United Nations
Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure Impact Gao ID: GAO-04-339 February 13, 2004The U.N. Secretary General launched two reform agendas, in 1997 and 2002, to address the U.N.'s core management challenges--poor leadership of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs, and the lack of accountability for staff performance. In 2000, GAO reported that the Secretary General had reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure, but that the reforms were not yet complete. As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States has a strong interest in the completion of these reforms. GAO was asked to assess the (1) overall status of the 1997 and 2002 reforms, (2) implementation of reforms in four key areas, and (3) potential challenges to reform.
As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda were in place. In general, reforms under the Secretary General's authority were progressing more quickly than those requiring member states' approval. Since 1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms to provide more unified leadership and coordination across departments and offices. However, the Secretariat has implemented other reforms, such as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, that are only the first step in achieving the Secretary General's overall goals. Reforms in four key areas of U.N. operations are in various stages. First, the Secretariat has taken positive steps to strengthen its human capital management, but reforms in this area are ongoing and additional challenges remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to adopt results-oriented budgeting, but its monitoring and evaluation system does not measure program impact. Third, although the Secretariat reorganized its public information department, reforms of library management and publications are not fully in place. Fourth, the Secretariat's human rights office implemented the majority of its management reforms but does not have the authority to implement reforms outside the Secretariat. U.N. reform faces several challenges. For example, the Secretariat does not conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of U.N. reforms. In addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated priorities, interim goals, and target dates for overall completion. Other challenges include resistance to change from program managers and possible resource constraints.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-339, United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure Impact
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-339
entitled 'United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact' which was released on February
13, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2004:
United Nations:
Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure
Impact:
GAO-04-339:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-339, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.N. Secretary General launched two reform agendas, in 1997 and
2002, to address the U.N.‘s core management challenges”poor leadership
of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs,
and the lack of accountability for staff performance. In 2000, GAO
reported that the Secretary General had reorganized the Secretariat‘s
leadership and structure, but that the reforms were not yet complete.
As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United
States has a strong interest in the completion of these reforms.
GAO was asked to assess the (1) overall status of the 1997 and 2002
reforms, (2) implementation of reforms in four key areas, and (3)
potential challenges to reform.
What GAO Found:
As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the
1997 agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda
were in place. In general, reforms under the Secretary General‘s
authority were progressing more quickly than those requiring member
states‘ approval. Since 1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms
to provide more unified leadership and coordination across departments
and offices. However, the Secretariat has implemented other reforms,
such as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, that
are only the first step in achieving the Secretary General‘s overall
goals.
Reforms in four key areas of U.N. operations are in various stages.
First, the Secretariat has taken positive steps to strengthen its
human capital management, but reforms in this area are ongoing and
additional challenges remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to adopt
results-oriented budgeting, but its monitoring and evaluation system
does not measure program impact. Third, although the Secretariat
reorganized its public information department, reforms of library
management and publications are not fully in place. Fourth, the
Secretariat‘s human rights office implemented the majority of its
management reforms but does not have the authority to implement
reforms outside the Secretariat.
U.N. reform faces several challenges. For example, the Secretariat
does not conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of
U.N. reforms. In addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated
priorities, interim goals, and target dates for overall completion.
Other challenges include resistance to change from program managers
and possible resource constraints.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the Permanent
Representative of the United States to the United Nations work with
other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1) report
regularly on the status and impact of reforms; (2) identify short- and
long-term goals and establish target end dates for remaining reforms;
and (3) conduct assessments of the resulting resource implications.
We received comments from the Department of State and the United
Nations, both of which generally agreed with our conclusions and
recommendations.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, but
Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms:
Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, but
Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear:
Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations:
Tables:
Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status:
Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the
Status of Their Implementation:
Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and
the Status of Their Implementation:
Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation:
Figures:
Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present:
Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms:
Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms:
Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform:
Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying
Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005:
Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets:
Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends:
Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program:
Abbreviations:
DPI: Department of Public Information:
ECOSOC: Economic and Social Council:
IASC: Inter-Agency Standing Committee:
JIU: Joint Inspection Unit:
OHCHR: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:
OHRM: Office of Human Resources Management:
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services:
OPPBA: Office of Program Planning, Budget, and Accounts:
UNCTAD: U.N. Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP: U.N. Development Program
UNFPA: U.N. Population Fund
UNICEF: U.N. Children's Fund:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 13, 2004:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Michael Enzi:
United States Senate:
The United Nations' regular budget for the 2004-2005 biennium exceeds
$3 billion for the first time. U.N. officials, including the Secretary
General, have stated that additional funding will be needed to upgrade
U.N. security worldwide and expand current programs in Iraq. In light
of these increasing demands, the Secretary General and member states
have called on the Secretariat to better define priorities and
eliminate outdated activities. These calls have also highlighted the
need for more accountable leadership and improvements in key management
practices. In 1997, the Secretary General launched a major reform
initiative to restructure U.N. leadership and operations, develop a
results-oriented human capital system, and introduce a performance-
based programming and budgeting process. In May 2000,[Footnote 1] we
reported that, while the Secretary General had substantially
reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure, he had not yet
completed reforms in human capital management and planning and
budgeting. To encourage the full implementation of the 1997 reforms and
highlight reforms in public information activities and the human rights
program, the Secretary General launched a second round of reforms in
September 2002.
As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations,[Footnote 2]
the United States has a strong interest in the completion of these
reforms. In response to your request, we assessed (1) the overall
status of the U.N. reforms proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary
General; (2) the Secretariat's efforts to implement specific reforms in
four key areas:[Footnote 3] human capital management, performance-
oriented budgeting,[Footnote 4] public information activities, and the
human rights program; and (3) overall challenges facing the
implementation of U.N. reforms.
To address these issues, we reviewed the Secretary General's 1997 and
2002 reform plans and interviewed senior officials from several
Secretariat departments in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. We
met with officials from the Offices of the Deputy Secretary General,
the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Departments of
Management and Public Information, and the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. In addition, we reviewed reports and bulletins of the
Secretariat, relevant U.N. resolutions, and related budget documents.
During the course of our review, we discussed the status of U.N.
reforms with officials from the Department of State in Washington,
D.C.; New York; and Geneva (see app. I for more information on our
scope and methodology).
Results in Brief:
The Secretary General launched two major reform initiatives, in 1997
and 2002, to address the U.N.'s core management challenges--poor
leadership of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and
programs, and the lack of accountability for staff performance. The
1997 reform plan consisted of initiatives that the Secretary General
could implement on his own authority and those that required the
approval of member states. As of December 2003, we found that, overall,
60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda were
in place. Of the 1997 reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70
percent of the reforms under his authority, while 44 percent of the
reforms requiring member state approval are in place. In addition, we
found that 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the 2002 reform
agenda--which did not differentiate between the Secretary General's and
member states' authority--are in place. Since 1997, the Secretariat has
implemented reforms to provide more unified leadership and coordination
across departments, programs, and offices. The Secretariat has also
implemented other reforms, such as developing a written plan or
establishing a new office, that are only the first steps in achieving
the Secretary General's goals. However, it is the completion of
additional efforts, such as providing staff and financial resources,
and creating performance goals, that will contribute to building an
effective department or office.
The United Nations is in various stages of implementing reforms in four
key areas--human capital management, performance-oriented budgeting,
public information activities, and the human rights program.
* Both U.N. officials and external observers have identified long-
standing weaknesses in the Secretariat's personnel--or human capital--
management, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire
staff, and the need to hold managers and staff more directly
accountable for their performance. In response to these concerns, the
Secretariat developed a reform strategy that included a new recruiting
and placement system, which decentralized hiring authority and,
according to U.N. sources, significantly reduced the average time to
hire staff. The Secretary General also introduced new accountability
mechanisms, including annual performance agreements for senior managers
and a new staff performance appraisal system. Further steps are needed,
however, to implement other human capital reforms. For example, U.N.
officials cited the need to develop a system to efficiently screen the
increased number of applications received through the online hiring
system.
* The United Nations recognized that it lacked a system to evaluate the
effectiveness of its activities and eliminate programs that were
obsolete and did not address immediate priorities. In response, it
began to adopt performance-oriented budgeting in December 2000. A
performance-oriented budgeting framework includes three key elements:
(1) a budget that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking
budgeted activities to performance expectations; (2) a system to
regularly monitor and evaluate the impact of programs; and (3)
procedures to shift resources to meet program objectives. The United
Nations has the first key element in place but does not systematically
monitor and evaluate program performance to determine the relevance of
programs so that it can eliminate obsolete programs and move resources
to priority programs. However, the Secretariat is implementing a
strategy to strengthen program monitoring and evaluation. The General
Assembly also adopted an initiative to strengthen the role of one of
its oversight committees responsible for program monitoring and
evaluation, but the General Assembly does not evaluate the
Secretariat's program results to reallocate resources to new
priorities.
* Several internal and external management reviews concluded that the
Secretariat should manage its public information activities--including
the U.N.'s worldwide information offices, libraries, and publications-
-in a more efficient, cost-effective manner. The 2002 reform agenda
called for the reorganization of the Department of Public Information,
both at headquarters and in the field, to reduce duplicative
activities, leverage cost-saving technology, and focus its staff on
achieving and measuring results. These reforms are substantially in
place. However, reforms to improve outdated library technology and
streamline the Secretariat's duplicative publications are only partly
in place. The success of the latter will depend on the willingness of
Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to identify unneeded
publications and discontinue duplicative mandated activities.
* Based on internal management reviews, the Secretary General called
for reforms of the Secretariat's human rights office to improve its
financial, human capital, and program management. Although we found
that these reforms are substantially in place, the Secretary General
does not have the authority to implement other human rights reforms
outside the Secretariat. For example, the Secretary General called for
improvements to the quality of reports submitted to the Commission on
Human Rights by individuals and groups that monitor and report on human
rights situations worldwide. In response, the Secretariat's human
rights office requested and received funding for additional staff to
assist these reporters. However, the Secretary General cannot implement
other proposed improvements, such as setting selection criteria for the
reporters or rating their performance in producing reports.
We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's
ability to meet the overall goals of the reforms. First, the
Secretariat does not conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the
status and impact of reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat
cannot determine if it is meeting the Secretary General's overall
reform goals or identify areas where further improvements are needed.
Second, the 2002 reform agenda did not differentiate between short-and
long-term goals. Setting implementation goals and a timeline is a key
practice for organizations engaged in change management
initiatives.[Footnote 5] Third, some managers have resisted
implementing certain reforms, but their support is critical for the
institutionalization of reforms in the long term. Fourth, several U.N.
officials we spoke with stated that reforms were delayed because
additional resources were not made available for their implementation.
The Secretary General stated that departments would need to implement
reforms within existing resources because additional funding would not
be available in the regular budget.
This report makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to
work with other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1)
report regularly on the status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms
and other reforms that may follow; (2) differentiate between short-and
long-term reform goals and establish expected time frames for
completion of those reforms that are not in place; and (3) conduct
assessments of the financial and personnel implications associated with
the implementation of the reforms.
We received written comments from the Department of State and the
United Nations, which we have reprinted in appendixes III and IV. Both
State and the United Nations generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations and commented on ongoing reform efforts.
Background:
The United Nations comprises (1) the Security Council, the General
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other governing bodies
of member states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for U.N.
programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary
General, which carries out a large part of the mandated work; and (3)
the funds and programs, such as the U.N. Development Program, which are
authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work.
Many funds and programs have their own governing bodies and budgets
(mainly paid for by voluntary contributions from participating
nations). The Secretary General's reform initiatives do not apply to
specialized agencies--such as the World Health Organization and the
Food and Agricultural Organization--and programs that have their own
governing bodies.
Calls to reform the United Nations began soon after its creation in
1945. Despite cycles of reform, U.N. member states have had concerns
about inefficient operations; problems of fragmentation, duplication,
and poor coordination; and the proliferation of mandates. As one of the
191 member states, the United States played a significant role in
promoting U.N. reform, calling for financial, administrative, and
programmatic changes. The State Department and the U.S. Mission to the
United Nations actively promoted these reforms such as establishing
inspector general's offices, many of which have been implemented. The
State Department continues to promote further reforms and reports on
the status of major reform initiatives to the U.S. Congress (see fig.
1).
In July 1997, the Secretary General proposed a broad reform program to
transform the United Nations into an efficient organization focused on
achieving results as it carried out its mandates. Although the
Secretary General does not have direct authority over specialized
agencies and many funds and programs, the reforms at the Secretariat
were intended to serve as a model for U.N.-wide reforms. In May 2000,
we reported that the Secretariat had substantially restructured its
leadership and operations and partly implemented a performance-oriented
human capital management system. However, performance-oriented
programming and budgeting proposals had not yet been adopted.
Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In September 2002, the Secretary General released a second set of
reform initiatives with 36 reform actions, some expanding on previous
reform initiatives introduced in 1997 and others reflecting new
priorities for the organization. The overall goal was to align U.N.
activities with the priorities defined by the Millennium
Declaration[Footnote 6] and the new security environment.
Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, but
Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms:
As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 1997 reforms and 38 percent of
the 2002 reforms were fully or substantially in place--or 51 percent
overall (see app. II for the status of U.N. reforms). The Secretary
General set a target date of 1999 for the implementation of reforms in
the 1997 agenda, which consisted of initiatives that he could implement
on his own authority and those that required member states' approval.
Of these reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of those
reforms under his authority, while 44 percent of reforms requiring
member states' approval were in place. However, the outputs of many
reforms, such as developing a written plan or establishing a new
office, are only the first step in achieving the Secretary General's
overall reform goals. Although many of these reforms are in place,
departments and offices in the Secretariat are still institutionalizing
these new plans to improve U.N. operations in the long term.
Secretariat Is Implementing Reforms, but Those Requiring Member State
Approval Take Longer to Implement:
Since our May 2000 report, the United Nations continued to implement
reforms from the Secretary General's 1997 reform agenda and began to
implement initiatives from the 2002 agenda (see fig. 2). We found that
60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda were in
place, compared with 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the
2002 agenda. Overall, 51 percent of reforms from the 1997 and 2002
agendas were in place. We identified a total of 154 reform initiatives
from the 1997 and 2002 reform agendas. This number differs from U.N.
figures because many of the Secretary General's reform action items had
several components that we identified and counted as separate
initiatives. To determine the implementation status of these reforms,
we interviewed senior U.N. officials and reviewed relevant reports,
bulletins, and resolutions. We then rated the reforms as:
* in place or substantially so--that is, the reform had been approved
and most key and minor elements were in place;
* partly in place--that is, the reform had been approved, and some key
elements, as well as some or most minor elements, were in place; or:
* not in place--that is, the reform had not been formally approved and
minor elements could be in place, but no key elements were in place
(see app. I for a more detailed description of our methodology).
Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The implementation of reforms under the Secretary General's authority
advanced faster than those under the authority of the member states. We
found that 70 percent of the 56 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform
agenda under his authority are fully or substantially in place,
compared with 44 percent of the 32 initiatives requiring member state
approval (see fig. 3). The 2002 agenda did not differentiate between
initiatives that the Secretary General could implement on his own
authority and those that required member states' approval.
Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In particular, the Secretariat made the most progress on the 1997
reforms to:
* restructure U.N. operations to provide more unified leadership and
coordination across departments, programs, and offices;
* institute a new human capital management system that sets
expectations and rates staff performance; and:
* adopt results-based budgeting.
However, the General Assembly did not adopt many reforms, such as those
to:
* further shorten the length and reduce the cost of its annual
meetings;
* focus the assembly's yearly debates on a few priority areas; and:
* institute time limits, or sunset provisions, for all new U.N.
programs.
Delays in acquiring member state approval are due, in part, to the
longer time needed for the General Assembly to reach agreement. To pass
resolutions in favor of most specific reforms, the General Assembly
generally requires a majority vote from the 191 member states.[Footnote
7] Although the Secretary General acknowledged that these reforms would
take longer to implement, he set the end of 1999 as the target date to
complete the 1997 reforms. However, we found that approximately 40
percent of these reforms are not fully in place.
Secretariat Will Need to Take Additional Steps to Achieve the Secretary
General's Overall Goals:
More than one-quarter of the Secretary General's completed reforms,
such as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, only
represent the first steps in achieving longer-term and more important
goals. The Secretariat's departments and offices must then use these
new plans and offices to improve U.N. operations for the long term. For
example, the Secretary General directed the Secretariat to develop a
plan to improve its information technology systems. We found that the
Secretariat implemented a plan to upgrade software programs, enhance
inter-office communication between headquarters and the field, and
train staff in the use of these new systems. However, member states
must continue to invest the necessary resources for the plan's
implementation to ensure that the technology does not become obsolete
and to have an impact on U.N. operations in the long term.
In addition, the Secretary General created several new offices as part
of his reform initiatives. These include a strategic planning office in
the Secretariat, an office to coordinate emergency humanitarian relief
programs, and an office in Vienna to manage the U.N.'s interrelated
programs to combat crime, drugs, and terrorism. Although the
establishment of any new office can be counted as a completed reform,
it is only the first step toward impacting the effectiveness of U.N.
operations and achieving the Secretary General's overall reform goals.
GAO has previously reported that building an effective department that
can meet overall objectives requires several components, including a
staff, financial resources, and performance goals to measure progress
toward objectives.[Footnote 8]
Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, but
Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear:
We found that the U.N. has implemented many reforms in four key areas:
(1) human capital management, (2) performance-oriented budgeting, (3)
public information activities, and (4) the human rights program.
Although numerous key initiatives are in place, other tasks are not yet
complete, such as strengthening the U.N.'s monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms to measure program impact and issuing additional guidelines
on the new worldwide staff rotation, or mobility, policy. Therefore,
the impact of these reforms on the effectiveness of U.N. operations is
unclear.
Positive Steps Taken to Strengthen Human Capital Management, but
Implementation of Reforms Is Ongoing and Additional Challenges Remain:
In response to human capital concerns raised by U.N. officials and
outside observers, including the extensive time required to recruit and
hire staff, the Secretariat developed a reform strategy to address the
key elements of human capital management. The strategy included the
implementation of a new recruitment and placement system that
decentralized hiring authority and, according to U.N. officials,
significantly reduced the average time to hire staff. Additional steps
are needed, however, to fully implement reforms and address remaining
challenges. For example, U.N. officials cited the need to develop a
system to efficiently screen the increased number of applications
received through the online hiring system.
Secretariat's Reform Strategy Addresses Key Elements of Strategic Human
Capital Management:
The Secretary General's reform strategy called for changes to the
Secretariat's human capital management to create a results-oriented
organizational culture supporting high performance, increased
training, and more effective management. The United Nations' human
capital management had long been criticized by U.N. officials and
external observers for the extensive time required for recruiting and
hiring, the need for increased accountability for performance, and
limited development and promotion opportunities. In his 1997 plan, the
Secretary General stated that human capital management has been
characterized by labor-intensive day-to-day staff administration and
cumbersome rules and processes. He further stated that these rules and
processes were seen as impeding program delivery and not maximizing
staff contributions. The reform initiatives also attempted to bring
human capital policies up to date with changes that had taken place
within the organization, such as the move from being primarily
headquarters-based to having an increasingly large field presence.
In 2000, the Secretariat expanded the reforms by developing a broader
human capital reform strategy. GAO has developed a human capital model
that highlights the steps that organizations can take in managing human
capital strategically. This model encompasses four human capital
cornerstones that, when taken together, embody an approach to human
capital management that is fact-based and focused on program results
and mission accomplishment. We found that the Secretariat's reform
strategy includes actions in the areas of GAO's four cornerstones of
strategic human capital management--leadership; strategic human
capital planning; acquiring, developing, and retaining talent; and
results-oriented organizational cultures (see fig. 4).[Footnote 9]
Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Leadership:
Leadership is defined as the demonstrated commitment of top leaders to
continuously improve human capital management and support efforts to
integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals. Soon
after taking office, the Secretary General developed the 1997 reform
plan for the Secretariat. He established a new leadership and
management structure and began overhauling human capital policies to
align the organization's human capital capacity with its mission and
structure. The Secretary General also established core organizational
values and competencies to develop a results-oriented culture and has
used this model to improve recruitment, staff development, and
performance management processes. The Secretary General's 2002 reform
plan further emphasized the need for human capital improvements,
including increased opportunities for staff mobility and expanded
career prospects for support staff.
The leadership cornerstone also emphasizes that human capital
professionals have an expanded role, beyond paperwork processing, to
become more integrated in the work of the organization. The
Secretariat's Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has begun to
take on additional responsibilities, including developing human capital
policies, monitoring compliance with these policies, and providing
guidance on human capital issues. In addition, OHRM has begun to
provide more automated services to employees. For example, the office
has streamlined human capital rules and procedures and has made the
Human Resources Handbook and personnel forms available online. U.N.
employees reported in a survey that the streamlining of rules and
procedures was the most successful human capital reform implemented
since 2000.
Strategic Human Capital Planning:
To improve strategic human capital planning, the second cornerstone,
the Secretariat is developing its workforce planning activities through
analysis of the demographic characteristics of Secretariat staff, while
departmental staffing goals are being integrated with the
organization's broader human capital objectives. The Secretariat's
departments and offices also are preparing action plans, which
incorporate human capital goals and indicators. OHRM holds planning
sessions with the head of each department to develop measurable targets
for achieving human capital goals, including targets for hiring staff
from unrepresented or underrepresented countries. OHRM monitors the
implementation of these action plans through semiannual reviews of the
departments' progress in meeting their goals.
The Secretariat also is making increased use of information technology
in implementing reforms. The electronic Human Resources Handbook, the
online hiring system, and the electronic performance appraisal system
are new technology tools that the Secretariat is using to manage human
capital. Historically, the Secretariat had unique job profiles for most
positions, but the new recruiting and placement system makes use of
generic job descriptions in advertising job openings. U.N. officials
stated that these generic job profiles have increased the accessibility
and transparency of the application and hiring process and have
facilitated staff's ability to move to positions in other departments
or offices.
Acquiring, Developing, and Retaining Talent:
To acquire, develop, and retain talent, the third cornerstone, the
Secretariat introduced a new recruitment and placement system in 2002
that entrusts program managers with the responsibility and
accountability for hiring decisions. U.N. officials stated that the new
hiring system has streamlined the hiring process, contributing to a
significant reduction in the average time to hire an employee. In
addition, an online tool allows individuals to submit their
applications through the Internet. U.N. officials stated that this tool
provides information on the status of applications and on management
indicators, such as the gender balance and geographic distribution of
applicants.
The Secretariat also increased the emphasis on training and developing
managers' skills. Although U.N. officials acknowledged that more
resources are needed for training, the organization is providing
mandatory people management training for supervisory staff. The
Secretariat also has implemented a career development policy based on
the newly developed core competencies for managers and staff. Under
this policy, managers must demonstrate support for their staff's
development and career progress. Finally, the Secretariat has
implemented new initiatives to improve the work environment for staff.
For example, employees now have more flexible work arrangements to
address their personnel needs.
Results-Oriented Organizational Cultures:
The key to developing results-oriented organizational cultures, the
fourth cornerstone, is to create a clear link between individual
performance and organizational success.[Footnote 10] To do this, the
Secretary General is holding senior managers accountable for
accomplishing human capital goals through the use of annual performance
agreements. On an annual basis, the Secretary General meets
individually with department heads to discuss human capital priorities
and goals for the upcoming year and to review indicators, such as the
percentage of women in staff and management positions and the
percentage of vacant positions. For these indicators, the managers'
departments are measured against the Secretariat's overall average and
their targets for the year. Program managers have been able to
electronically track these and other indicators daily using a new tool
developed by the Department of Management.
The Secretary General also implemented a new electronic performance
appraisal system, introduced in 2002. Rather than having performance
management take place once a year, the new system emphasizes regular
conversations and feedback between staff and supervisors related to
staff performance. Under the system, staff also are assessed against
newly developed organizationwide competencies. Examples of the
Secretariat's core staff competencies include communication, teamwork,
commitment to continuous learning, and technological awareness.
Managers also are assessed under additional competencies such as
leadership, empowering others, and building trust. In addition, the new
performance appraisal system links the individual's performance to
departmental or team goals and provides mechanisms for dealing with
poor performers. Staff that have not met performance expectations under
the appraisal system may have their salary increases withheld or could
face the termination of their employment contracts.
Secretariat Faces Challenges in Its Efforts to Achieve Its Human
Capital Reform Goals:
The Secretariat has made progress in implementing its reform agenda,
but it must address additional human capital challenges if it is to
meet the Secretary General's overall reform goals. Key challenges
include (1) delegating increased authority and accountability for
personnel actions to managers, (2) implementing the organization's
staff mobility policy, (3) developing a long-range workforce planning
capacity, and (4) screening the significant increase in applications
received through the new recruiting system. In addition, although the
Secretariat has an overall reform strategy in place, this strategy does
not include specific time frames to complete reform actions.
Establishing time frames at the outset provides a baseline for
assessing the Secretariat's progress in implementing reforms and
achieving its overall human capital reform goals.
First, U.N. officials we met with stated that OHRM has not gone far
enough in delegating authority for personnel decisions to program
managers, a component of the leadership cornerstone. For example, U.N.
officials stated that offices and programs working on humanitarian or
development assistance often needed to hire staff quickly during crisis
situations around the world. However, according to these officials,
U.N. rules and procedures have been a barrier to the hiring process.
These officials pointed out that the delegated hiring authority is only
for employees under regular budget positions[Footnote 11] on longer-
term contracts. Field-based programs and offices often hire staff under
short-term contracts. U.N. officials stated that the authority to hire
these staff has not been decentralized. In his 2002 reform plan, the
Secretary General also acknowledged the need to further delegate
responsibilities to managers.
Second, one of the Secretary General's major reform initiatives was the
implementation of a staff mobility policy intended to facilitate the
movement of staff within and between offices and duty stations. The
policy establishes time limits of either 5 or 6 years for staff to
occupy a position, depending on the staff's grade level. Although the
human capital office is developing incentives for staff to move to
hardship duty stations, U.N. officials have identified key challenges
that may impede the successful implementation of the mobility policy
when the requirements go into effect in 2007. U.N. staff, for example,
are employed under different types of contracts, some of which place
restrictions on the duration of employment and the type of work an
employee can undertake. U.N. officials stated that the differences in
employment contracts would make it difficult to move staff to certain
positions or locations. Another barrier to staff mobility is spousal
employment. Some countries place visa and work permit restrictions on
hiring U.N. employees' spouses. The Secretary General has begun to
negotiate with countries to ease the restrictions on the employment of
U.N. spouses.
A related challenge is the need for further improvements in strategic
workforce planning, linked to strategic goals and objectives. Long-
range workforce planning will enable the organization to remain aware
of and be prepared for its current and future needs as an organization.
The Secretary General has recognized the need for building this
capacity, emphasizing the need for more systematic succession planning
to account for the expected increase in retirement of U.N. staff.
Ultimately, the success of an organization's workforce planning process
can be judged by its results--how well it helps the agency attain its
mission and strategic goals.[Footnote 12] We have reported that other
countries' succession planning and management initiatives have
addressed specific human capital challenges, such as retention and the
identification of staff with critical skills.[Footnote 13]
Finally, U.N. officials stated that the Secretariat's new recruiting
and placement system has made screening the increased number of
incoming applications a challenge. These officials stated that the
organization now receives an average of approximately 1,000
applications for each vacancy announcement, compared with a previous
average of about 100 applications per opening. U.N. officials have
recognized that it will be a challenge to develop an electronic
mechanism to effectively and accurately screen the growing numbers of
applications received.
Performance-Oriented Budgeting Is Being Adopted, but Monitoring and
Evaluation System Does Not Measure Program Impact and Results:
The United Nations has begun to adopt performance-oriented budgeting,
but it lacks an adequate monitoring and evaluation system to measure
program performance and results. GAO has reported that a performance-
oriented budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget
that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted
activities to performance expectations; (2) a monitoring and evaluation
system; and (3) procedures for shifting resources to meet program
objectives.[Footnote 14] In December 2000, the United Nations adopted a
results-based structure for its budgets. We found that this format at
the United Nations has resulted in clearer linkages between program
activities and expected results, but some performance indicators lack
clear measures to assess results. We also found that existing U.N.
monitoring and evaluation activities do not systematically measure
program performance and impact. Consequently, the Secretariat has
developed and is implementing a strategy to improve performance
monitoring and evaluation. In December 2003, the General Assembly also
adopted an initiative to strengthen the role of one of its oversight
committees responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs, but the
General Assembly does not evaluate the Secretariat's program results to
reallocate resources to new priorities.
U.N. Budget Reflects New Results-Based Focus, but Some Performance
Indicators Do Not Measure Results:
The Secretariat has implemented the first key element of the U.N.'s
performance-oriented budgeting framework by adopting a budget that
reflects a results-based budgeting format, which involves specifying
program costs, objectives, expected results, and specific performance
indicators to measure the results. GAO previously reported that linking
funding to specific performance goals is a critical first step in
supporting the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable
organization.[Footnote 15] Expected results and performance indicators
are intended to allow the Secretariat to track the progress its
programs make to meet objectives. By approving the budget, the General
Assembly can hold the Secretariat accountable for meeting expected
results.
The Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts, which prepares and
reviews the Secretariat's budget, issued guidelines and provided
training sessions to assist program managers and other staff in
preparing budget proposals in a results-based format. This office also
created a Web site, which is updated regularly, to post information on
best practices and lessons learned. The Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions[Footnote 16] noted an
improvement in the clarity and detail of expected results and
performance indicators between the 2002-2003 biennium budget, which was
the first submitted in a results-based format, and the 2004-2005
budget.[Footnote 17] Figure 5 compares the 2002-2003 performance
indicators for the deployment of peacekeeping police units with those
developed for the 2004-2005 budget. For the first time, the 2004-2005
budget includes specific performance targets and baseline data for many
performance indicators that can help measure performance over time and
could allow program managers to compare actual achievements to expected
results. For example, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations plans
to use baseline data at the end of the budget period to determine
whether it will be able to deploy police units for peacekeeping
operations more quickly.
Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying
Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
However, oversight committees[Footnote 18] also reported that some
programs still lack clear and concise expected outcomes and performance
indicators. For example, the Secretariat established an indicator to
measure increased coordination among U.N. agencies and programs, the
Bretton Woods institutions, and the World Trade Organization, and
called for "closer collaboration" to improve the delivery of economic
assistance and development projects. The associated performance target
consists of the estimated number of meetings among these institutions,
but does not describe what these meetings are to accomplish or how they
will improve coordination. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions reported that it cannot determine the impact of
these activities, which would cost close to $10 million in the 2004-
2005 budget period. It recommended that indicators, such as "closer
collaboration" or "full utilization of resources," should be replaced
with more specific and concrete measurements. The vagueness of some of
these indicators, however, stems from the fact that baseline
information has not been collected or is missing due to inconsistent
monitoring of program activities, according to officials from the
Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts.
Secretariat's Monitoring and Evaluation Inadequate to Measure Program
Impact, but Strategy Developed to Strengthen System:
The Secretariat does not systematically monitor and evaluate program
impact or resultsæthe second key element of performance-oriented
budgeting. U.N. regulations require that programs should be regularly
monitored and evaluated to determine their relevance, effectiveness,
and impact in relation to their objectives.[Footnote 19] Program
managers are responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs to
assess their impact and to determine the extent to which changes are
needed to meet expected results. However, in 2002, the Office of
Internal Oversight Services[Footnote 20] (OIOS) found that program
managers and department and office heads were not complying with U.N.
regulations. For example, both OIOS and oversight committees reported
in 2002 that nearly half of program managers were not regularly
monitoring and evaluating program performance. In addition, program
managers were not held directly accountable for meeting program
objectives because U.N. regulations prevent linking program
effectiveness and impact with program managers' performance. U.N.
officials told us that a more mature program monitoring and evaluation
system is needed before program managers can be held responsible for
program performance.
We found that there were a variety of problems related to the
Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation of program results and impact.
Most programs do not have comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plans
and, in many cases, no systematic management review of evaluations. For
example, department heads and program managers did not directly review
the results of evaluation activities, consistent with U.N. guidance, in
13 out of 25 programs surveyed in 2001.[Footnote 21] OIOS reported
that, overall, evaluation findings were not used to improve program
performance. In some cases, such as with the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, monitoring and evaluation
responsibilities were assigned to low-level staff with minimal
oversight from program managers. Further, adequate levels of staff time
and other resources needed to conduct evaluations have never been
assessed and programs were not regularly monitored and evaluated,
according to the U.N.'s oversight office. For example, all U.N.
programs supporting the economic and social development of Asia and the
Pacific, which cost approximately $25 million for the biennium, were
not evaluated in 2000 and 2001. Lastly, for the majority of programs,
no resources have been specifically allocated for activities related to
monitoring and evaluation.
To address these weaknesses, the Secretary General tasked the
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Consulting Division of OIOS to develop a
strategy to systematically monitor and evaluate program results and to
introduce information systems needed to implement results-based
budgeting. The division began to implement its strategy in 2002 and
expects to have a complete system by 2006. As part of its strategy,
OIOS introduced an Internet-based system that allows program managers
to prepare periodic assessments of program impact against stated
objectives. Program managers are required to submit performance
assessments after 12 and 18 months, and at the end of the budget
period. OIOS officials stated that this would allow them to adjust the
direction of their program to meet objectives before the end of the
budget cycle. In addition, OIOS is updating its guidelines on
monitoring and evaluation, which describe new data collection methods,
such as online surveys, to monitor results and evaluation methods to
report on results.
General Assembly Lacks System to Evaluate Program Results to Shift
Resources to New Priorities:
We found that the final component of performance-oriented budgeting--
procedures to review evaluation results, eliminate obsolete programs,
and move resources to new priority programs--is not in place. The
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reported
in 2003 that it did not receive systematic information from the
Secretariat on program impact and effectiveness to determine whether a
program was meeting its expected results. The Secretariat's strategy to
improve program monitoring and evaluation is part of an effort to
provide the General Assembly with better program assessments. However,
in 2003, the Secretary General reported that the General Assembly's
oversight system was ill-suited to review the Secretariat's evaluation
results and to determine how best to distribute resources.
In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General proposed redefining
the roles of U.N. oversight committees to focus on reviewing program
results. In December 2003, the General Assembly passed a resolution
changing the role of the Committee for Program and Coordination, the
first step toward shifting the focus of oversight responsibility to
assessing program impact. The committee now focuses exclusively on
reviewing activities planned to meet program objectives and no longer
reviews budgeting information. Although several committees review the
U.N.'s planning and budgeting documents for the next biennium period,
these committees do not systematically review programs to assess the
impact of previous activities and determine the appropriate level of
funding (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to the Joint Inspection Unit,[Footnote 22] the planning and
budgeting review process was duplicative and redundant. In addition,
the costs of preparing and printing documents, servicing close to 300
meetings, and staff time for this review have exceeded $20 million a
biennium, with little emphasis placed on evaluating program
performance. To shift the focus to evaluating results, the General
Assembly in December 2003 required the Committee for Program and
Coordination to submit a proposal on ways to improve its ability to
monitor and evaluate program impact. The Secretary General recommended
that the committee assess the results achieved at the end of the budget
period and establish priorities to guide the allocation of resources.
This would support performance-oriented budgeting, according to Joint
Inspection Unit officials.
In August 2003, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions concluded that the General Assembly could not eliminate
programs and shift resources until it received evaluations that
addressed program impact. Performance information is necessary for
decision-making bodies to determine whether programs are meeting their
stated objectives.[Footnote 23] Program performance reports provided to
member states focused on outputs (such as the number of staff
recruited, reports issued, meetings held, or computers purchased),
instead of measuring program impact. To address this concern, OIOS
changed the format of the performance report, which now requires
program managers to link resources to program activities and to use
performance indicators to measure program impact. The program
performance report for the 2002-2003 biennium, which will be submitted
by March 2004, will be the first prepared using the new format.
In December 2003, the General Assembly approved the elimination of 912
outputs in the 2004-2005 program budget based on the Secretariat's
review of program activities and more than 50,000 outputs. In addition,
as a result of this review, the General Assembly has shifted resources
from these activities--deemed obsolete and inefficient by the
Secretariat--to more immediate U.N. priorities. In 2003, the Advisory
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Committee
for Program and Coordination recommended that program managers in the
Secretariat continue to identify obsolete outputs in U.N. budgets in
compliance with U.N. regulations. The committees also reported that
many sections in the budget lacked justifications for continuing
certain outputs.
Majority of Reforms of U.N. Public Information Activities Still in
Early Phases:
We found that the Secretariat had implemented some reforms related to
U.N. public information activities, but most were still in the early
phases. With a biennium budget of approximately $156 million, the
Department of Public Information undertakes news coverage of U.N.
events through radio, video, and the Internet in six official
languages; manages the U.N. Web site; manages its overseas branch
offices;[Footnote 24] and oversees the Dag Hammarskjold library and
coordinates with depository libraries worldwide.[Footnote 25]
Following a series of management reviews of U.N. public information
activities, the Secretary General restructured the department to
improve its ability to develop coherent, cost-effective communications
strategies to promote the U.N.'s priorities. In addition, the Secretary
General consolidated department branch offices in Western Europe into a
regional branch office in Brussels, Belgium. However, we found that
reforms of other public information activities are not yet in place.
For example, reforms related to the Department of Public Information's
program monitoring and evaluation and library management, as well as
the Secretariat's publications oversight, are still in the early stages
of implementation and have had a limited effect on the effectiveness of
public information activities, according to U.N. officials.
Reorganization of Headquarters and Branch Offices Substantially in
Place:
Since 1948, internal oversight bodies and external groups have
conducted at least seven periodic management reviews of public
information policies and activities. However, these reviews resulted in
few changes to the Department of Public Information's operations.
Member states continued to criticize the department, claiming that it
did not adequately assess the impact of its activities. In his 2002
reform agenda, the Secretary General highlighted that fact that the
department suffered from fragmented programs because of too many
mandates and missions.
To better align the Department of Public Information's structure with
its mandated activities, highlight priorities, and reduce
fragmentation, the Secretary General reorganized the department into
three divisions in November 2002: (1) the Outreach Division, which
focuses on relationships with civil society, including outreach to
educational institutions, and manages the Dag Hammarskjold Library in
New York; (2) the News and Media Division, which aims to expand the
United Nations' access to media organizations worldwide; and (3) the
Strategic Communications Division, which develops the U.N's
communications strategies in partnership with the Secretariat's
departments and manages the network of overseas branch offices. Within
this third division, the department created focal points that work
across the Secretariat's departments in priority areas--including
development, peace and security, Africa, human rights, Palestine, and
decolonization--to identify communications strategies and reduce
duplicative programs. In its spring 2003 session, delegates to the
Committee on Information[Footnote 26] commented that the department's
new structure should help focus the department's activities and
maximize the use of its resources.
To improve the cost efficiency of the department's field operations,
the Secretary General proposed changes to the structure of public
information branch offices. Branch offices in developed countries--
including the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union-
-accounted for 40 percent of all branch office expenditures, as of
September 2002. Therefore, the Department of Public Information was
devoting a large amount of funding to information activities in
countries where available technology permitted greater online access to
its services in the field. In 2003, internal auditors concluded that
the department should evaluate these offices and consider options such
as consolidation, regionalization, or closure. Based in part on these
findings, the Secretary General created a regional branch office in
Brussels in January 2004 and consolidated offices in nine European
Union countries as part of his 2002 reform agenda.[Footnote 27] At its
spring 2004 session, the Committee on Information will review a
progress report on the implementation of the regionalization proposal
to determine the feasibility of applying the initiative in other
regions.
Additional Reforms of Public Information Activities Are Partly in
Place:
The Secretariat has begun implementing additional reforms of other
public information activities, but we found that these initiatives are
only partly in place. The Secretary General stated that the department
had historically devoted minimal attention to assessing the impact of
its activities and that a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of its
activities had never been conducted. Therefore, in 2003, the Department
of Public Information and internal auditors began a 3-year joint
process to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the department's
activities through an annual review process.[Footnote 28] As part of
its efforts to promote monitoring and evaluation, the department
provides ongoing training for staff in results-based management within
existing resources--a challenge, according to public information
officials. Although these activities are still under way, an official
from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that the department
had taken positive steps to implement reforms to improve its monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms.
Reforms of U.N. libraries are also in the early phases. The United
Nations has library collections in each of its headquarters offices and
regional commissions, as well as libraries in many of the 62 branch
offices and other depositories worldwide. The Secretary General
reported in 2002 that the public information department needed to
centralize library policy management and increase its use of technology
in providing library services. In response, it established a steering
committee in March 2003 to oversee the implementation of reforms, such
as increasing the use of online archival systems for library
collections and expanding information sharing among libraries to reduce
duplication. The department plans to report to the Committee on
Information in 2004 on its progress in implementing these reforms.
Lastly, the implementation of reforms of publications activities is
still under way. The Secretary General directed all departments to
identify outdated or duplicative publications from more than 1,200
produced annually. We reported in 2000 that a review of U.N.
publications in the economic and social affairs area found considerable
redundancy and overlap.[Footnote 29] Publications activities are also
extremely costly. For example, the U.N. Chronicle--a publication for
teachers and students of world affairs--produced by the public
information department--costs more than $1 million annually to publish.
In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General called for a review of
the feasibility and cost of increasing online publications delivery, as
opposed to printing certain publications. This review is not yet
complete. To improve publications oversight, the relevant executive
committees[Footnote 30] must approve all new publications proposed by
the Secretariat pursuant to the 2002 reform plan. Overall, officials
stated that the implementation of publications reform will depend on
the willingness of Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to
identify unneeded publications and discontinue duplicative mandates. On
a positive note, in December 2003, the General Assembly approved the
Secretary General's 2004-2005 budget proposal calling for the
discontinuation of 192 publications and reports.
Reforms of the U.N. Human Rights Program Outside the Secretariat's
Authority Are Incomplete:
In recent years, management of the Secretariat's human rights office
has been complicated by several factors, such as weak financial and
program management and a heavy reliance on voluntary funding to
administer core activities. In addition to technical assistance,
training, publications, and human rights advocacy, the office provides
support to other parts of the human rights program outside the
Secretariat, such as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We found that
the office has implemented reforms to address its management
deficiencies. In addition, we found that the human rights office has
implemented reforms to improve its support to the actors outside the
Secretariat, including requesting funding for additional staff.
However, the Secretary General only has authority over the management
of the Secretariat's human rights office and cannot implement reforms
across the entire U.N. human rights program, according to human rights
officials.
Management of the U.N. Human Rights Program Is Complicated by Several
Factors:
Several factors affect the management of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights--the Secretariat's human rights office.
For example, in 2002, OIOS concluded that the human rights office had
poor financial controls and human capital management, as well as weak
internal oversight procedures. According to a senior human rights
official, for example, the office did not accurately track its unused
voluntary funding in the past.[Footnote 31] According to the human
rights office, this problem has been rectified and the office is
tracking voluntary funding levels. In addition, the office relies
heavily on voluntary funding to administer its core activities. Regular
budget funding accounted for about 38 percent, or $24.2 million, of the
office's activities in 2002, whereas voluntary contributions accounted
for about 62 percent, or $40 million (see fig. 6 for funding trends for
the human rights office). Human rights officials stated that the heavy
reliance on voluntary funding poses management challenges, including
the resulting uncertainty of funding for future projects and low morale
among staff unsure about job security.
Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 8, the human rights office also provides
administrative, technical, and substantive support to parts of the
human rights program outside the Secretariat, including:
* the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is a functional commission
of the Economic and Social Council that meets annually to discuss human
rights issues and standards and governments' adherence to them;
* independent reporters and working groups, appointed by the commission
to examine, monitor, and publicly report on human rights situations in
specific countries or territories or on major human rights themes--
there are reporters who focus on the right to education and on the
situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo;[Footnote 32] and:
* independent committees, established by international human rights
treaties, comprising independent experts that monitor governments'
compliance with treaty obligations.[Footnote 33]
Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The workload generated by these independent groups affects the human
rights office's management. For example, the office provides
administrative support, such as report processing, to the monitoring
committees and national governments to ensure compliance with treaty
reporting requirements. As the number of signatories increases, the
Secretariat's administrative burden increases. In addition, the
Secretary General reported in 2002 that the more than 40 human rights
reporters and working groups pose a management burden for the human
rights office because they have grown in recent years in an ad hoc
fashion and without clear rules for their responsibilities. The
fragmentation and lack of clear working guidelines complicated the
office's support to these individuals and groups in the preparation of
reports to the commission. As an independent body, the Commission on
Human Rights appoints new human rights reporters. However, OIOS
reported that the General Assembly has not provided commensurate
additional regular budget funding to the human rights office for their
support. As a result, the office has increasingly resorted to using
voluntary funding to recruit additional staff to fulfill its
responsibilities to the commission and monitoring committees.
Secretary General Does Not Have Authority to Implement Reforms of Human
Rights Activities outside Secretariat:
The Secretary General's reform agendas called for the Secretariat's
human rights office to develop a strategy to strengthen its financial
and human capital management and internal oversight procedures, among
other things. We found that the office has developed and is
implementing this strategy. For example, it established both the
senior-level Management Board and Project Review Committee, in 1997 and
1998, respectively, to monitor the planning, budgeting, and
implementation of the office's programs and to identify outdated or
nonpriority activities. The human rights office reported that it
strengthened its program oversight and planning throughout 2003.
Officials stated that the 2004 annual appeal, for example, presented a
more strategic work plan than in prior years, which resulted in a 12
percent decline in voluntary funding requirements for the 2004 annual
appeal, from $62.5 million in 2003 to $54.8 million in 2004. In
addition, the office established the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues
in March 1999 to evaluate the office's use of temporary staff and staff
funded with voluntary resources and ensure the equitable geographic
distribution of staff from member states. It also restructured its
three main branches to reduce duplicative activities and leverage its
personnel and financial resources.
We found that the human rights office has also implemented reforms that
indirectly address areas of the U.N. human rights program outside the
Secretary General's authority. For example, to help improve the quality
of human rights reports, the office developed an induction kit for
human rights reporters and working groups. The kit is updated regularly
and used to brief new reporters on their rules and procedures. In
addition, the office is working to keep them informed about the latest
General Assembly resolutions that may affect reporting procedures, such
as page limits and submission deadlines. In December 2003, the General
Assembly also approved the Secretary General's request for funding in
the 2004-2005 budget for additional staff to improve the office's
ability to respond to increasing demands from the Commission on Human
Rights and its human rights reporters and working groups.
Nevertheless, the implementation of the Secretary General's proposals
is incomplete because he does not have authority over human rights
activities outside the Secretariat's human rights office. For example,
because the majority of human rights reporters are selected by the
chair of the Commission on Human Rights, the Secretariat's human rights
office could only recommend that the commission consider developing
criteria for their selection. Moreover, only the commission can
determine standard entrance criteria for its reporters and working
groups. Thus, any reform related to the human rights reporters is
dependent upon the support of commission members. In addition, in his
September 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General stated that
governments should be allowed to submit a single report to the
monitoring committees summarizing their adherence to human rights
treaty obligations. Given his lack of authority over the monitoring
committees, the Secretary General requested that the human rights
office consult with the committees on methods of streamlining the
governments' various treaty-reporting requirements. The monitoring
committees, however, resisted the concept of a single report, according
to the human rights office. The proposal resulting from these
consultations instead calls for an expanded core report containing
standard information pertinent to all of the monitoring committees,
with separate, more detailed reports going to individual committees.
Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms:
We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's
ability to meet the overall reform goals: (1) the Secretariat does not
conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of
reforms; (2) the Secretary General did not differentiate between short-
and long-term goals in the 2002 reform plan; (3) resistance from
managers and staff has slowed the implementation of reforms; and (4)
potential financial and personnel resource implications are associated
with some reforms.
First, we found that the Secretariat does not conduct systematic,
comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of the Secretary
General's reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat is not
able to determine where further improvements are needed. In 1998 and
2003, the Secretary General issued reports on the status of the 1997
and 2002 reforms, respectively. These reports, however, did not include
a comprehensive impact assessment.[Footnote 34] We found that
individual departments and offices within the Secretariat oversee
specific reforms within their area of work; for example, the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights oversees the implementation of
reforms of the U.N. human rights program. However, the Deputy Secretary
General, who is responsible for overseeing the overall reform process,
has only one full-time professional staff member dedicated to this
effort. The Steering Committee on Reform and Management--comprising
department heads within the Secretariat and chaired by the Deputy
Secretary General--also tracks key reform issues and policy
implementation. However, the Deputy Secretary General's office neither
systematically assesses departments' performance in implementing
reforms nor holds managers directly accountable. Furthermore, OIOS only
monitors and evaluates the impact of select reforms and is not
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the overall reform
agendas.
Second, the Secretary General has not differentiated between short-and
long-term goals in his 2002 reform plan, and he has not consistently
established time frames or milestones for their completion. GAO has
identified the setting of implementation goals and a timeline to build
momentum and show progress as key practices for organizations
undertaking change management initiatives. We found that a few reforms
required departments and offices to conduct evaluations and report
their findings to the Secretary General by a certain date, but many
reforms did not specify time frames for completing these actions. For
example, the Secretary General called for the Department of Public
Information and OIOS to complete an evaluation of the impact and cost
effectiveness of the department's activities within a three-year period
(which started in 2003). However, when the Secretary General called for
a review of the feasibility and cost of increasing the Secretariat's
delivery of online versus printed publications, he did not specify a
deadline. Without prioritizing efforts and establishing deadlines, it
is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing the reforms.
Third, according to budget and human capital officials, some program
managers and staff have resisted implementing certain reform
initiatives. Human capital officials stated that program managers, for
example, have raised concerns about the staff mobility policy because
they fear losing expertise when staff rotate to new positions. In
addition, OIOS reported that about half of program managers across the
Secretariat have not complied with U.N. regulations to monitor and
evaluate the performance of program activities. The Secretariat lacks
clear rules and procedures for conducting regular monitoring and
evaluation exercises, according to OIOS officials. Some managers also
stated that they lacked resources to support this work and were
concerned that these evaluation requirements would detract time and
money from their regular work responsibilities. Consequently, the
Secretariat is providing training to all departments to assist managers
and staff in conducting self-monitoring and evaluation exercises to
comply with performance-oriented budgeting and overcome resistance.
Managers' support is critical for the institutionalization of reforms
in the long term.
Fourth, U.N. officials stated that they have encountered delays in
implementing reforms due to a lack of available regular budget
resources. For example, public information officials stated that their
department did not have a specific budget for new monitoring and
evaluation activities--a key aspect of public information reform. In
addition, human capital officials stated that they developed the online
recruiting and hiring system after receiving resources from another
department in the Secretariat. The Secretary General stated that
departments would need to implement reforms within existing resources
because additional funding would not be available in the regular
budget. He also stated that program managers should streamline
operations and eliminate obsolete activities to make resources
available to implement reforms. According to U.N. officials, the
Secretariat did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the
personnel and budgetary implications during the development of his 2002
reform agenda. Rather, departments have conducted resource assessments
for individual reforms on a case-by-case basis as a part of the budget
process.
Conclusion:
In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary General proposed sweeping reforms of
the United Nations in response to recurring calls to improve its
efficiency and effectiveness in spending member states' contributions.
Many reforms have been completed since our 2000 report, including key
measures to improve human capital management, focus the United Nations
on results-based management, and strengthen the management of the human
rights program. However, the United Nations faces many challenges to
completing reforms, including potential resource constraints.
Moreover, the Office of the Deputy Secretary General does not
periodically and comprehensively assess the impact of reforms on the
effectiveness of U.N. operations. Given that the Secretary General does
not provide regular, comprehensive reports on the overall status and
impact of reforms, it is difficult to hold staff accountable for
implementing these reforms and their impact is unclear. In addition,
the 2002 reform agenda did not specify short-and long-term goals or
establish expected time frames for their completion--practices that
increase the transparency and accountability of the reform process.
Adopting key practices in management, oversight, and accountability for
reforms, such as systematic monitoring and evaluation, could facilitate
the achievement of the Secretary General's overall reform goals. As the
U.N.'s largest financial contributor and a proponent of reform, the
United States would also benefit from the adoption of these practices.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To promote full implementation and accountability of the Secretary
General's overall reform actions, we recommend that the Secretary of
State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the
United Nations work with other member states to encourage the Secretary
General to:
* report regularly through an existing U.N. reporting mechanism on the
status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and other reforms that
may follow;
* differentiate between short-and long-term reform goals and establish
time frames for completion for those reforms that are not in place;
and:
* conduct assessments of the financial and personnel implications
needed to implement the reforms.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of State and the United Nations provided written
comments on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV). State agreed
with our recommendations, stating that it will continue to encourage
the full implementation of all reform initiatives at the United
Nations. In particular, State noted several efforts it is pursuing
through the General Assembly, including further reforms related to
human capital management and the Department of Public Information,
among others. Moreover, State agreed with our conclusion that many
reforms from the 1997 and 2002 agendas are first steps in achieving the
Secretary General's overall reform goals. State also said that the
report provides a comprehensive analysis of the status of U.N. reforms
and the challenges affecting their implementation. State noted that our
report did not contain an in-depth analysis of reforms of the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations--a point that we acknowledge in
our scope and methodology (see app. I). In addition, State provided
technical comments on our draft report, which were incorporated into
the text, where appropriate.
The United Nations also provided written comments on a draft of this
report. Although we did not make recommendations directly to the United
Nations, it generally agreed with the report's findings. In particular,
the United Nations acknowledged that the implementation of certain
reforms is proceeding more slowly than others. The United Nations also
provided observations regarding its efforts to implement its ambitious
reform agenda. In addition, the United Nations provided technical
comments, which were incorporated into the text where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
Congress. We are also providing copies of this report to the Secretary
of State, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the
United Nations, and the United Nations. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov, or Phyllis Anderson
at (202) 512-7364 or andersonp@gao.gov. In addition to the persons
named above, Jeremy Latimer, Leland Cogliani, Lynn Cothern, Martin de
Alteriis, Kathryn Hartsburg, and Monica Wolford made key contributions
to this report.
Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
Signed by Joseph A. Christoff:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations and Committee member Michael Enzi, we examined the status of
U.N. reform activities to follow up on GAO's 2000 report.[Footnote 35]
Specifically, we assessed (1) the overall status of U.N. reforms
proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the
Secretariat's efforts to implement reforms in four key areas: human
capital management, performance-oriented budgeting, public information
activities, and the human rights program; and (3) the challenges facing
the implementation of U.N. reforms.
We focused our work on the Secretary General's 1997 and 2002 reform
agendas. These reforms applied to the Secretariat and member state
governing bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and
Social Council, and the Security Council. We did not include U.N.
specialized agencies or funds and programs in our review. We did,
however, meet with officials and collect information from the
International Labour Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, and the World Health Organization to discuss their
progress and challenges in implementing management reforms similar to
those that the Secretary General is undertaking.
Overall, we identified 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda
and 66 in the 2002 agenda, for a total of 154 reform initiatives. This
number differs from U.N. figures because many of the Secretary
General's reform action items had several components that we identified
and counted as separate initiatives. For example, one of the Secretary
General's action items called for improving the information technology
systems of the United Nations, which involved upgrading the U.N.'s Web
site; modernizing internal systems that produce, store and disseminate
documents; and adopting an information technology strategy for New York
headquarters and field offices. We counted each one of those actions as
separate initiatives, while the Secretariat grouped them into one
action item.
To determine the overall status of the reforms, we developed a
methodology to code them as (1) substantially or completely in place,
(2) partly in place, or (3) not in place (see table 1 for our
definitions). We discussed our methodology with U.N. officials, and
they agreed to its utility for assessing the status of U.N. reforms.
Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status:
Rating: Substantially or completely in place; Scale: The reform has
been approved. Most key and minor elements are in place.
Rating: Partly in place; Scale: The reform has been approved. Some key
elements, as well as some or most minor elements, are in place.
Rating: Not in place; Scale: The reform has not been formally approved.
Minor elements may be in place, but no key elements are in place.
[End of table]
We defined a key element as one that is critical or central to the
reform. We considered that reforms could not be implemented or
institutionalized without these key elements (e.g., staff or budget).
All other elements were considered as minor. We considered a reform to
be in place if it had moved from the planning stage to implementation.
Implementation should have been well under way, though it may not have
been completed and the reform may not have been institutionalized. For
reforms with more than one key element, we considered the following
factors to determine whether some or most key elements were in place:
(1) the number of elements, (2) the relative importance of the
elements, (3) the relative difficulty of implementation, and (4) the
degree of implementation of each of the elements.
To assess the status of the reforms, we reviewed the Secretary
General's 1997 and 2002 reform plans and obtained and reviewed official
reports of the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS), budget documents, General Assembly resolutions,
Secretary General bulletins, Web sites, and statements from U.N.
officials. We interviewed senior officials from U.N. departments in New
York City and Geneva. Specifically, we met with the Deputy Secretary
General and her staff, and officials from the Department of Management,
the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), the Office of Program
Planning, Budget, and Accounts (OPPBA), the Department of Public
Information (DPI), and the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights.
We also met with officials from OIOS and the Joint Inspection Unit
(JIU). During the course of our review, we also discussed the status of
U.N. reforms with U.S. Department of State officials in Washington,
D.C.; New York; and Geneva.
We selected reforms in the areas of human capital management, the
performance-oriented budgeting system, public information activities,
and:
the human rights program to assess in more detail. In our discussions
with U.N. and U.S. officials, and in our review of U.N. documents, we
determined that these were key areas of the Secretary General's 1997
and 2002 reform plans. A detailed assessment of the reforms for
peacekeeping and improving the coordination among U.N. departments and
offices and between the U.N. and civil society was beyond the scope of
this review.
To assess the status of human capital management reforms, we compared
the Secretariat's human capital reform strategy with criteria from
GAO's model of strategic human capital management.[Footnote 36] This
model provides a framework for examining an organization's human
capital practices and is based upon the actions that are characteristic
of high-performing organizations. To collect information on the
Secretariat's progress in implementing its reform strategy, we reviewed
internal and public human resources documents detailing the new
recruitment and hiring system, the performance appraisal system, human
resources action plans, and a survey of U.N. staff views on human
capital reforms. We discussed human capital management reforms with
OHRM officials who are planning and implementing the office's reform
initiatives. We also met with the chief personnel officer for the U.N.
Geneva Office, as well as personnel officers at the Office for the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees,
and the Internal Labour Organization, to discuss the status and
problems of human capital reforms in their organizations. We did not
evaluate the effectiveness of implemented human capital reforms.
To assess the implementation of budgeting and monitoring and evaluation
reforms, we analyzed the last three U.N. biennium budget documents
(2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005) to determine changes in the
budget's format after the adoption of a results-based budgeting format.
We also examined budget-related documents prepared by the Committee for
Program and Coordination and the Advisory Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions. In addition, we examined Secretariat documents
on program monitoring and evaluation activities to determine the U.N.'s
ability to report on and assess program results and impact, as well as
strategies the Secretariat developed to strengthen the monitoring and
evaluation system. We discussed performance-oriented budgeting reforms
with OPPBA, JIU, and OIOS officials from the Monitoring, Evaluation,
and Consulting Division. We also met with budget officers at the
International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization to
discuss the status and lessons learned from implementing performance-
oriented budgeting at their organizations.
To determine the status of reforms of U.N. public information
activities, including DPI's reorganization, the restructuring of the
department's branch offices, library management, and publications, we
reviewed reports from OIOS, the General Assembly's Committee on
Information, and the Secretary General. We also spoke with DPI
officials, including the Under Secretary General, the department's
senior managers, and senior library officials in New York. In addition,
we interviewed officials from DPI's branch office and U.N. library in
Geneva to determine the extent to which operations in the field have
been affected by these reforms.
To determine the status of efforts to reform the U.N. human rights
program, we reviewed official reports from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)--including annual appeals and
reports--detailing the steps the office is taking to implement these
reforms. We also reviewed internal audit reports and external reviews
by independent contractors highlighting the key management challenges
facing OHCHR and its efforts to improve in these areas. In addition, we
interviewed human rights officials in Secretariat offices in Geneva and
New York. To assess the Secretariat's efforts to improve the management
of the human rights program, we spoke with the Acting High Commissioner
for Human Rights and senior management officials responsible for
implementing the Secretary General's reforms. To determine the status
of reforms related to the monitoring committees and human rights
reporters and working groups, we analyzed relevant Secretary General,
General Assembly, and Commission on Human Rights reports, resolutions,
and other official documentation, and we spoke with OHCHR officials. We
did not review the work or membership of the Commission on Human Rights
or the performance of individual human rights reporters.
To determine the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. reforms,
we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General
Assembly, OIOS, and JIU. We also reviewed reports from outside
observers of the U.N. system, including nongovernmental organizations
and members of academia. In addition, we spoke with U.N. officials in
New York and Geneva. These included officials from the Office of the
Deputy Secretary General, the Department of Management, OHRM, OPPBA,
DPI, OHCHR, OIOS, and JIU. We also spoke with U.S. officials in
Washington, New York, and Geneva.
We conducted our work from June 2003 through January 2004, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms:
Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the
Status of Their Implementation:
Reform actions: New leadership and management:
Establish the post of Deputy Secretary General;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Increase the public's interest in and effectiveness of the General
Assembly by deciding, 2 years in advance, the subject for a special
high-level session of meetings on an important issue or theme;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Organize General Assembly meetings in the same fashion as U.N.
conferences;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Identify an annual thematic focus for the work of each of the main
committees;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Organize the agenda around the eight priority areas of the medium-term
plan;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Issue recommendations to member states in the form of resolutions,
while requests for reports by the Secretary General and other
procedural work would be in the form of simple decisions;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly:
Limit the General Assembly's annual sessions from extending beyond
November;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Member states establish the practice of providing information to the
Secretary General to strengthen his efforts to deter conflicts;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
General Assembly and Security Council consider measures to enhance the
rapid reaction capacity of the United Nations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
When establishing a peacekeeping operation, urge the Security Council
to prescribe a time frame for the conclusion of a status-of-forces
agreement with the host government; pending the conclusion of such an
agreement, the model status-of-forces agreement would apply;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Review the work of the Disarmament Commission and the First Committee
to update and streamline their work;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) considers holding its various
sessions at different, preestablished periods during the year and
extending the duration of the sessions to provide effective policy
guidance to the different programs and funds;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Replace the Committee for Development Planning with panels of experts
set up by ECOSOC;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Extend the time allotted to discuss development work in informal
discussions between ECOSOC and heads of U.N. funds and programs and
establish a trust fund to encourage participation of officials from
the least developed countries;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Establish the Commission on Sustainable Development, consolidating the
Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and Energy for
Development and the Committee on Natural Resources;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Make the Commission on Science and Technology for Development a
subsidiary body of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development's
(UNCTAD) Trade and Development Board;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Consolidate the functions of the Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs into a single
commission, and the International Narcotics Control Board would report
to this new commission;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Maintain the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on International
Standards of Accounting and Reporting as an expert body reporting
through the UNCTAD Commission on Investment, Technology and Related
Financial Issues;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Review the work of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts in International Tax
Matters after it finishes its mandated activities;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
The Committee on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights should report
to ECOSOC through the Commission on Human Rights;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
ECOSOC should review the regional commissions to determine core
competencies and the most appropriate division of labor for standard-
setting and technical cooperation activities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Convene joint meetings of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA), and U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) executive
boards to discuss issues and matters of common concern;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Establish a new system to finance U.N. funds and programs consisting
of voluntary contributions and negotiated pledges paid in multiyear
tranches;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Environment, habitat, and sustainable development:
Discontinue the High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Designate the Emergency Relief Coordinator to oversee U.N.
humanitarian assistance and transfer natural disaster mitigation
activities to UNDP;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Establish a humanitarian affairs segment of ECOSOC;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Establish a revolving credit fund with up to $1 billion from voluntary
contributions;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Retain any unspent balances under the regular budget;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Review the mandate, membership, and procedures of the International
Civil Service Commission;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Approve the Secretariat's Code of Conduct;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Establish an account funded from savings in administration and other
overhead costs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities:
Adopt performance-oriented budgeting;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.
[End of table]
Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and
the Status of Their Implementation:
Reform actions: New leadership and management:
Establish a senior management group to set and direct unified
Secretariat strategies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: New leadership and management:
Establish a strategic planning unit;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Develop a plan to end the use of gratis personnel in the Secretariat;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Make the Special Representative of the Secretary General the ranking
U.N. country official;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Make the Department of Political Affairs the focal point for
postconflict peace building and the Executive Committee on Peace and
Security responsible for the design and implementation of peace-
building initiatives;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament:
Create a Department for Disarmament and Arms Regulation;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Establish a secretariat, or staff office, for the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs to better support the Economic and Social
Council;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Review activities shared by the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs and UNCTAD in the macroeconomic area to increase cooperation
and reduce duplication;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Economic and social affairs:
Establish the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, comprising
the Center for International Crime Prevention and the U.N.
International Drug Control Program, in Vienna, to consolidate crime,
drug, and terrorism issues into a single office;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Establish the U.N. Development Group; the Development Group Executive
Committee will be composed of UNDP, UNICEF, and the U.N. Population
Fund (UNFPA);
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
The Development Group Executive Committee will develop counterpart
arrangements at the country level;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Create a development assistance framework for developing countries to
coordinate efforts at the country level;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Establish resident coordinators to coordinate activities of different
funds and programs at the country level;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Implement common premises, or "U.N. Houses," at the country level;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Issue a proposal detailing ways to have more predictable and
consistent financial contributions from member states to meet
development goals;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Development cooperation:
Establish an Office for Development Financing to seek new and
additional resources for development programs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Environment, habitat, and sustainable development:
Develop plans to strengthen the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N.
Center for Human Settlements;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Establish an Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator to replace the
Department of Humanitarian Affairs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Designate an Emergency Lead Coordinator to lead and coordinate all
U.N. action on complex emergencies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Transfer responsibility for disaster prevention and preparedness to
UNDP and for demining activities to the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Strengthen the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) on humanitarian
affairs and establish an IASC Steering Committee to coordinate its
activities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
IASC will work to improve the consolidated appeal process for U.N.
humanitarian affairs agencies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs:
Give the Emergency Relief Coordinator authority to designate a lead
agency to coordinate complex emergencies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
Establish an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR);
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
Integrate human rights' concerns into the broad range of U.N.
activities, including development operations and humanitarian affairs,
and assign a representative from the High Commissioner's office to
participate in executive committee meetings;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
OHCHR will issue recommendations to increase the coordination of human
rights technical assistance activities provided to member states;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
Increase the representation of the High Commissioner's office at
headquarters in New York;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
OHCHR will review human rights programs across the U.N. and recommend
ways to simplify their work and improve their efficiency;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human rights:
Restructure OHCHR to provide better substantive and technical support
to U.N. legislative bodies and monitoring committees.;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private
sector:
Meet with members of civil society to strengthen partnerships and
enlist their support;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private
sector:
Designate a nongovernmental organization liaison officer for all U.N.
departments and offices; facilitate cooperation between the U.N.,
member states, and civil society;
and add training programs for U.N. staff that involve cooperation with
civil society;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private
sector:
Establish a business liaison service to provide information to
business groups on U.N. activities and on investment opportunities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private
sector:
Increase participation of business groups in U.N. decision-making
activities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Encourage movement of personnel across functions, departments, and
duty stations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Create a simplified, flexible, and cost-effective system of
recruitment and placement;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Establish accountability standards for program managers to improve the
efficiency of program delivery;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Strengthen the performance appraisal system to reward high-performing
staff and provide accountability for performance;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Improve channels of communication between staff and management;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Give managers greater flexibility in making permanent and fixed-term
staff hiring decisions;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Establish a one-time training and redeployment program for staff
affected by the reform process;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Establish an informal group of independent advisers to comment on
senior-level appointments;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Issue specific savings targets for departments and offices to reduce
administrative and other overhead costs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Review management practices to implement program activities more
efficiently, improve services to member states, and reach targets set
to reduce overhead costs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Delegate maximum authority to line managers in the areas of human
resources and financial management;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Streamline administrative rules and procedures;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Simplify human resources and financial management policies, rules, and
processes;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Consolidate headquarters' procurement services by expanding the use of
electronic procurement and organizationwide competitive contracts;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Develop a unified management structure to provide information
technology and telecommunications infrastructure and services on a
cost-effective basis;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human resource and financial management:
Establish one or more common service facilities at U.N. headquarters
in New York, Geneva, and Vienna;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Modernizing information technology:
Upgrade the U.N.'s Web site, home page, and other electronic
postings;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Modernizing information technology:
Modernize internal systems that produce, store, and disseminate
documents;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Modernizing information technology:
Enhance the use of the Intranet to facilitate internal communication
and administrative simplification and streamlining;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Modernizing information technology:
Adopt an information technology strategy for New York headquarters and
field offices;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Modernizing information technology:
Introduce methods to share information across agencies and identify
lead agencies that would establish issue management networks;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: U.N. university, research institutes, and related
bodies:
Improve coordination between the United Nations University and other
U.N. research institutes;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: U.N. university, research institutes, and related
bodies:
Coordinate activities of the United Nations Staff College and other
U.N. research institutes when preparing courses for U.N. civil
servants;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.
[End of table]
Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation:
Reform actions: Strengthening human rights:
Strengthen human rights-related actions at the country level;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Strengthening human rights:
Develop recommendations to streamline reporting procedures to the
treaty monitoring bodies by September 2003;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Strengthening human rights:
Review human rights special procedures to find ways to enhance their
effectiveness and report to the Secretary General by 2003;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Strengthening human rights:
Develop a plan to strengthen the management of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Establish a Division of Strategic Communications in the Department of
Public Information (DPI) to disseminate and evaluate U.N. messages
around the world;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Establish an Outreach Division in DPI to group together services for
delegations, civil society, and the general public;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Strengthen DPI's News and Media Division;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Transfer DPI's Cartographic Section to the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Conduct an evaluation of the impact and cost- effectiveness of all of
DPI's activities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Centralize U.N. information activities around regional hubs, starting
with the creation of a Western European hub;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
The Dag Hammarskjold Library will set policy and coordinate the work
of all U.N. libraries;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Develop a plan to integrate the library services of various U.N.
locations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Develop and implement a plan to improve electronic access to U.N.
collections, move from paper-based to electronic-based files, and
provide training to depository librarians;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Executive Committees will organize publications to reduce their number
and improve their coherence and focus;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Reestablish the Publications Board, which will establish standards and
quality controls for publications;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Review the feasibility and cost of online publications delivery;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Enhancing public information:
Discontinue publication of The Repertory of Practice of United Nations
Organs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Streamlining reports:
Consolidate duplicative reports on related subjects;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Streamlining reports:
Publish clearer and more focused reports with specific
recommendations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Streamlining reports:
Adhere to mandated page limits;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Streamlining reports:
Encourage the General Assembly to establish a system to review the
relevancy of existing reporting requirements;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Managing conferences and meetings:
Strengthen the planning and management of General Assembly meetings
and documentation;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Coordinating U.N. field activities:
Develop a plan to strengthen field coordination in developing
countries;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and
staff responsibilities:
Prepare a document clarifying roles and responsibilities in the area
of technical cooperation;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and
staff responsibilities:
Propose the addition of an Assistant Secretary General position in the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and
staff responsibilities:
Establish a policy planning unit in the Department of Economic and
Social Affairs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and
staff responsibilities:
Transfer resources allocated to the Office of the Special Coordinator
for Africa and the Least Developed Countries to the Advisor for
Special Assignments in Africa, who would coordinate the preparation of
Africa-related reports;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Promoting partnerships with civil society and the
private sector:
Establish a panel to review the relationship between the U.N. and
civil society and offer recommendations for improving their
interaction;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Promoting partnerships with civil society and the
private sector:
Establish a Partnerships Office to integrate the activities of the
Global Compact Office and U.N. Fund for International Partnerships;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Link the program budget to Millennium Declaration;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Submit a shorter, more strategic medium-term plan, covering 2 years
rather than 4, and submitted closer to the time of implementation;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Submit a budget outline with the medium-term plan;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Prepare a shorter, more strategic budget;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Give program managers greater flexibility to reallocate resources
among programs and between program and personnel activities;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Strengthen the program monitoring and evaluation system;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Assign responsibility for reviewing U.N. budgeting information to the
Fifth Committee instead of both the Fifth Committee and the Committee
for Program and Evaluation;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Streamline and shorten peacekeeping budgets;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Consolidate and reduce the number of trust funds;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Harmonize the rules and requirements for trust fund management and
reporting;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Revise the system used to account for administrative and other
overhead support costs;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and
evaluation system:
Streamline procedures for accessing trust fund monies;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review contractual arrangements and benefits offered to Secretariat
staff in field locations to make them comparable to those of the U.N.
funds and programs;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review mobility arrangements between the Secretariat and the U.N.
funds, programs, and specialized agencies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Create longer-term contractual arrangements for staff in field
missions;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Identify special recruitment and reward incentives for duty stations
with high vacancy rates;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review arrangements between the Secretariat and the U.N. funds,
programs, and specialized agencies to assist spouses of U.N. staff
applying for posts in field locations;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Explore possibilities to renegotiate host country agreements to allow
U.N. spouses to work in those countries;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Lift restrictions on the numbers of general service staff eligible for
promotion to the professional category;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review general service functions, responsibilities, and competencies;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Improve general service induction and career planning
systems;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Provide more opportunities and incentives for staff mobility across
functions, offices, and services in the field and peacekeeping
missions;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Refer to all employees of the Secretariat as international civil
servants;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Introduce flexible working arrangements in Secretariat departments and
offices;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Increase opportunities of part-time employment for Secretariat
staff;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Improve planning for replacing departing staff members;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Develop more targeted recruitment systems;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Enhance existing departure packages to include career placement
assistance and transition arrangements;
Status: Not in place: Yes;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Recommend a significant increase in resources allocated to training in
the 2004-2005 biennium budget;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review flexibility given to program managers to manage resources;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Department of
Management and those of the executive offices to increase delegation
of authority;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Provide more and better training for managers across the U.N.;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Implement fully the U.N.'s policy on HIV/AIDS;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Review the current system of internal justice to improve the system's
efficiency, and to allow staff fair and due process;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Encourage the International Civil Service Commission to submit its
proposals for a more competitive pay and benefits system;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Human capital management:
Encourage an independent review of the operations and functions of the
International Civil Service Commission;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: Yes;
Status: In place or substantially so: No.
Reform actions: Managing reform:
Assign responsibility for overseeing the implementation of reforms to
the Deputy Secretary General;
Status: Not in place: No;
Status: Partly in place: No;
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.
Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D. C. 20520:
FEB 2 2004:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "UNITED
NATIONS: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to
Measure Impact," GAO-04-339, GAO Job Code 320202.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
George Abrahams, Deputy Director, International Organization Bureau, at
(202) 647-8270.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher B. Burnham:
cc: GAO - Jeremy Latimer
State/OIG - Luther Atkins
State/H - Paul Kelly:
Department of State and USUN Comments on the GAO Draft Report, "UNITED
NATIONS: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to
Measure Impact" GAO-04-339 Job Code 320202:
The State Department and the United States Mission to the United
Nations (USUN) welcome the report of the General Accounting Office on
UN Management and Reform. UN reform is one of the United States'
highest priorities and the U.S. has a longstanding history as a leading
proponent of the Secretary-General's reform initiatives. Overall, we
find the report comprehensive and insightful, providing a useful
analysis of the challenges faced by the UN in implementing its reform
agenda, including the lack of Member State consensus in implementing
certain reforms, and we agree with its recommendations.
The report highlights significant achievements reforming UN management
and operations while at the same time recognizing that reform is, as
Secretary-General Annan said, "a process, not an event" comprised of
many stages. We agree with the report's observation that the 1997 and
2002 reform initiatives have led to better coordination across
departments, a more unified leadership structure, and a results-
oriented approach to resource allocation. GAO correctly points out that
many of the reforms implemented, such as developing a plan of action,
are the first step in achieving the UN's longer-range goals.
To that end, the State Department and USUN will continue to push for
meaningful reforms and full implementation of all reform initiatives at
the UN, as is recommended by GAO in its report. This past fall, for
example, the United States was successful in negotiating a resolution
improving the budgetary process and strengthening program monitoring
and evaluation. As GAO points out, the UN lacks a mechanism to
adequately measure program impact and feed the results into future
resource allocation decisions. The improved program monitoring and
evaluation process is aimed at moving the UN toward becoming a
genuinely results-oriented organization.
We note that the report does not address the reforms in the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations from 1999-2001. The restructuring of the
department responsible for peacekeeping and civilian police operations
and the establishment of a UN base at Brindisi to store key supplies
needed to stand up peacekeeping missions quickly and effectively
represents a fundamental achievement by the UN.
Since the drafting of this report, the General Assembly adopted a
budget for 2004-2005 that includes other noteworthy advances on the
reform front. Of particular importance is the increased authority given
to the Secretary-General to redeploy positions between and among
sections of the budget to respond to priority needs. This measure
should promote greater Organization-wide prioritization, which we hope
will lead to a decrease in the number of posts requested by the
Secretary-General in future budget proposals. The General Assembly also
suspended recruitment of General Service (i.e., mainly administrative)
posts with the intent of advancing a culture that stresses
prioritization and efficiency in light of information technology
benefits.
As a result of the savings realized from the consolidation of UN
Information Centers (UNIC) in Western Europe, the General Assembly
reduced the UNIC budget by $2 million. In addition, the membership
requested that the Department of Public Information's three-year impact
study be shortened to two years so that the results can be considered
in 2004. The General Assembly has also requested an operational and
management review of all UN libraries with a sharp focus on the
libraries' staffing requirements in light of the increased investment
in information technology.
To maintain momentum for UN improvements, the General Assembly also
requested a variety of other studies, including: ways in which the
performance of the Development Account may be improved; review of the
Regular Program of Technical Cooperation; methods to improve the
implementation of the UN's planning and budget regulations for greater
prioritization of activities; the structure and function of all liaison
offices; and the potential for reducing staffing costs through local
recruitment of needed skills.
Further, this fall the General Assembly also approved a resolution as a
first step toward revitalizing its work by reorganizing and reducing
its agenda and documentation, creating mechanisms for closer
collaboration with the two other main bodies of the UN - the Economic
and Social Council and the Security Council - and improving its working
methods.
The U.S. is pleased with the new recruitment and hiring system and a
revised performance appraisal system, both of which have made
significant strides in reforming the UN's human capital management.
However, as GAO points out, more could be done in managing staff
movement across organizations and geographic locations and in
decentralizing authority and accountability for personnel decisions.
Furthermore, the UN needs to develop a better system to screen the
increased number of applications received through its online recruiting
and hiring system. This system should also include a mechanism to
inform/update candidates on the status of their application, including
whether they have been "short-listed.":
We appreciate GAO's work in assessing the efforts made by the UN in
implementing its reform agenda.
Signed by:
Kim R. Holmes
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Department of State:
Signed by:
John D. Negroponte
U.S. Representative to the United Nations:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations:
United Nations:
Nations Unies:
HEADQUARTERS * SIEGE
NEW YORK, NY 10017 TEL.: 1 (212) 963.1234
* FAX: 1 (212) 963.4879:
REFERENCE:
4 February 2004:
Dear Mr. Christoff,
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the draft
GAO report United Nations: Reforms Progressing but Comprehensive
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact (GAO-04-339).
It is encouraging to note that the GAO's assessment of implementation
indicates that 85% of the reforms proposed in the 1997 and 2002 reform
packages are either fully or partly implemented. We acknowledge that
implementation rates are somewhat slower in those areas requiring the
consent of Member States. In addition, the full impact of the latest
reform measures, launched at the Secretary-General's own initiative in
September 2002, cannot be demonstrated until the 2004/2005 programme of
work - one that reflects a major update and reallocation of resources -
has been implemented.
We take special note of the observations made in four key areas of UN
operations, namely, Human Capital Management, Performance-Oriented
Budgeting, Public Information Activities and Human Rights Programme.
The Steering Committee on Reform and Management, chaired by the Deputy
Secretary-General, will continue to ensure that these areas receive due
attention in 2004. Work has already begun on strengthening the UN's
internal system of programme monitoring and evaluation. Ongoing reforms
in the areas of human resources management and public information are
also scheduled for 2004. Progress reports on these three areas will be
submitted to upcoming sessions of the General Assembly.
On the GAO's assessment of the challenges to reform implementation and,
in particular, on assessing the "status and impact" of UN reforms, we
would like to point out that the Organization provides periodic updates
to the General Assembly. The Secretary-General's report on the
implementation status of the 2002 reform package is a recent example
(ref A/58/351). Internally, reform progress is closely tracked through
the Steering Committee on Reform and Management. Programme managers are
held individually accountable for the implementation of reforms falling
within their respective purview. It is hoped that a strengthened system
of programme monitoring and evaluation will ensure that the Secretary-
General can better demonstrate the impact of reforms to the General
Assembly.
Finally, the report alludes to some resistance to certain reform
initiatives from programme managers and staff. This is to be expected
in any organization undergoing meaningful change. The reform agenda has
been an ambitious one. We believe that the UN has shown itself quite
capable of adaptation and modernization over the last six years. Yet we
require that the development of a results-based culture is a longer-
term challenge, requiring a behavioural shift on the part of UN staff
as well as member state representatives in the General Assembly.
It would be appreciated if these comments could be included in the
final report.
Yours sincerely,
Signed by:
Catherine Bertini
Under-Secretary-General for Management and Security Coordinator a.i:
Mr. Joseph A. Christoff
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, United Nations: Reform Initiatives
Have Strengthened Operations, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been
Met, GAO/NSIAD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000).
[2] The United States is assessed to pay 22 percent of the U.N.'s
regular budget. The United States also is assessed 27 percent of the
U.N. peacekeeping budget, and makes voluntary contributions to the
United Nations and its specialized agencies that are primarily for
humanitarian and development programs and activities. Overall, the
United States contributed more than $3 billion to the U.N. system in
2002.
[3] We did not examine U.N. peacekeeping reform in detail other than to
assess the status of specific reforms in the 1997 and 2002 agendas (see
app. II). In September 2003, GAO reported on some U.N. peacekeeping
reforms, including performance-oriented planning and programming. See
U.S. General Accounting Office, U.N. Peacekeeping: Transition
Strategies for Post-Conflict Countries Lacked Results-Oriented
Measures of Progress, GAO-03-1071 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003).
[4] Performance-oriented budgeting is the process by which budgeted
activities are linked to expected results, programs are monitored and
evaluated regularly, and resources are shifted to meet new priorities.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[6] In 2000, the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration,
which contains a set of priorities and specific time frames for meeting
development goals. The Millennium Declaration and the Secretary
General's Road Map toward implementation of the U.N. Millennium
Declaration provide the overall priorities for all U.N. activities.
[7] Reforms to change the budgeting process require a two-thirds
majority vote of member states.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Homeland Security, GAO-03-102 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital
Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and
Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[11] Regular budget positions are those funded from the U.N. regular
budget.
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.:
December 2003).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Insights for U.S.
Agencies from Other Countries' Succession Planning and Management
Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency
Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: January 2002); Program
Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program
Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000);
Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency
Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: January 2002).
[16] The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
reviews financial documents submitted by the Secretariat to the General
Assembly.
[17] See First Report on the Proposed Program Budget for the Biennium
2004-2005, Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
(New York: United Nations, Aug. 5, 2003).
[18] In this report, U.N. oversight committees refer to the Committee
for Program and Coordination, which reviews the U.N.'s planning and
budgeting documents and the work planned under each program, and the
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. These
committees report to the Fifth Committee, which is the General Assembly
committee responsible for financial oversight of the Secretariat.
[19] See Regulations and Rules Governing Program Planning, the Program
Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods
of Evaluation (New York: United Nations, Apr. 19, 2000).
[20] OIOS is the United Nations' audit and internal evaluation unit.
[21] Statistics are current as of Jan. 1, 2004. OIOS will review the
Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation activities for the 2002-2003
biennium in 2004.
[22] The Joint Inspection Unit is an investigative unit with broad
authority to examine the efficiency of all U.N. organizations.
[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting:
Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19,
2002).
[24] In this report, we refer to U.N. Information Centers as branch
offices.
[25] The department also maintains relationships and establishes
partnerships with media groups and civil society groups, including
nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions, and
organizes special events and exhibits with other U.N. partners.
[26] The General Assembly's oversight Committee on Information meets
annually to examine the U.N.'s public information activities.
[27] The offices in Athens, Bonn, Brussels, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London,
Madrid, Paris, and Rome were consolidated.
[28] The Department of Public Information will report the results from
its first program impact review to the Committee on Information in
2004.
[29] GAO/NSIAD-00-150.
[30] There are four executive committees--Peace and Security,
Humanitarian Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs, and the Development
Group--headed by Under Secretaries General, who oversee the activities
of the Secretariat's departments and offices. For example, the
Executive Committee on Peace and Security oversees the Department of
Political Affairs. A representative of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights serves on all four committees.
[31] Donors, including governments, foundations, and private companies,
provide voluntary contributions toward activities outlined in the human
rights office's annual appeals. Ten major donors provided 81 percent of
the office's total voluntary contributions in 2002.
[32] The human rights reporters, or Special Rapporteurs, and working
groups are known collectively as the Special Procedures of the
Commission on Human Rights. In this report, we refer to them as human
rights reporters and working groups.
[33] There are seven committees or treaty-monitoring bodies. The
committee members are elected by national governments that are party to
the treaties. The human rights office provides support to all the
committees except the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women, which receives support from the Division for the
Advancement of Women in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
in New York.
[34] Officials from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that
they were unsure if that office would issue additional status reports.
[35] GAO/NSIAD-00-150.
[36] GAO-02-373SP.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
