justice (Justice): School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education arenas  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges operates this center  https://schooljusticepartnership org/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14  Our analyses of Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The following tables and information are included in this appendix: Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English Language Learner status  Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity  Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other student characteristics  Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student characteristics  Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other student characteristics  Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status  In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R  McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K  Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney 

ground_truth: The LDA, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain political contributions. The law also includes a provision for GAO to annually audit lobbyists' compliance with the LDA. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identify challenges to compliance that lobbyists report, and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to USAO in its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts USAO has made to improve enforcement. This is GAO's 11th report under the provision. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 98 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2016 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2017. GAO also reviewed two random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2016 and midyear 2017. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 45,818 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 30,594 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO also met with officials from USAO to obtain status updates on its efforts to focus resources on lobbyists who fail to comply. GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment. The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For the 2017 reporting period, most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports and political contributions (LD-203) reports filed during the third and fourth quarter of 2016 and the first and second quarter of 2017, GAO estimates that 87 percent of lobbyists filed reports as required for the quarter in which they first registered; the figure below describes the filing process and enforcement; 99 percent of all lobbyists who filed (up from 83 percent in 2016) could provide documentation for income and expenses; and 93 percent filed year-end 2016 LD-203 reports as required. These findings are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued for the 2010 through 2016 reporting periods. However, in recent years GAO's findings showed some variation in the estimated percentage of reports with supporting documentation. For example, an estimated increase in lobbyists who could document expenses is notable in 2017 and represents a statistically significant increase from 2016. As in GAO's other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain previously held covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions. GAO estimates that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed previously held covered positions. On the other hand, over the past several years of reporting on lobbying disclosure, GAO found that most lobbyists in the sample rated the terms associated with LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources and authority to enforce compliance with the LDA. USAO continued its efforts to bring lobbyists into compliance by reminding them to file reports or by applying civil penalties.