Over time, State has identified concerns about  the SWT program, such as abuses of some SWT participants by  employers, links between some SWT participants and organized crime,  and overshadowing of the program’s cultural exchange component by its  work component. Participants come from all  over the world and work throughout the United States year-round, based  on the timing of their major academic breaks. For example, State records  show that in 2014, approximately 79,000 SWT participants from more  than 120 countries worked in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. SWT Program Funding

As a private sector exchange program, the SWT program is primarily  funded through fees paid by SWT sponsors and participants. The 2012  IFR explained that the 2012 regulatory changes included, among  others,  increased language requirements for participants, requiring them to  have sufficient English not only to perform their jobs, as previously  required, but also to protect themselves as they navigate daily life; an expanded list of job placement requirements and prohibitions—for  example, placements must be seasonal or temporary, must provide  opportunities for participants to interact regularly with U.S. citizens,  and must not displace U.S. citizen workers; and requirements that sponsors submit annual participant price lists to  provide itemized breakdowns of costs that participants must pay to  both overseas agents and sponsors; assist participants in arranging  housing and transportation when needed; and vet domestic agents. State officials  told us that as of October 2014, State had no current plans for lifting the  program cap. State Conducts Oversight of Sponsors, Employers, and Participants but Has Limited Information about Program Costs

State has several mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing compliance  with SWT regulations intended to prevent abuse of the program and of  participants. In 2011 through 2014, State  conducted on-site reviews of 18 sponsors that were active during this  period. KCC verifies  employers of participants from non-visa-waiver countries as well as  participants from visa waiver countries in preplaced jobs. State also oversees participants’ welfare through complaints  that it receives from participants, the general public, and State officials  and through incident reports from sponsors. Sponsors  submit this information in incident reports. Because State has not established mechanisms to  ensure, respectively, that sponsors provide complete and consistent lists  of participant fees and that this information is made publicly available,  State’s ability to protect participants from excessive and unexpected  program costs is limited. In response, State reported in 2012 that it had begun  meeting with sponsors to discuss ways to establish an open and  transparent process for capturing fees that they and their overseas  agents may charge participants. Without detailed criteria that would  allow State to assess the sufficiency or appropriateness of the cultural  component, State lacks assurance that SWT participants’ experiences of  U.S. culture further State’s public diplomacy goals. Some SWT sponsors in the United States also maintain alumni networks,  although State does not require them to do so. Conclusions

By allowing large numbers of young, educated people—approximately  79,000 in 2014—to experience life in the United States each year and  return home to share their experiences, the SWT program offers the  potential to strengthen U.S. relationships abroad and further U.S. public  diplomacy. As a  result, State lacks assurance that SWT participants engage in cultural  exchanges that will benefit the participants and align with its public  diplomacy goals. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance State’s efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and  the SWT program from misuse, we recommend that the Secretary of  State direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to take the  following three actions: establish a mechanism to ensure that sponsors provide complete and  consistent lists of fees that participants must pay, establish a mechanism to ensure that information about these  participant fees is made publicly available, and establish detailed criteria that will allow State to assess the sufficiency  and appropriateness of opportunities for cultural activities outside the  workplace that sponsors provide to SWT participants. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) changes to program requirements that the  Department of State (State) has made since 2010 to better protect the  Summer Work Travel (SWT) program and participants, (2) State’s  oversight of SWT sponsors’ compliance with program regulations and of  participants’ welfare, and (3) efforts State has made to strengthen the  program’s cultural exchange aspect and further its broader public  diplomacy goals.
Why GAO Did This Study

Created under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, the SWT program is intended to further U.S. public diplomacy by giving foreign undergraduate students short-term opportunities to experience the people and way of life in the United States. In 2005, GAO found that State's oversight was insufficient to prevent abuse of the SWT program or its participants. Since 2010, some misuses of the program by participants and criminal organizations and abuses of participants—for example, low wages and substandard living conditions—have been reported. Also, State has noted that the program's work component has often overshadowed its cultural component.
GAO was asked to report on State's oversight and implementation of the SWT program. This report examines, among other things, steps that State has taken since 2010 to strengthen program requirements as well as State's oversight of sponsors and participants. GAO reviewed program regulations and other SWT documents. GAO also interviewed U.S. officials and others involved in the program in the United States and in Bulgaria, Ireland, Turkey, and Russia, countries that GAO selected on the basis of factors such as the number of SWT participants from each country.

What GAO Found

Each year, college and university students from all over the world participate in the Department of State's (State) Summer Work Travel (SWT) program. State records show that in 2014, about 79,000 participants from more than 120 countries worked up to 4 months in jobs such as lifeguard, cashier, and resort worker throughout the United States (see map). Participants are meant to experience U.S. culture by interacting with Americans during work and through cultural activities in their free time. State administers the program in partnership with U.S. private sector sponsors that serve as participants' primary contacts. Program funding comes primarily from fees paid by participants and sponsors.
State has taken several steps to strengthen SWT requirements since 2010. For example, in 2011, State began requiring sponsors to verify employers and job offers and prohibited jobs such as adult entertainment and domestic help. State also capped the number of participants at 109,000 until it could determine that it had addressed identified concerns; as of October 2014, State had no plans for lifting the cap. State made further changes in 2012, such as requiring—in response to allegations of excessive participant costs—that sponsors annually submit lists of fees that SWT participants pay them and their overseas agents. State also required sponsors to provide participants cultural opportunities outside the workplace.
State oversees sponsors through both general and targeted reviews of their compliance with program requirements. State oversees participants' welfare by periodically interviewing a small number of participants and investigating complaints and reports from participants and others. However, State does not have mechanisms to ensure that sponsors submit complete and consistent lists of fees that participants pay them and their overseas agents and that this information is made publicly available. State thus has limited ability to protect participants from excessive and unexpected costs. Further, State officials told GAO that it cannot assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of participants' cultural opportunities outside the workplace because the 2012 requirement lacks detailed criteria. As a result, State cannot be assured that SWT participants' experiences of U.S. culture align with its public diplomacy goals.

What GAO Recommends

State should establish mechanisms to ensure that sponsors submit complete and consistent lists of participant fees and that this information is made publicly available. State should also provide detailed criteria for assessing the sufficiency and appropriateness of participants' cultural opportunities. State agreed with GAO's recommendations.