Travel Advisory

he State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs operates in the unenviable world of no-win situations. If the agency does its job well, almost no one notices. But a single mistake can bring heavy scrutiny. Take the case of Charles Parish, who was chief of the non-immigrant visa section at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing from July 1994 to May 1996. Parish was accused of fraud for allegedly accepting cash in exchange for visas. He denied the charge and, after a joint investigation by the FBI and the State Department failed to find criminal wrongdoing, no disciplinary action was taken. Still, the episode triggered congressional hearings and extensive media coverage.

While the spotlight was shining on Parish, consular employees at more than 200 posts around the globe were doing their jobs without incident. They were reviewing the more than 9 million visa applications the State Department receives each year. They were helping American citizens replace stolen passports and inquiring about the whereabouts of abducted children taken abroad. They were arranging for the return home of Americans who died overseas and responding to disasters such as airline crashes and civil unrest. Stateside, bureau staffers were issuing passports, posting travel warnings and providing information on visas, passports and other travel matters.

Consular Affairs, one of several State Department functional bureaus, is charged with overseeing the issuance of passports and visas, and for providing services to American citizens overseas. About 1,000 civil servants staff the bureau's Washington headquarters and passport and visa processing centers across the country. About 900 Foreign Service officers carry out consular duties overseas, where approximately 2,500 foreign employees assist them. This relatively small workforce has had to meet an ever-growing demand for services. The economic growth of the last decade has spurred unprecedented levels of tourism. The more people who travel, the more passports, visas and travel advisories must be issued. In addition, increased attention from Congress to terrorist threats has led to tighter border security procedures that in many cases have further burdened already overworked visa officers.

Despite these challenges, Consular Affairs has developed a reputation for effective management within the State Department, thanks to strong leadership and an influx of funds brought by a 1994 law allowing the bureau to keep some of the fees it collects. The head of the agency, Mary Ryan, is among the most respected career Foreign Service officers at State. In 1998, she was awarded the coveted status of career ambassador, the highest rank in the Foreign Service.

Ryan has steered the bureau on a course of best practice reforms that have improved services globally. As a result, congressional staffers, union officials, consular officers and other observers say Consular Affairs has become a symbol of innovation within a huge State Department bureaucracy traditionally known more for its policy thinkers than its managers. Though Ryan is a Clinton administration political appointee, she remained in place during the early weeks of the Bush administration and was not expected to be replaced, according to a State Department spokeswoman. Regardless of who ultimately leads the agency, the consensus appears to be that it should continue on the path blazed by Ryan.

But Consular Affairs faces significant obstacles to further management improvement, and some observers question whether the agency can even sustain its current achievements once Ryan eventually leaves office. Bureau officials admit that they do not chart and track goals and objectives tied to a comprehensive strategic plan. Therefore, they don't have a solid sense of what their future management challenges may be and how they will attack them. Many even worry that because Congress has capped the amount of revenue the agency may keep from fees, the bureau's already tight budget soon may be seriously inadequate. Without a strategic planning process in place to document what's being achieved -and what's going undone-the bureau will face an uphill battle trying to convince Congress that it needs more money. Given these realities, and the fact that the Federal Performance Project's management criteria put a premium on managing for results, Consular Affairs could earn no better than a C when compared with other agencies more successfully using strategic planning not only to manage current operations but also to map out plans for the future.

The Big Picture

To fully understand the challenges facing the management team at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, first consider the broader situation of the State Department as a whole. State long has been plagued with funding, management and morale problems. In recent years, foreign affairs experts have documented these shortcomings in report after report. "No government bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of State," concluded a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, led by former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci. The task force issued a 12,000-page report documenting State Department woes to incoming Secretary of State Colin Powell in January. The U.S. Commission on National Security, headed by former Senators Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., told Powell in February that the department is "demoralized and dysfunctional."

The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel reported in November 1999 that "insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology, outmoded administrative and human resources practices, poor allocation of resources, and competition from the private sector for talented staff threaten to cripple our nation's overseas capability, with far-reaching consequences for national security and prosperity."

Earlier in 1999, a study by McKinsey and Co. uncovered significant employee frustration with poor management practices. "You've joined the supposedly elite Foreign Service, and you have terrible managers-people who've been promoted to get them out of other people's hair," one officer told McKinsey. Employees also complained about the performance appraisal system. "Our system is a real equalizer," one person wrote. "There's just not that much difference between what happens to a high performer and what happens to a low performer."

Compounding these problems in consular sections at many overseas missions are excessive workloads. For example, because staffing levels are often inadequate, individual visa officers at high-volume posts must interview as many as 200 job applicants a day. They also face pressures unparalleled in other State job categories because by law, consular officers are judge, jury and appeals court to visa applicants. Their split-second decisions stand as the official, and final, U.S. government decision in a case. "The pressure overseas on consular officers is just terrible," says Marshall Adair, president of the American Foreign Service Association, a union representing Foreign Service officers.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that the bureau does not directly control funding or staffing of consular work around the world. Rather, the State Department's geographic bureaus do. As a result, staffing decisions are not always made by the people with the most expertise in consular affairs. In years past, the bureau has asked for full authority over staffing, a proposal endorsed by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel report. But the department has resisted, insisting that the geographic bureaus are in better positions to oversee all functions at diplomatic missions abroad. That Ryan has been able to make any headway given these broader problems is remarkable. The extra revenue the bureau received has been a major factor in her success. Also helpful have been the length of Ryan's tenure-she's been in office since 1993-and the fact that she is a career Foreign Service officer well-versed in the nuances of the State Department bureaucracy.

Additionally, Ryan has sharp management skills, observers agree. Clearly, her efforts have helped the bureau do its job better. She has boosted morale and raised the prestige of consular work, which traditionally has been overshadowed by the more popular political and economic reporting career tracks. As the head of non-immigrant visas at a high-volume embassy says, "Mary Ryan is the best thing that has happened to the Department of State in my 18 years of service. She cares about each of us but also cares about our customers. She is constantly cajoling us to improve but also lauding our successes."

Money Matters

It often takes a tragedy to make Congress pay attention to underfunded government programs. In the case of Consular Affairs, it was the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, which killed six people.

Muslim cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who later was convicted of masterminding the terrorist attack, had been granted a visa at the U.S. embassy in Sudan, despite having been on an official list of foreigners ineligible for entry. The episode brought to light significant security problems in the bureau's visa processing system. Checking applicant names against the list of ineligible people required using an antiquated microfiche system, a labor-intensive step that was relatively easy to skip since no record was made when a name was checked. In the Rahman case, the Sudanese clerk responsible for checking the name against the list apparently didn't do so, though he signed off declaring that he had. The consular officer adjudicating the application then approved the visa.

During hearings, Congress learned that without more money for computer, training and staffing upgrades, similar mistakes were certain to be made again. The bureau, to its credit, had been installing machine readable visa (MRV) systems overseas in an effort to cut down on fraud-it's harder to counterfeit a computer-generated MRV that is printed directly into an applicant's passport than it was a traditional paper visa that was stapled into a passport. But because of resource constraints, the bureau was only able to install systems at about six posts a year. With more than 200 posts issuing visas, the agency could not have expanded the effort worldwide without extra revenue, says Frank Moss, the bureau's executive director.

So Congress granted State the authority to charge and keep fees for the new machine readable visas that then could be reinvested to pay for such things as installing and operating MRV systems, automating the name-check process, improving passport quality and security, conducting fraud investigations and putting in place the computer infrastructure to support and operate the programs. In the past, all fees collected for consular work-which in fiscal 1999 amounted to nearly $1 billion-were deposited in the Treasury. Now, Consular Affairs keeps about $220 million of those fees. In fiscal 2001, the agency will receive an additional $18 million in appropriated funds.

Spending Spree

Meeting the deadline set by Congress, the bureau had installed MRV and automated name-check systems at every post within two years. They now have computer access to a massive database housed in Beltsville, Md., that can be checked in a matter of minutes. In fact, a machine readable visa cannot even be generated until the database has been checked, making it more difficult for someone like Rahman to enter the country.

These systems introduced a new era of information technology in consular work. "The MRV money has allowed us to buy a whole new generation of computer equipment," says John Caulfield, consul general in Manila.

MRV money has had a significant impact on passport operations, enabling State in 1998 to unveil an anti-fraud digitized passport. A security film with a hologram-like image protects the digital photo and personal data. Tiny wavy lines printed behind the photograph also make counterfeiting more difficult. These passports are now issued by the National Passport Center, a processing center in Portsmouth, N.H., and the New Orleans Passport Agency, which together process about half of all U.S. passports. Eventually, all passport agencies will issue the digitized version.

MRV revenue is funding a major effort to issue a more secure border-crossing card to Mexican citizens who enter the United States frequently to visit relatives and to work. In 1996, Congress passed a law requiring State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to implement the Border Biometric Program, which will incorporate a biometric identifier such as a fingerprint or handprint into new border crossing identification cards.

Unpredictable Workload

The extra funding has made it easier for Consular Affairs to respond to staffing emergencies triggered by unexpected surges in service demand, especially for visa work. Though consular officials try to plan staffing needs two years in advance, in reality, "it's hard for us to predict visa demand six months out," Moss says. The economic situation of a nation plays a large role in determining visa demand, but a single unexpected event can throw a projection out the window. In Islamabad, Pakistan, for example, demand for non-immigrant visas more than doubled from 1999 to 2000. Bureau officials suspect the increase was caused by a baseless rumor that State was moving visa operations out of the country to a regional center, as has been done in some parts of the world.

Slightly more predictably, though just as troublesome, consular shops often are shorthanded during the summer, when demand for overseas consular services usually is at its highest and State's reassignment process unfolds. Precisely at the time more consular officers are needed, fewer are available, as officers whose multi-year tours have ended pack up and move to their next duty station. At the same time, new arrivals are hit with excessive workloads before they are even familiar with their new posts. The reassignment scheduling is unlikely to change, for State plans it around the academic school year to make major moves less disruptive to families.

Though the bureau doesn't have the authority to reassign people from country to country as needed, the agency has come up with short-term solutions to staffing deficiencies. For example, posts can request extra money to hire family members of Foreign Service officers to serve as consular associates. These associates, once trained, can adjudicate visa applications just as a consular officer can. In other cases, Consular Affairs might send civil service staffers to a post on a short-term assignment or send a foreign language fellow to help pick up extra work.

Best Practices

At the same time the agency was busy putting MRV money to work, Ryan's team was promoting the concept of best practices to help improve efficiency and customer service. By bringing people from individual posts together to share innovative ideas and by studying private industry practices, the agency created momentum for improving management. The best practices coordinator, John Arndt, collects ideas from the field and shares them with other posts. "These are ideas," Arndt says. "Consider them. If one doesn't work now, reconsider it later." As following best practices becomes more ingrained in day-to-day management, Arndt says, consular staffers are increasingly receptive to trying new ideas.

One of the most noticeable changes has involved appointment systems. Embassies with busy consular sections often had thousands of people line up outside awaiting an interview with a visa officer. In Mexico City, the line started forming at 5 o'clock-the afternoon before. These lines "started a cottage industry," Moss says. The captive audience supported everyone from taco vendors to people selling fraudulent visa documents, he says. Manila faced similar crowds. "We had people lining up 48 hours in advance," Caulfield says. "It was depressing for the consular officers. And it was embarrassing for the U.S. government."

But with appointment systems in place at both posts, embassy staffers no longer have to navigate throngs of visa applicants as they make their way to work each day. Nor must visa officers face a seemingly endless line of people who must be interviewed before the work day is out. Now, applicants make interview appointments by mail, phone or fax, depending on the post, allowing consular officers to know exactly how many cases they must adjudicate on a given day. With the appointment system, "we were able to take control of our workload," Caulfield says.

These systems also have made the passport application process more convenient. Any American who has had a passport for more than 10 years can remember the days of waiting in long lines for a renewal. But now, appointment systems have eliminated those lines at the largest passport agencies. As of December, appointment systems were in place in New York; Miami; Los Angeles; Washington; Stamford, Conn.; Chicago; Houston; and San Francisco. At other sites, customers now receive a number upon entering and can wait in a lounge and watch electronic updates on the estimated waiting time. Appointment systems, as well as some other best practices, have been implemented at no cost to the government. The appointment system in Manila, for example, is paid for entirely by telephone fees applicants incur when they call a 900 number to make their appointment. The calls, which are fielded by a contractor, cost about $5, significantly less than the $100 many people used to pay others to wait in the visa line for them, Caulfield says. It makes sense that foreign applicants, not U.S. taxpayers, are paying for the service, he adds. Also by incorporating third parties into work processes, other best practices are saving visa staff time. At many posts, applicants are encouraged to apply for visas through their travel agents and to pay fees at banks or other authorized financial institutions, leaving consular officers to focus on adjudication. And rather than have applicants return to the embassy or consulate in person to pick up their visas, thereby adding to the congestion, visas now are sent by courier, at the applicant's expense.

The Bureau's American Citizen Services sections, which handle such matters as visiting Americans in prison abroad, and notifying next of kin and helping make burial arrangements for people who die overseas, generally have won high marks for service. In fact, the most recent review of these activities by the State Department inspector general found that overall, consular officers and the local hires who help them go "above and beyond the [Foreign Affairs Manual] requirements to provide assistance to Americans in need." Viewing these tasks through the lens of best practices has allowed Consular Affairs to further improve customer service. For example, in the past, Americans traveling abroad had to go to an embassy or consulate in person to register their arrival, so that they or their families could be contacted in the event of an emergency. Now, they can register with some embassies online.

An effort to simplify passport application for new citizens has linked the bureau with the INS-which has authority over foreign visitors and immigrants as soon as they reach the United States-and community groups. In cities where the effort is in effect, prospective citizens receive their passport applications at their last INS interview prior to being naturalized. This saves them a trip to the passport agency.

A Money Issue

No doubt, best practices have improved consular operations. But it's the machine readable visa money that has made many of the staffing and technical innovations possible. In fact, most bureau operations now depend on this funding stream. As a 1998 State Department inspector general's review (98-FM-018) of MRV fees found, so much of the bureau's activity has come to rely on MRV money that unless the fee-collection authority is made permanent, the agency could face serious funding shortages in the future.

This dependence worries some observers because each year Congress has the power to revoke the authority and redirect the money, casting a shadow of doubt during every appropriations cycle as to whether Consular Affairs will get the funds it needs. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel's report urged Congress to make the authority permanent. "The panel is convinced that resources available to the department for consular activities fall seriously short of what is needed," the report said. Panel members recommended abolishing the current cap of $316 million on the amount of MRV fees Consular Affairs may keep. Though the agency never yet has collected that much, if it does reach that level, the bureau will have to send the extra money to the Treasury unless Congress explicitly says otherwise. In other words, even though the demand for MRV services may keep rising, Consular Affairs may not be able to get the needed funds to meet that demand. But without the cap, the advisory panel wrote, "This funding would be directly tied to the increasing levels of consular activities, one that adjusts as workload fluctuates."

Several years ago, Consular Affairs asked for permanent authority to keep MRV fees; Congress did not grant it. Reauthorizing the authority is one of the main ways Congress oversees Consular Affairs programs, and legislators do not want to give it up, says a congressional staffer. The bureau did not formally request permanent authority during the last appropriations cycle.

While bureau and State Department officials battle with Congress for more money and cases of visa fraud get dissected by the media, consular officers around the world continue to keep the consular gears of the U.S. government turning. A lot of them wouldn't have it any other way. "Consular work is often seen as unattractive and mind-numbing to those doing other work, and honestly, it is not fun to spend eight hours a day at the [visa] window refusing 60 percent of the applicants who come for a visa," admits one seasoned consular officer. "However . . . there are no jobs in the Foreign Service that impact on more lives every day," he adds.

"When we help a destitute [person] get home, improve conditions for a long-term American prisoner, help a family who has just lost a loved one, finally issue a visa to someone who has had a difficult and drawn-out case, or even stop someone who threatens the safety or security of our country from getting a visa, we know that our day has been well spent in service to our country. To do this in a foreign environment, perhaps in a foreign language, is an opportunity of a lifetime that we have every day. I can't say that every day is wonderful, but I can say that while consular work is not for everyone, many of us who do it wouldn't do anything else."

Susannah Zak Figura is a Washington-based freelance writer.