Overseas Staffing
Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts Gao ID: GAO-06-737 June 30, 2006In 2001, the administration identified the rightsizing of embassies and consulates as one of the President's management priorities. Rightsizing initiatives include: aligning staff overseas with foreign policy priorities and security and other constraints; demonstrating results by moving administrative functions from posts to regional or central locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts. This report (1) discusses the size and recent trends in the U.S. government overseas presence, (2) assesses the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing's progress in managing the U.S. government's overseas rightsizing efforts, and (3) assesses the process and outcomes of the legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts.
Almost five years into the President's Management Initiative on rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the size of the U.S. overseas presence. At various times, we received estimates ranging from 66,000 to 69,000 American and non-American personnel. In addition, State estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government positions overseas, as of December 2005. State Department (State) officials said that they are working on a unified database which, if periodically updated by posts, will provide an accurate depiction of the overseas presence. State officials indicated that the database will be completed later this year. Because of the importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight may be needed to ensure completion of this task. Several agencies reported that they have added staff overseas as a result of new mission requirements, and other agencies reported that they have repositioned their personnel to better meet mission needs and in response to rightsizing efforts. State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing the United States Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) in 2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall direction to the government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the office's activities have included coordinating staffing requests of U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We found that coordination on rightsizing issues between State and other agencies with an overseas presence was initially slow, but has since improved. Nevertheless, non-State agencies have voiced a number of concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more included in the rightsizing process. Congress requires Chiefs of Mission to conduct rightsizing reviews at every overseas post at least once every 5 years. Between late 2004 and summer 2005, about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews. However, the Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts on how the reviews should be conducted and did not have a systematic process for reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005, officials in the Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive guidance, which posts we interviewed found useful. We found that cost was not considered a key element in the post reviews. Nevertheless, the Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million in cost savings or avoidance to the U.S. government based on its analysis of these reviews. Although we have not been able to independently assess the Office of Rightsizing's estimates, it has presented evidence to show that some major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Management officers identified various challenges to the review process, such as resistance from non-State agencies and a lack of time to conduct the review. It is unclear how posts will implement the rightsizing review decisions, such as elimination of duplicative functions, according to post officials and officials in State's regional bureaus.
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-06-737, Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-737
entitled 'Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold
but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts' which was
released on July 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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 the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
June 2006:
Overseas Staffing:
Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to
Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts:
GAO-06-737:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-737, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2001, the administration identified the rightsizing of embassies and
consulates as one of the President‘s management priorities. Rightsizing
initiatives include: aligning staff overseas with foreign policy
priorities and security and other constraints; demonstrating results by
moving administrative functions from posts to regional or central
locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts. This report
(1) discusses the size and recent trends in the U.S. government
overseas presence, (2) assesses the congressionally mandated Office of
Rightsizing‘s progress in managing the U.S. government‘s overseas
rightsizing efforts, and (3) assesses the process and outcomes of the
legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts.
What GAO Found:
Almost five years into the President‘s Management Initiative on
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the
size of the U.S. overseas presence. At various times, we received
estimates ranging from 66,000 to 69,000 American and non-American
personnel. In addition, State estimated that there are approximately
78,000 U.S. government positions overseas, as of December 2005. State
Department (State) officials said that they are working on a unified
database which, if periodically updated by posts, will provide an
accurate depiction of the overseas presence. State officials indicated
that the database will be completed later this year. Because of the
importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length
of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight may be
needed to ensure completion of this task. Several agencies reported
that they have added staff overseas as a result of new mission
requirements, and other agencies reported that they have repositioned
their personnel to better meet mission needs and in response to
rightsizing efforts.
State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing
the United States Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing)
in 2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall
direction to the government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the
office‘s activities have included coordinating staffing requests of
U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post
rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We
found that coordination on rightsizing issues between State and other
agencies with an overseas presence was initially slow, but has since
improved. Nevertheless, non-State agencies have voiced a number of
concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of Rightsizing,
including their desire to be more included in the rightsizing process.
Congress requires Chiefs of Mission to conduct rightsizing reviews at
every overseas post at least once every 5 years. Between late 2004 and
summer 2005, about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews.
However, the Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts
on how the reviews should be conducted and did not have a systematic
process for reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005,
officials in the Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive
guidance, which posts we interviewed found useful. We found that cost
was not considered a key element in the post reviews. Nevertheless, the
Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million in cost savings or
avoidance to the U.S. government based on its analysis of these
reviews. Although we have not been able to independently assess the
Office of Rightsizing‘s estimates, it has presented evidence to show
that some major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred.
Management officers identified various challenges to the review
process, such as resistance from non-State agencies and a lack of time
to conduct the review. It is unclear how posts will implement the
rightsizing review decisions, such as elimination of duplicative
functions, according to post officials and officials in State‘s
regional bureaus.
What GAO Recommends:
We recommend that the Secretary of State provide management oversight
to complete and maintain a unified database to accurately capture and
validate U.S. overseas staffing numbers, increase outreach activities
with non-State agencies, and require that posts develop rightsizing
action plans. State indicated that it has either recently implemented
or is taking steps to implement all of our recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-737].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Accurate Data on Personnel Overseas Not Yet Available; U.S. Government
Rightsizing Efforts Under Way:
State Has Established an Office of Rightsizing, but More Interaction
Needed between Office of Rightsizing and Agencies:
Office of Rightsizing Initiates Rightsizing Reviews, but Reviews Have
Not Realized Full Potential:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at U.S. Embassies
and Consulates:
Appendix III: GAO Rightsizing Framework and Corresponding Questions:
Appendix IV: The Office of Rightsizing's Five-Year Rightsizing
Schedule:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type of
Space in Embassy or Consulate:
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by
Select Agency:
Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing Reviews,
September 2005:
Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule:
Figures:
Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing:
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas under
Chief of Mission Authority by Agency, December 2005:
Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 2005:
Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps:
Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed:
Abbreviations:
ICASS: International Cooperative Administrative Support Services:
NEC: New Embassy Compound:
NSDD-38: National Security Decision Directive-38:
State: Department of State:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
June 30, 2006:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
After the 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, two
key studies recommended that the U.S. government evaluate and realign
the number and location of U.S. personnel working at embassies and
consulates overseas, and consider staff reductions where practical to
reduce security vulnerabilities.[Footnote 1] In 2001, the
administration showed its support for the realignment of personnel and
stressed the importance of security, efficiency, and accountability in
U.S. government staffing overseas by identifying the rightsizing of
embassies and consulates as one of the President's management
priorities.[Footnote 2] Rightsizing initiatives include establishing
mechanisms and processes to align the number and location of staff
assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, and security and cost
constraints; moving administrative functions away from posts to
remote[Footnote 3] locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at
posts. In 2002 we developed a framework for assessing embassy staff
levels to help support rightsizing initiatives for existing facilities
overseas.[Footnote 4] Our framework identified critical elements of
embassy operations--physical security, mission priorities and
requirements, and cost--and also included rightsizing options for
consideration. According to the State Department's (State) Office of
Inspector General, rightsizing is likely to remain at the top of
State's management agenda in the coming years because of high
construction and operating costs overseas, security vulnerabilities,
and continuing problems in assigning U.S. government personnel
overseas.
Over the past five years, we have provided the subcommittee with
numerous reports and testimonies on staffing and operations at U.S.
embassies and consulates overseas (see app. II for a list of these
reports). In this report, we (1) discuss the size and recent trends in
the U.S. government's overseas presence, (2) assess the progress that
the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing the United States
Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) within State has
made in managing and coordinating the U.S. government's overseas
rightsizing efforts, and (3) assess the process and outcomes of the
legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts.
To address these objectives, we analyzed the activities of State's
Office of Rightsizing, as well as rightsizing activities of some of
State's regional and functional bureaus. In addition, we met with seven
agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, the Treasury,
Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice; and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID)--which, including State, account for
over 90 percent of personnel at embassies and consulates. To determine
if there was a systematic process for reporting information in the
first cycle of reviews, we reviewed and analyzed 20 out of about 35
rightsizing reviews that were conducted by posts from late 2004 through
summer 2005, and which were provided to us by the Office of
Rightsizing. We also sought to complete structured telephone interviews
with all 22 posts that were conducting reviews in the fall of 2005.
Between February 2006 and March 2006, we conducted structured telephone
interviews with management officers from 20 of these 22 posts overseas
on issues related to their review experience. In addition to the
telephone interviews, we visited three posts--Mexico City, Mexico;
Valetta, Malta; and Frankfurt, Germany--that had previously conducted a
rightsizing review or analysis. We conducted our overall work from May
2005 through May 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards (see app. I for more information on our scope and
methodology).
Results in Brief:
Almost five years into the President's Management Initiative on
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the
size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and
consulates. At various times, we received estimates ranging from 66,000
to 69,000 American and non-American personnel. In addition, State
estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government positions
overseas, as of December 2005. Difficulties faced in developing
accurate data include varying practices among agencies and posts in
accounting for positions. In the absence of accurate data, it is
difficult to track how rightsizing actions are affecting overseas
staffing levels. Moreover, lack of accurate staffing data makes it more
difficult to determine requirements for new embassy construction and to
assess each agency a fair share of the cost of the embassy construction
program. State is working on a unified database which, if periodically
updated by posts, should provide an accurate depiction of the overseas
presence. State officials indicated that the database will be completed
later this year. Because of the importance of having accurate data on
overseas staffing and the length of time it has taken to develop this
data, management oversight may be needed to ensure completion of this
task. Several agencies reported that they have added staff overseas as
a result of new mission requirements, and other agencies reported that
they have shifted their personnel to better meet mission needs and
respond to rightsizing efforts. For example, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture recently determined that it had overstaffed some locations
and understaffed others and, as a result, is repositioning its
personnel. Some agencies reported that they have reduced overseas staff
largely because they are now required to pay a share of the costs of
building new, secure embassy buildings.
State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing in
2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall direction
to the government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the office's
activities have included coordinating rightsizing staffing requests
from U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing
post rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We
found that coordination on rightsizing issues between State and other
agencies with an overseas presence was initially slow, but has since
improved--though several non-State agencies have voiced a number of
concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of Rightsizing,
including their desire to be more included in the rightsizing process.
In addition, some post management officers indicated that the lack of
interagency coordination in Washington, D.C., makes it difficult for
the posts to make decisions and implement rightsizing actions.
To move the rightsizing process forward, Congress required that
rightsizing reviews be conducted at every overseas post at least once
every 5 years in order to eliminate or justify any duplicative or
parallel functions at the post, and consider the possibility for
reducing U.S. government personnel. Between late 2004 and summer 2005,
about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews. However, the
Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts on how the
reviews should be conducted and did not have a systematic process for
reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005, officials in the
Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive guidance, which post
officials we interviewed said were useful. The Office of Rightsizing
reported over $150 million of savings or costs avoided based on their
analysis of the first and second cycles of the rightsizing reviews.
Although we have not been able to independently assess the Office of
Rightsizing's estimates, it has presented evidence to show that some
major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Seventeen out of
the twenty management officers we interviewed said that the review
helped them better understand how post personnel meet mission
objectives. However, management officers identified various challenges
in conducting their fall 2005 reviews and ensuring that their post is
rightsized. For example, management officers said that rightsizing
challenges included resistance from non-State agencies on rightsizing
measures, lack of direction and opportunities for regionalization and
outsourcing measures, and a lack of time to conduct the review due to a
number of competing data requests from headquarters. In addition, while
a number of management officers told us that they had conducted some
type of cost analysis as part of their review, some said that they
could have benefited from additional guidance on conducting cost
analysis. It is unclear how the rightsizing review decisions, such as
elimination of duplicative functions, will be implemented, according to
post officials and officials in State's regional bureaus. Moreover, the
Office of Rightsizing has not tasked posts to develop a rightsizing
action plan to implement decisions made in the rightsizing study.
We are making recommendations to strengthen the U.S. government's
rightsizing process. To ensure that the U.S. government overseas
presence under chief of mission authority is accurately accounted for
and to ensure that the U.S. government's rightsizing goals are being
coordinated and that posts can maximize savings and gain efficiencies
through rightsizing, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the
following three actions:
* Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a
single database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel
staffing numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and
agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date;
* Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous
basis; and:
* Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the
agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and
eliminating duplicative functions.
We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State
indicated that it has either recently implemented or is taking steps to
implement all of our recommendations. We received technical comments
from State and the Departments of Homeland Security, the Treasury,
Defense, Justice, and USAID, which we have incorporated throughout the
report, where appropriate.
Background:
The U.S. government maintains more than 260 diplomatic posts--including
embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices--in about 180
countries worldwide. In addition, according to various estimates, there
are over 66,000 personnel overseas, including both U.S. direct hires
and locally employed staff under chief of mission authority,[Footnote
5] representing more than 30 agencies and government entities. Agencies
represented overseas include, among others, the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security,
Justice, and State and USAID. According to the Office of Management and
Budget, the average cost across all agencies of having one U.S. direct
hire overseas for 2007 is $491,000, including direct and indirect
personnel costs as well as support costs such as security, office
leases and furnishings, and field travel.[Footnote 6] According to
State's Bureau of Resource Management, State's average cost of having
one U.S. direct hire overseas for 2007 is approximately $400,000.
The White House, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our
own agency have emphasized rightsizing as a key initiative to ensuring
that the overseas presence is at an optimal and efficient level to
carry out foreign policy priorities. The President's Management Agenda
has identified rightsizing as one of the administration's
priorities.[Footnote 7] The agenda stipulates that all agencies with an
overseas presence should integrate rightsizing into their workforce
plans and reconfigure overseas staff allocations to the minimum amount
necessary to meet U.S. foreign policy goals. Figure 1 illustrates the
various levels of involvement in U.S. government overseas rightsizing.
Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO (data); Map Resources (logos).
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office
of Rightsizing within State.[Footnote 8] The office was directed to
lead State's effort to develop internal and interagency mechanisms to
better coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment of U.S.
government personnel overseas, under chief of mission authority. The
Office of Rightsizing reviews and approves rightsizing reports for all
capital construction projects for new embassy compounds or facilities,
as well as the staffing composition of 20 percent of all U.S. missions
annually, so that each mission is reviewed once every 5 years.
According to the Office of Rightsizing, without an approved rightsizing
report based on these reviews, the Office of Management and Budget will
not forward to Congress a programming notification for construction.
In addition to the Office of Rightsizing, a number of entities within
State at the Washington, D.C. and post levels are involved in
initiatives and efforts related to rightsizing. State's regional
bureaus are involved with posts' rightsizing reviews as well as the
administration of regional service centers.[Footnote 9] In addition,
State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is responsible for the
worldwide overseas buildings program for State and the U.S. government
community serving abroad under chief of mission authority. The Bureau
of Overseas Buildings Operations is directing an expanded new embassy
construction program to provide safe, secure, and functional work
places for the diplomatic and consular missions overseas. At the post
level, the Chief of Mission is responsible for the security and safety
of every U.S. government and foreign national employee at the
mission.[Footnote 10] The precise structure of a mission is determined
by the Chief of Mission through the National Security Decision
Directive 38 (NSDD-38) process, which provides authority for the Chief
of Mission to determine the size, composition, or mandate of personnel
operating at the mission.[Footnote 11] See figure 1 for a depiction of
the Chief of Mission's involvement in the rightsizing process.
The operation of embassies and consulates overseas requires basic
administrative support services for overseas personnel. The management
section, which is normally headed by a management counselor or officer,
is the section responsible for overseeing the administrative functions
at a post and generally serves as the recipient of requests from
Washington, D.C., pertaining to staffing and rightsizing.
Administrative support services at posts are generally provided through
the State-managed International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services (ICASS) system, which provides more than 30 services--
including financial management vouchering, human resources, travel
services, housing, vehicle maintenance, and motor pool--with costs of
the services divided among the agencies and sub-agencies with staff at
the post, based on the level of ICASS services used.[Footnote 12]
Cost Sharing and New Embassy Compounds:
To address the security and other deficiencies of overseas embassies,
consulates, and other buildings, Congress established an interagency
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program to generate almost $18 billion
over a 14-year period to accelerate the construction of approximately
150 new, secure, and functional embassy and consular
compounds.[Footnote 13] The main objectives of the program are to
generate funds for new embassy compound construction and to encourage
State and other agencies to rightsize their staff by requiring that all
agencies with an overseas presence bear some of the costs for building
construction.[Footnote 14] Capital security cost sharing is based on
the total number of existing or authorized positions that an agency has
overseas in U.S.-government-owned or leased facilities, as well as any
projected staff growth positions. Cost sharing is also based on the
type of space occupied by post personnel.[Footnote 15] Charges are
being phased-in over 5 years with the fiscal year 2005 per capita
charges being 20 percent of the fully phased-in amount and fiscal year
2009 per capita charges representing the full amount.[Footnote 16]
Table 1 illustrates the fully phased-in per person charges for Capital
Security Cost Sharing.
Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type of
Space in Embassy or Consulate:
Type of space: Principal officer;
Cost per person: $186,886.
Type of space: Controlled access area;
Cost per person: $50,724.
Type of space: Non-controlled access area;
Cost per person: $20,488.
Type of space: Non-office space;
Cost per person: $3,546.
Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations.
[End of table]
Accurate Data on Personnel Overseas Not Yet Available; U.S. Government
Rightsizing Efforts Under Way:
Almost 5 years into the President's Management Initiative on
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the
size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and
consulates; however, State is working on a unified database which, if
periodically updated by posts, should provide an accurate depiction of
the overseas presence. Several agencies have undertaken efforts to
examine and adjust their staffing configurations, which have been
driven by various factors, such as congressional mandates; the rising
costs of building new, secure embassy buildings; and other shared
costs.
Accurate Data on Size and Composition of the U.S. Overseas Presence
Currently Unavailable:
According to State officials, there is not yet an accurate picture of
the size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and
consulates. In order to be able to make informed staffing and
rightsizing decisions, and conduct accurate analysis of overseas
staffing changes, it is important that the U.S. government have an
accurate account of all overseas positions under chief of mission
authority. Moreover, accurate staffing data is needed to assess each
agency a fair share of the cost of the embassy construction program.
Depending on the data's source and time, estimates of the total
overseas presence under chief of mission authority run from 66,000 to
about 69,000 American and non-American personnel, such as locally
employed staff, from more than 30 agencies.[Footnote 17] In addition,
State estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government
positions overseas, as of December 2005.[Footnote 18] Some of these
positions have been eliminated or are in the process of being
eliminated or reconciled, according to an Office of Rightsizing
document. Further, according to State's estimates, there are almost
22,000 direct-hire American positions overseas. Figure 2 provides the
estimated percentage breakdown of the total American positions overseas
under chief of mission authority by the key agencies, according to the
Office of Rightsizing.
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas under
Chief of Mission Authority by Agency, December 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Department of State.
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
According to State officials, State has faced various difficulties in
developing accurate data. For example, overseas staffing information is
recorded in a number of different databases at a post, depending on the
purpose of the information.[Footnote 19] In addition to the databases
from Washington, D.C., posts have created their own databases,
resulting in information not being uniform from post to post. Moreover,
a State official reported that some agencies have failed to provide
human resources data to individual posts. State officials added that
changes made in one database do not automatically populate others.
Therefore, posts need to make changes in a number of databases in order
to ensure a full updating and, in particular, to ensure the new
information will show up accurately at State headquarters. As a result,
State's numbers might include positions that have been eliminated or
are vacant; or some positions might be entered more than once.
Officials in the Office of Rightsizing also said that there are large
numbers of employment categories overseas and that each agency might
categorize its personnel overseas in a different manner or use
different methodologies. They pointed out that, in some cases, agencies
hire and count employed family members as U.S. direct hires while, in
other instances, employed family members are counted as locally
employed staff. They further explained that State's current databases
have not kept pace with changes in nomenclature. For example, although
new agencies and components were established as part of the formation
of the Department of Homeland Security, overseas positions might still
appear in databases, for example, as part of the old Immigration and
Naturalization Services. The incorrect reporting of staff positions
could create problems for agencies, such as being incorrectly charged
for positions under Capital Security Cost Sharing, according to non-
State officials.
Since 2004, State has required posts to utilize the Post Personnel
database to account for overseas staffing positions for both American
personnel and locally employed staff, according to the Office of
Rightsizing. The Executive Director of the Bureau of Human Resources
told us that, if used properly, this database has the potential to
provide the staffing data that could lead to accurate overseas staffing
numbers. However, officials in the Office of Rightsizing stated that
the database is only as complete as the information that the posts
enter into it, and that some posts might not fully understand how to
use the software properly. The Executive Director of the Bureau of
Human Resources indicated that his bureau has been developing training
modules to educate post officials on using the Post Personnel database
correctly.
State Developing Unified Staffing Accounting System:
State's Office of Rightsizing has been working with the Bureau of Human
Resources to develop an improved database that will enable State to
present a more accurate picture of all personnel and agencies assigned
overseas under chief of mission authority. According to the Office of
Rightsizing, the improved database will result in one complete and
accurate database of all U.S. government agencies overseas and will
eliminate the need for multiple requests to posts to update staffing
data. State has been working toward making the Post Personnel database
application the exclusive database for the entry of all staffing
information at posts. In addition, State has been devising standardized
organizational codes for post personnel for all agencies overseas.
According to State officials, the Post Personnel database will be
linked to other existing applications and will populate a number of
other databases, including Post Profiles, ICASS, and the Bureau of
Overseas Buildings Operations database for Capital Security Cost
Sharing, thus eliminating potential errors associated with duplicative
and incorrect entries.
The Office of Rightsizing reported that the data in Post Personnel will
soon be made available to agencies with an overseas presence so that
they can verify it regularly to ensure consistency. Non-State agency
officials expressed the need for transparency in overseas staffing data
since they contended that often the data inputted at posts was not
verified by them. The Executive Director of the Bureau of Human
Resources expressed concern that there needs to be some type of
accountability mechanism in place that ensures posts are inputting
information regularly and accurately into Post Personnel. He added that
without a mechanism in place, the quality and validity of the data will
be in question. State officials said that the integrated staffing
database is scheduled to be completed and operational by fall 2006.
However, State has not provided guidance to posts that ensures staffing
information in the Post Personnel database will be continuously updated
or that outlines the accountability mechanisms for ensuring that
staffing information is complete, according to a State official.
Agencies Rightsizing Efforts Lead to Increases or Decreases in Staff:
Over the past several years agencies with an overseas presence have
undertaken initiatives to assess their overseas staffing
configurations. Several agencies reported that they have added staff
overseas as a result of new mission requirements, and others reported
that they have relocated or reduced their personnel to better meet
mission needs and respond to the rightsizing efforts. Many agency
officials with whom we spoke indicated that they have conducted
comprehensive internal reviews or hired consultants to assess their
overseas programs and workload. For example, the Department of
Agriculture recently completed a global rightsizing review and found
that the department is overstaffed in some countries and understaffed
in others. As a result, the Foreign Agricultural Service is
repositioning its personnel to better accomplish organizational goals.
In addition, Department of Homeland Security officials indicated that
they have been working to fully assess their overseas presence and to
identify redundancies within the various Department of Homeland
Security components overseas. State also recently announced plans for
the global repositioning of its overseas presence, which entails moving
hundreds of positions across the world--primarily from Washington and
Europe to critical missions in regions such as Africa, South and East
Asia, and the Middle East.
Rightsizing Efforts Driven by Security and Administrative Costs:
Some agency officials said that their decisions on the numbers of
overseas staff needed are guided by a number of factors, including
congressional mandates, mission requirements, and budget constraints,
including Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs. Officials with
whom we spoke with at several agencies said that they have increased
staff overseas as a result of the global war on terror, border security
activities, and efforts to combat drug trafficking and weapons of mass
destruction. For example, officials in the Department of Justice said
that the department's various components have increased their overseas
presence due to these factors, and, in fact, U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration officials reported that they increased their presence by
almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2005. In addition, Customs and
Border Protection officials told us that they have been increasing
their personnel overseas since 2002 due to requirements for the
Container Security Initiative program. While a number of agencies have
been increasing their presence overseas, a few agencies have decreased
or are projected to maintain the current level of their overseas
presence due to cuts in program budgets. For example, the Foreign
Commercial Service reported that it reduced its overseas staffing
levels by approximately 13 percent since the beginning of fiscal year
2001. In addition, Foreign Agricultural Services officials said that
their overseas presence is likely to remain static.
A number of agencies we spoke with cited that costs of overseas
operations, which include increasing Capital Security Cost Sharing
program and ICASS costs, have caused them to examine their overseas
presence.[Footnote 20] Department of Commerce officials reported that,
while Capital Security Cost Sharing costs represented 7 percent of
their overseas costs in fiscal year 2006, by fiscal year 2009 the cost
is expected to be 21 percent of the agency's overseas costs. In
addition, agency officials said that, because the Capital Security Cost
Sharing costs are based on every existing or planned authorized
overseas position, regardless of whether the position is filled or not,
agencies have effectively been encouraged to eliminate vacant positions
or keep their projected numbers low. For example, Department of
Commerce officials said that costs associated with Capital Security
Cost Sharing has forced the agency to keep its projected overseas
numbers low rather than develop more realistic projections since
program costs are based in part on projected as well as existing
staffing numbers, and they do not want to estimate and pay for
positions that might not be needed in the future. Some agency officials
also indicated that rising ICASS costs have affected their budgets and
caused them to reevaluate their overseas presence. For example,
Department of Homeland Security officials said that because of the high
costs of using ICASS, they are currently reevaluating their use of the
services and stressed the importance of having flexibility to opt out
of ICASS services.
Some agency officials with whom we spoke raised several concerns about
the impacts of Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs on
staffing configurations. For Capital Security Cost Sharing, officials
expressed concern that it is difficult for them to accurately project
their overseas staffing numbers, since potential unforeseen events
overseas, such as natural disasters, could necessitate a reduction or
increase in personnel. Some agency officials expressed concern that, as
the Capital Security Cost Sharing costs increase, they might be priced
out of an overseas presence or have to tap into their program funds to
sustain such a presence. Table 2 depicts the Capital Security Cost
Sharing charges for fiscal year 2007 that appear in the President's
budget for the agencies that we spoke with.
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by
Select Agency:
Agency: Agriculture Department;
Total charge[A]: $8,968,013.
Agency: Commerce Department;
Total charge[A]: 20,678,269.
Agency: Defense Department;
Total charge[A]: 134,893,425.
Agency: Homeland Security Department;
Total charge[A]: 24,052,046.
Agency: Justice Department;
Total charge[A]: 45,635,505.
Agency: State Department;
Total charge[A]: 674,155,851.
Agency: Treasury Department;
Total charge[A]: 2,796,268.
Agency: USAID;
Total charge[A]: 100,349,057.
Agency: Other;
Total charge[A]: 26,594,272.
Agency: Total;
Total charge[A]: $1,038,122,706.
Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations.
[A] The total charge includes building costs for each agency's
personnel and ICASS employees that provide services to an agency, as
well as rent offsets. For example, USAID's Capital Security Cost
Sharing position total is $105,653,422, of which $10,737,155 is for
ICASS contributions. However, a rent offset of $16,041,520 reduces
USAID's total cost figure to $100,349,057.
[End of table]
Moreover, in order to mitigate the effects of ICASS fees coupled with
agency budget cuts, some agency officials indicated that officials
overseas are doing more administrative activities themselves, which
takes time away from accomplishing their mission. In addition, agencies
have sought other cost-effective ways of operating overseas, including
hiring family members of staff, hiring local Americans, or utilizing
locally employed staff (this final option has limitations, however).
For example, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, utilizing locally
employed staff over U.S. direct hires has resulted in considerable
savings to the agency, and it estimates that the savings in relocation
expenses, foreign housing, and other foreign entitlements, which direct
hires receive but locally employed staff do not, would exceed $1
million every 3-4 years. However, agency officials indicated that there
are limitations to using locally employed staff at posts to carry out
some duties due to national security concerns. For example, Department
of the Treasury officials said that they are not able to utilize
locally hired foreign nationals to carry out the work of U.S. direct
hires due to the sensitive investigative nature of their work and
privacy laws. In addition, officials in the Departments of Homeland
Security and Justice indicated that, due to the sensitive nature of
their work, they can only allow American citizens with a security
clearance to perform most of their overseas duties. As an alternative
to sending additional U.S. direct hires to posts, some agencies employ
eligible family members of agency staff or hire U.S. citizens already
living in the host country to carry out some of the agency functions.
Department of Homeland Security officials explained that utilizing U.S.
citizens living in the host country is much cheaper than sending a U.S.
direct hire to a post because the department does not have to pay
benefits such as housing, school costs, and other allowances to locally
hired U.S. citizens.
State Has Established an Office of Rightsizing, but More Interaction
Needed between Office of Rightsizing and Agencies:
In early 2004, State established the congressionally mandated Office of
Rightsizing to primarily coordinate all agency staffing requests,
administer rightsizing and staffing reviews, and work with State
entities and other agencies on rightsizing. The basic mission of the
office is to better coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment
of U.S. government personnel overseas, under chief of mission
authority. Since its formation, some of the activities of the office
have included coordinating staffing requests of U.S. government
agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post rightsizing
reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. Non-State agencies
have voiced a number of concerns related to interactions with the
Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more involved in
the rightsizing process. To better involve all agencies in rightsizing
efforts and better understand their priorities, the Office of
Rightsizing co-hosted an interagency summit in March 2006.
Office of Rightsizing Established within State:
In February 2004, the Office of Rightsizing was established within
State. The roles and responsibilities of the office include
coordinating all agency NSDD-38 requests; administering rightsizing and
staffing reviews; and working with State entities and other agencies on
rightsizing, regionalization, and shared service initiatives. The
office started as a small operation with only a few staff; however,
over the past 2 years it has grown in size. As of early May 2006, the
office includes a director, three NSDD-38 analysts, and three
rightsizing analysts. According to State officials, additional staffing
is needed to handle the growing number of initiatives that the office
is involved with. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us
that he has requested two additional staff to work on analyzing
rightsizing reviews and compiling rightsizing data, and hopes that the
positions will be filled by summer 2006.
Office of Rightsizing Is Involved in a Number of Initiatives:
Since the Office of Rightsizing was established, it has initiated a
number of processes and has been involved in a number of efforts. These
efforts have included administering and analyzing post reviews,
formulating a review plan, developing instructions for post Mission
Performance Plans, automating the NSDD-38 application process, and
issuing a number of quarterly reports summarizing State's rightsizing
actions and accomplishments. In addition, the office has been involved
with two State initiatives on rightsizing, which include demonstrating
results achieved by moving administrative functions away from posts to
remote locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts, also
known as sharing support services.
Rightsizing Reviews:
One of the principal activities of the Office of Rightsizing has been
administering and analyzing post rightsizing reviews. In 2005, the
office established a formal review process and guidance for all posts
overseas, including new embassy construction projects. The process
focuses on linking staffing to mission goals, eliminating duplication,
and promoting shared services. In fiscal year 2005, about 35 reports
were submitted by posts and analyzed by the Office of Rightsizing.
Figure 3 shows the missions that conducted a rightsizing review in
fiscal year 2005, according to the office. All of these reports
pertained to posts scheduled to have construction projects for a new
embassy compound or office building in the near future.[Footnote 21]
According to the Office of Rightsizing, the final reports that have
been analyzed by the office have been or will be submitted to Congress
as State seeks budget appropriations for these projects. In fiscal year
2006, the office has tasked over 40 posts to conduct reviews--more than
20 posts for both the fall and spring cycles.
Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Office of Rightsizing.
[End of figure]
Post Rightsizing Review Plan:
The Office of Rightsizing has developed a 5-year plan, which includes
the schedule of when missions will be asked to conduct reviews by
fiscal year (see appendix IV). The plan is largely driven by State's
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' building schedule, but also
includes consideration of posts participating in State initiatives,
missions of highest priority, and countries with multiple missions,
according to an official in the Office of Rightsizing. For fiscal year
2005, all of the reviews were conducted in anticipation of the post
receiving a new embassy compound or building in the future. For reviews
scheduled to be conducted in fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the yearly
schedule dictates that posts with planned capital projects will
generally perform their rightsizing reviews in the fall of the fiscal
year, while those without planned projects will perform their reviews
in the spring. Figure 4 provides additional information on the review
cycle and steps.
Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Rightsizing in Post Mission Performance Plans:
The Office of Rightsizing has issued guidance to posts to include
rightsizing statements in their Mission Performance Plans, starting
with the fiscal year 2007 submission.[Footnote 22] The guidance states
that the plans must include a brief discussion of the rightsizing
reviews or other rightsizing initiatives undertaken by the mission and
should summarize the results, resource implications, and actions taken
to implement review recommendations. However, we reviewed nine Mission
Performance Plans for fiscal year 2007 and found that only one post had
included discussion of any rightsizing elements that the post had
undertaken. Officials in the Office of Rightsizing indicated that
initially there had not been a serious effort to push for posts to
provide analysis on rightsizing in their fiscal year 2007 Mission
Performance Plans and, as a result, not all posts have done so.
However, they said that there has been more emphasis by the office to
have posts include rightsizing discussions in their 2008 plans. In May
2006, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing reported that his
office is participating in the reviews of the recent Mission
Performance Plans submitted by posts.
NSDD-38 Application Process:
The Office of Rightsizing has been working with agencies and
coordinating with Chiefs of Mission at posts on NSDD-38 requests,
particularly those related to new programs. These requests are
submitted to the Chief of Mission for approval of any proposed changes
in agencies' staffing elements at the post. Officials in the office
said that they act in an advisory capacity between the agencies that
are looking to establish or increase personnel at a post and the Chief
of Mission to determine if the function needs to be performed overseas.
However, they told us that it is ultimately the Chief of Mission's
decision to accept or deny an agency's request to send personnel to
post. In fall 2005, the Office of Rightsizing implemented a NSDD-38 Web-
enabled application so that agencies can now submit their overseas
staffing requests via the Internet. According to an Office of
Rightsizing document, since the application process is now standardized
online--which ensures that agency NSDD-38 submissions are correct and
complete--Chiefs of Mission at posts can now immediately consider the
submissions.
Quarterly Rightsizing Reports:
Since spring 2005, the Office of Rightsizing has published three
quarterly reports that highlight State's overall rightsizing efforts
and performance, as well as summarize the accomplishments and
publications of the office.[Footnote 23] The quarterly reports have
also included copies of State cables sent to posts pertaining to
rightsizing related issues, the Office of Management and Budget's
President's Management Agenda rightsizing score card and summary, as
well as the guidance and sample report that the Office of Rightsizing
has sent to posts.[Footnote 24] The Director of the Office of
Rightsizing stated that the quarterly reports are intended to provide
both State bureaus and non-State agencies with an understanding of
rightsizing measures and processes.
State Regionalization Efforts:
The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State's efforts to
ensure that those administrative functions that do not need to be
conducted at posts are carried out from remote locations. According to
State officials, potential advantages to providing support to posts
from remote locations include potential cost savings, enhanced security
for American personnel, and improved quality of administrative support.
State currently provides remote support to many agencies at posts,
primarily in the areas of financial management and human resources,
from two dedicated regional service centers--the Florida Regional
Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the Regional Support Center in
Frankfurt, Germany. In addition, State also provides remote support of
some administrative functions through partnering arrangements whereby
one post with the personnel and expertise in certain administrative
function assists a smaller post. In order to further expand remote
support, State's fiscal year 2006 operational plan, Organizing for
Transformational Diplomacy: Rightsizing and Regionalization, identifies
additional post functions that can be performed remotely to minimize
the U.S. overseas footprint and reduce costs.[Footnote 25] The plan
focuses on first removing non-location- specific functions--or
functions that could potentially be removed from posts and carried out
either from the United States or a regional center--from critical
danger missions,[Footnote 26] where State officials said it is crucial
to have as few personnel at posts as possible due to security concerns.
The plan envisions eventually removing those functions from all
overseas posts. We provide a more detailed discussion on State's
efforts and challenges to provide support remotely in a separate
report.[Footnote 27]
State/USAID Shared Support Services:
The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State's efforts to
increase efficiencies in overseas administrative functions by
identifying and eliminating duplicative management support functions
among agencies, as well as overlapping or redundant program functions.
Although increasing efficiencies by streamlining functions applies to
all overseas agencies, State has been working primarily with USAID to
reduce the duplication of overseas support services. In 2004, State,
along with USAID, launched pilot programs aimed at consolidating
support functions such as motor pool, warehousing, residential
maintenance, and leasing services at posts in Jakarta, Indonesia; Phnom
Penh, Cambodia; Cairo, Egypt; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The focus of
the pilot programs was to determine how State and USAID could best
collaborate to realize significant savings and improved service
quality. However, only one of the pilot posts succeeded in
consolidating all four support functions. According to State, the
pilots have established that significant operational efficiencies and
some cost savings can be realized through the consolidation of
duplicative services. Since the pilots at the four posts, State and
USAID have identified additional consolidation opportunities. We will
provide a more detailed discussion and evaluation of State and USAID's
consolidation efforts in a report that will be coming out later this
year.
Agencies Cite Limited Interaction with Office of Rightsizing; More
Coordination Under Way:
One of the responsibilities of the Office of Rightsizing is to
coordinate and manage interagency rightsizing initiatives. However,
during our discussions with non-State agencies in late 2005 and early
2006, a number of agencies with an overseas presence told us that they
had limited interaction with State's Office of Rightsizing on matters
aside from NSDD-38 requests. Furthermore, some non-State agency
officials told us that they were not aware of the rightsizing mandate
or guidance provided to posts by the Office of Rightsizing. According
to the Director of the Office of Rightsizing, his office has made an
effort over the last couple of months to visit or talk with many of the
agencies with an overseas presence. However, we found that, in some
cases, the pertinent offices were not reached. For example, officials
in Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services told us that State entities tend to coordinate through one
office and do not reach the various entities within the department.
Both U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border
Protection officials indicated that they would like to be included in
any discussions that State, in particular the Office of Rightsizing,
has with the Department of Homeland Security, and suggested that State
designate a focal point within each Department of Homeland Security
office with an overseas presence. The Office of Rightsizing indicated
that the Department of Homeland Security requested that it coordinate
through the department's Office of International Affairs. It is
important that agency components are receiving the necessary
information to ensure that rightsizing efforts are understood. The
Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Rightsizing share
responsibility for developing a mechanism to get this done.
Furthermore, during our discussions with agency officials in late 2005
and early 2006, non-State agencies indicated that they would like more
transparency in the rightsizing review process. For example, some
agencies told us that they would like to know the outcomes of the
reviews at each post and know ahead of time when posts will be
conducting reviews. Moreover, some agency officials stated that they
are looking for an overall U.S. government strategy or vision from the
Office of Rightsizing so that, as they move ahead on their own
rightsizing planning and efforts, they will be in line with what the
Office of Rightsizing is planning. Finally, some non-State agency
officials indicated that, in order to be able to contribute to the
process, they would like to see more clearly stated standards and
unified processes that relate to rightsizing at posts. For example,
officials said that they would like to understand how posts determine
the number of staffing positions available at any given time and would
like to ensure that the requests for information coming from
Washington, D.C., to posts are more consistent.
State Holds Rightsizing Interagency Summit:
In order to address rightsizing in context with non-State agencies'
agendas and priorities, the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of
Management and Budget co-hosted an interagency summit in early March
2006. According to the Office of Rightsizing, participants included
representatives from a number of foreign affairs and non-foreign-
affairs agencies; discussions focused on key initiatives coordinated
and managed by State, such as consolidation of duplicative functions,
rightsizing reviews, the NSDD-38 process, and State regionalization
efforts.
While some officials from State's regional bureaus feel that having an
interagency conference is a good start at getting all agencies involved
with rightsizing, they believe that additional interagency dialogue is
needed. In addition, some non-State agency officials told us that the
interagency summit did not provide them with a sense of a strategy for
how they should move forward with their own rightsizing plan to make
sure that it does not conflict with State's rightsizing efforts.
Moreover, in the course of our structured interviews, 7 out of 20
management officers identified the need for interagency involvement and
agency "buy-in" at the Washington, D.C., and post level to ensure that
rightsizing can move ahead at each post. For example, one management
officer with whom we spoke said that he would like to see a firm,
written commitment from other agency headquarters, other than State,
that consolidation of services is in the best interest of every agency
and is expected of posts overseas. One post noted in its rightsizing
report that the success of posts' rightsizing studies is closely linked
to interagency efforts to agree on initiatives to maximize efficiency
at posts. In addition, another management officer with whom we spoke
said that it would be helpful to have interagency guidance on what to
do when eliminating duplicative services results in overall savings to
the U.S. government, but increased costs to an agency, at the post
level.
Some non-State agency officials said that it would be beneficial to
have more frequent interagency meetings or summits, rather than just
once a year. For example, a USAID official said that having an
interagency summit before each rightsizing review cycle starts--one in
the fall and another in the spring--could help inform non-State
agencies of rightsizing changes and activities at posts that effect
their agency overseas. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told
us that, while there are no immediate plans to hold more frequent
interagency summits involving all agencies with an overseas presence,
he plans to continue holding a rightsizing summit annually. The Office
of Rightsizing also reported that it plans to implement a Washington,
D.C.-based forum whereby officials from foreign affairs agencies, such
as the Department of Commerce, USAID, and the Department of
Agriculture, can meet regularly to share information on programs and
ensure that there is a greater consistency in the information coming
from headquarters. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us
that the office could be doing more with other non-State agencies to
address rightsizing issues at posts, particularly on the issue of
consolidation of functions, but would first like to address issues
raised as part of the joint State-USAID shared services efforts.
Office of Rightsizing Initiates Rightsizing Reviews, but Reviews Have
Not Realized Full Potential:
Post rightsizing reviews are a key element of State's rightsizing
efforts. These reviews are designed to link post staffing to the
mission's goals, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and encourage
shared services between agencies at posts. Our analysis of the first
round of the reviews showed that there was limited guidance to posts
and that there was not a systematic process for how the posts
structured their reviews, though State improved its guidance for the
second round of reviews. In reviewing the first and second rightsizing
cycles, the Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million dollars of
cost savings or avoidance based on the result of their analysis of the
reviews. Posts used a variety of methods to conduct their rightsizing
reviews. Some management officers with whom we spoke identified various
challenges in conducting their fall 2005 reviews and ensuring that
their post is rightsized. Additionally, the Office of Rightsizing did
not consider the need for posts to conduct a cost analysis as part of
their reviews. It is unclear how the rightsizing review decisions, such
as elimination of duplicative functions, will be implemented at each
post, according to officials at post and in State's regional bureaus.
Rightsizing Review Structure and Guidance Have Evolved:
In October 2004, the Office of Rightsizing began instructing overseas
missions scheduled to receive a new embassy compound to perform
rightsizing reviews. The reviews are intended to eliminate or justify
any duplicative or parallel functions at posts and consider the
possibility for reducing U.S. government employees at posts through
such means as remote services, more utilization of locally employed
staff, and outsourcing. Between late 2004 and summer 2005, about 35
posts participated in the first cycle of reviews, and the office
conducted formal analyses of the posts' reviews in late 2004 and early
2005. The Office of Rightsizing reported over $50 million in costs
saved or avoided to the U.S. government based on its analysis of the
first cycle of reviews. Based on the analysis that the Office of
Rightsizing conducted of post reviews representing eight new embassy
compounds, the average reduction in desk positions for each project was
18, which resulted in 145 desk reductions overall.[Footnote 28] The
office identified many of the removed desk positions in cooperation
with posts and regional bureaus. According to the Office of
Rightsizing, these desks represent significant partially or fully
avoided costs. Of the 145 reduced positions, 50 were U.S. direct hires.
Assuming an average saving of $400,000 per year for each position, the
office estimated that these 50 positions represent as much as $20
million in potential costs avoided.[Footnote 29] Furthermore, the
office stated that the desk positions removed represented approximately
an additional $20 million in savings to the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations in capital security construction costs, as well as
approximately $18 million in savings due to not needing to build
separate annexes in three cases. The actual cost avoidance achieved
will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be avoided and whether
recommended staff reductions are implemented.
However, based on our analysis of 20 out of about 35 rightsizing
reviews that were part of the spring 2005 review cycle, we observed
that there was not a systematic approach for how the posts structured
their reports or how the Office of Rightsizing evaluated them. For
example, the information presented within the reports varied from post
to post, and the rightsizing elements that the posts evaluated and
reported were not consistent. Some posts provided narratives discussing
various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing and post security,
while other posts did not. Furthermore, we found that none of the posts
showed that they had conducted a cost analysis as part of the post's
rightsizing efforts. In addition, we found that the Office of
Rightsizing did not have a systematic process to quantify costs saved
or avoided as a result of post staffing reductions stemming from
reviews in the spring 2005 cycle. The Director of the Office of
Rightsizing agreed that the office needs to implement a systematic
process of collecting data and determining cost savings and cost
avoidance for future rightsizing cycles, and has asked the rightsizing
analysts in the office to document the positions that are eliminated or
costs saved due to posts taking rightsizing measures into
consideration. Finally, we also found that, although the goal of the
President's Management Agenda and the Office of Rightsizing is to limit
the overseas presence to the minimum level necessary to accomplish the
U.S. government's mission, overseas staffing is increasing. Our
analysis of the 20 reviews from the spring 2005 cycle revealed that net
staffing numbers will increase for 15 posts. Increased levels in
staffing abroad can be attributed to high-priority national security
interests, such as the global war on terror, anti-narcotics efforts,
and HIV/AIDS projects, which have implications on U.S. staffing and
space at posts abroad, according to the Office of Rightsizing as well
as post management officers.
The Director of the Office of Rightsizing agreed that the first round
of reviews was not conducted systematically, and said that the process
and format has evolved since the initial guidance was provided to posts
for the spring 2005 cycle. In particular, based on feedback from posts
that participated in the spring 2005 review cycle, the Office of
Rightsizing changed the guidance to be more systematic for the fall
2005 cycle. All management officers that we interviewed at 20 posts
which had conducted a review as part of the second cycle in fall 2005
stated that the guidance was either very useful or moderately useful,
and several commented that the guidance was clear, succinct, and easy
to discern. Table 3 below specifies the elements that the fall 2005
cycle posts were asked to address when completing their reviews.
Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing Reviews,
September 2005:
Section: Mission goals and objectives; Description: For each mission
goal, identify the resources currently supporting that goal, and
analyze the post's specific achievements in meeting the objectives.
Section: Duplicative activities;
Description: Assess areas of duplication, activities which are no
longer required or may require adjustment of resource levels, and
identify activities which require increased resources to achieve their
objectives.
Section: Alternate sourcing[A];
Description: Identify all services which are currently outsourced
including services that are contracted by the embassy, such as local
guard services, vehicle maintenance, janitor services, gardening
services, etc.
Section: Regionalized services;
Description: Identify all activities that are performed by regional or
U.S. based government personnel such as financial management and human
resources services.
Section: Substitution of locally employed staff for U.S. direct-hire
positions;
Description: Identify U.S. direct-hire positions for which locally
employed staff may be substituted.
Section: Current and projected staffing;
Description: Complete the summary staffing table, including all
sections and/or agencies, showing current staffing levels, projected
staffing levels, and the net change.
Section: Long range overseas buildings plan staffing projections[B];
Description: For posts receiving a new embassy compound, complete the
Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan spreadsheet, which should include a
count of all projected staff, American and locally employed staff, desk
and non-desk, controlled access areas and non-controlled access areas.
For posts not receiving a new embassy compound, use the Capital
Security Cost Sharing spreadsheet and add or reduce positions
accordingly.
Section: ICASS service matrix;
Description: Complete the ICASS service matrix which should clearly
show which services are provided to which agencies, and which are not.
Source: Office of Rightsizing.
[A] In subsequent rightsizing cycles, "alternative sourcing" has been
replaced by "competitive sourcing," which is a methodical way of
evaluating whether commercial services should be performed using
government employees or contractors.
[B] The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations has reorganized and
developed a planning tool, called the Long Range Overseas Buildings
Plan, to annually publish a 6-year plan that lays out projects,
priorities, and costs for the upcoming year.
[End of table]
Seventeen of the twenty management officials with whom we spoke who
conducted a rightsizing review in fall 2005 said that the review helped
them better understand how post personnel meet mission objectives. When
asked whether they had additional comments, several management officers
stated that they found the review at their post to be a useful
exercise. For example, a management officer posted in Eurasia stated
that the review was an interesting and useful process, which helped the
post focus on parts of the Mission Performance Plan that they would
otherwise not have concentrated their efforts on. The Office of
Rightsizing reported over $100 million in costs saved or avoided to the
U.S. government based on their analysis of the fall 2005 cycle of
reviews. The estimate was based on an analysis that the Office of
Rightsizing conducted of post reviews representing 21 missions.
According to the office, its rightsizing efforts for the fall 2005
cycle will result in a potential reduction of 683 total desk spaces in
new embassy compounds, of which 170 are U.S. direct hires. The Office
of Rightsizing estimated that each eliminated U.S. direct-hire position
would result in a cost avoidance of about $400,000. The actual cost
avoidance achieved will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be
avoided and whether recommended staff reductions are implemented. In
addition, the Office of Rightsizing reported that the rightsizing
actions for the fall 2005 cycle have resulted in approximately $90
million in savings to the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in
capital security construction costs, which includes cost saved by not
needing to build four annexes. Although we have not been able to
independently assess the Office of Rightsizing's estimates, it has
presented evidence that some major cost avoidance and cost savings have
occurred. Figure 5 illustrates the posts from the fall 2005 review
cycle where we interviewed officials as part of our analysis.
Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Approach to Conducting Rightsizing Reviews Varies by Post:
Posts used a variety of means to conduct their reviews. The approach
used by 19 of the 20 posts (all of which were included in the fall 2005
review cycle where we interviewed officials) incorporated the
participation of the post management officer, Deputy Chief of Mission,
or both. The Office of Rightsizing suggested that posts, in conducting
rightsizing reviews, use the ICASS Council, working groups, or any ad
hoc arrangement as a vehicle for discussion and formulation of the
report and corresponding data. In addition, the Office of Rightsizing
instructed posts to include all State and non-State agencies,
constituent posts, and embassy offices in the posts' rightsizing
analyses. However, posts took diverse approaches to carrying out their
reviews. Some posts conducted their reviews using rightsizing
committees, and others directed their review to existing goal oriented
discussion groups such as those that created the post's Mission
Performance Plan.
The Office of Rightsizing also offered posts the opportunity to
participate in digital video conferences to answer any questions that
they had about the review. However, officials at 13 of the 20 posts
mentioned above stated that they did not participate in a video
conference with the office. Management officers said that their posts
did not participate because, among other reasons, they did not find it
necessary; other posts did not have the technological capabilities to
participate. Moreover, several posts did not participate in a digital
video conference because officials did not think that the Office of
Rightsizing required it. Nonetheless, the Director of the Office of
Rightsizing stated that he found that those posts that took advantage
of this option had more success with their rightsizing reviews; thus,
starting with the spring 2006 cycle, the office will require that every
post participate in a conference. He also stated that he hopes other
non-State agencies will participate in video conferences as posts
conduct their rightsizing reviews. Moreover, State, as well as the
Office of Management and Budget, expects all agencies at each post to
understand that rightsizing is government-wide and not just a State-
oriented process. In the course of our structured interviews, 7 out of
20 management officers identified the need for interagency involvement,
including agency "buy-in" to ensure that rightsizing can move ahead at
each post. For example, a management officer in Europe stated that it
would be very helpful if there was a one-page summary that non-State
agency officials at each post received from their headquarters in
Washington, D.C., that describes what they need to do as part of the
rightsizing review. However, we found that the Office of Rightsizing
provided posts with very little guidance on interagency participation.
The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated that he also
encourages posts to utilize the resources and knowledge within the
office and recommends that posts, as they conduct the review, share
sections of it with the office for feedback. The posts participating in
the fall 2005 cycle generally took this approach, as 13 of 20 posts
reported that they shared sections of their report with the office
during the review process. The Office of Rightsizing also indicated
that this approach may lead to more expeditious approval of reviews and
that they will therefore strongly recommend that posts participating in
the spring 2006 rightsizing cycle share sections of their report prior
to final submission. Additionally, 15 management officers we
interviewed stated that sharing best practices with other posts through
online forums or receiving a visit from an expert to help guide the
post through the rightsizing review process would be very useful for
enhancing the rightsizing review process.
Posts Identified Challenges in Conducting Rightsizing Reviews:
A number of management officers identified various challenges in
conducting the reviews at their post, including resistance by non-State
agencies at posts to address rightsizing measures. Another challenge
mentioned was a lack of direction and opportunities for regionalization
and outsourcing of services. In addition, overlapping data requests
from agencies' headquarters, as well as redundant personnel databases,
complicated the review process.
Resistance by Non-State Agencies at Posts:
Several posts that conducted a fall 2005 rightsizing review stated that
they encountered resistance from non-State agencies when trying to
obtain interagency involvement during the process. Specifically, four
post management officers stated that other agencies were not receptive
to the request to conduct a rightsizing review. According to a
management officer posted in Europe, non-State agencies at the post did
not want to share information on future staffing numbers for the
review. The management officer added that there was a lack of
recognition by agencies that rightsizing was not just a State
initiative, but a government-wide initiative. Moreover, some management
officers explained that they had difficulties in getting agencies to
buy into the rightsizing review process and faced interagency
resistance regarding the consolidation of post services. Consolidation
of services proved to be a common challenge at posts, as 14 of the 20
management officers we interviewed identified duplication of post
services or programs, such as motor pool and cashiering, as a result of
the rightsizing review. Although these posts have identified
duplicative services or programs, 10 of 20 management officers stated
that the post has not taken action on consolidating the services and
programs. According to management officers, common reasons why some
posts have not yet consolidated these duplicative functions is because
they are waiting to merge their functions once they move into their new
embassy compound or because the agencies at the post could not come to
an agreement about consolidation. For example, a management officer
posted in Africa stated that USAID headquarters provided its staff at
the post with conflicting instructions about retaining duplicative
administrative support services, which countered the ongoing efforts to
eliminate duplicative services at the post.
Posts Lack Direction and Opportunities for the Regionalization and
Outsourcing of Services:
Several posts that participated in the spring and fall 2005 cycle of
reviews stated that they lacked direction and opportunities for the
regionalization and outsourcing of services. The guidance for the
rightsizing review requested posts to consider regionalization options.
However, while 18 of 20 posts we interviewed stated that they rely on
regional support services to meet posts' needs, a few management
officers indicated that they found it difficult to consider all
regionalization options without having a base understanding of what
regional services are available. For example, management officers
posted in Asia and Africa stated that they lack information on what
types of regional support could be provided remotely and how to access
that support. Another management officer in Eurasia stated that posts
should be provided a baseline listing of services so that post
officials have a good sense of which services are available regionally.
Though posts were instructed to assess outsourcing possibilities within
their reviews, several posts that participated in the spring 2005 cycle
of rightsizing reviews reported that outsourcing of services is not a
good alternative due to the lack of choice, quality, and sophistication
in the marketplace. Another management officer posted in Asia, whose
post participated in the fall 2005 cycle of reviews, stated that
outsourcing is a concept that the post is not accustomed to using and
that the rightsizing review led them to examine which post functions
can be outsourced. To ascertain current outsourced functions at posts,
State's Office of Global Support Services and Innovation administered
an outsourcing survey to which 119 posts responded. According to the
survey results, the services most likely to be outsourced were copier
maintenance as well as packing and shipping, while those services least
likely to be outsourced were procurement, property management, and
phone billing. Officials at the Office of Global Support Services and
Innovation stated that the results of the survey will serve as the
Office of Rightsizing's baseline for outsourcing.
Rightsizing Reviews Overlap with Additional State Data Requests:
All of the management officers we interviewed stated that, within the
last 2 years, they have received other requests or reviews from agency
headquarters seeking information similar to that requested for the
rightsizing review. Ten of twenty management officers we interviewed
identified the Mission Performance Plan as another headquarters request
for information similar to that of the rightsizing review, and several
of these posts indicated that there was a high degree of overlap
between these two data requests. Moreover, more than half of the
management officers indicated that there was a high or moderate degree
of overlap between the rightsizing review and other requests from the
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, such as the Capital Security
Cost Sharing Program and the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan data
requests.
As explained by several posts, it was difficult to complete and keep
track of all of these overlapping data requests given the limited
resources at each post. For example, a management officer at a post in
Africa stated that it took approximately 3 months to complete the
Capital Security Cost Sharing request and approximately 2 months to
complete the Mission Performance Plan, with both requests requiring
interagency staff collaboration. The officer added that the post did
not have time to focus on all of the requests tasked to the post.
Another management officer in Africa stated that the post would have
liked to have one database that was responsive to the needs of all the
requests from headquarters. In addition, 5 of the 20 posts that we
interviewed stated that it would be beneficial to streamline the
rightsizing review by including it with other data and information
requests,and, moreover, several management officers stated that the
rightsizing review should draw from information that currently exists
in databases that are centrally located in Washington, D.C.
The Office of Rightsizing has recognized the need for a single database
and told us that State has been working on developing an integrated
Post Personnel database. According to State officials, this database is
expected to populate all other databases currently maintained by
overseas posts to ensure all databases contain the same information.
Furthermore, Office of Rightsizing officials stated that--once there is
one authoritative database for all staffing data--they will no longer
rely on multiple databases and, therefore, will not have to spend as
much time verifying overseas staffing numbers projected in rightsizing
reviews.
Cost Analysis Was Not a Primary Factor in Rightsizing Reviews:
The Office of Rightsizing did not consider the need for posts to
conduct cost analyses as an essential supplement to the spring 2005 and
fall 2005 reviews. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated
that he did not want the post reviews to become a cost cutting
exercise, but rather to focus more on identifying the needed resources
to meet the posts' mission and goals and justify current and projected
staffing compositions. Moreover, he stated that actual cost savings at
the post level would be hard to determine and that sometimes
rightsizing requires an increase in staff.
The guidance for the spring 2005 and fall 2005 rightsizing reviews did
not require posts to evaluate costs or perform cost analyses for the
review process. While none of the 20 post reports we reviewed for the
spring 2005 cycle illustrated within their rightsizing report the
results of a cost analysis in association with rightsizing efforts at
posts, 11 of 20 posts for the fall 2005 cycle told us that they
conducted some or limited cost analyses for various post staffing
scenarios, such as the outsourcing of services and substitution of
locally engaged staff for U.S. direct-hire positions. In addition, one
management officer stated that the post conducted an analysis to
determine which service provider at the post would be more cost
effective. However, a management officer stated that it was difficult
to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost effectiveness of
service providers because the post did not have comparable data for
each provider. Moreover, another management officer in Asia stated that
the post's cost analysis was not comprehensive because post staff did
not have the necessary expertise to conduct such an analysis. Moreover,
a management officer added that the post would need more guidance if it
were to conduct a formal cost analysis with accurate cost data.
With the upcoming cycles of reviews, the Office of Rightsizing is
increasingly emphasizing the need to consider costs associated with
rightsizing. For example, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing
directed that additional analyses should be undertaken by posts to
determine the overall cost impact to the U.S. government and all
customer agencies before actual consolidation of shared administrative
support services can occur. This analysis should also assess whether
the formation of the single service provider will, over time, be a more
viable and effective option for the U.S. government. The Office of
Rightsizing has not yet provided formal guidance to posts on how to
conduct an analysis to determine the most cost effective service
provider, but it is continually developing its guidance for posts, and
in particular, has developed guidance for a rightsizing competitive
sourcing business case analysis, which is being incorporated into the
spring 2006 cycle of reviews.[Footnote 30] Subsequently, all posts will
be required to complete this cost module as part of their rightsizing
reviews, according to the Office of Rightsizing.
Implementation of Rightsizing Review Results Unclear:
Some management officials we interviewed, as well as officials in
State's regional bureaus, were unclear about the outcomes of the
reviews. Although the reviews are intended to eliminate or justify any
duplicative or parallel functions at posts and consider the possibility
for reducing U.S. government employees at each post, some executive
directors in State's regional bureaus pointed out that there is no
implementation plan with timelines to track rightsizing-related changes
that have been identified. Most executive directors in regional bureaus
believe that it should be the Office of Rightsizing's responsibility to
follow-up with posts to ensure resources have been consolidated in line
with rightsized staffing levels, while one executive director in a
regional bureau believes that it should be both the Office of
Rightsizing as well as the bureau's own responsibility.
The Office of Rightsizing stated that it has informed posts what their
staffing configurations should be as a result of their reviews and that
it is the post's responsibility to carry out corresponding staffing
changes. Furthermore, the office has asked posts to include the
distribution of services and schedules of when consolidation will occur
within their Mission Performance Plans. The office also expects posts
to establish reduction in force plans, which, according to the Office
of Rightsizing, should consider attrition, retirement, and vacant
positions. Moreover, Office of Rightsizing officials stated that they
are planning to send a yearly cable to posts that have already
completed rightsizing reviews to remind them of the need to meet agreed-
upon staffing levels and to ensure that rightsizing action has been
taken before the post moves into a new embassy compound. In early May
2006, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us that, in lieu
of sending a cable, his office will be tasking posts that conducted
reviews in the spring and fall 2005 cycles to develop a rightsizing
action plan leading up to the completion of their new embassy compound.
However, as of May 9, 2006, the office has not sent an action plan
tasking to posts.
As the Office of Rightsizing expects posts to develop their own
rightsizing implementation plan, some posts may not adhere to the
staffing figures agreed upon within their reviews. Specifically, some
management officers we interviewed stated that their posts are waiting
to move into a new embassy compound before taking any action to
configure their post staffing numbers. For example, a management
officer posted in Asia stated that the post's plan to configure the
staffing numbers as reflected in the rightsizing review is not
connected to any immediate time frame, but rather will happen when the
post moves into the new embassy compound. Another management officer
stated that, because the construction of the post's new embassy
compound has been postponed, and because agencies at the post have not
agreed to the staffing changes made by the Office of Rightsizing, no
immediate post staffing changes are being contemplated. In addition to
a lack of an implementation plan for those posts receiving a new
embassy compound, it is also unclear what approach or incentives the
Office of Rightsizing will use to enforce implementation of rightsizing
measures for those posts not scheduled to receive a new embassy
compound. According to an official in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings
Operations, it is important for posts to have an implementation plan of
how they will reconfigure their staffing, particularly for those posts
that will be moving into a new embassy compound, because the new
embassy or consulate will be built based on the staffing numbers
approved by the Office of Rightsizing for that post.
Conclusion:
Progress has been made in implementing the President's Management
Agenda initiative to rightsize the U.S. government's overseas presence
at embassies and consulates. Agencies are generally adjusting their
presence based on mission, security, and cost factors. State is seeking
ways to reduce support staff overseas and overseas posts are conducting
rightsizing reviews required by legislation. Moreover, after a slow
start, State's Office of Rightsizing is beginning to achieve momentum
in coordinating government-wide rightsizing efforts. However, more
needs to be done. Of foremost importance is the need to develop
accurate staffing data with which to measure staffing trends and the
effects of rightsizing activities. We recognize that efforts are
currently under way to develop accurate data; however because of the
importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length
of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight may be
needed to ensure completion of this task. State's Office of Rightsizing
also needs to aggressively reach out to agencies at the headquarters
level, and to overseas posts, to ensure that the positive initiatives
under way are implemented effectively.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the U.S. government's overseas presence under chief of
mission authority is accurately accounted for and to ensure that the
U.S. government's rightsizing goals are being coordinated and that
posts can maximize savings and gain efficiencies through rightsizing,
we recommend that the Secretary of State take the following three
actions:
* Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a
single database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel
staffing numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and
agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date;
* Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous
basis; and:
* Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the
agreed upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and
eliminating duplicative functions.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State's
comments, along with our responses to them, can be found in appendix V.
State indicated that it has either recently implemented or is taking
steps to implement all of our recommendations.
We received technical comments from State, the Departments of Homeland
Security, the Treasury, Defense, and Justice and USAID, which we have
incorporated throughout the report, where appropriate. In addition, the
Department of Justice stated that it endorses our recommendation that
State continue to expand its outreach to agencies and departments with
an overseas presence to enhance discussion and information sharing on
rightsizing initiatives. Furthermore, the Department of the Treasury
stated that it would be helpful if agencies with personnel at posts
developing rightsizing action plans have the opportunity for their
personnel to participate in the rightsizing reviews and the development
of the action plans.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to other interested members of Congress, the Library of
Congress, and the Secretary of State. 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 [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Other GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To ascertain the size of the U.S. government's overseas presence we
spoke with officials in State Department's (State) Office of
Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence (Office of
Rightsizing) and the Executive Director of State's Bureau of Human
Resources; we also discussed the limitations that State faces in
portraying an accurate number for the overseas presence. In addition,
we spoke with an official in the Office of Management and Budget to
determine the methodology used to report the size and cost of the
overseas presence. To determine the U.S. government's efforts to
rightsize its overseas presence we spoke with officials at a number of
agencies in Washington, D.C., that have a presence at overseas posts.
We spoke with officials from the the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice; as
well as officials from the General Services Administration and the U.S.
Agency for International Development. In addition, we reviewed staffing
documents from numerous agencies, reports by State's Office of
Inspector General, and rightsizing documents from State's Office of
Rightsizing. We did not conduct a comprehensive review of each
agencies' rightsizing efforts.
We spoke with officials in the Office of Rightsizing about the
rightsizing process and reviewed rightsizing guidance and related
documentation. We reviewed and analyzed nine Mission Performance Plans
for fiscal year 2007, which we were able to obtain from State, to
determine whether rightsizing considerations were reported in the
plans. We also spoke with officials in each State regional bureau--
Western Hemisphere Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, African
Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and
South and Central Asian Affairs--to gauge their involvement with post
rightsizing reviews and their interaction with the Office of
Rightsizing. In addition, we spoke with officials in State's Office of
Global Support Services and Innovation about State's initiatives on
regionalization and shared services. To determine costs saved or
avoided as a result of rightsizing exercises, we reviewed cost data
from State's Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings
Operations. To assess the reliability of State's data, we interviewed
officials in the Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations to ascertain how the data were captured and
analyzed and whether there were any limitations to the data. We
determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
review.
To determine if there was a systematic process for reporting
information in the first cycle of reviews, we reviewed and analyzed 20
out of about 35 rightsizing reviews that were conducted by posts from
late 2004 through summer 2005. The Office of Rightsizing provided us
with over 20 reviews for our analysis. However, we analyzed only those
reviews for which we had received both the post rightsizing review as
well as the corresponding analysis of the review conducted by the
Office of Rightsizing. Between February 2006 and March 2006 we
administered 20 structured interviews regarding post rightsizing review
experiences. The interviews were conducted by telephone primarily with
management counselors or officers at embassies. In one case we spoke
with the Deputy Chief of Mission at the post. The interviews involved
20 of the 22 posts that were part of the fall 2005 cycle and which had
completed their rightsizing reviews by the time we talked to the post.
The posts were located in: Asuncion, Baku, Bandar Seri Begawan,
Bucharest, Bujumbura, Colombo, Harare, Jakarta, Islamabad, Kiev,
Warsaw, Maputo, N'djamena, Pretoria, Reykjavik, Rome, Santo Domingo,
Moscow, Taipei, and Tunis. We did not conduct interviews with two
posts--Monrovia and Ankara--because these posts did not follow through
with our request for interviews.
The structured interview contained open-and closed-ended questions
about guidance, timing, the review process, rightsizing considerations,
headquarters' involvement and feedback, and the impact of the review on
the post. We developed the interview questions based on our review of
rightsizing documentation and discussions with post officials during
our fieldwork in Mexico City and Valletta. We provided an early version
of the questions to the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of Global
Support Services and Innovation for their review and comment, and we
also pretested the interview with three current management officers to
ensure that the questions were clear and could be answered. We modified
the interview questions on the basis of the pretest results and an
internal expert's technical review. We provided the management officers
and Deputy Chief of Mission with the interview questions in advance to
allow them time to gather any data or information necessary for the
interview. We initiated follow-up discussions with 13 posts by
telephone. We subsequently sent posts follow-up questions by E-mail if
we were not able to reach them by telephone. The responses of the
structured interviews are not intended to be representative of all
posts. We did not talk with management officers or look at rightsizing
reviews for those posts that were part of the spring 2006 review cycle.
We conducted fieldwork at the embassies in Mexico City, Mexico, and
Valletta, Malta; and the consulate in Frankfurt, Germany, to gain a
better understanding of the rightsizing process. We chose these posts
because both Mexico City and Valletta had been asked by the Office of
Rightsizing to conduct a rightsizing review as part of the spring 2005
cycle. We chose to visit Frankfurt because the consulate had conducted
an informal rightsizing exercise in response to a report from State's
Office of Inspector General and because it is a regional hub in Europe.
At each post we met with State officials as well as other agency
officials involved in the rightsizing process to discuss their approach
and outcomes of the review. In addition, we met with the Ambassadors in
Mexico City and Valletta, as well as the Consul General in Frankfurt to
understand their views and involvement in the rightsizing process.
We conducted our work from May 2005 through May 2006, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at U.S. Embassies
and Consulates:
GAO, Overseas Presence: Observations on a Rightsizing Framework, GAO-02-
659T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002).
GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff Levels
Can Support Rightsizing Initiatives, GAO-02-780 (Washington, D.C.: July
26, 2002).
GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Framework Can Be Applied at U.S.
Diplomatic Posts in Developing Countries, GAO-03-396 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 7, 2003).
GAO, Embassy Construction: Process for Determining Staffing
Requirements Needs Improvement, GAO-03-411 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2003).
GAO, Overseas Presence: Systematic Processes Needed to Rightsize Posts
and Guide Embassy Construction, GAO-03-582T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2003).
GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Is Key to Considering Relocation of
Regional Staff to New Frankfurt Center, GAO-03-1061 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 2, 2003).
GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed to Increase Efficiency and
Improve Delivery of Administrative Support Services, GAO-04-511
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004).
GAO, Embassy Construction: Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could Speed
Construction and Reduce Staff Levels, but Some Agencies Have Concerns,
GAO-05-32 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004).
GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are
Needed to Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support
Remotely, GAO-06-479 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006).
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Rightsizing Framework and Corresponding Questions:
This appendix lists the questions pertaining to mission, security, and
cost that we developed in 2002 to help support rightsizing initiatives
for existing facilities overseas.
Physical/Technical Security of Facilities and Employees:
What is the threat and security profile of the embassy?
Has the ability to protect personnel been a factor in determining
staffing levels at the embassy?
To what extent are existing office buildings secure?
Is existing space being optimally utilized?
Have all practical options for improving the security of facilities
been considered?
Do issues involving facility security put the staff at an unacceptable
level of risk or limit mission accomplishment?
What is the capacity level of the host country police, military, and
intelligence services?
Do security vulnerabilities suggest the need to reduce or relocate
staff?
Do health conditions in the host country pose personal security
concerns that limit the number of employees that should be assigned to
the post?
Mission Priorities and Requirements:
What are the staffing levels and mission of each agency?
How do agencies determine embassy staffing levels?
Is there an adequate justification for the number of employees at each
agency compared with the agency's mission?
Is there adequate justification for the number of direct-hire personnel
devoted to support and administrative operations?
What are the priorities of the embassy?[Footnote 31]
Does each agency's mission reinforce embassy priorities?
To what extent are mission priorities not being sufficiently addressed
due to staffing limitations or other impediments?
To what extent are workload requirements validated and prioritized, and
is the embassy able to balance them with core functions?
Do the activities of any agencies overlap?
Given embassy priorities and the staffing profile, are increases in the
number of existing staff or additional agency representation needed?
To what extent is it necessary for each agency to maintain its current
presence in-country, given the scope of its responsibilities and its
mission?
Could an agency's mission be pursued in other ways?
Does an agency have regional responsibilities or is its mission
entirely focused on the host country?
Cost of Operations:
What is the embassy's total annual operating cost?
What are the operating costs for each agency at the embassy?
To what extent are agencies considering the full cost of operations in
making staffing decisions?
To what extent are costs commensurate with overall embassy strategic
importance, with agency programs, and with specific products and
services?
Consideration of Rightsizing Options:
What are the security, mission, and cost implications of relocating
certain functions to the United States, regional centers, or to other
locations, such as commercial space or host-country counterpart
agencies?
To what extent could agency program and/or routine administrative
functions (procurement, logistics, and financial management functions)
be handled from a regional center or other locations?
Do new technologies and transportation links offer greater
opportunities for operational support from other locations?
Do the host country and regional environments suggest there are options
for doing business differently, that is, are there adequate
transportation and communications links and a vibrant private sector?
To what extent is it practical to purchase embassy services from the
private sector?
Does the ratio of support staff to program staff at the embassy suggest
opportunities for streamlining?
Can functions be reengineered to provide greater efficiencies and
reduce requirements for personnel?
Are there best practices of other bilateral embassies or private
corporations that could be adapted by the U.S. embassy?
To what extent are there U.S. or host country legal, policy, or
procedural obstacles that may impact the feasibility of rightsizing
options?
[End of section]
Appendix IV: The Office of Rightsizing's Five-Year Rightsizing
Schedule:
Table 4 illustrates the 5-year rightsizing schedule, by fiscal year,
that the Office of Rightsizing has developed. The schedule also depicts
those posts that are proposed to receive a new embassy compound (NEC)
and the fiscal year that the facilities are scheduled to be built.
Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule:
Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Planned capital projects: Sarajevo NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Burkina Faso;
Planned capital projects: Ouagadougou NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Congo, Democratic Republic of;
Planned capital projects: Kinshasa NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Congo, Republic of;
Planned capital projects: Brazzaville NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Djibouti;
Planned capital projects: Djibouti NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Ethiopia;
Planned capital projects: Addis Ababa NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Fiji;
Planned capital projects: Suva NEC FY05.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Gabon;
Planned capital projects: Libreville NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Georgia;
Planned capital projects: Tbilisi Annex FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Indonesia;
Planned capital projects: Surabaya NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Latvia;
Planned capital projects: Riga NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Lebanon;
Planned capital projects: Beirut NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Macedonia;
Planned capital projects: Skopje Annex, Warehouse, and Marine Security
Guard Quarters FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Madagascar;
Planned capital projects: Antanarivo NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Malta;
Planned capital projects: Valletta NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Mexico;
Planned capital projects: Mexico City NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Mexico;
Planned capital projects: Tijuana NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Micronesia;
Planned capital projects: Interim Office Building FY05.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Nigeria;
Planned capital projects: Abuja Annex FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Norway;
Planned capital projects: Oslo NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Palau;
Planned capital projects: Interim Office Building FY05.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Philippines;
Planned capital projects: Manila NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: South Africa;
Planned capital projects: Johannesburg NEC FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Sudan;
Planned capital projects: Khartoum Annex and Marine Security Guard
Quarters FY06.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Sudan;
Planned capital projects: Juba NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Yugoslavia;
Planned capital projects: Belgrade NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Zambia;
Planned capital projects: Lusaka NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Algeria;
Planned capital projects: [Empty]
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Azerbaijan;
Planned capital projects: Baku NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Bermuda;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Brazil;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Brunei;
Planned capital projects: Bandar Seri Begawan NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Burundi;
Planned capital projects: Bujumbura NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Chad;
Planned capital projects: N'djamena NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Chile;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Colombia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Costa Rica;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Denmark;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Dominican Republic;
Planned capital projects: Santo Domingo NEC and Annex FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Eritrea;
Planned capital projects: Asmara NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Finland;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Germany;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Holy See;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Iceland;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Indonesia;
Planned capital projects: Jakarta NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Ireland;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Italy;
Planned capital projects: Milan MEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Jordan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Korea;
Planned capital projects: Seoul NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Liberia;
Planned capital projects: Monrovia NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Libya;
Planned capital projects: Tripoli NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Luxembourg;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Malaysia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Morocco;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Mozambique;
Planned capital projects: Maputo NEC and Annex FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: New Zealand;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Pakistan;
Planned capital projects: Karachi NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Pakistan;
Planned capital projects: Peshawar NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Paraguay;
Planned capital projects: Asuncion NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Poland;
Planned capital projects: Krakow NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Romania;
Planned capital projects: Bucharest NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Russia;
Planned capital projects: St. Petersburg NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia;
Planned capital projects: Jeddah NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia;
Planned capital projects: Riyadh NEC FY[A].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia;
Planned capital projects: Dhahran NEC FY[A].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Singapore;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: South Africa;
Planned capital projects: Pretoria Annex FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Sri Lanka;
Planned capital projects: Colombo NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Switzerland;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Taiwan;
Planned capital projects: Taipei NEC FY07.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Tunisia;
Planned capital projects: Tunis Language School FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Turkey;
Planned capital projects: Ankara NEC FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Ukraine;
Planned capital projects: Kiev NEC and Annex FY09.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: United Kingdom;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies
for Food and Agriculture, Rome;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations
Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Zimbabwe;
Planned capital projects: Harare NEC and Annex FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bahamas;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bahrain;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bangladesh;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Barbados;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Belarus;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Belize;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Benin;
Planned capital projects: Cotonou NEC and Annex FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Botswana;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Burma;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Canada;
Planned capital projects: Toronto NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Cape Verde;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: China;
Planned capital projects: Guangzhou NEC FY08.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: China;
Planned capital projects: Shanghai NEC FY[A].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: East Timor;
Planned capital projects: Dili NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Equatorial Guinea;
Planned capital projects:
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Estonia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Grenada;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guinea;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guinea Bissau;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guyana;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Hong Kong;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India;
Planned capital projects: Calcutta NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India;
Planned capital projects: Chennai NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India;
Planned capital projects: Hyderabad NEC FY[A].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Israel;
Planned capital projects: Tel Aviv NEC and Annex FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Jerusalem;
Planned capital projects: Jerusalem NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kenya;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: U.S. Permanent Mission to United Nations
Environment Program and United Nations Center for Human Settlements,
Nairobi;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kosovo;
Planned capital projects: Pristina NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kyrgyzstan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Lithuania;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Malawi;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mali;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mauritania;
Planned capital projects: Nouakchott NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mauritius;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mongolia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Nepal;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Sierra Leone;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Slovak Republic;
Planned capital projects: Bratislava NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Slovenia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Surinam;
Planned capital projects: Paramaribo NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Syria;
Planned capital projects: Damascus NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Tajikistan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Thailand;
Planned capital projects: Chiang Mai NEC FY10.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Turkmenistan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Uruguay;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: U.S. Mission to the International Civil
Aviation Organization, Montreal;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Vietnam;
Planned capital projects: Hanoi NEC FY.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Angola;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Argentina;
Planned capital projects: Buenos Aires NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Armenia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Australia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Belgium;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Bolivia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Brazil;
Planned capital projects: Rio de Janeiro LFO FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cambodia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cameroon;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Central African Republic;
Planned capital projects: Bangui NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cote d'Ivoire;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Croatia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cuba;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Czech Republic;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Ecuador;
Planned capital projects: Guayaquil LFO FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: France;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Gambia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Ghana;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Greece;
Planned capital projects: Thessaloniki NEC FY[A].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Guatemala;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Laos;
Planned capital projects: Vientiane NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Lesotho;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Moldova;
Planned capital projects: Chisinau NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Namibia;
Planned capital projects: Windhoek NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Netherlands;
Planned capital projects: The Hague NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Netherlands Antilles;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Niger;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Oman;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Panama;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Senegal;
Planned capital projects: Dakar NEC & Annex FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Seychelles;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Spain;
Planned capital projects: Madrid NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Swaziland;
Planned capital projects: Mbabane NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Tanzania;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Togo;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Trinidad and Tobago;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: United Arab Emirates;
Planned capital projects: Dubai NEC FY11.
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the European Union;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Afghanistan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Albania;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Austria;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Bulgaria;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Cyprus;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Egypt;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: El Salvador;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Haiti;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Honduras;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Hungary;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Iraq;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Jamaica;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Japan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Kazakhstan;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Kuwait;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Marshall Islands;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Micronesia;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Nicaragua;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Niger;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Papua New Guinea;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Peru;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Portugal;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Qatar;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Rwanda;
Planned capital projects: [Empty].
Source: Office of Rightsizing.
[A] The Office of Rightsizing does not yet know the scheduled date of
the capital project.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers Managing:
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Overseas
Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action
Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts," GAO Job Code 320338.
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
Patrick Truhn, Director, Office of Management and Rightsizing, at (202)
647-6518.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - John Brummet:
M - Henrietta Fore:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More
Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts (GAO-06-737, GAO Code
320338):
Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to
comment on the draft report Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches
Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out
Efforts, which discusses the Department's rightsizing efforts.
We appreciate the contribution this study makes, coming as it does in
connection with a series of reports on efforts the Department is
undertaking to modernize its overseas staffing and staffing support.
The report recognizes the efforts the Department has made to date and
confirms that the Department is on the right track.
With respect to the individual areas the GAO addressed, the report says
(p.4), "The Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million dollars of
potential savings or costs avoided based on their analysis of the first
and second cycles of the rightsizing reviews. However, we have not been
able to independently verify the actual amount of potential savings."
Many of these savings are real, not potential. As staffing numbers were
reduced, the size of overseas buildings was reduced as were funding
requests to Congress.
To illustrate a specific example, let us take Embassy Addis Ababa. At
the time post submitted its Rightsizing Study, post projected out-year
staffing of 1,032 positions of which 83% are Locally Employed Staff.
Working with post and the Bureau of African Affairs and making
independent judgments, the Office of Rightsizing the USG Overseas
Presence (M/R) arrived at a final rightsized staffing projection, to
which the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) will build the
New Embassy Compound (NEC), of 953 positions, a difference of 79.
In addition, the Embassy had projected a role for itself, that of
Regional Support Center, which would likely have required additional
growth over the next several years. Working with the Embassy and AF to
refine its regionalized services strategy, we were able to agree that
Mission Ethiopia is not a suitable platform in which to place
significant additional regional support for other missions in Africa.
The Embassy now has a more modest and realistic view of its future in
the region.
The net result of these changes represents the following savings:
Avoided Construction Costs (calculated by OBO):
$3,790,405 --40 desk positions and 39 non-desk positions were
eliminated from Addis' staffing projection resulting in avoided
construction costs.
$10,400,000 --mooted USAID annex. As a result of requiring that the
management services of the entire embassy be consolidated and/or co-
located, and that duplicative services be eliminated, a separate annex
is not needed. Building separate dedicated annexes for agencies is an
expensive option for the space the U.S. Government requires. Naturally
they vary in cost depending on the amount of total space required,
whether the contract is let concurrently with the same firm doing the
New Embassy Complex project, etc. Since M/R began rightsizing, no
embassy has required a separate dedicated annex for any agency.
Avoided salary costs:
$14,400,000 annual savings in reduced U.S. Direct Hire staffing
assigned to the Embassy, using an average cost per position overseas of
$400,000 derived from the Office of Management and Budget's cost data
provided by individual agencies. Of the Embassy's projected new
positions, 36 were U.S. Direct Hire positions.
$1,011,188 annual savings --of the 79 projected positions, which were
eliminated, 43 are Locally Employed Staff positions (using an average
global LES salary cost of $23,516 per LES provided by the Bureau of
Human Resources.)
In another example, at the time Embassy Sarajevo submitted its
rightsizing report, staffing in the embassy was 605 positions with 278
desk positions. The mission identified 64 positions (39 desk positions
of which 12 were U.S. Direct Hire positions) for elimination. The
greatest number of these eliminated positions were administrative
positions made redundant by the consolidation of services and the
elimination of duplicative positions.
In this case, the avoided costs were;
Construction costs; $3,695,645.
USDH costs; $4,800,000.
LES; $1,222,832.
GAO's draft report also states "management officers said they could
have benefited from additional guidance on conducting cost analysis"
(page 4, bottom.) The Department has a standard methodology by which it
does cost analyses using the ICASS software. All posts have been so
advised. Unfortunately, other agencies have not always provided full
and complete cost information for comparison purposes, resulting in
incomplete or misleading data. M/R continues to work with other
agencies to improve cost information reporting.
The report notes further that "It is unclear how the rightsizing review
decisions, such as elimination of duplicative functions, will be
implemented according to officials at post and officials in State's
regional bureaus." On June 1 (State 88491), M/R tasked all posts which
had completed rightsizing studies in the spring and fall 2005 cycles
(approximately 50 posts) to develop and communicate to M/R (and USAID
headquarters, when USAID is present) implementation action plans, with
timelines and deliverables, no later than July 18, 2006. M/R will
monitor posts' progress in fulfilling these implementation plans until
they are complete. In the future, posts will be tasked with developing
and applying such implementation plans at the end of each rightsizing
cycle.
Regarding various comments concerning the Capital Security Cost Sharing
program, while we agree that different agencies use varying practices
to count overseas staff, OBO believes that the data collected for the
Capital Security Cost-Sharing (CSCS) program is accurate (p. 3, p. 10,
p. 12). We do not pull this data from a database; rather it is supplied
by individuals at post responsible for responding to the CSCS data
call. For State positions, this data is verified by management at post
and by State's Regional Bureaus; Post, the bureaus, and OBO reconcile
any discrepancies. For non-State agencies, the data is verified by
agency representatives at post and must be signed off on by the agency
headquarters office. We believe that this process ensures the accuracy
of the CSCS data. Because OBO requires different data for the
construction of facilities, there will always be a difference between
the counts arrived at from the CSCS process, and from the Department's
Post Personnel application. We agree that it will be helpful to have a
unified database for all staffing data, which will enable
representatives of other agencies to monitor their agencies' data at
any time.
Contrary to statements in the report, for CSCS, if a position has
actually been eliminated at post, it will not be counted in CSCS. If a
position is vacant, but still exists, it is properly counted for CSCS
(p. 12, bottom of 1st paragraph.)
Because of the process for collecting and verifying CSCS data, OBO does
not believe that agencies are incorrectly charged for positions under
CSCS (on page 12, bottom of 2nd paragraph.) Agencies audit their
reported staffing at post and in Washington and pay accordingly.
The report states that the Department estimates that the number of U.S.
Government personnel overseas ranges from 66,000 to 78,000, indicating
as much as a 15% disparity. That is not correct. Counting personnel vs.
positions is a constant source of confusion and complication when
trying to get an accurate census of the U.S. Government's overseas
presence. The Department's Post Personnel application indicates that
there are, at any given time, approximately 66,000 employees overseas,
including U.S. Direct Hires, Locally Employed Staff (LES), and other
categories of personnel (each agency has a slightly different way of
counting and identifying its employees overseas). This number of
employees overseas fluctuates significantly as: employment attrition
occurs, personnel rotate out of and into assignments abroad, LES leave
post's employ, and posts change their staffing continuously to meet
their changing requirements. As a result, there may be at any given
time as many as 78,000 positions established overseas, of which
thousands are always in the process of being filled or eliminated
annually. The 66,000 to 78,000 is not a range but counts of two
different quantities.
The report states that State has not instructed posts to keep Post
Personnel continuously updated (bottom page 13). In fact, several
messages, beginning in 2004, have gone to all posts instructing them
that Post Personnel is the official database for documenting all U.S.
Government staffing overseas under the authority of the Chief of
Mission and must be kept complete and current. Further, Regional
Bureaus have been persistent in reminding posts of this need. The
Department has informed all posts that the Post Personnel database will
become the "gold standard" for overseas staffing information, effective
October 1, 2006. State's regional bureaus have been charged with
reconciling Post Personnel staffing data against similar data in the
Capital Security Cost Sharing database by June 15, as a check on the
accuracy of both databases, in order to ensure that both repositories
are aligned before their data is merged later this summer, and to
ensure that this year's CSCS invoices are accurate.
With respect to the GAO suggestion that M/R should interact directly
with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS) and other DHS bureaus, this is contrary to
instructions to M/R from the Department of Homeland Security. The State
Department asked all Executive Branch Agencies to designate points of
contact for rightsizing communications and activities; DHS designated a
position within its Office of International Affairs, indicating that it
preferred a centralized approach rather than having M/R communicate
directly with individual DHS entities. M/R therefore provides all of
its rightsizing information, general reports, specific country reports,
rightsizing schedules, etc. to this single point of contact as
instructed by DHS. DHS faces considerable challenges in uniting a
number of formerly autonomous agencies in one department, and M/R does
not wish to increase these challenges through communications that
further complicate this task. M/R has provided group briefings to
multiple DHS entities as a matter of information, but coordination
discipline should be maintained.
Comments from other agencies wanting to know outcomes of reviews, know
ahead of time when reviews are being conducted, have more clearly
stated standards, etc. (page 24) in our view stem from a number of
agencies' lack of familiarity with both the President's Management
Agenda (PMA), which is a mandate from the President to all Executive
Branch Agencies, not just State or M/R, and Congress's action to
establish the Office of Rightsizing. M/R has undertaken to fill this
information gap with the Interagency Rightsizing Summit, which will be
held on a semi-annual basis as an important vehicle for information-
sharing. M/R has been continually engaged in outreach since its
inception via a number of venues, e.g., the ICASS Working Group, the
ICASS Executive Board and the CSCS Contact Group. The present Director
of the Office of Rightsizing has personally traveled to the Washington
headquarters of six agencies since the beginning of FY-06, and has
given briefings in his office to representatives of three others, which
agencies comprise the vast majority of U.S. Government positions
overseas.
All agencies' rightsizing points of contact are notified of the posts
tasked with rightsizing studies the very same day that the cable goes
to the field. The full five-year rightsizing schedule was included in
M/R's Rightsizing Quarterly Reports of November 2005 and May 2006,
which were provided to all agencies electronically and in hardcopy at
multiple levels. The schedule was provided at the Rightsizing Summit,
and has been available upon request at any time. The schedule was a
completed deliverable for Getting to Green on the President's
Management Agenda last year.
Rightsizing Reports are provided to Bureaus and posts and are available
to all agencies when they are complete; however, there has been little
interest and less demand from agencies for these reports.
In response to the specific Recommendations of the report:
Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a single
database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel staffing
numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and agencies
to keep the data base accurate and up to date.
As discussed above, the Post Personnel database will become the "gold
standard" for accounting for overseas staffing under Chief of Mission
authority effective October 1, 2006. The regional bureaus are currently
reconciling the Post Personnel data with Capital Security Cost Sharing
data to ensure that the consolidated information is correct and
complete. The Bureau of Human Resources, which owns the application, is
verifying the data on a periodic basis with other agencies.
Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous
basis.
As noted above, the Director of M/R has been meeting with agencies on a
regular basis and will continue to do so. M/R plans to conduct semi-
annual rightsizing summits with all agencies prior to the Fall and
Spring rightsizing taskings, beginning in December 2006. In addition,
M/R will continue to provide all agencies at many different levels with
the Rightsizing Quarterly Reports, reports to Congress, major messages
to the field, and other relevant information.
Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the
agreed upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and
eliminating duplicative functions.
As previously noted, M/R tasked these plans to posts on June 1, 2006
with a due date of July 18. We believe this recommendation has already
been addressed.
The following are our comments on State's letter dated June 9, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. We modified our text to show that, although we have not been able to
independently assess the Office of Rightsizing's estimates, it has
presented evidence to show that some major cost avoidance and cost
savings have occurred.
2. We recognize that State has a standard methodology by which it
performs cost analyses using the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services software. However, when we talked with
management officers at posts that had conducted a rightsizing review,
we were informed that these posts did not have comparable cost data for
each service provider. In addition, we were informed that the posts did
not have the necessary tools to make informed decisions about how to
conduct analysis to determine the most cost effective service provider.
3. We provided the draft report to State on May 18, 2006. About two
weeks later, State instructed posts to develop implementation action
plans. We believe that the action that the Office of Rightsizing has
taken largely addresses our recommendation. However, until the Office
of Rightsizing has received all implementation action plans with the
posts' milestones, due on July 18, 2006, the office will not know what
additional action might still be needed to ensure that posts meet the
agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews.
4. We understand that if a position is eliminated at a post it is not
counted as part of Capital Security Cost Sharing. Our statement was
simply meant to illustrate that eliminated or vacant positions could be
reflected in databases used to count overseas staffing numbers.
5. Our statement reflects non-State agency views. We have amended the
draft by attributing the statement to non-State agency officials. In
addition our statement reflects information we obtained from a February
2006 State cable to all posts about staffing data and position charges
under Capital Security Cost Sharing.
6. We have modified our text to illustrate the varying estimates of the
size of the U.S. overseas presence. We have received numerous
conflicting estimates on the number of U.S. government officials
overseas. One source estimated that there are approximately 66,000 U.S.
government personnel under chief of mission authority, while another
indicated that there are approximately 69,000. We understand that some
of the numbers may come from different estimates and data sources.
State's discussion on staffing data illustrates the difficulty of
obtaining an accurate count of overseas personnel. We recognize that
that there are vacant positions and that the total number of positions
is higher than the number of filled positions. We also note in our
report that State is in the process of eliminating vacant positions. It
is important that State continue to update its staffing database to
ensure that a more accurate accounting of U.S. government personnel
overseas is available.
7. We acknowledge that State has sent several messages since 2004 to
posts instructing them that Post Personnel is the official database for
documenting all U.S. government staffing overseas. However, in February
2006, State reported that not all posts are using Post Personnel as
their main human resources system. In addition, we were told that the
guidance provided to posts did not include accountability mechanisms
for ensuring that the staffing information is updated and complete.
8. It is important that all components of each agency receive
information from the Office of Rightsizing that pertains to rightsizing
review efforts and initiatives. During the course of our work at the
Department of Homeland Security it became clear that certain components
within the department had not received information on rightsizing. We
understand that the Department of Homeland Security has a central focal
point that the Office of Rightsizing works with. The Department of
Homeland Security and the Office of Rightsizing share responsibility in
ensuring that agency components are receiving the necessary information
to ensure that rightsizing efforts are understood. We have modified the
text to indicate that the Office of Rightsizing was asked by the
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate through one focal point.
9. We believe that the actions and measures that the Office of
Rightsizing is taking, particularly the Interagency Rightsizing Summit,
are useful steps to implementing our recommendation. However, based on
our discussions with non-State agencies, we maintain that more outreach
is needed pertaining to areas involving rightsizing review efforts,
strategy, and vision.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess Ford (202) 512-4128:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant
Director, Ann Baker, Joseph Carney, Virginia Chanley, Lyric Clark,
Martin De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Beth Hoffman León, Ernie Jackson,
Andrea Miller, and Deborah Owolabi made key contributions to this
report.
(320338):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Department of State, America's Overseas Presence in the 21ST
Century, the Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); and Department of State, Report of the
Accountability Review Boards: Bombings of the U.S. Embassies in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
1999).
[2] See the Office of Management and Budget, The President's Management
Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001) for a
description of the President's management priorities.
[3] Remote locations include overseas and domestic regional centers and
headquarters offices.
[4] We defined "rightsizing" as aligning the number and location of
staff assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, and security
and other constraints. Rightsizing may result in the addition or
reduction of staff, or a change in the mix of staff. Appendix III
provides further information about our framework.
[5] A Chief of Mission is the principal officer, usually the
Ambassador, in charge of a U.S. diplomatic mission abroad, and has full
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all
U.S. government executive branch employees in that country. See 22
U.S.C. 3927.
[6] The Office of Management and Budget's cost is based on an average
of cost submissions from more than 30 agencies with an overseas
presence. However, we have not verified the cost figures. The cost of
having a U.S. direct hire overseas for an agency can vary
significantly, depending on where agency officials are located.
[7] The President's Management Agenda is a set of management
initiatives designed to improve management throughout the government by
emphasizing performance and results.
[8] P.L. 108-199, Div. B, Title IV. Congress made $3 million in funding
available for the establishment and operations of the Office of
Rightsizing.
[9] State has six regional bureaus, each of which is responsible for
working with posts in a specific geographic region of the world.
State's regional bureaus include the Bureaus of African Affairs, East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near Eastern
Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western Hemisphere
Affairs. State has two regional centers--one is in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, and the other in Frankfurt, Germany--as well as a number of
other regional operations.
[10] In accordance with 22 USC 3927, the President's Letter of
Instruction to Chiefs of Mission gives the Chief of Mission full
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of
generally all U.S. government executive branch employees within the
host country, and also allows him or her to make decisions on the
levels of staffing at the mission. See 2FAH-2 H-112.1.
[11] NSDD-38 states that agencies with staff under chief of mission
authority will ensure that approval from the Chief of Mission is
sought, in coordination with State, before making any proposed changes
to the size, composition, or mandate of the agencies' staffing elements
at the post.
[12] The ICASS basic package, which includes securing diplomatic
credentials from the host country and services provided by the post's
Community Liaison Office, is mandatory for all agencies at the post.
Other cost centers are optional.
[13] P.L. 108-447, Div. B, Title VI, §629.
[14] Historically, funding for new embassies was provided under State's
appropriations, and costs for new construction were not distributed to
other agencies.
[15] The types of spaces in new embassy compounds that are charged
under Capital Security Cost Sharing include controlled access areas,
non-controlled access areas, and non-office space.
[16] The per capita charge for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are 40 and 60
percent of the full charge, while the charge for fiscal year 2008 will
be 80 percent of the full position charge.
[17] Based on agencies' 2007 budget submissions, the Office of
Management and Budget estimates the total personnel overseas under
chief of mission authority for 2006 as 66,854.
[18] The estimate is based on information in State's Post Personnel
database.
[19] Database applications utilized by posts include Post Profiles,
ICASS, Mission Performance Plan, Capital Security Cost Sharing, and
Post Personnel.
[20] We have reported on agency concerns about Capital Security Cost
Sharing and ICASS costs in the past. See GAO, Embassy Construction:
Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could Speed Construction and Reduce Staff
Levels, but Some Agencies Have Concerns, GAO-05-32 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 15, 2004); and GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed to
Increase Efficiency and Improve Delivery of Administrative Support
Services, GAO-04-511 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004).
[21] Many of the missions that were tasked to do a review are scheduled
for planned capital projects for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
[22] A Mission Performance Plan is an annual performance plan that
outlines the goals and priority initiatives of all agencies in a
mission. Guidance on including rightsizing considerations in the post
Mission Performance Plan was sent out for the fiscal year 2007 and 2008
plans.
[23] Department of State, Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by
the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence -
Volume I (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2005); Department of State Overseas
Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by the Office of Rightsizing the U.S.
Government Overseas Presence - Volume II (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2005); and Department of State Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report
by the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence -
Volume III (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2006).
[24] The most recent Office of Management and Budget scorecard gave a
"green light" to State's progress toward key rightsizing milestones.
[25] Department of State, Organizing for Transformation Diplomacy:
Rightsizing and Regionalization FY 2006 Operational Plan (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 2005).
[26] State has identified Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan as the most critical danger posts
that will be initially affected by State's operational plan focusing on
non-location specific functions. However, plans for operations in Iraq,
also considered a critical danger post, are proceeding separately.
[27] GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are
Needed to Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support
Remotely, GAO-06-479 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006).
[28] Desk positions were for U.S. direct hires and locally employed
staff. A desk position refers to any position in a post where a desk or
office space is needed. For example, an economic officer at a post
would need a desk to work at, while a gardener or a driver would not.
[29] However, the Office of Rightsizing indicated that it is very
difficult to make a judgment about the eventual disposition of an
individual projected position that has been eliminated. In some cases,
it might be possible and necessary to substitute a locally employed
individual for a U.S. direct-hire position, or have a U.S. direct hire
do the work in the United States, so the cost avoided could be less
than the average cost of $400,000 per year for each position.
[30] The competitive sourcing module was developed to address State's
Program Assessment Rating Tool obligation. A Program Assessment Rating
Tool review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to
inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program
more effective.
[31] Embassy priorities are the U.S. government's priorities in that
country.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
