Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas
Published: 2007-07-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and the Department of State (State) initiated changes to the visa process to increase security, but these changes also increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa. Although maintaining security is of paramount importance, State has acknowledged that long waits for visas may discourage legitimate travel to the United States, potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic benefits over time, and adversely influencing foreign citizens' opinions of our nation. GAO testified in 2006 that a number of consular posts had long visa interview wait times. This report examines (1) State's data on visa interview wait times, (2) actions State has taken to address wait times, and (3) State's strategy for dealing with projected growth in visa demand.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to State, the amount of time that applicants must wait for a visa interview has generally decreased over the last year; however, some applicants continue to face extensive delays. State's data showed that between September 2005 and February 2006, 97 consular posts reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month, whereas 53 posts reported such waits for the same period 1 year later. However, despite recent improvements, at times during the past year, a number of posts reported long wait times, which could be expected to reoccur during future visa demand surges. In 2007, State announced a goal of providing applicants an interview within 30 days. Although State's data is sufficiently reliable to indicate that wait times continue to be a problem at some posts, GAO identified shortcomings in the way the data is developed that could mask the severity of the problem. State has implemented steps to reduce wait times at several posts including using temporary duty employees to fill staffing gaps at some posts and repositioning some consular positions to better utilize its current workforce. However, these measures are not permanent or sustainable solutions and may not adequately address the increasing demand for visas worldwide. In addition, State has made improvements to several consular facilities and has identified plans for improvements at several other posts with high workload. Some posts have utilized procedures that enable them to process applications more efficiently. However, not all of these procedures are shared among posts in a systematic way and, therefore, not all posts are aware of them. State has not determined how it will keep pace with growth in visa demand over the long-term. State contracted for a study of visa demand, in select countries, over a 15-year period beginning in 2005, which projected that visa demand will increase dramatically at several posts. However, at some posts, demand has already surpassed the study's projected future demand levels. State has not developed a strategy that considers such factors as available resources and the need for maintaining national security in the visa process, along with its goal that visas are processed in a reasonable amount of time. Given dramatic increases in workload expected at many posts, without such a strategy State will be challenged in achieving its current goal for wait times.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To increase the security of the visa process following the 9/11 terrorist  attacks, Congress and the Department of State (State) initiated multiple  changes to visa laws, policies, and procedures; however, these changes  have also increased the amount of time needed to schedule and adjudicate  a nonimmigrant visa (NIV). Concurrently, annual worldwide demand for  visas has increased for 3 years in a row with levels exceeding 8 million visa  applications for 2006. The increase in demand has made it difficult for  some posts to manage workload without causing applicants to wait  considerable time for an interview. In April 2006, we testified that visa  applicants at some posts, including strategically important posts in India  and China, were facing extensive waits in obtaining a visa interview.  According to the visa wait times reported by State’s consular posts, 97 of  its posts had reported maximum wait times greater than 30 days in at least  1 month between September 2005 and February 2006. Although  maintaining security of the visa process is of paramount importance and  overall issuances of visas are on the rise, State has also acknowledged that  long wait times may discourage legitimate travel to the United States,  potentially costing the country billions of dollars in economic benefits  over time, and adversely influencing foreign citizens’ impressions and  opinions of our nation. Several groups, including the U.S. Travel and  Tourism Advisory Board, have urged the administration to take action on  this issue and have detailed the negative impact—in terms of revenue  losses— that impediments to travel and tourism, including from visa  processing delays, have on U.S. businesses and colleges and universities.
At your request, we reviewed (1) State data on the amount of time visa  applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions State has  taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State’s strategy for dealing with  projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our objectives, we  interviewed officials from State’s bureaus of Consular Affairs, Human  Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also interviewed  officials from the Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism  Industries. In addition, we observed consular operations and interviewed  U.S. government officials at 11 posts in eight countries—Brazil, China,  Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, India, South Korea, and the United  Kingdom. We reviewed visa wait times data reported by posts since  September 2005. We also reviewed consular reports and data from a total  of 32 posts to identify factors contributing to wait times and potential  solutions to reduce wait times. Our work was conducted in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I  contains a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Foreign nationals who wish to come to the United States on a temporary  basis must generally obtain an NIV to be admitted. State manages the visa  process, as well as the consular officer corps and its functions, at 219 visa- issuing posts overseas. The process for determining who will be issued or  refused a visa contains several steps, including documentation reviews, in- person interviews, collection of biometrics (fingerprints), and cross- referencing an applicant’s name against the Consular Lookout and Support  System—State’s name-check database that posts use to access critical  information for visa adjudication. In some cases, a consular officer may  determine the need for a Security Advisory Opinion, which is a  recommendation from Washington on whether to issue a visa to the  applicant. Depending on a post’s applicant pool and the number of visa  applications that a post receives, each stage of the visa process varies in  length. For an overview of the visa process see figure 1.
subsections: section_title: Recent Visa Policy Actions Have Increased Time Needed to Adjudicate Visas
paragraphs: Congress, State, and DHS have initiated new policies and procedures since  the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strengthen the security of the visa process.  These changes have added to the complexity of consular workload and  have increased the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa. Such  changes include the following:    Beginning in fiscal year 2002, State began a 3-year transition to remove  visa adjudication functions from consular associates. All NIVs must now  be adjudicated by consular officers.
Personal interviews are required by law for most foreign nationals seeking  NIVs.
As of October 2004, consular officers are required to scan visa applicants’  right and left index fingers through the DHS Automated Biometric  Identification System before an applicant can receive a visa. In 2005, the  Secretary of Homeland Security announced that the U.S. government had  adopted a 10-fingerscan standard for biometric collection of fingerprints.  In February 2006, State reported that it would begin pilot testing and  procuring 10-print equipment to ensure that all visa-issuing posts have  collection capability by the end of fiscal year 2007.
According to State, consular officers face increased requirements to  consult with headquarters and other U.S. agencies prior to visa issuance in  the form of Security Advisory Opinions.
According to State, as a result of the Patriot Act, consular officers have  access to, and are required to consult, far greater amounts of interagency  data regarding potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S.  interests.
section_title: Factors Impacting Visa Delays
paragraphs: A number of potential factors can contribute to delays for visa interview  appointments at consular posts. For example, increased consular officer  workload at posts, which can be caused by factors such as increased  security screening procedures or increased visa demand, can exacerbate  delays because there are more work requirements for each available  officer to complete. Other factors such as staffing gaps and ongoing  consular facility limitations could also affect waits because they may limit  the number of applicants that can be seen for an interview in a given day.
section_title: Visa Application Trends
paragraphs: Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, applications for visas declined from a  high of over 10.4 million in fiscal year 2001 to a low of approximately 7  million in 2003. For fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the number of visa  applications increased, according to State’s data (see fig. 2). State  anticipates that 8.1 million visas applications will be received in fiscal year  2007 and 8.6 million in 2008.
State’s visa workload increased by almost 16 percent between 2004 and  2006. In addition, several countries and posts have seen large growth in  visa demand, and State has projected these trends to continue well into  the future. Following are examples of these trends:  India had an 18 percent increase in visa adjudications between 2002 and  2006.
Posts in China reported that their visa adjudication volume increased  between 18 and 21 percent last year alone, and growth is expected to  continue.
section_title: Long Waits for Visa Interviews Have Previously Challenged a Number of Overseas Consular Posts
paragraphs: We have previously reported on visa delays at overseas posts. In  particular, we have reported on the following delays in Brazil, China, India,  and Mexico:  In March 1998, we reported that the post in Sao Paolo, Brazil, was facing  extensive delays due to staffing and facilities constraints.
In February 2004, we reported delays at consular posts in India and China.  For example, in September 2003, applicants at one post we visited in  China were facing waits of about 5 to 6 weeks. Also, we reported that, in  summer 2003, applicants in Chennai, India, faced waits as long as 12  weeks.
In April 2006, we testified that, of nine posts with waits in excess of 90  days in February 2006, six were in Mexico, India, and Brazil.
section_title: State’s Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews
paragraphs: According to State, wait times for visa interviews have improved at many  overseas consular posts in the past year. However, despite recent  improvements—such as those at posts in India, Mexico, and Brazil—a  number of posts reported long waits at times during the past year.  Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, in February of this year,  State announced its goal of providing all applicants an interview within 30  days. We identified a number of shortcomings in the way in which State’s  visa waits data is developed, which could mask the severity of the delays  for visa interviews at some posts and limit the extent to which State can  monitor whether the visa wait problem has been addressed. To better  understand and manage post workload, State has begun to develop a  measure of applicant backlog.
subsections: section_title: State Has Reported Improvements in Visa Wait Times
paragraphs: In recent months, reported wait times for visa appointments have  generally improved. For example, in reviewing visa waits data provided to  us by the Bureau of Consular Affairs for the period of September 2006 to  February 2007, we found that 53 of State’s 219 visa-issuing posts had  reported maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month—44  fewer posts than had reported this figure when we reviewed the same  period during the previous year (see fig. 3).
Furthermore, wait times reported by several consular posts have improved  during the past year, including for a number of high volume posts in India,  Brazil, and Mexico that had previously reported extensive delays. In April  2007, wait times at all posts in India were under 2 weeks, down from  previous waits that exceeded 140 days at four key posts, as recently as  August 2006, in most cases. For example, Mumbai reported a reduction in  wait times from a high of 186 days in September 2006 to 10 days as of April  9, 2007. Reported wait times at some key posts in Mexico also significantly  declined, as have wait times for several posts in Brazil in the past year.  Furthermore, an additional number of posts with delays experienced large  reductions in wait times over a recent 12 month period.
section_title: Some Posts Continue to Face Long Delays
paragraphs: Despite recent improvements in wait times at a number of consular posts,  at times during the past year, especially during peak processing periods, a  number of visa adjudicating posts have faced challenges in reporting wait  times of less than 30 days. For example, during typical peak demand  season, 29 posts reported maximum monthly waits exceeding 30 days over  the entire 6-month period of March through August 2006 (see fig. 4).
We observed that long waits had occurred over the summer months in  Tegucigalpa, Honduras; San Jose, Costa Rica; and several posts in India.  Furthermore, some posts we reviewed developed increased wait times.  For example, in Caracas, the reported visa waits significantly increased— from 34 days in February 2006 to 116 days in April 2007. In addition,  several other posts, including Sao Paolo, Brazil; Monterrey, Mexico; Tel  Aviv, Israel; and Kingston, Jamaica; have experienced increases in wait  times since February 2006. Moreover, 20 posts reported experiencing  maximum monthly wait times in excess of 90 days at least once over the  past year.
section_title: New Performance Standard for Visa Waits Implemented
paragraphs: In February 2007, State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs distributed guidance  setting a global standard that all visa applicants should receive an  appointment for a visa interview within 30 days. Previously, State had not  set a formal performance standard for visa waits but had set a requirement  that posts report their wait times on a weekly basis and make this  information publicly available through post Web sites. In setting the 30– day standard for visa waits, officials acknowledged that wait times are not  only a measure of customer service but also help posts to better manage  their workload and visa demand. Furthermore, State identified that such a  standard allows it to better track post performance, helps with resource  allocation, and provides transparency in consular operations. Consular  officials explained to us that posts that consistently have wait times for  visa interview appointments of 30 days or longer may have a resource or  management problem.
In setting its 30-day performance benchmark, State also distributed  information to posts on how wait times data is to be used by Bureau of  Consular Affairs management. For example, State indicated it will review  all posts that have reported waits over 20 days to determine if remedial  measures are needed.
section_title: Post Reporting of Visa Waits Data Needs Further Improvement
paragraphs: State has provided guidance indicating that posts are required to report  wait times on a weekly basis, even if the times have not changed from the  previous week. However, we found posts are not reporting waits data  consistently, which impacts the reliability of State’s visa waits figures. In  September 2005, our analysis of State’s data on reported wait times  revealed significant numbers of posts that did not report this information  on a weekly basis during the 6-month period we reviewed. In reviewing  data over the past year, we again found that a large number of posts were  not consistently reporting waits data on a weekly basis, as required by  State. For example, post reporting of wait times from January 2006 to  February 2007 showed that, while a large number of posts (about 79  percent) had reported waits at least monthly, only 21 posts (about 10  percent) reported waits at least weekly. Inconsistencies among posts in  the reporting of visa waits data impacts the reliability of visa waits figures  and limits State’s ability to assess whether the problem has been  addressed by posts. However, State does not appear to be enforcing its  weekly reporting requirement. State acknowledges that it has had  difficulties in getting all 219 consular posts to report this data consistently.
According to cables provided to us by State, posts are directed to provide  the “typical” appointment wait time applicable to the majority of  applicants applying for a given category of visas on a given day. Several  of the posts we visited calculated wait times based on the first  appointment available to the next applicant in a given visa category;  however, other posts we reviewed calculated waits differently. For  example, one post we visited computed wait times by taking the average  of several available appointment slots. In addition, several consular  officials we spoke with overseas said that they are still unclear on the  exact method posts are to use to calculate wait times, and some managers  were unsure if they were calculating wait times correctly. Additionally, we  observed that some posts artificially limit wait times by tightly controlling  the availability of future appointment slots—such as by not making  appointments available beyond a certain date, which can make  appointment scheduling burdensome for the applicant who must  continually check for new openings. State officials admitted that posts  should not be controlling the availability of appointment slots to  artificially limit wait times but, to date, there has not been specific  guidance distributed to posts on this issue.
We determined that State’s data are sufficiently reliable for providing a  broad indication of posts that have had problems with wait times over a  period of time and for general trends in the number of posts that have had  problems with wait times over the period we reviewed; however, the data  were not sufficiently reliable to determine the exact magnitude of the  delays because the exact number of posts with a wait of 30 days or more  at any given time could not be determined. Until State updates and  enforces its collection standards for visa waits data, precise  determinations about the extent to which posts face visa delays cannot be  made. State officials acknowledge that current wait times data is of limited  reliability. State officials have also said that visa waits data was not  originally designed for the purpose of performance measurement but to  provide applicants with information on interview availability. According to  State, a current goal of the Bureau of Consular Affairs is to refine  collection standards for wait times information to provide more uniform  and transparent information to applicants and management; however, the  bureau has not yet done so.
section_title: Measure of Applicant Backlog under Development
paragraphs: State’s reported wait time data generally reflect the wait, at a moment in  time, for new applicants, and do not reflect the actual wait time for an  average applicant at a given post. Furthermore, wait times generally do not  provide a sense of applicant backlog, which is the number of people who  are waiting to be scheduled for an appointment or the number of people  who have an appointment but have yet to be seen. To better understand  and manage post workload, State officials we spoke with said that they  were in the process of developing a measure of applicant backlog.  Although State has not yet developed the measure of backlog, officials we  spoke with said that they expect to begin testing methods for measuring  applicant backlog by the end of 2007.
section_title: State Has Taken Steps to Improve Processing Capacity at Posts Experiencing Long Waits, but Several Are Not Sustainable
paragraphs: State has implemented a number of measures to increase productivity and  better manage visa workload, as well as measures to address  shortcomings in staffing and facilities for a number of consular posts  experiencing visa delays. State has provided temporary duty staff to assist  in adjudicating visas at several locations with long wait times, particularly  at posts in India, and recently developed a plan to relocate consular  positions to locations where large disparities in staff and visa demand  were apparent. In addition, State has continued to upgrade embassies and  consulates overseas to aid in processing visa applicants. Furthermore,  State has implemented some procedures and policies to maximize  efficiency and better manage visa workload. However, despite the  measures State has taken to address staffing, facilities, and other  constraints at some posts, State’s current efforts are generally temporary,  nonsustainable, and are insufficient to meet the expected increases in  demand at some posts.
subsections: section_title: State Has Used Temporary Duty Staff and Repositioned Consular Staff to Address Staffing Shortfalls Contributing to Visa Delays
paragraphs: State has recently taken action at several posts to address current staffing  gaps to minimize the impact on visa wait times. State has deployed  temporary duty staff from other consular posts and from headquarters to  help process and adjudicate visa applicants. For example, State deployed  166 officials to staff consular sections in fiscal year 2006 and through April  of fiscal year 2007. In addition, at the order of the Ambassador to India,  beginning in 2006, posts in India utilized consular-commissioned officials  from other offices in the embassy and consulates to assist the consular  section in handling its workload, including fingerprinting applicants and  interviewing some applicants, which helped reduce the wait times at  posts. According to consular officials, the additional assistance in India  was necessary as posts there did not have enough permanent consular  staff to handle the demand and reduce wait times.
In addition, in February 2007, State completed a review of consular officer  positions that examined the disparity between visa workload and the  number of consular officers at posts. As a result of this study, State will  transfer consular positions from certain posts that are capable of handling  the workload without reporting long visa waits to posts where there has  not been adequate staff to handle the visa workload. The majority of the  positions are being transferred from posts in the European and Eurasian  Affairs Bureau to posts in the Western Hemisphere, East Asia and Pacific,  and South and Central Asian bureaus. Of these transferred and newly  created consular officer positions, the majority will be located in Brazil,  China, India, and Mexico—posts with a history of long wait times and high  demand for visas. State acknowledges that the repositioning of consular  staff, while necessary, may not adequately address the increasing demand  for visas worldwide.
Despite the measures State has taken to address the staffing issues at  some posts, State’s current consular staffing efforts are generally  temporary, nonsustainable, and insufficient to meet the expected  increases in demand at some posts. First, when-actually-employed staff  are only allowed to work 1,040 hours per year due to federal regulations.  Second, posts are typically required to cover the housing costs of assigned  temporary staff, which is not always feasible if posts are facing budget  constraints. Third, embassy or consulate officials that were temporarily  assigned to support consular operations indicated that their new duties  negatively affected their ability to perform their regular assignments, as  they were spending time performing consular duties instead of their  typical functions at post. Fourth, although temporary staff have helped to  improve wait times at select posts, current efforts—and some recent  temporary assignments, such as over the past 7 months in India—have  been undertaken during a period of lower applicant volume. It is unknown  whether State will be able to maintain the improved wait times during the  summer of 2007, as the period between May and August is typically when  posts have the largest influx of visa applicants and, in turn, longer waits.  For example, one post in India recently reported wait times now exceed 30  days. Moreover, the temporary staff assisting with visa adjudications  during our visit to posts in India was expected to leave by the end of May  2007. According to State’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for Visa Services,  surges in temporary duty staff, such as the ones State employed for India,  can be useful in tackling short-term situations but are not a viable long- term solution in places with high visa demand.
Furthermore, consular staffing gaps are a long-standing problem for State  and have been caused by such factors as State’s annual staffing process,  low hiring levels for entry-level junior officer positions, and insufficient  numbers of midlevel consular officers. We have previously reported that  factors such as staffing shortages have contributed to long wait times for  visas at some posts. A number of State’s visa-adjudicating posts reported  shortages in consular staff for 2006, and we observed gaps that  contributed to visa wait times at several posts overseas. Furthermore, we  reviewed reports for 32 select consular posts abroad to assess visa  workload, consular staffing and facilities, as well as other issues affecting  visa wait times. We found that of the 32 posts, 19 posts (or about 60  percent) indicated the need for additional consular staff to address  increasing workload.
section_title: State Has Implemented Consular Facilities Improvements at Many Overseas Posts
paragraphs: State has improved a number of consular sections at embassies and  consulates worldwide. According to the Bureau of Overseas Buildings  Operations, since September 2001, State has improved almost 100  embassies and consulates, improving the consular section facilities at a  number of these locations. For example, between fiscal years 2003 and  2005, State obligated $26.9 million to fund consular workspace  improvement projects at 101 posts. Although these improvement projects  have been completed, according to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, most  were designed as temporary solutions that may require additional  construction in the future. Moreover, although some consular  improvement projects were recently completed or were under way when  we visited Mumbai and Chennai, India, these posts did not have adequate  office, waiting room, security screening, or window space to  accommodate the volume of visa applicants. State’s construction project  in Chennai to add windows and additional processing areas was expected  to be completed by May 2007, and State has begun construction on a new  consulate in Mumbai that will be completed in 2008 and will add more  space for additional consular staff and 26 more windows for interviewing.  In addition, State is planning new consulate and embassy construction  projects for New Delhi and Hyderabad, India, as well as at a number of  other posts.
We also found that a number of posts we reviewed currently face facility  constraints, which limit the number of visa interviews that can take place  in a given day and, in some cases, prevent posts from keeping pace with  the current or expected future demand for visas. For example, 21 of 32  posts reported, in their consular packages, that limitations to their  facilities affected their ability to increase the number of applicants they  could interview, which can contribute to longer wait times.
Although State has taken steps to improve consular facilities and has plans  to rebuild a number of posts, it is unclear whether the facilities will be  adequate to handle the future demand. Two posts that we reviewed are  already predicting that future increased demand will outstrip visa  processing capacities given existing facilities constraints. For example, in  Seoul, South Korea, post officials report that, despite recent improvements  to the facility, the post will soon have no additional space to accommodate  future applicant growth. Moreover, there is no current viable option to  build a new facility due to continuing land negotiations between the U.S.  and South Korean governments. In addition, a number of State’s recent  facilities projects have not incorporated planned projections of increased  workload growth and are expected to soon face challenges meeting  demand. For example, even though a new embassy construction project is  currently under way in Beijing, China, State officials indicated that the  number of planned interviewing windows and space in the new facility will  be insufficient to allow for future increases in visa demand. In addition,  in Shanghai, China, even though the consular section was moved to an off- site location to process visa applications, the post has indicated that it  already has reached visa-adjudicating capacity because it cannot add any  more interviewing windows in the current space, and construction on a  new consulate will not begin until 2009. According to the Director and  Chief Operating Officer of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations,  the bureau designs and constructs consular facilities with input from  Consular Affairs; therefore, Consular Affairs needs to provide more  defined assessments of future needs at a facility. The director stated that  proper planning and stronger estimates of future needs will help in  building facilities that can better address wait times at post over the long  term.
section_title: Some Visa Processing and Workload Management Practices Established but Not Widely Shared Among Posts
paragraphs: Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress, State, and DHS have initiated a  series of changes to visa policies and procedures, which have added to the  complexity of consular officers’ workload and, in turn, exacerbated State’s  consular staffing and facilities constraints. For example, most visa  applicants are required to be interviewed by a consular officer at post, and  applicants’ fingerprints must be scanned. Furthermore, additional  procedural changes are expected, including the expansion of the  electronic fingerprinting program to the 10-fingerscan standard, which  could further increase the workload of officers and the amount of time  needed to adjudicate an application. For example, consular officers in  London, which is one of the posts piloting the 10-fingerprint scanners,  indicated that the 10-fingerscan standard would significantly affect other  posts’ operations given that they had experienced about a 13 percent  reduction in the number of applicants processed in a day. However, as  each post faces slightly different circumstances, it is unclear whether this  reduction would take place at all posts.
To lessen the increase in wait times caused by of some of these legislative  and policy changes, State has promoted some initiatives to aid posts in  processing legitimate travelers. For example, State has urged all posts to  establish business and student facilitation programs intended to expedite  the interviews of legitimate travelers. State also continues to use Consular  Management Assistance Teams to conduct management reviews of  consular sections worldwide, which have provided guidance to posts on  standard operating procedures, as well as other areas where consular  services could become more efficient. In addition, according to State  officials, State has developed a Two-Year Plan, an overall visa processing  strategy to coordinate changes to the visa process that will ensure  consular officers focus on tasks that can only be accomplished overseas,  and is also contemplating other changes to reduce the burden placed on  applicants and consular officers. These changes include the following:  the deployment of a worldwide appointment system,   use of a domestic office to verify information on visa petitions,    a revalidation of fingerprints for applicants who have already completed  the 10-fingerprint scan, and the implementation of an entirely paperless visa application process  and remote or off-site interviewing of visa applicants.
Furthermore, some posts have taken action to reduce their increased  workload. For example, the following actions have been taken:    The consular sections in South Korea and Brazil have established  expedited appointment systems for certain applicant groups, including  students.
Consular officers in Manila, Philippines, redesigned the flow of applicants  through the facility to ease congestion and utilized space designated to the  immigrant visa unit to add three new visa processing stations.
Posts in Brazil have waived interviews for applicants who were renewing  valid U.S. visas that were expiring within 12 months and had met  additional criteria under the law.
The embassy in Seoul, South Korea, implemented a ticketing system that  tracks applicants through the various stages of processing and provides  notification to consular section management if backups are occurring. The  system will also automatically assign applicants to the first available  interviewing window in order to balance the workload of applicant  interviews between all available interviewing windows.
The embassies in El Salvador and South Korea have conducted workflow  studies in order to identify obstructions to efficient applicant processing.
Although State has recently implemented a number of policy and  procedural changes to address increased consular workload and is  considering additional adjustments, more could be done to assist posts in  their workload management. Moreover, the effective practices and  procedures implemented by individual posts that help manage workload  and assist in improving applicant wait times are not consistently shared  with the other consular posts. While recognizing that not all the policies  and procedures used by posts to help manage visa workload are  transferable to other posts, State officials indicated that, although there is  currently not a forum available for consular officers to share such ideas,  State is in the process of developing some online capabilities for posts to  share visa practices and procedures.
section_title: State Lacks a Strategy to Address Projected Long-term Growth in Visa Demand
paragraphs: With worldwide nonimmigrant visa demand rising closer to pre-9/11 levels,  and current projections showing a dramatic increase in demand over time,  State will continue to face challenges in managing its visa workload and  maintaining its goal of keeping interview wait times under 30 days at all  posts. State has not developed a strategy for addressing increasing visa  demand that balances such factors as available resources and the need for  national security in the visa process against its goal that visas are  processed in a reasonable amount of time.
subsections: section_title: Dramatic Increase in Visa Demand Is Expected and Will Continue to Impact Visa Wait Times
paragraphs: In 2005, State contracted with an independent consulting firm to analyze  several factors to help predict future visa demand in 20 select countries,  which, according to State officials, constituted approximately 75 percent  of the visa workload at the time. The consulting firm identified some  demographic, economic, political, commercial, and other factors that it  believed would affect visa demand over a 15-year period, beginning in  2005, and estimated a likely rate of growth in demand in those select  countries. The study predicted the growth in demand in these countries  would range between 8 percent and 232 percent, with Argentina, Brazil,  China, India, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia all projected to experience  significant growth of more than 90 percent (see fig. 5). State officials  indicated that they used the futures study to assist in determining consular  resource allocations and in the repositioning of consular staff in State’s  review of consular positions in February 2007. However, State has not  analyzed the 5-, 10-, or 20-year future staffing and other resource needs  based on the demand projections found in the study.
Although officials indicated that State continues to use the visa demand  projections in the Consular Affairs Futures Study to assist in making  staffing and resource decisions, some of the study’s projections have  already been proven to underestimate growth in demand. In addition,  State has not taken action to update the study to reflect changes in visa  workload since 2005. More than half of the countries reviewed are already  facing surges in visa demand greater than the levels predicted in the  Consular Affairs Futures Study for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. For  example, Brazil adjudicated more visas in 2006 than the volume of  applications the study projected for Brazil for 2010. In addition, Mexico  adjudicated approximately 126,000 more visas in 2006 than the study  projected. Also, the Ambassador to India recently stated that all posts in  India would process over 800,000 applications in 2007, which exceeds the  study’s forecasts for India’s demand in 2016.
section_title: State’s Plans Do Not Fully Address Future Visa Demand
paragraphs: The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services testified to Congress in  March 2007 of the need to consider and implement viable long-term  solutions for posts with high visa demand and indicated that State needed  to ensure it aligns consular assets to meet the demand. In November 2006,  State developed a plan for improving the visa process that details several  steps it intends to implement, or pilot, by 2009. Although the visa  improvement plan can assist State in improving the visa process, and State  has taken some steps to address wait times at a number of overseas posts,  State has not determined how it will keep pace with continued growth in  visa demand over the long term. For example, the strategies in the plan do  not identify the resources State would need to increase staff or construct  adequate facilities to handle the projected demand increases. Moreover,  State has not proposed plans to significantly reduce the workload of  available officers or the amount of time needed to adjudicate a visa if such  resources are not available. Without a long-term plan to address increasing  demand, State does not have a tool to make decisions that will maximize  efficiency, minimize wait times, and strengthen its ability to support and  sustain its funding needs.
In order to develop a strategy addressing future visa demand, State may  want to make use of operations research methods and optimization  modeling techniques. These approaches can allow State to develop a long- term plan that takes into account various factors—such as State’s security  standards for visas, its policies and procedures to maximize efficiency and  minimize waits, and available resources. Researchers have developed  statistical techniques to analyze and minimize wait times in a wide variety  of situations, such as when cars queue to cross toll bridges or customers  call service centers. These techniques consider the key variables that  influence wait times, such as the likely demand, the number of people  already waiting, the number of staff that can provide the service required,  the time it takes to process each person, and the cost of each transaction;  consider a range of scenarios; and provide options to minimize wait times,  bearing in mind the relevant factors. The analyses can, for instance,  provide quantitative data on the extent to which wait times could be  reduced if more staff were assigned or the time for each transaction were  decreased.
For example, State could determine the approximate number of additional  resources it would need in order to meet its stated goal of providing an  appointment to all applicants within 30 days despite increased visa  demand. Such a response would either require State to provide additional  staff through new hires or by using other staffing methods, such as  utilizing civil servants to adjudicate visas overseas. Alternatively, State  could require consular officers to process applicants more efficiently and  quickly. State may require multiple new facilities to support an increase in  the number of Foreign Service officers and allow posts to process more  applicants daily. However, if State were to determine that a significant  increase in resources for staffing and facilities is not feasible, then State  would have to evaluate the efficacy of its 30-day standard for visa  appointments or consider requesting Congress to allow for changes in the  adjudication process, such as allowing additional flexibility in the personal  appearance requirement for visa applicants. It is dependent upon State to  determine the specific techniques and appropriate variables or factors  required to optimize its capability to address the demand for visas.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Expediting the adjudication of NIV applications is important to U.S.  national interests because legitimate travelers forced to wait long periods  of time for a visa interview may be discouraged from visiting the country,  potentially costing the United States billions of dollars in travel and  tourism revenues over time. Moreover, State officials have previously  testified that long waits for visa appointments can negatively impact our  image as a nation that openly welcomes foreign visitors. Given projected  increases in visa demand, State should develop a strategy that identifies  the possible actions that will allow it to maintain the security of the visa  process and its interest in facilitating legitimate travel in a timely manner.  The development of such a plan will strengthen State’s ability to manage  visa demand, support and sustain its funding needs, encourage dialogue  with relevant congressional committees on the challenges to addressing  waits, and promote consensus by decision makers on funding levels and  expectations for eliminating visa delays. Furthermore, there are several  measures State could take in the short run to improve the wait times for  interviews of NIV applicants and the reliability of visa waits information  for management purposes.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the Bureau of Consular Affair’s oversight and management of  visa-adjudicating posts, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the  following actions:    Develop a strategy to address worldwide increases in visa demand that  balances the security responsibility of protecting the United States from  potential terrorists and individuals who would harm U.S. interests with the  need to facilitate legitimate travel to the United States. In doing so, State  should take into consideration relevant factors, such as the flow of visa  applicants, the backlog of applicants, the availability of consular officers,  and the time required to process each visa application. State’s analysis  should be informed by reliable data on the factors that influence wait  times. State should update any plan annually to reflect new information on  visa demand.
Improve the reliability and utility of visa waits data by defining collection  standards and ensuring that posts report the data according to the  standards.
Identify practices and procedures used by posts to manage workload and  reduce wait times and encourage the dissemination and use of successful  practices.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of State and  Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security did not  comment on the draft but provided a technical comment. State provided  written comments on the draft that are reprinted with our comments in  appendix II of this report.
State concurred with our recommendations to enhance methods of  disseminating effective management techniques, to improve the reliability  and utility of visa waits data, and to develop a strategy to address  increases in visa demand. State noted that any appropriate strategy to  address worldwide increases in visa demand must address the need for  resources to meet national security goals for both travel facilitation and  border security. Furthermore, State said that any suggestion of trade-offs  between these two goals would be inappropriate. Clearly we agree that in  developing a strategy, State must maintain its security responsibilities  while also facilitating legitimate travel to the United States. Our report  does not suggest that one of these goals should be sacrificed at the  expense of the other. State also provided a number of technical comments,  which we have incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested  congressional committees. We will also send copies to the Secretary of  State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We also will make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We reviewed (1) Department of State (State) data on the amount of time  visa applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions State  has taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State’s strategy for dealing  with projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our objectives, we  interviewed officials from State’s bureaus of Consular Affairs, Human  Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also interviewed  officials from the Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism  Industries. In addition, we observed consular operations and interviewed  U.S. government officials at 11 posts in eight countries—Brazil, China,  Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, India, South Korea, and the United  Kingdom. For our site visits, we selected posts that had either (1) recently  reported wait times of 60 days or more, (2) had previously experienced  long-standing wait time problems, (3) were projected to experience a large  future volume of visa adjudications, or (4) were able to process a large  volume of visas with little or no wait for applicant interviews. During these  visits, we observed visa operations; interviewed consular staff and  embassy management about visa adjudication policies, procedures, and  resources; and reviewed documents and data. In addition, to obtain a  broader view of visa workload, consular staffing and facilities, as well as  other issues affecting visa wait times in consular sections, we selected an  additional 21 posts for a document review based on the same selection  criteria we used for selecting our site visits. Our selection of posts was  not intended to provide a generalizable sample but allowed us to observe  consular operations under a wide range of conditions.
To determine the amount of time visa applicants were waiting to obtain a  visa interview, we analyzed interview wait times data for applicants  applying for visas for temporary business or tourism purposes, but not for  other types of visas, including student visas. Specifically, the data provided  to us showed the minimum and maximum wait times for visa-issuing posts  for the period January 2006-February 2007. Data were also provided for  the same period that indicated the number of posts that reported  maximum wait times of 30 or more days in at least 1 month and the  number that reported wait times in excess of 30 days for this entire 6- month period. In addition, at various points-in-time, we received  information on the most recently reported wait times for visa-issuing posts  and the date of last entry. To determine the reliability of State’s data on  wait times for applicant interviews, we reviewed the department’s  procedures for capturing these data, interviewed the officials in  Washington who monitor and use these data, and examined data that was  provided to us electronically. In addition, we interviewed the  corresponding officials from our visits to select posts overseas and in  Washington, who input and use the visa waits data. We found that data  was missing throughout the 13-month period because posts were not  reporting each week. Based on our analysis, we determined that the data  were not sufficiently reliable to determine the exact magnitude of the  delays because the exact number of posts with a wait of 30 days or more  at any given time could not be determined. Consular officials who manage  consular sections overseas acknowledged that many posts are not  reporting on a weekly basis. However, we determined that the data are  sufficiently reliable for providing a broad indication of posts that have had  problems with wait times over a period of time and for general trends in  the number of posts that have had problems with wait times over the 13  months we reviewed.
To determine the actions State has taken to address visa wait times and its  strategy for addressing waits, we analyzed consular policies and  procedures cables and staffing and facilities plans developed by the  department. In addition, we analyzed consular workload and staffing data.  We also reviewed the methodology for the Change Navigations Study and  found it to be one of a number of fairly standard approaches that are  available for a forecasting exercise of this nature. However, we did not  attempt to replicate the methodology or test alternative models that relied  on different techniques, data, or assumptions.
We conducted our work from August 2006 through May 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter  dated June 25, 2007.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  State’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services has acknowledged  that visa applicants may be deterred from visiting the United States by  long appointment wait times and that this could have negative  economic consequences and could adversely affect foreign opinions of  our country. The Department of Commerce points out that foreign  visitors bring economic benefits to our country in excess of $100  billion each year. We agree that it is difficult to correlate visa wait  times with specific dollar value losses in travel and tourism revenues.  However, given that wait times for interviews are very high at a  number of posts, we believe that the loss in economic benefits to our  country over time could potentially be significant.
Our report acknowledges that visa issuances have increased over the  last several years.  2.  We believe our report, as well as past GAO reports, shows that long  waits for visa interviews have been a long-standing problem for the  department. Furthermore, State’s data show that there have been long  waits at some posts during peak and nonpeak periods (see fig. 2) and  that long waits are not solely cyclical in nature. State acknowledges a  number of cyclical factors that affect visa demand and resource  availability, such as staffing gaps and the personnel transfer cycle. We  believe these and other factors can contribute to chronic as well as  cyclical backlogs. In addition, we have modified the draft to  acknowledge the fact that wait times may reoccur cyclically as well as  unexpectedly. However, the report points toward the need for a  strategy for addressing such delays, which State has not developed to  address either cyclical or chronic visa waits.  3.  We agree that increasing consular staff levels may ultimately be  necessary to address increasing visa demand. This is why we  recommended that State develop a strategy to address wait times and  that, in doing so, identify its resource needs. Such actions could  promote consensus by decision makers on funding levels and  expectations for eliminating visa delays.  4.  We agree that State has taken a number of actions to share information  with posts on reducing wait times. However, as noted in the report,  during our fieldwork, we found that there were instances where posts  were not aware of certain practices and procedures implemented by  other posts to help manage workload and assist in improving applicant  wait times. We understand that all practices may not be transferable to  all posts, but we believe that all posts would benefit from knowing the  options that are available for more efficient operations.  5.  Our report discusses State’s efforts to estimate visa demand and gives  ample credit to the 2006 repositioning exercise to shift some consular  staffing to posts with the greatest need. Furthermore, neither the  annual consular package exercise nor the Consular Affairs Future  Study estimated the resources needed to meet long-term future  demand. Our point is that State has not estimated what resources will  be required to keep up with the increase in future demand that State  forecasts. Because these resources could be substantial, we think it is  incumbent on State to develop a long-term strategy now.  6.  We based our statements on the testimony of State’s Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Visa Services before Congress in March 2007, where he  stated, “we strive to constantly strike the right balance between  protecting America’s borders and preserving America’s welcome to  international visitors.” We acknowledge that in striking this balance  security is the primary concern. Clearly the time it takes to process an  application affects how many applications an officer can process in a  given day. We are not suggesting that State sacrifice security in order  to avoid visa waits, but rather that State develop a plan for how it will  cope with rising demand, taking these various circumstances and  responsibilities into consideration.  7.  We agree that these are important factors and have modified the text  accordingly.  8.  We understand that there are spikes in visa demand for various  reasons, some of which are difficult to predict. However, State is  aware that such spikes in visa demand can occur. We believe that State  needs a strategy to address growing visa demand that includes  consideration of how it will meet unanticipated spikes in demand. The  development of such a plan would allow State to use its visa surge  teams of temporary duty staff to deal with unanticipated spikes, rather  than using them to handle the anticipated increasing demand.  9.  We have modified language in the report. State’s comment reinforces  our belief that it is time for State to develop a strategy for addressing  long-term visa demand. If State determines it needs more staff to  handle projected demand, then it should detail these needs in its  strategy.  10. We based our comment on a cable prepared by the U.S. Embassy in  London. State acknowledges that the 10-fingerprint requirement could  reduce the number of applicants processed. Applicants are not  interviewed until after their fingerprints are taken, so a reduction in  the number of applicants processed would subsequently result in a  reduction of applicants interviewed. We have modified language in the  draft to clarify our point.  11. We have incorporated information on the Visa Office’s Two-Year Plan  into the report.  12. State does not have a plan that outlines how it will cope with growing  visa demand, which is why we recommend that State develop a  strategy that identifies the actions it will take to address increasing  demand. We believe that there may be opportunities to achieve  efficiencies at some posts and that more resources may be needed.  The short-term, temporary measures that State is currently taking to  address visa demand are not adequate to handle the projected visa  demand. We suggest that State take advantage of available analytical  tools in order to identify options for the development of an overall  strategy that will address the projected increase in visa demand  worldwide. A wide range of sophisticated techniques are available to  help manage customer waiting times in many areas of government  operations, such as testing drivers at departments of motor vehicles  and treating patients at public health clinics. Our report does not  recommend that State reduce the processing time at the expense of  security. We agree that State must maintain its security responsibilities  while facilitating legitimate travel to the United States.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant  Director; Joe Brown; Joe Carney; Martin de Alteriis; Jeff Miller; Mary  Moutsos; and Melissa Pickworth made key contributions to this report.