a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2004 HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Performance of 

Information System to 

Monitor Foreign 

Students and 

Exchange Visitors Has 

Improved, but Issues 

Remain

GAO-04-690
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-690.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Randolph C. 

Hite at (202) 512-3439 or hiter@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-690, a report to

congressional committees 

June 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Performance of Information System to 

Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange 

Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain 

Several indicators show that SEVIS performance is improving. First, 

program office reports for some key system performance requirements show 

that these requirements are being met. However, not all key performance 

requirements are being monitored or reported on. Without formally 

monitoring all key performance requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure 

itself that potential problems will be identified and addressed early. Second, 

other, less formal indicators of performance, such as daily system use by 

program officials and unsolicited user feedback, indicate that the system is 

meeting requirements. Third, GAO’s analysis of new requests for system 

changes, including changes to address reported performance problems, 

shows these requests are declining. Finally, officials representing 

educational organizations generally see performance as having improved.

DHS has taken specific actions to improve SEVIS performance. In particular, 

it has installed a series of new software releases and increased Help Desk 

staffing and training. In addition, program officials are holding regularly 

scheduled meetings, both internally and with educational representatives, 

and are asking user groups to test new releases. Despite these efforts, 

however, educational organizations continue to report problems, such as the 

quality of Help Desk assistance. The following table identifies reported 

system problems, examples, and DHS’s responses. 

DHS Actions to Address User Problems

Problem Example DHS response 

Inability of users to download 

data to create custom reports 

One report shows only 20 

records at a time, so it must be 

run repeatedly to show all 

affected individuals 

Evaluating software options 

to provide custom report 

capabilities 

Slow Help Desk response; 

inconsistent answers to technical 

questions and incorrect answers 

to policy questions 

An error on a student’s status 

took 6 weeks to correct; user 

received varying responses for 

how to record multiple training 

records; user incorrectly 

advised not to sign travel 

authorization 

Increased Help Desk 

staffing as of March 2003; 

training given to Help Desk 

on continuing basis 

Incomplete transmission of data 

to State Department database 

Change to correct birth date 

not updated in State 

Department database 

Software change 

implemented in January 

2004 

Insufficient identification of 

schools when transferring 

between schools 

A student was transferred to 

the wrong school due to 

similarity of school names 

Schools are listed by city 

and state on the DHS Web 

site as of July 2003 

Sources: GAO and DHS.

DHS submitted its final rule on the SEVIS fee to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) in February and plans to collect the fee once OMB 

approves it. Representatives of educational organizations are concerned that 

two of the three payment options in DHS’s final rule are either not available 

to all students in developing countries or will result in significant delays. 

Program officials acknowledge the increased demands on students and 

visitors, but do not believe that these demands warrant changes to their 

plans. 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) has implemented 

the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS) to 

collect and record key data on 

foreign students, exchange visitors, 

and their dependents—prior to 

their entering the United States, 

upon their entry, and during their 

stay. In accordance with 

Conference Report 108-280, GAO 

reviewed SEVIS. Among the areas 

it examined were (1) system 

performance, (2) actions to 

improve performance, and (3) 

plans for collecting the fee to be 

paid by foreign students and 

exchange visitors to cover SEVIS 

costs. 

To strengthen SEVIS, GAO is 

making recommendations designed 

to improve DHS’s monitoring of 

key system performance 

requirements, address educational 

association performance concerns, 

and expedite collection of the fee. 

DHS agreed with most of our 

findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. It did not fully 

agree with two of our findings and 

their associated recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Contents

Letter 1

Recommendations for Executive Action 4

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 5

Appendixes

Appendix I: Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees on Homeland 

Security, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 8

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 86

GAO Comments 90

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 92

GAO Comments 94

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 95

GAO Contact 95

Staff Acknowledgments 95

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

OIRM Office of Information Resource Management

CCD Consular Consolidated Database

NIV Nonimmigrant Visa System

US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator 

Technology

CLAIMS 3 Computer Linked Application Information Management System

CPU Central Processing Unit

SCR System Change Request

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 18, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate 

The Honorable Harold Rogers

Chairman

The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) is an 

Internet-based system that collects and records information on foreign 

students, exchange visitors, and their dependents prior to their entering the 

United States, upon their entry, and during their stay. SEVIS has the 

following objectives:

• support the oversight and enforcement of laws and regulations 

pertaining to foreign students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange 

visitor program sponsors authorized by the government to issue 

eligibility documents, and

• improve the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) processing of 

foreign students and exchange visitors at ports of entry through 

streamlined procedures and modernized data capture.

Within DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization, the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program is responsible for certifying schools 

to accept foreign students in academic and vocational programs and 

managing SEVIS. DHS required schools and exchange programs to start 

using the system for new students and exchange visitors beginning 

February 15, 2003, and for all continuing students beginning August 1, 2003. 
Page 2 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

In accordance with Conference Report 108-280,1 we reviewed various 

aspects of SEVIS. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) determine how 

well the system is performing, (2) identify what actions DHS has taken to 

improve system performance, (3) determine what data the system collects 

and who uses it, and (4) determine the government’s plans for collecting 

the SEVIS fee.2

On April 1, 2004, we provided your offices with a written briefing on the 

results of our review. The full briefing, including details of our scope and 

methodology, is reprinted as appendix I. The purpose of this report is to 

provide the published briefing slides to you and to officially transmit our 

recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

In summary, our briefing made the following four main points:

• According to several indicators, SEVIS performance is improving. First, 

program office reports relating to certain system performance 

requirements3

 show that requirements are being met. However, several 

key system performance requirements are not being formally measured. 

This is problematic because, without formally monitoring and 

documenting key system performance requirements, DHS cannot 

adequately assure itself that potential system problems are identified 

and addressed early before they have a chance to become larger 

problems that could affect the DHS mission objectives supported by 

SEVIS. Second, other, less formal indicators of performance—such as 

the program office’s daily use of the system and unsolicited feedback 

from users—likewise indicate that the system is meeting requirements. 

Third, our analysis of new system change requests4

 shows that the 

1

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-280, at 32 (2003). 

2

The fee is to be paid by foreign students and exchange visitors to cover SEVIS costs. The 

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) first required 

that schools and exchange programs collect the fee (P.L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996). The Visa 

Waiver Permanent Program Act (2000) amended IIRIRA to require that the government 

collect the SEVIS fee (P.L. 106-396, Oct. 30, 2000).

3

Examples of performance requirements are (1) the system is to be available 99.5 percent of 

the time to all users 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, excluding scheduled downtime and (2) 

the time to respond to user queries, as measured as the response time between the 

application server and database, is to be less than 10 seconds. 

4

Change requests are used to track all system changes, including corrections to erroneous 

system programming, as well as planned system enhancements. 
Page 3 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

number of new requests is steadily declining, which similarly suggests 

that performance has improved. Finally, officials representing ten 

educational organizations5

 stated that system performance had 

improved. 

• To DHS’s credit, it has taken a number of actions to improve SEVIS 

performance. In particular, it has installed a series of new software 

releases and has increased Help Desk staffing and training. Nonetheless, 

problems continue to be reported, such as the quality of Help Desk 

support.6

• SEVIS collects a wide range of data, most of which are required by 

legislation, regulation, or presidential directive. The system also collects 

some data that are not required. Most of these elements, such as 

information regarding visas and passports, are important to managing 

the SEVIS program, but are not required and are only captured on a 

voluntary basis. The data are used by schools, exchange programs, and 

offices within DHS and State to oversee the pre-entry, entry, and stay of 

foreign students, exchange visitors, and their dependents. The data are 

also used by DHS and State to oversee the schools and exchange visitor 

programs.

• DHS intends to collect the SEVIS fee starting this year, but almost 7 

years have passed since collection of this fee was required; thus millions 

of dollars in revenue have been and will continue to be lost until the fee 

is actually collected.7

 DHS submitted its final rule on the fee, which 

5

We contacted representatives from the following 12 organizations: Accrediting Council for 

Continuing Education and Training, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural 

Exchange, American Association of Collegiate Registrars, American Association of 

Community Colleges, American Council on Education, Association of American 

Universities, Association of International Educators, Council for Standards for International 

Educational Travel, Council on International Educational Exchange, National Association 

for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of College and University 

Business Officers, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 

Colleges. Two of the organizations stated that they did not have the detailed information in 

which we were interested for this engagement.

6

The SEVIS Help Desk was established to assist system users by providing troubleshooting 

and resolution of technical problems, along with problem escalation and resolution, and 

changes to the database.

7

In its comments, DHS stated that SEVIS has been supported by both appropriated and 

Immigration Examination fee funds. IIRIRA required that the SEVIS fee be deposited in the 

Immigration Examination Fee Account (P.L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996). 
Page 4 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

includes three payment options, to the Office of Management and 

Budget on February 19, 2004, and is waiting to hear if the rule is 

approved.8

 Representatives of educational organizations are concerned 

that two of the payment options are either not available to all students in 

developing countries, or that they will result in significant delays. While 

program officials acknowledge that collection of the fee will increase 

the demands placed on students and exchange visitors, they stated that 

such concerns do not warrant changes to their plans for collecting the 

fee. The longer disagreements over how the fee should be collected go 

unresolved, the longer SEVIS reduces the Immigration Examination Fee 

funds available to other programs. Resolution of such differences in 

perspective is precisely what the rulemaking process is intended to 

accomplish. Therefore, it is important that the outcome of this process 

be implemented quickly.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To strengthen SEVIS performance, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security direct the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement to ensure that the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program Director take the following three actions: 

• Assess the extent to which defined SEVIS performance requirements 

are still relevant and are being formally measured.

• Provide for measurement of key performance requirements that are not 

being formally measured. 

• Assess educational organization Help Desk concerns and take 

appropriate action to address these concerns.

We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the necessary steps to 

provide for the expeditious implementation of the results of the SEVIS fee 

rulemaking process. 

8

In agency comments on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it received clearance of the 

SEVIS rule from the Office of Management and Budget on May 19, 2004.
Page 5 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

Both DHS and State provided comments on a draft of this report. In written 

comments signed by the Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (reprinted in app. II, along with our responses), DHS agreed 

with most of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. However, it 

did not fully agree with two of our findings and their associated 

recommendations.

First, DHS did not agree with our finding that the SEVIS program was not 

monitoring and reporting on all system performance requirements, and it 

agreed in part with our associated recommendation, adding that it believes 

that we did not fully assess all data that the program office provided to us 

on this matter. DHS said it was resubmitting these data to clarify our 

finding. We acknowledge that DHS provided in its comments data on 

system performance monitoring and reporting, but we do not agree that we 

did not fully assess the data previously provided, and thus we have not 

modified our finding and associated recommendation. In particular, neither 

the data enclosed with its comments, nor the data previously provided, 

specifically addresses measurement of SEVIS availability. As we state in 

our report, while the program monitors and reports on the availability of 

the communications software on its application servers, which can be used 

to identify problems that could affect SEVIS availability, it does not 

specifically measure SEVIS availability (i.e., the SEVIS application may not 

be available even though the communication software is). Further, we 

acknowledge DHS’s statement in the enclosure that it has implemented a 

new SEVIS-specific processor utilization tool, which relates to one of the 

performance requirements that our report cited as not being monitored and 

reported on. However, information on this tool was not previously provided 

to us and thus could not be verified by us and included in our briefing. We 

are nevertheless supportive of any recent program actions that would 

expand system monitoring and reporting to include all key performance 

requirements. 

Second, DHS did not fully agree with our finding regarding the use of 

taxpayer dollars to fund SEVIS. According to DHS, SEVIS has been funded 

by both appropriated funds and immigration examination user fees, which 

are collected from nonimmigrants seeking benefits. We do not question 

DHS’s statement that the program has been supported by $36.8 million in 

appropriated (taxpayer-funded) and $34.3 million in immigration 

examination user fees funds. Our finding is that 7 years have passed since 

the fee collection was required, and millions of dollars have been spent 

(both appropriated and user fees) and will continue to be spent until the 
Page 6 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

SEVIS fee is actually collected. Even if SEVIS is prospectively funded with 

the immigration examination user fees, until the SEVIS fee is collected, the 

amount of funds available to other programs funded by this account is 

reduced. With respect to our associated recommendation, DHS commented 

that it agreed in part, noting that while it shared the recommendation’s 

sense of urgency in implementing the SEVIS user fee, it did not agree that 

the Assistant Secretary needed to be directed to take the necessary steps to 

expeditiously do so because these steps were already being taken. As we 

stated in our report, although we were told that steps were under way to 

begin collecting the fee, DHS officials did not provide us with a plan 

showing, for example, what these steps are. Our recommendation is 

intended to address this absence of explicit planning for how this shared 

sense of urgency in implementing the fee will be accomplished. 

In written comments signed by the Department of State’s Assistant 

Secretary and Chief Financial Officer (reprinted in app. III, along with our 

response), the department stated that its concerns with collecting the 

SEVIS fee that we cite in the report remain valid. It also stated that since 

the report was originally drafted, it has initiated a pilot project with DHS to 

explore the feasibility of collecting the fee at both consular offices using 

foreign financial institutions and at consular offices with internal cashiers. 

According to State, the pilot is to be conducted in a small number of 

consulates, and will only be extended on a post-by-post and country-bycountry basis. The department also provided technical comments, which 

we have incorporated as appropriate in the report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

the Secretary of State, and to the Director, Office of Management and 

Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at

www.gao.gov.
Page 7 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Should you have any question on matters contained in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3439, or by e-mail at hiter@gao.gov. The GAO 

contact and key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Randolph C. Hite

Director, Information Technology Architecture

and Systems Issues
Page 8 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Appendix I

Homeland Security: Performance of Information 

System to Monitor Foreign Students and Exchange 

Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain

Briefing to the Staffs of the

Subcommittees on Homeland Security

Senate and House Committees on Appropriations

April 1, 2004

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees on Apendxies

Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations ApendxiI
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 9 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

2

Overview

• Introduction

• Objectives

• Results in Brief

• Background

• SEVIS Results

• Performance

• Actions to Improve Performance

• Data and Users

• Fee Plans

• Conclusions

• Recommendations for Executive Action

• Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

• Attachment: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 10 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

3

Introduction

Within the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) organization, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program

(SEVP) office is responsible for certifying schools to accept foreign students in 

their academic and vocational programs and managing the Student and 

Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). 

SEVIS was initiated in July 2001 to automate manual, paper-intensive

processes that schools and exchange programs already used to manage and

report information about foreign students and exchange visitors. According to

program officials, SEVIS began operating in July 2002.1

SEVIS is an Internet-based system that collects and records key information on 

foreign students and exchange visitors prior to their entering the United States,

upon their entry, and during their stay. Using the system, schools and program

sponsors can transmit information electronically via the Internet to DHS and the 

Department of State (State). 

1According to program officials, SEVIS began operations on July 1, 2002. It was available to certify schools on July 1, 2002,

and to register students on July 15, 2002. According to State, SEVIS was available to exchange visitor programs in October

2002. DHS required schools and exchange programs to begin using SEVIS for new students and exchange visitors no later

than January 30, 2003, however, this deadline was extended to February 15, 2003. Schools and exchange programs were

required to use SEVIS for all continuing students and exchange visitors starting August 1, 2003.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 11 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

4

Introduction

Conference Report 108-2801 requires GAO to report on the following aspects of 

SEVIS to the Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2004:

• the technical problems faced by institutions of higher education using the 

system,

• corrective actions being taken by DHS to resolve system problems, and 

• the need for the detailed information collected.

1H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-280, at 32 (2003).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 12 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

5

Objectives

As agreed with the Appropriations Subcommittees’ staff, our objectives were to

• determine how well the system is performing, 

• identify what actions DHS has taken to improve the system's performance,

• determine what data the system collects and who uses it, and

• determine the government’s plans for collecting the SEVIS fee.1

We conducted our work at DHS and State headquarters in Washington, D.C., 

and at ten educational organizations2 from December 2003 through March

2004, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Details of our scope and methodology can be found in the attachment.

1The fee is to be paid by foreign students and exchange visitors to cover SEVIS costs. 2We contacted 12 organizations, but two stated that they did not have the detailed information in which GAO was

interested for this engagement.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 13 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

6

Results in Brief

SEVIS Performance

A number of indicators show that system performance has improved. For 

example, program office reports for some key performance requirements show

that requirements are being met. However, not all key performance

requirements are being measured and reported on. Nevertheless, according to 

program officials, other less formal indicators of performance, such as personal

use of the system, daily inspection of Help Desk logs, and unsolicited user 

feedback, indicate that the system is meeting requirements.

Another indicator of system performance is trends in reported system problems.

For SEVIS, such problems are described in system change requests.1 Based on 

DHS change request data, our analysis of new change requests also suggests

that performance has improved.

Officials representing schools and educational organizations also told us that 

SEVIS performance had improved. However, they also identified seven types of 

performance problems that remain, such as the quality of Help Desk support.

1Change requests are used to track all changes to SEVIS, including corrections to erroneous system programming, as well

as planned system enhancements.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 14 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

7

Results in Brief

Actions to Improve Performance

DHS has taken a number of actions to improve SEVIS performance. In 

particular, a series of new versions of SEVIS have been installed and Help

Desk staffing and training has increased. According to program officials, these 

actions address six of the seven problems reported by the schools and learning

organizations, and solutions to the remaining problem are currently being

evaluated. However, according to these organizations, some of the problems

continue.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 15 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

8

Results in Brief

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS collects a wide variety of data, the vast majority of which are required in 

legislation, regulation, and a presidential directive. Examples of data elements

required, but not collected, are the foreign student or exchange visitor’s visa

change date and classes enrolled in.

SEVIS also collects some data that are not required. Examples of such data

elements are the individual’s visa number, visa expiration date, and visa issuing

post. According to program officials, such data are not required and are only

entered into SEVIS if they are voluntarily provided by the school or exchange

program.

SEVIS data are used by schools, exchange programs, and numerous offices within 

DHS and the Department of State to oversee the pre-entry, entry, and stay of 

foreign students, exchange visitors, their dependents, and the schools that enroll 

them and the exchange visitor programs that sponsor them. 
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 16 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

9

Results in Brief

SEVIS Fee Plans

DHS plans to collect the SEVIS fee; however, about 7 years have passed since 

collection of the fee was first required of schools and education programs.1

Federal government direct collection of the fee has been required since October 

2000. Since then, a variety of circumstances has delayed the fee’s collection.

On February 19, 2004, DHS submitted its final rule on the fee to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Representatives of educational organizations identified several concerns with

the SEVIS fee plans. One concern is that the payment options are either not 

available to all students and exchange visitors in developing countries or that

they will result in significant visa application delays. While program officials

acknowledged that collection of the fee will increase the demands placed on

students and exchange visitors applying for admission to the United States, 

they stated that the concerns do not warrant changes to their plans for 

collecting the fee.

1Originally, schools were required to collect the fee beginning April 1, 1997. P.L. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 17 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

10

Results in Brief

Agency Comments

To assist DHS in managing SEVIS, we are making four recommendations to the 

Secretary of DHS.

In commenting on a draft of this briefing, DHS officials stated that (1) 

measurement of SEVIS performance requirements is important and that the 

department needs to update defined system performance requirements, (2) all 

necessary system performance measurement is occurring now or will occur, 

and (3) it is working consistently to improve Help Desk performance, including

continuously training and monitoring Help Desk staff and helping educational

institutions understand that deficiencies attributed to Help Desk performance

are due to problems attributed to the institutions. DHS also provided some 

technical comments and clarifications that we have incorporated into the 

briefing.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 18 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

11

Background

Relevant Legislation

Various laws define SEVIS-related requirements:

• The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(IIRIRA)1 requires that foreign students and exchange visitors be monitored

and reported on, and that a data-collection system be developed for approved

institutions of higher education and designated exchange visitor programs to

track nonimmigrants possessing or applying for F-, M-, or J-class visas or 

status.2 It also requires that a fee be collected by approved institutions of 

higher education and designated exchange visitor programs from students and 

exchange visitors in order to reimburse program expenses.

1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996).

2SEVIS manages information for foreign students and exchange visitors having any of the following visa types: F visas for

academic study at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities and other academic institutions; M visas for nonacademic study at

institutions, such as vocational and technical schools; and J visas for participation in exchange programs. (8 U.S.C. § 1101

(a) (15)).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 19 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

12

Background

Relevant Legislation

• The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act (2000)1 amends IIRIRA to require

that the Attorney General, not the institutions of higher education and

exchange programs, collect the SEVIS fee.2

• The USA PATRIOT Act3 expands the foreign student tracking system to 

include other approved educational institutions, such as air flight schools,

language training schools, and vocational schools. It also required that the 

system be fully operational by January 1, 2003, which it was.

1P.L. 106-396 (Oct. 30, 2000).

2 With the creation of DHS in 2003, the Attorney General’s responsibilities for collecting the SEVIS fee were transferred to

DHS.

3P.L. 107-56 (Oct. 26, 2001).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 20 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

13

Background

Relevant Legislation

• The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 20021 requires

that

• an electronic means be established to monitor and verify (1) the

acceptance of a foreign student or exchange visitor by an institution or 

program and (2) additional information on nonimmigrants, such as date of 

entry and port of entry; and 

• within 30 days after 1) the end of a school’s enrollment period or 2) the 

commencement of an exchange program, the school or exchange visitor 

program must inform DHS of foreign students who fail to enroll.2

1P.L. 107-173 (May 14, 2002).

2On October 17, 2003, DHS issued a memorandum to SEVIS certified academic institutions explaining its implementation

of this requirement. The memo stated that the deadline for reporting student registration is 30 days after the “Program Start 

Date” or the “Next Session Start Date” for new and continuing students, respectively.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 21 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

14

Background

SEVP: A Brief Description 

ICE is responsible for SEVP. The SEVP office is responsible for a variety of 

program functions, including certifying schools to use SEVIS; providing program

policies and plans; performing program analysis; and conducting communications,

outreach, and training. It is also responsible for SEVIS, including identifying and 

prioritizing system requirements, performing system release management,

monitoring system performance, and correcting data errors. 

ICE’s Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM) manages the 

information technology infrastructure (hardware and system software) on which the 

SEVIS application software is hosted. It also manages the SEVIS Help Desk and 

the systems life cycle process for SEVIS, including system operations and

maintenance.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 22 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

15

Background

SEVP: A Brief Description 

The SEVIS Help Desk was established to assist system users. It consists of three 

levels of support known as tiers.

• Tier 1 provides initial end-user troubleshooting and resolution of technical 

problems.

• Tier 2 provides escalation and resolution support for Tier 1, and makes 

necessary changes to the database (data fixes).1

• Tier 3 addresses the resolution of policy and procedural issues, and also 

makes data fixes.

SEVP uses a contractor to operate Tiers 1 and 2. Both the contractor and the

program office operate Tier 3. Currently, Tier 1 has 26 staff, Tier 2 has 9 staff, and 

Tier 3 has 8 staff. 

1According to State, fixes to records of J visas are made at Tier 3 after State reviews and approves the changes.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 23 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

16

Background

SEVIS: A Brief Description

SEVIS has two primary objectives:

• To support the oversight and enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to 

foreign students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange visitor program

sponsors authorized by the government to issue eligibility documents.

• To improve DHS’s processing of foreign students and exchange visitors at ports

of entry through streamlined procedures and modernized data capture.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 24 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

17

Background

SEVIS: A Brief Description

SEVIS was implemented in phases, beginning with new students and exchange

visitors, and ending with continuing students and exchange visitors.

• SEVIS began operating on July 1, 2002, for students and in October 2002, for 

exchange visitors.1

• Schools and exchange visitor programs were required to use SEVIS for all new

students and exchange visitors beginning February 15, 2003.

• Schools and exchange visitor programs were required to use SEVIS for all 

continuing students beginning August 1, 2003.

1According to program officials, SEVIS was available to certify schools on July 1, 2002, and to register students on July 15,

2002. According to State, SEVIS was available to exchange programs in October 2002.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 25 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

18

Background

SEVP Process

The foreign student and exchange visitors’ process generally consists of three 

primary functions: pre-entry, entry, and stay management.

Pre-entry

Schools and exchange visitor programs that wish to participate in SEVP must first 

be approved by DHS and State.

• Schools submit a certification application to DHS. If the application is 

approved, the school is then certified to issue forms1 to students and their

dependents to enable them to enter the United States to attend the school.

• Organizations and institutions submit an application for designation to State. If 

the application is approved, the organization or institution is designated and an 

exchange visitor program sponsor is authorized to issue forms2 to exchange 

visitors, and in some cases, their dependents, to enable them to enter the 

United States and participate in the exchange visitor program.

1Form I-20A-B: Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status -- for Academic and Language Students,

and Form I-20M-N: Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1) Student Status -- for Vocational Students.

2Form DS-2019: Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 26 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

19

Background

SEVP Process

To attend a school or participate in an exchange visitor program in the United

States, a foreign student or exchange visitor must first apply to a DHS-certified 

school or State-designated exchange visitor program and receive the appropriate

form. A SEVIS identification number is automatically created when the form is 

issued. Second, the foreign student or exchange visitor must apply for a visa at a 

United States consulate or embassy.

To apply for a visa, a foreign student or exchange visitor presents to the consular

officer several hard copy documents, including a current passport and photograph,

a copy of the appropriate forms from the school or exchange visitor program he or 

she plans to attend, and documentation to show that the person has the financial

resources to pay for tuition and living expenses. The consular officer compares the 

information on the applicant’s hard-copy paperwork, such as the applicant’s name, 

date and place of birth, and SEVIS identification number, against selected

information that has been automatically extracted from SEVIS through DataShare1

to State’s Consolidated Consular Database (CCD)2. The consular officer also

conducts an in-person interview of the applicant.

1DataShare provides electronic data exchange between State and DHS systems.

2CCD is used by consular officers to verify that the student or exchange visitor has been accepted by a particular school or

exchange visitor program.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 27 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

20

Background

SEVP Process

The applicant must pay a $100 nonrefundable fee for a visa application. The feecollection procedure varies among consulates and embassies. In some cases, an 

off-site contractor collects the fee and provides the applicant with a receipt to take 

to the consulate or embassy. In other cases, the applicant pays the fee at the 

consulate or embassy. In certain countries there is also a separate issuance fee if 

the visa is approved.

The consular officer decides if the applicant is eligible for nonimmigrant status and, 

if so, issues a visa. If a visa is issued, the consular officer enters information about

the visa application into State’s Nonimmigrant Visa system (NIV). This information 

is sent to SEVIS through CCD and DataShare.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 28 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

21

Background

SEVP Process

Entry

Upon entering the United States, the foreign student or exchange visitor presents

to the border inspector at the port of entry the passport containing the student and 

exchange visitor visa, the copy of the appropriate form, and other travel 

documents. The inspector reviews the documentation to determine if it is valid and

interviews the student or exchange visitor. If the student or exchange visitor is 

approved to enter the country, the inspector puts the entry data into the United

States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) system.1

1US-VISIT is a governmentwide program to collect, maintain, and share information on selected foreign nationals. We have

issued a series of products on US-VISIT, including Homeland Security: Risks Facing Key Border and Transportation Security

Program Need to Be Addressed, GAO-03-1083 (Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2003) and Information Technology:

Homeland Security Needs to Improve Entry Exit System Expenditure Planning, GAO-03-563 (Washington, D.C.: June 9,

2003).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 29 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

22

Background

SEVP Process

Stay Management

Schools and exchange visitor programs manage the stays of foreign students,

exchange visitors, and their dependents during their time in the United States.1 This

includes noting full-time school attendance each semester, outside employment or 

training, and changes in U.S. address. 

CLAIMS 32 sends data to SEVIS when an F, M, or J visa-holder requests a 

nonimmigrant benefit, such as change of status, extension of stay, or work permit 

cards.3

Foreign students and exchange visitors are permitted to leave the United States

and return after a temporary absence as long as they retain a valid visa. To reenter the country, the foreign student or exchange visitor must have an official from 

the school or exchange program properly certify the appropriate form stating that 

the student or exchange visitor is leaving temporarily but will be returning.

1Schools designate one principal official and up to nine additional designated school officials who are authorized to

use SEVIS. Exchange programs designate one responsible officer and up to ten alternates who are authorized to use

SEVIS.

2Computer Linked Application Information Management System 3 (CLAIMS 3) is a system that contains information

on foreign nationals who request benefits, such as change of status or extension of stay.

3According to State, these are known as Employment Authorization Documents.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 30 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

23

Background

SEVP Process

Simplified Diagram of the SEVP Pre-entry, Entry, and Stay Management Process
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 31 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

24

Background

SEVIS Funding

According to program officials, they obligated about $28.2 million in fiscal years

2002 and 2003 for SEVIS development, testing, deployment, and operations and 

maintenance activities. Program officials plan to obligate an additional $9.6 million

by September 30, 2004. 
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 32 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

25

Background

SEVIS Technical Description

SEVIS application software runs on a system infrastructure (hardware and

systems software) that supports multiple DHS Internet-based applications. The 

infrastructure includes common services, such as application servers, Web

servers, database servers, and network connections. SEVIS shares five

application servers and two Web servers with two other applications, the

Customer Relations Information System and E-filing.1

Data are entered into SEVIS through one of two methods:

• Real-time interface (i.e., an individual manually enters a single student/

exchange visitor record) or 

• Batch processing (i.e., several student/exchange visitor records are

uploaded to SEVIS at one time using vendor-provided software or software

created by the school/exchange visitor program).

1 The Customer Relations Information System allows customers who have applied for immigration benefits, such as

naturalization, to access the system and determine the status of their application based on their receipt number. E-filing

allows customers to electronically file the I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) and I-90 (Application to

Replace Permanent Resident Card) forms, along with certain supporting evidence for these forms, such as power of 

attorney.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 33 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

26

Background

Breakout of Visa and Institution Types

According to DHS, as of February 6, 2004, there were

• 767,529 active students and exchange visitors registered in SEVIS, of 

which

• 625,754 used F visas,

• 3,417 used M visas, and

• 138,358 used J visas.1

• 10,349 institutions were in SEVIS, of which

• 8,960 were technical schools, colleges, and universities, and

• 1,389 were exchange visitor programs.

The breakout of visa and institutional types is shown in the following chart.

1In its comments on a draft of this report, State commented that some persons enrolled in SEVIS are not issued visas, and

other persons may have more than one SEVIS record.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 34 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

27

Background

Breakout of Visa and Institution Types

Breakout of Visa and Institution Types as of February 6, 2004
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 35 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

28

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Available indicators show that SEVIS performance is improving. Program office

reports relating to certain, but not all, key system performance requirements show 

that the requirements are being satisfied. Other, less formal performance indicators

that program officials use also show that performance requirements are being met. 

Another indicator of system performance—trends in system changes to address,

among other things, system problems—similarly shows that system performance 

has improved. Additionally, school and exchange program associations reported

that performance has improved, but they also cited some residual problems.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 36 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

29

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Formal and Informal Reports of System Performance Indicate that Key 

Requirements Are Being Met

The SEVIS Functional Requirements Document1 identifies a number of key

performance requirements. For example: 

• System availability:2 99.5 percent of the time to all users 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week, excluding scheduled downtime.

• Response time: less than 10 seconds to return a record in response to a 

query using the identification number. (Time is measured from application

server to database and back to application server.)

• Capacity: create at least 5,000,000 new records per year, store at least 

12,500,000 eligibility records, and handle at least 7,500,000 record updates

per year.

1Functional Requirements Document for the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, Task Order No. COW-I-D3847: Corporate Information Systems Program, Update, November 10, 2003.

2System availability is defined as the time the system is operating satisfactorily, expressed as a percentage of time that the

system is required to be operational.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 37 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

30

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

• Resource usage: identify when usage exceeds 50 percent of allocated

resources for (1) central processing unit, (2) disk space, (3) random access

memory, and (4) network usage.

Some, but not all, of these key performance requirements are being adequately

measured. Program officials identified the following reports in relation to measuring

each of the requirements. Based on key requirements that are measured, SEVIS is 

performing satisfactorily.

• For system availability, program officials stated that they use a Hyper Text

Transfer Protocol (HTTP) report that shows the time that the system 

infrastructure, which supports multiple DHS Internet-based applications, is 

successfully connected to the network. Program officials provided reports that 

showed the uptime percentages from August 2003 to January 2004 for the two 

Web servers that were 99.88 and 99.66 percent. While these reports can be

used to identify problems that could affect SEVIS availability, they measure the

availability of the communications software on the application servers, but do 

not specifically measure SEVIS availability (i.e., the SEVIS application may not 

be available even though the communication software is). 
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 38 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

31

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

• For response time, program officials stated that the contractor monitors this on 

a daily basis. According to the February 2004 report, daily response time 

ranged from .30 to .75 seconds, which is well below the 10-second

requirement.

• For capacity, program officials stated that they use a weekly report on the 

number of records and number of record updates in SEVIS. The report for the 

week of January 31, 2004, through February 6, 2004, shows that SEVIS had a 

current total of 777,878 records since operations began. This is below the 

capacity requirements of 5,000,000 new records a year and 12,500,000 total 

records. This report also shows that there were 277,963 record updates

between September 27, 2003, and February 6, 2004, which, for a 4-month 

period, is also below the capacity requirement of 7,500,000 record updates per 

year.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 39 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

32

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

• For resource usage, program officials stated that they use a central processing

unit (CPU) activity report that shows the percentage of CPU capacity 

utilization. According to OIRM officials, they review this report on a daily basis,

and if utilization exceeds an average of 20 percent, they troubleshoot to 

identify and resolve the problem. However, as this report focuses on the 

shared infrastructure environment, which supports SEVIS and the two other

DHS applications, it does not specifically measure SEVIS-related CPU

performance.

• For the other resource usage performance requirements, such as (1) random

access memory and (2) network usage, we requested but program officials did 

not provide, any reports that measured performance against requirements.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 40 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

33

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Program officials stated that they augment these formal performance measurement

reports with other, less formal measures, and that these latter measures show that 

SEVIS is meeting its key performance requirements. These informal measurement

activities include

• browsing the daily Help Desk logs to determine if there are serious

performance problems that require system changes or modifications;

• receiving calls and e-mails directly from users; and

• using the system themselves on a continuous basis.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 41 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

34

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Program officials stated that some key performance requirements are not formally 

measured, but believe that a combination of formal performance reports and less 

formal performance monitoring efforts give them a sufficient picture of how well 

SEVIS is performing. Further, program officials stated that they are exploring 

additional tools to monitor system performance. For example, they stated that they 

are in the process of implementing a new tool to capture the availability of the 

SEVIS application, and that they plan to begin using it by the end of April 2004.

Without formally monitoring and documenting all key system performance

requirements, DHS cannot adequately assure itself that potential system problems

are identified and addressed early, before they have a chance to become larger

problems that could affect DHS mission objectives supported by SEVIS.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 42 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

35

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Trends in Reported System Problems Indicate Improved Performance

One indicator of how well a system is performing is the number and significance of 

reported problems or requests for system enhancements.

For SEVIS, a system change request (SCR) is created when a change is required

to the system. According to officials, SCRs are used, for example, to fix system 

problems, make system enhancements, and correct data.

Between January 1, 2003, and February 1, 2004, DHS reported that a total of 

1,268 SCRs1 were created.

1This number excludes data fixes.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 43 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

36

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Each of the SCRs was assigned a priority of critical, high, medium, or low:

Problem causes only an inconvenience, annoyance, or lack of

user-friendliness, or is a recommended change for future

releases.

Low

System capability is affected, but it is not a serious degradation in 

performance or usability.

Medium

System capability is significantly degraded, or the potential exists 

for significant or serious impact on the system, but does not 

necessarily impede the system from functioning.

High

System capability is significantly prevented, seriously degraded,

or compromised.1

Critical

1According to program officials, SCRs may be upgraded to critical or high priority, without regard to system capability, for

practical and policy considerations, because the priority assigned affects the inclusion of an SCR in a system change.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 44 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

37

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Of the 1,268 SCRs, 505 were reported as open as of February 2004. Of these 505, 

270 were designated as critical or high priority. The distribution of these SCRs is 

shown in the following graphs.

Distribution of New SCRs by Priority
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 45 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

38

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

An analysis of the trends in SCR data indicates that the number of new critical and 

high SCRs is decreasing. As can be seen in the following graph, between January

and June 2003, DHS experienced 6 weeks in which more than 20 critical and high

SCRs were reported per week. However, between June and December 2003, that 

number decreased to two.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 46 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

39

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Trends in New Critical and High Priority SCRs
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 47 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

40

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Each SCR is also categorized as one of the following types:

SCRs that cannot be properly categorized in the above

choices.

To Be 

Determined

Test Problem Problems found in formal testing.

Report

New or altered functionality that constitutes a material

change from original requirements.

O&M –

Enhancement

Changes to correct problems in the current release that

do not meet requirements.

O&M –

Corrective

Improvements to system performance, maintainability,

processing efficiency, and cost effectiveness.

Investment

(Perfective)

Investment Enhancement or new requirement to the system.

(Adaptive)

Modifications that do not result in changes to the product

baseline, such as a one-time report or database update.

Ad Hoc
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 48 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

41

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Of the 1,268 SCRs submitted between January 1, 2003, and February 1, 2004, 527 were

corrective fixes, meaning that the current system application did not meet requirements. The

distribution of SCRs by type is shown in the graphs below.

Distribution of New SCRs by Type
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 49 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

42

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

SCR trend data indicate that the number of new requests that are to correct system 

errors decreased between January 2003 and February 2004. As can be seen in the 

following graph, the most dramatic decrease was in the first 7 months of the 

program.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 50 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

43

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Decreasing Trend in New Corrective SCRs
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 51 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

44

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

Users Indicate Performance Has Improved, But Identified Residual Problems

Another indicator of performance is user feedback. According to representatives of 

the educational organizations, overall SEVIS performance has improved since it 

was implemented, and the program’s outreach and responsiveness have been

good. Early reported problems involved user access to the system, the system’s 

timing out before users could complete their tasks, and merging data from one 

school or exchange visitor program with that from another. The representatives told 

us that these early problems no longer occur.

However, seven new problems were identified by at least 3 of the 10 organizations,

and three of the seven problems are related to Help Desk quality. The following

table shows the problems and the number of organizations that identified them. 
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 52 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

45

Objective 1

SEVIS Performance

SEVIS Problems Identified by Organizations

Problem Number of

Organizations

Citing the

Problem

Example

1. Inability to download data so that

users could manipulate it themselves

and create useful reports.

7 A user needed a report showing the number of

students who are registered for training outside of

the school in which they are enrolled. However,

SEVIS only allows a user to view 20 such records

at a time, and because her school had over 800

foreign students, she had to run the SEVIS report

repeatedly to get the full list.

2. Slow Tier 2 and 3 Help Desk

responses.

7 A correction to a student's status took 6 weeks to

fix.

3. Incomplete record updates in the

nightly transmission from SEVIS to

CCD.

6 A foreign visitor was denied a visa at the consulate

because the birthdate on the hard copy form did

not match the birthdate in the automated record.

4. Inconsistent Help Desk answers to

technical questions.

5 A user received varying Help Desk responses for

how to record multiple training records for a

student.

5. Incorrect Help Desk answers to

policy questions.

3 A user was told that she did not need to sign a 

student's I-20 for travel purposes, but the signature

was required at the port of entry.

6. Insufficient identification of schools

in SEVIS pull-down menus for transfer

purposes.

3 A user attempting to transfer a student to a college

in Arizona erroneously selected a college in

California with a similar name.

7. Unexplained data differences in

SEVIS.

3 A user entered data and printed a form showing

the correct information. Subsequently the data

were found to be different in SEVIS.

Source: GAO analysis of organization data.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 53 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

46

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

A number of steps have been taken to identify system problems, and a number of 

new versions of SEVIS have been released to correct them and improve

performance. Further, DHS reports that it has taken steps to address all but one 

category of problems identified by schools and educational institutions; however,

some of the problems continue.

DHS Has Taken Steps to Improve System Performance

Program officials have described several steps that they have taken to identify

system performance problems and subsequently improve system performance. 

Examples of steps to identify problems include

• holding biweekly internal performance meetings and weekly technical meetings,

• holding biweekly1 conference calls with representatives from educational

organizations,

• establishing special e-mail accounts to report user problems, and

• having user groups test new releases.

1The conference calls were being held weekly until January 2004.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 54 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

47

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

According to program officials, identified problems are reviewed and steps are

taken to address the problems, such as changes to hardware or revisions to Help 

Desk information. Another step is creating a new SCR. The following graph shows 

the total number of SCRs, and the number categorized as critical and high priority 

that were closed by each SEVIS release since January 2003.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 55 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

48

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

SCRs Closed by SEVIS Releases
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 56 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

49

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

DHS Reports that User Identified Problems Have Been Addressed, But Some

Persist Well After DHS Action To Address Problem

DHS reports that it has taken action to address six of the seven problems through

releases of new versions of SEVIS and Help Desk training and staffing increases.

According to program officials, the remaining problem is currently being evaluated

for potential solutions.

The following table shows the problems, number of organizations that identified

them, and DHS’s actions taken to address each problem.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 57 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

50

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

DHS Actions to Address User Problems

Problem Number of

Organizations

Citing the

Problem

DHS Actions

1. Inability to download data so that

users could manipulate it themselves

and create useful reports.

7 Software options to extract user requested data,

provide summary reports, and perform statistical

analyses are being evaluated.

2. Slow Tier 2 and 3 Help Desk

responses.

7 In March 2003, Tier 2 staffing increased from 8 to 9

people, and Tier 3 staffing increased from 5 to 8 

people.

3. Incomplete record updates in the

nightly transmission sent from SEVIS

to CCD.

6 On January 2, 2004, a software change was

implemented in Release 4.8.

4. Inconsistent Help Desk answers to

technical questions.

5 Since June 2002, training is provided to Help Desk

staff every time a new release is implemented or a 

major workaround is devised.

5. Incorrect Help Desk answers to

policy questions.

3 Since June 2002, training is provided to Help Desk

staff every time a new release is implemented or a 

major workaround is devised.

6. Insufficient identification of schools

in SEVIS pull-down menus for transfer

purposes.

3 Since July 2003, the list of school codes needed in

SEVIS has been available on the DHS website

with the schools identified by city and state.

7. Unexplained data differences in

SEVIS.

3 On May 11, 2003, a software change was

implemented in Release 4.6.2.

Source: GAO and DHS.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 58 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

51

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

Despite DHS actions, some problems are still being reported. For example:

• Program officials stated that they had addressed the problem about slow Help

Desk responses by increasing staffing in March 2003. However,

representatives from seven organizations stated that slow Tier 2 and 3 Help

Desk responses were still a problem.

According to program officials, the majority of calls handled by Tier 2 and 3

involve data fixes that are a direct result of end-user error. Sometimes, DHS’s

response to these fixes are delayed pending documentation from the endusers reflecting the nature of the data fix needed and the basis for the change.

• Program officials stated that since June 2002, training has been provided to 

Help Desk staff each time a new SEVIS release is implemented. Nevertheless, 

representatives from five of the ten organizations stated that the quality of the 

Help Desk’s response to technical and policy questions remains a problem.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 59 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

52

Objective 2

Actions to Improve Performance

According to program officials, Help Desk response is complicated by a variety 

of user platforms and end-user knowledge of computers. These officials

indicated that the program office is working to educate SEVIS users on the 

distinction between platform problems and problems resulting from SEVIS. 

Further, Help Desk responses may be complicated by the caller’s failure to 

provide complete information regarding the problem.

Program officials also stated that supervisors frequently review Help Desk

tickets to ensure the accuracy of responses, and these reviews have not

surfaced any continuing problems in the quality of the responses.

Despite these actions, educational organization representatives told us that 

problems remain.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 60 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

53

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS collects a variety of data, the preponderance of which are required by

various authoritative sources. These data are used by schools, exchange visitor

programs, and DHS and State Department organizations to oversee foreign

students, exchange visitors, and the schools and exchange visitor programs

themselves.

Data Collected by SEVIS Are Largely Specified in Legislation, Regulation, and 

a Directive

Various laws, regulation, and a directive define the data to be collected by SEVIS. 

These include:

• Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)1

• USA PATRIOT Act (2001)2

• Immigration and Nationality Act3

• Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 20024

1P.L. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996). 2P.L. 107-56 (Oct. 26, 2001). 38 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (15).

4P.L. 107-173 (May 14, 2002).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 61 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

54

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

• Cyber Security Research and Development Act (2002)1

• 8 Code of Federal Regulations 214.32

• Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 2, dated October 29, 20013

These laws, regulation, and directive identify over 113 items, resulting in 230 data 

elements4 to be collected by SEVIS. These data items and elements include

information on students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange visitor 

programs. For example,

• biographical information (e.g., student or exchange visitor’s name, place and

date of birth, and dependents’ information, including their spouses and

children);

1P.L. 107-305 (Nov. 27, 2002).

28 C.F.R. § 214.3.

3 S PD-02 (Oct. 29, 2001).

4Some data items result in several data elements. For example, the data item “address” can result in five

data elements, such as number and street, apartment number, city, state, and zip code.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 62 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

55

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

• academic information (e.g., student or exchange visitor’s status, date of study 

commencement, degree program, field of study, and institution disciplinary

action);

• employment information (e.g., the student or exchange visitor’s employer name

and address, and employment beginning and ending dates);

• school information (e.g., campus address, type of education or degrees offered, 

and session dates); and

• exchange visitor program information (e.g., status and type of program, 

responsible program officials, and program duration).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 63 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

56

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS is designed to collect and store all but 3 of the 113 items defined in these

laws, regulations and directive. SEVIS does not collect 

• date visa changed (required by IIRIRA),

• classes enrolled in (required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive No.

2), and

• accompanying dependents’ addresses (required by the Enhanced Border

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002).
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 64 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

57

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

Reasons that program officials provided for not collecting these three data 

elements are as follows:

• The first required data element is not collected because another collected, but 

not required, data element (i.e., status change date) fills the need for this data

element.

• An interagency working group established to implement Homeland Security

Presidential Directive No. 2 determined that collecting the list of classes 

attended by each foreign student and exchange visitor required more effort 

than the potential benefits from this data element justified.1

• Accompanying dependents’ addresses were erroneously assumed to be the

same as the student’s or exchange visitor’s, but fields are now being added to 

the SEVIS database for a dependent’s address if it is different from the 

student’s or exchange visitor’s address.

1Statement of the Honorable John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, before the Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, October 10, 2002.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 65 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

58

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS is also designed to collect certain data elements that are not required by 

laws, regulation, or directive. According to program officials, these data elements

are important to managing the SEVIS program. Specifically,

• the nonimmigrant visa number,expiration date, and issuing post are optional

and only captured if entered into the system by the school or exchange visitor

program;

• the nonimmigrant drivers license number and issuing state were imposed by

the interagency working group and support investigative efforts; and

• the nonimmigrant passport number, passport expiration date, and passport

issuing country are optional and only captured if entered into the system by the 

school or exchange visitor program.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 66 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

59

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS Data are Used by a Variety of Entities

DHS has identified major groups of SEVIS data users, including DHS, State, 

schools, and exchange visitor program sponsors. The following tables show

examples of users, and how each uses the data.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 67 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

60

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS Users and Data

DHS Users

Conduct analyses and research regarding student and exchange visitors who may be out of status, and schools and 

exchange programs that may be in violation of program rules.

Determine if corrective actions against individuals, schools, or exchange visitor programs are necessary by agents.

Identify patterns of criminal activity, including terrorism, narcotics, alien smuggling, trade fraud, weapons proliferation,

and money laundering, as well as immigration fraud.

Intelligence officers

Conduct analyses and research regarding student and exchange visitors who may be out of status, and schools and 

exchange visitor programs that may be in violation of program rules.

Identify possible status violators and contact them to determine if they are in fact in violation; pass on valid leads to 

agents for enforcement activities. According to Office of Investigations officials, they have received about 31,000

leads from SEVIS since the summer of 2003.

Investigators

Port of entry inspectors Admit foreign students and exchange visitors into the United States at the ports of entry.

ICE and CIS personnel Certify schools’ applications to use SEVIS and reinstate students.

Users How Data Are Used

Source: DHS
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 68 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

61

Objective 3

SEVIS Data and Users

SEVIS Users and Data

Compare information on the hard copy I-20 or DS-2019, such as the applicant’s name, date and place of birth, and 

SEVIS identification number, against information that has been automatically extracted from SEVIS to State’s CCD to 

issue visas.

State consular officers

Users How Data Are Used

Submits and updates the exchange program’s certification application and adds, removes, or replaces other users for

the program. Creates and updates exchange visitor eligibility records.

Responsible officer

Submits and updates the school’s certification application and adds, removes, or replaces other users for the school.

Creates and updates student eligibility records.

Principal designated official

Schools and Exchange Visitor Program Users

Administer exchange program rules and regulations in order to approve designation applications, including inputting

certain actions for exchange visitors such as reinstatement, change of category, and extension beyond the maximum

duration of the stay.

Enter information on the receipt of applications, fees, and requested information.

Exchange visitor program

designation personnel

Department of State Users

Source: DHS
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 69 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

62

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

DHS plans to collect the SEVIS fee, but about 7 years have passed since collection

of the fee was first required, and DHS’s plans have yet to be approved, much less 

implemented. Some have questioned DHS’s plans for various reasons.

DHS Has Not Collected the SEVIS Fee, But Has Plans to Do So

Although the requirement for foreign students and exchange visitors to pay a fee to 

cover the costs of SEVIS has existed for about 7 years, the fee has yet to be 

collected. DHS plans to begin collecting the fee as soon as its plans are approved.

In 1996, IIRIRA1 required schools and exchange visitor programs to collect a fee 

from each foreign student and exchange visitor in order to reimburse agency

expenses. According to the act, the fee was not to exceed $100. In December

1999, INS published a proposed rule2 that authorized collection of the SEVIS fee by 

the schools and exchange visitor programs, and set the fee at $95. During the 

comment period, INS received over 4,600 comments, many in protest of the 

requirement that school and exchange visitor program officials collect the SEVIS 

fee.

1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996).

2Proposed Rule 64 FR 71323.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 70 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

63

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

Subsequently, in October 2000, IIRIRA1 was amended by the Visa Waiver

Permanent Program Act (2000),2 to require the government, not the institutions, to 

collect the fee. The act also required proof of fee payment before a visa could be 

issued.

In October 2001 the USA PATRIOT Act3 authorized $36.8 million in appropriated

funds for SEVIS to fully implement and expand the system prior to January 1, 2003.

In October 2003 DHS published another proposed rule.4 The proposal (1) set the 

fee at $100 for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors, and no more than 

$35 for J-1 visa-holders who are au pairs, camp counselors, or participants in a 

summer work travel program, in accordance with public laws; and (2) proposed two 

options for students and exchange visitors to pay the fee, these being

• pay the fee by mail using a check or money order drawn on a U.S. bank and 

payable in U.S. dollars, or 

• pay the fee electronically through the Internet using a credit card.

1P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996). 2P.L. 106-396 (Oct. 30, 2000). 3P.L. 107-56 (Oct. 26, 2001). 4Proposed Rule 68 FR 61148.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 71 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

64

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

On February 19, 2004, DHS submitted its final rule for approval to OMB. According

to program officials, the final rule includes these two payment options, as well as a 

third option that permits exchange visitor programs to make bulk payments to DHS 

on behalf of J visa-holders. DHS plans call for publishing the final rule by June 

2004. According to program officials, DHS has developed a plan for implementing

the SEVIS fee collection process. However, program officials did not yet provide us 

with a copy of the plan.1

1In agency comments on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it received clearance of the SEVIS rule from OMB on May

19, 2004. DHS also stated that the date for implementing the SEVIS fee collection has changed from June 2004, to

September 1, 2004.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 72 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

65

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

Opinions Differ on Appropriateness of DHS Plans for How the Fee Will Be 

Collected

Representatives from several of the organizations that we met with expressed

concerns with the first two methods of payment. According to the representatives,

the credit card and mail methods require that the fee be paid before the individual

applies for a visa. They stated that the provision is not required by law.

Representatives from several of the organizations also stated that the credit card 

option may limit the reach of international education and exchange programs

because not all foreign students have ready access to the Internet or credit cards in 

order to pay electronically. Additionally, they stated that the proposed mail option 

may result in significant delays to an already lengthy visa application and review

process, and increase the risk that paper receipts will be lost or stolen. They

estimated that this option could take 4 to 6 weeks for mail delivery and return.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 73 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

66

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

Program officials acknowledged that collection of the SEVIS fee will add a

requirement to the process of applying to enter the United States as a student or 

exchange visitor. However, they stated that none of these problems are severe

enough to warrant changes to their plans for fee collection for the following

reasons.

• Students and exchange visitors who can arrange funding for tuition, living

expenses, and other program costs can budget an additional amount for the 

one-time SEVIS fee.

• Students and exchange visitors currently have to pay application fees to 

schools and exchange visitor programs, and can use these same methods to 

pay the SEVIS fee.

• Students, exchange visitors, schools, and exchange programs can adjust their 

time frames for applications in order to accommodate additional processing

time for payment.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 74 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

67

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

Further, program officials stated that they are exploring the possibility of entering 

into agreements with foreign banks that would allow foreign students and exchange

visitors to pay the SEVIS fee in local currency, rather than U.S. dollars. They are 

also working with the State Department to create a field in the SEVIS database to 

allow State to verify that a student has paid the SEVIS fee in the event that the 

paper receipt is lost or misplaced.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 75 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

68

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

Some organization representatives, noting that the Department of State already 

collects a fee when issuing machine-readable visas at consulates or embassies,

have suggested that State collect the SEVIS fee. State officials responded that too 

many process changes are needed to make this feasible. For example:

• In instances in which the visa fee is collected by an off-site contractor, State 

would have to renegotiate and retrain every contractor on a country-by-country

basis.

• In instances in which the visa fee is paid at the consulate or embassy, State 

would have to reconfigure the physical layout of each consular office to add

another cashier line for the collection of the fee, and many of the offices are 

already overcrowded.

• If State were to be responsible for collecting the fee, State officials assert, the

fee amount would have to be increased to cover its costs, which does not 

seem feasible, given that the fee amount is capped by law and is already seen

by many educational organizations as too high.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 76 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

69

Objective 4

SEVIS Fee Plans

State officials also stated that while they are willing to help DHS establish a fee 

collection system by sharing their experiences, the law requires DHS to collect the 

fee, not State, and DHS is the beneficiary of almost all of the revenue. In this 

regard:

• The fee-generated revenue is to fund four positions at State responsible for the 

designation of exchange visitors programs, as well as DHS system

development and maintenance costs, staff positions, school and exchange

visitor program liaison positions, system training, fee collection activities, and

enforcement positions. It is also to reimburse DHS for the historical costs of 

establishing the system.

• The revenue was to be split between SEVP and ICE’s Office of Investigation,

with 54 percent going to SEVP and 46 percent going to Investigations.

However, the percentage distribution to each office is currently being

reevaluated.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 77 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

70

Conclusions

Various system and program performance indicators show that SEVIS performance

has improved and that program officials have a basis for identifying most instances

of where the system may be falling short of requirements and expectations. Such a 

basis is important because it allows DHS to address problems, such as the ones 

that organizations representing educational institutions reported to us, and thereby 

ensure that the system effectively supports the department’s mission goals and 

objectives.

To DHS’s credit, it has taken several recent actions to improve SEVIS 

performance, but a number of problems continue to be reported, and a number of 

key system performance requirements are not being formally measured. Without 

formally monitoring and documenting key system performance requirements, DHS 

cannot adequately assure itself that potential system problems are identified and 

addressed early, before they have a chance to become larger problems that could 

affect the DHS mission objectives supported by SEVIS.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 78 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

71

Conclusions

SEVIS collects a variety of data relating to foreign students, exchange visitors, and 

the education institutions they attend, and these data are largely in line with

requirements for the system as defined in laws, regulations, and directive. These

data are used by a wide range of DHS and educational institution employees for 

multiple purposes in support of our nation’s important homeland security mission.

Notwithstanding DHS’s plans to begin collecting the SEVIS fee, almost 7 years

have passed since collection of this fee was required, and thus millions of dollars in 

revenue have been and will continue to be lost until the fee is actually collected.

While DHS, State, and educational institutions do not fully agree on how the fee 

should be collected, the fact remains that the longer this goes unresolved, the 

longer taxpayers will have to pay for SEVIS. Further, resolution of such differences 

in perspective is precisely what the rulemaking process is intended to accomplish.

Therefore, it is important that the outcome of this process be implemented quickly.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 79 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

72

Recommendations for

Executive Action

To strengthen SEVIS performance, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland

Security direct the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to

ensure that the SEVP Director take the following actions:

• assess the extent to which defined SEVIS performance requirements are still

relevant and are being formally measured;

• provide for measurement of key performance requirements that are not being 

formally measured; and 

• assess educational organization Help Desk concerns, and take appropriate

actions to address these concerns.

We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Assistant Secretary of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the necessary steps to provide for 

the expeditious implementation of the results from the SEVIS fee rulemaking

process.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 80 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

73

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

We provided this briefing to and discussed its contents with the SEVP program

officials and OIRM officials, including the SEVP IT Manager. In providing oral

comments on a draft of this briefing, the officials made three primary points.

First, they stated that measurement of SEVIS performance requirements is

important and that the department needs to update defined system performance

requirements, thereby ensuring that valid requirements are being measured. In our 

view, these statements are consistent with our conclusions and recommendations

concerning measurement of SEVIS performance.

Second, they stated that all necessary system performance measurement is 

occurring now or will occur. We agree that SEVIS performance measurement

currently occurs, as we recognize in this briefing. Further, we support any future

efforts to expand on this measurement, as our recommendations are intended to 

appropriately provide for.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 81 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

74

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

Third, they stated that they are working consistently to improve Help Desk 

performance, including continuously training and monitoring Help Desk staff, and 

helping educational institutions understand that deficiencies attributed to Help Desk

performance are due to problems attributed to the institutions. According to DHS, 

Help Desk performance does not warrant increases in staffing or additional training.

We agree that DHS has taken steps to improve Help Desk performance, which we 

recognize in our briefing, and we do not question DHS’s statements regarding

ongoing efforts to improve. We also do not presume that staffing increases or more 

training are needed, but instead recommend, in light of educational institutions’

continuing concerns about Help Desk performance, that DHS look at educational

organization Help Desk concerns identified in this briefing, and take appropriate

actions to address these concerns.

DHS also provided some technical comments and clarifications that we have

incorporated into the briefing.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 82 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

75

Attachment

Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objectives, we

• agreed to focus on the performance of the SEVIS system rather than the entire

SEVP;

• observed the use of SEVIS at two universities;

• analyzed documents and interviewed program officials, in order to understand

the management structure, roles, and responsibilities for the development and

maintenance of SEVIS;

• interviewed Department of State officials to understand State’s role in 

administering the exchange visitor program;

• analyzed SEVIS operational requirements and system infrastructure reports,

and interviewed program officials, to determine whether DHS is measuring

system performance against requirements and what other actions are taken to 

monitor system performance;
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 83 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

76

Attachment

Scope and Methodology

• obtained a flat file of SCR data from DHS, which we imported into an Access

database and performed analyses, including separating data fixes from system 

change requests, sorting by release version, and, for SCRs created after 

January 1, 2003, observed trends over time for priority and type of SCR;

• analyzed supporting documentation and interviewed program and contractor

personnel to gain an understanding of the controls around the creation of the

SCR database; determined the existence of and likely effectiveness of those

controls and, as a result, assessed that the data are of sufficient quality; 
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 84 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

77

Attachment

Scope and Methodology

• contacted representatives from 12 educational organizations identified by

DHS1 as involved in SEVIS development, and interviewed representatives

from 10 groups that stated that they had information to contribute to our 

engagement;

• analyzed responses collected from the educational organizations regarding

system performance and user problems, and interviewed program officials to 

determine what steps they have taken to address these problems;

• analyzed laws, regulations, and directives that define the data to be collected

by SEVIS, compared these against the data elements in the SEVIS data 

dictionary, and interviewed DHS program officials to determine whether SEVIS

is designed to collect data in accordance with guidance;

1The 12 organizations are the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training, Alliance for International

Educational and Cultural Exchange, American Association of Collegiate Registrars, American Association of Community

Colleges, American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of International Educators,

Council for Standards for International Educational Travel, Council on International Educational Exchange, National

Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of College and University Business Officers, 

and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Appendix I

Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees 

on Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

Page 85 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

78

Attachment

Scope and Methodology

• analyzed SEVIS functional requirements documentation on classes of users

and automated interfaces, and interviewed DHS and State officials, to 

determine who is using SEVIS data; and

• analyzed legislation requiring the collection of the SEVIS fee, and interviewed

DHS and State officials regarding plans to collect the SEVIS fee and how the 

money is expected to be distributed.

For DHS-provided data that we did not substantiate, we have made the appropriate

attribution indicating the data’s sources.

We conducted our work at DHS and State headquarters in Washington, D.C., and 

at ten educational organizations, from December 2003 through March 2004, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

(310271)
Page 86 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

See comment 1.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Page 87 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Page 88 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Page 89 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Page 90 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Homeland 

Security’s letter dated May 27, 2004.

GAO Comments 1. We do not agree that we did not fully assess all data that the program 

office provided to us. We carefully considered all the data that were 

provided, and neither these data, nor the data enclosed with DHS’s 

comments, addressed all key performance requirements, such as 

system availability. As we state in our report, DHS monitors and reports 

on the availability of the communications software on the application 

servers, which may be used to identify problems that could affect 

SEVIS availability, but does not specifically measure SEVIS availability 

(i.e., the SEVIS application may not be available even though the 

communication software is). Therefore, we have not modified our 

finding and associated recommendation.

We acknowledge DHS’s statement in the enclosure that it has 

implemented a new SEVIS-specific processor utilization tool, which 

relates to one of the performance requirements cited in our report as 

not being monitored and reported on. However, DHS had not 

previously provided this information to us and thus we could not verify 

the data and include it in our briefing. Nevertheless, we are supportive 

of any recent program actions that would expand system monitoring 

and reporting to include all key performance requirements. 

2. We do not question DHS’s commitment to making the SEVP program, 

including the fee requirement, operational and successful. However, as 

we state in our report, although program officials told us that they had 

developed a plan for implementing the SEVIS collection process, they 

did not provide us with the plan showing their intended actions. 

Further, DHS did not include in its comments a plan for implementing 

the fee. Our recommendation is intended to address this absence of 

explicit planning for implementing the fee collection process.

3. We do not question DHS’s comment that SEVIS has been supported by 

$36.8 million in appropriated funds (counter-terrorism funds) and $34.3 

million in immigration examinations fee funds, which are collected from 

nonimmigrants seeking benefits. This comment is consistent with our 

finding that 7 years have passed since the fee collection was required, 

and millions of dollars have been spent (both appropriated and user 

fees) and will continue to be spent until the SEVIS fee is actually 

collected. Even if SEVIS is prospectively funded with the immigration 
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 

Page 91 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

examination user fees, until the SEVIS fee is collected, the amount of 

funds available to other programs funded by this account is reduced.
Page 92 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State

Page 93 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Now on p. 33.

See comment 1.
Appendix III

Comments from the Department of State

Page 94 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter.

GAO Comments 1. The information presented is based on DHS-provided data addressing 

active students and exchange visitors registered in SEVIS as of 

February 6, 2004, and is appropriately attributed to DHS. We have 

added a footnote to our briefing noting State’s comment.
Page 95 GAO-04-690 Performance of SEVIS

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Deborah Davis, (202) 512-6261, davisd@gao.gov.

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Camille M. Chaires, Neil 

Doherty, Jeanette Espinola, Michael P. Fruitman, Jamelyn Payan, and Nik 

Rapelje made key contributions to this report.

(310281)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00