Border Security: Long-term Strategy Needed to Keep Pace with Increasing Demand for Visas
Released: 2007-08-02T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

Recent Visa Policy Actions Have Increased Time Needed to Adjudicate Visas

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

Factors Impacting Visa Delays

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

Visa Application Trends

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

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.

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

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

State’s Recent Data Show Wait Time Trends Have Improved, but Some Applicants Continue to Face Extensive Delays for Visa Interviews

According to State, wait times for visa interviews have improved at many overseas consular posts in the past year. However, despite recent improvements—such as those at posts in India, Mexico, and Brazil—a number of posts reported long waits at times during the past year. Believing the waits at some posts are excessive, in February of this year, State announced its goal of providing all applicants an interview within 30 days. We identified a number of shortcomings in the way in which State’s visa waits data is developed, which could mask the severity of the delays for visa interviews at some posts and limit the extent to which State can monitor whether the visa wait problem has been addressed. To better understand and manage post workload, State has begun to develop a measure of applicant backlog.

State Has Reported Improvements in Visa Wait Times

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

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.

Some Posts Continue to Face Long Delays

Despite recent improvements in wait times at a number of consular posts, at times during the past year, especially during peak processing periods, a number of visa adjudicating posts have faced challenges in reporting wait times of less than 30 days. For example, during typical peak demand season, 29 posts reported maximum monthly waits exceeding 30 days over the entire 6-month period of March through August 2006 (see fig. 4).

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.

New Performance Standard for Visa Waits Implemented

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

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

Post Reporting of Visa Waits Data Needs Further Improvement

State has provided guidance indicating that posts are required to report wait times on a weekly basis, even if the times have not changed from the previous week. However, we found posts are not reporting waits data consistently, which impacts the reliability of State’s visa waits figures. In September 2005, our analysis of State’s data on reported wait times revealed significant numbers of posts that did not report this information on a weekly basis during the 6-month period we reviewed. In reviewing data over the past year, we again found that a large number of posts were not consistently reporting waits data on a weekly basis, as required by State. 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.

Measure of Applicant Backlog under Development

State’s reported wait time data generally reflect the wait, at a moment in time, for new applicants, and do not reflect the actual wait time for an average applicant at a given post. Furthermore, wait times generally do not provide a sense of applicant backlog, which is the number of people who are waiting to be scheduled for an appointment or the number of people who have an appointment but have yet to be seen. 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.

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

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

State Has Used Temporary Duty Staff and Repositioned Consular Staff to Address Staffing Shortfalls Contributing to Visa Delays

State has recently taken action at several posts to address current staffing gaps to minimize the impact on visa wait times. State has deployed temporary duty staff from other consular posts and from headquarters to help process and adjudicate visa applicants. 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.

State Has Implemented Consular Facilities Improvements at Many Overseas Posts

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.

Some Visa Processing and Workload Management Practices Established but Not Widely Shared Among Posts

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

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

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

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

Dramatic Increase in Visa Demand Is Expected and Will Continue to Impact Visa Wait Times

In 2005, State contracted with an independent consulting firm to analyze several factors to help predict future visa demand in 20 select countries, which, according to State officials, constituted approximately 75 percent of the visa workload at the time. 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.

State’s Plans Do Not Fully Address Future Visa Demand

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services testified to Congress in March 2007 of the need to consider and implement viable long-term solutions for posts with high visa demand and indicated that State needed to ensure it aligns consular assets to meet the demand. In November 2006, State developed a plan for improving the visa process that details several steps it intends to implement, or pilot, by 2009. 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.

Conclusions

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

Recommendations for Executive Action

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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

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

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

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4128 or 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.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We reviewed (1) Department of State (State) data on the amount of time visa applicants were waiting to obtain a visa interview, (2) actions State has taken to address visa wait times, and (3) State’s strategy for dealing with projected increases in visa demand. To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed officials from State’s bureaus of Consular Affairs, Human Resources, and Overseas Buildings Operations. We also interviewed officials from the Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. In addition, we observed consular operations and interviewed U.S. government officials at 11 posts in eight countries—Brazil, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, India, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. For our site visits, we selected posts that had either (1) recently reported wait times of 60 days or more, (2) had previously experienced long-standing wait time problems, (3) were projected to experience a large future volume of visa adjudications, or (4) were able to process a large volume of visas with little or no wait for applicant interviews. During these visits, we observed visa operations; interviewed consular staff and embassy management about visa adjudication policies, procedures, and resources; and reviewed documents and data. In addition, to obtain a broader view of visa workload, consular staffing and facilities, as well as other issues affecting visa wait times in consular sections, we selected an additional 21 posts for a document review based on the same selection criteria we used for selecting our site visits. 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated June 25, 2007.

GAO Comments

1. State’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services has acknowledged that visa applicants may be deterred from visiting the United States by long appointment wait times and that this could have negative economic consequences and could adversely affect foreign opinions of our country. The Department of Commerce points out that foreign visitors bring economic benefits to our country in excess of $100 billion each year. We agree that it is difficult to correlate visa wait times with specific dollar value losses in travel and tourism revenues. However, given that wait times for interviews are very high at a number of posts, we believe that the loss in economic benefits to our country over time could potentially be significant.

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

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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