Department of State
Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps Gao ID: GAO-06-894 August 4, 2006GAO has reported in recent years on a number of human capital issues that have hampered the Department of State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy priorities and objectives, particularly at posts central to the war on terror. In 2002, State implemented the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) to address shortfalls in the number and skills of State employees. This report discusses State's progress in (1) addressing staffing shortfalls since the implementation of DRI and (2) filling gaps in the language proficiency of foreign service officers and other staff. To accomplish these objectives, GAO analyzed staffing and language data and met with State officials.
State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since implementing the DRI. However, the initiative did not fully meet its goals, and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at many posts, including some critical to the war on terror. State implemented various incentives to attract more mid-level officers to these locations, including offering extra pay to officers who serve an additional year at certain posts. However, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of these incentives and continues to have difficulties attracting qualified applicants. Mid-level positions at many posts are staffed by junior officers who lack experience, have minimal guidance, and are not as well-equipped to handle crises as more seasoned officers. This experience gap can severely compromise the department's readiness to carry out foreign policy objectives and execute critical post-level duties. State has made progress in increasing its foreign language capabilities, but serious language gaps remain. State initiated a number of efforts to improve its foreign language capabilities. However, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of these efforts, and it continues to experience difficulties filling its language-designated positions with language proficient staff. Almost one third of the staff in these positions do not meet the language requirements. The percentage is much higher at certain critical posts--for example, 60 percent in Sana'a, Yemen. Several factors--including the perception that spending too much time in one region may hinder officers' and specialists' promotion potential--may discourage employees from bidding on positions where they could enhance and maintain their language skills over time and limit State's ability to take advantage of those skills and the investment it makes in training. Gaps in language proficiency can adversely impact State's ability to communicate with foreign audiences and execute critical duties.
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-06-894, Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-894
entitled 'Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls
Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps' which was released on
August 4, 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 Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2006:
Department Of State:
Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to
Address Gaps:
Department of State:
GAO-06-894:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-894, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
GAO has reported in recent years on a number of human capital issues
that have hampered the Department of State‘s ability to carry out U.S.
foreign policy priorities and objectives, particularly at posts central
to the war on terror. In 2002, State implemented the Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative (DRI) to address shortfalls in the number and
skills of State employees. This report discusses State‘s progress in
(1) addressing staffing shortfalls since the implementation of DRI and
(2) filling gaps in the language proficiency of foreign service
officers and other staff. To accomplish these objectives, GAO analyzed
staffing and language data and met with State officials.
What GAO Found:
State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since
implementing the DRI. However, the initiative did not fully meet its
goals, and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at many posts,
including some critical to the war on terror. State implemented various
incentives to attract more mid-level officers to these locations,
including offering extra pay to officers who serve an additional year
at certain posts. However, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of
these incentives and continues to have difficulties attracting
qualified applicants. Mid-level positions at many posts are staffed by
junior officers who lack experience, have minimal guidance, and are not
as well-equipped to handle crises as more seasoned officers. This
experience gap can severely compromise the department‘s readiness to
carry out foreign policy objectives and execute critical post-level
duties.
State has made progress in increasing its foreign language
capabilities, but serious language gaps remain. State initiated a
number of efforts to improve its foreign language capabilities.
However, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of these efforts, and
it continues to experience difficulties filling its language-designated
positions with language proficient staff. Almost one third of the staff
in these positions do not meet the language requirements. The
percentage is much higher at certain critical posts”for example, 60
percent in Sana‘a, Yemen. Several factors”including the perception that
spending too much time in one region may hinder officers‘ and
specialists‘ promotion potential”may discourage employees from bidding
on positions where they could enhance and maintain their language
skills over time and limit State‘s ability to take advantage of those
skills and the investment it makes in training. Gaps in language
proficiency can adversely impact State‘s ability to communicate with
foreign audiences and execute critical duties.
Figure:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as
language proficiency of foreign service staff, GAO is making five
recommendations to the Secretary of State in the areas of staffing and
assignment of foreign service staff, including using directed
assignments, as necessary, using a risk-based approach to fill critical
positions with fully qualified officers who have the skills and
experience necessary to effectively manage and supervise essential
mission functions at hardship posts; and systematically evaluating the
effectiveness of initiatives to reduce staffing and language gaps.
State generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-894].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls;
but Critical Gaps Remain at Hardship Posts:
State Has Made Progress in Increasing Its Foreign Language
Capabilities, but Significant Language Gaps Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Department of State Staffing:
Appendix III: Foreign Language Proficiency at Language-Designated
Positions:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: DRI Hiring Goals for Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year
2004:
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts:
Table 3: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/(Deficit) across Career
Tracks as of December 31, 2005:
Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements:
Table 5: Percentage of Staff Filling Chinese and Arabic Language-
Designated Positions Who Do Not Meet Proficiency Requirements, by Type
of Position:
Table 6: State Department Worldwide Staffing by Position Type as of
September 30, 2005:
Table 7: Location, Number of Language-Designated Positions, and Percent
of Staff Filling the Positions Who Do Not Meet the Speaking and Reading
Language Requirements:
Figures:
Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs:
Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category:
Figure 3: Average Number of Bids by Hardship Differential for Grades 2,
3, and 4:
Figure 4: Average Bids per Career Track by Hardship Differential for
2005:
Figure 5: Percentage of Staff Who Meet Requirements for World, Hard,
and Superhard Languages as of October 2005:
Abbreviations:
DRI: Diplomatic Readiness Initiative:
FSO: Foreign Service Officer:
HR/CDA: Office of Career Development and Assignments:
SND: Service Need Differential:
FSI: Foreign Service Institute:
GEMS: Global Employee Management System:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 4, 2006:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In recent years we have reported on a number of human capital issues
that have hampered the Department of State's (State) ability to carry
out the President's foreign policy priorities and objectives,
particularly at posts central to the United States' war on terror. For
example, we reported that State's permanent positions were understaffed
and that the impact of staffing shortfalls was felt most at hardship
posts,[Footnote 1] including posts in Africa and the Middle East and
others of strategic importance to the United States, such as China and
Russia. In particular, we found that State's assignment system did not
effectively meet the staffing needs of hardship posts and that State
had difficulty filling positions there, particularly at the mid-levels.
Where such staffing gaps existed, new or untenured officers worked well
above their grade levels. We also reported that State had shortages in
staff with critical foreign language skills, making it more difficult
to combat international terrorism and resulting in less effective
representation of U.S. interests overseas. To address shortfalls in the
number and skills of foreign service officers (FSO), State implemented
the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI), beginning in 2002, to hire,
train, and deploy additional staff.
This report discusses State's progress in (1) addressing staffing
shortfalls since the implementation of DRI, and (2) filling gaps in the
language proficiency of FSOs and other staff.
To assess State's progress in eliminating staffing gaps, we examined
documentation on State's recruitment efforts, and analyzed staffing,
vacancy, and assignment data. To assess State's progress in filling
gaps in the language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, we analyzed
language proficiency data for specific posts, specialties, and grades.
We also compared the language proficiency of staff in language-
designated positions with the requirements for the positions. We met
with officials at State's Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, and six regional bureaus. To
observe post staffing and language proficiency firsthand, we conducted
fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria; Sana'a, Yemen; and Beijing,
China. We selected the posts in (1) Nigeria because of the low number
of staff applying for each position; (2) in Sana'a because of the low
number of staff applying for each position, because it requires staff
proficient in Arabic, which is a difficult to learn language, and
because of Yemen's importance to the war on terrorism; and (3) in
Beijing because it requires staff proficient in Chinese, which is also
a difficult language to learn, and because of its strategic importance
to the United States. We performed our work from August 2005 to May
2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides more information on our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since
implementing DRI; however, the initiative did not fully meet its goals,
and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at critical posts. DRI was
intended to hire enough additional staff to respond to emerging crises
and to allow staff time for critical job training. From 2002 to 2004,
DRI enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition.
However, according to State officials, most of this increase was
absorbed by the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus
the desired crises and training reserve was not achieved. Additionally,
in an effort to address staffing shortfalls at historically hard to
fill hardship posts, many of which are of significant strategic
importance to the United States, State implemented various incentives,
including offering extra pay to officers who serve an additional year
at these posts and allowing employees to negotiate shorter tours of
duty. More recently, State changed its promotion requirements to
include service in a hardship post as a prerequisite for promotion to
the senior foreign service. However, State has not evaluated the
effectiveness of the incentives and hardship posts in Africa and the
Middle East--including those in countries important to the war on
terror, as well as those in other countries of strategic interest--and
continues to have difficulty attracting qualified applicants at the mid-
level. Currently, mid-level positions at many posts are staffed by
junior officers who lack experience and have minimal guidance. For
example, at the time of our review, the mid-level consular manager
positions in Shenyang and Chengdu, China--two locations with high
incidence of visa fraud--were held by first tour junior officers. We
observed similar shortages and employees above their grades in consular
sections in China when we reported on staffing of hardship posts in
2002.[Footnote 2] This experience gap at critical posts can severely
compromise the department's diplomatic readiness and its ability to
carry out its foreign policy objectives and execute critical post-level
duties. We found that inexperienced officers are not as well-equipped
to handle crises as more seasoned officers, and having inexperienced
officers in key positions forces senior staff to devote more time to
overseeing operational matters and less to advancing U.S. international
interests. State does not assign its limited number of mid-level
employees to particular posts because of risk and priorities;
but rather, it generally assigns them to posts for which they have
expressed an interest. State has recently launched a new initiative to
reallocate positions from Europe and Washington, D.C., to critical
emerging areas such as Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.
However, without directing employees, when necessary, to high priority
assignments, it is unclear whether the reallocation of positions alone
will ensure that they are filled.
State has made progress in increasing its foreign language
capabilities, but significant language gaps remain. State has increased
the number of worldwide positions requiring language proficiency by 27
percent since 2001. In addition, State has enhanced recruitment efforts
to target individuals proficient in certain languages. However, State
has not evaluated the effectiveness of these efforts, as we previously
recommended.[Footnote 3] For example, during the time of our review,
State had not systematically analyzed available data to demonstrate
whether the percentage of new hires with foreign language skills has
increased since 2003. State continues to have difficulties filling
language-designated positions with language proficient staff. Almost 30
percent of the staff filling language-designated positions worldwide as
of October 2005 did not meet the language proficiency requirements. The
percentage was much higher at certain critical posts--for example, 59
percent in Cairo, Egypt; and 60 percent in Sana'a, Yemen. Moreover,
some officers who did meet the proficiency requirements questioned
whether the requirements are adequate. For example, embassy officials
in Yemen and China stated that the speaking and reading proficiency
levels designated for their positions were not high enough and that
staff in these positions were not sufficiently fluent to effectively
perform their jobs. Additionally, several factors--including the short
length of some tours and the limitations on consecutive tours at the
same post--may hinder FSOs' ability to enhance and maintain their
language skills over time, as well as State's ability to take advantage
of those skills and the investment it makes in training. There is also
a perception among some officers that State's current assignment and
promotion systems discourage officers from specializing in any
particular region, making the officers reluctant to apply to posts
where they could utilize their language skills more frequently. State
has not conducted the type of assessment that would prioritize the
resources it devotes to specific languages based on risk and strategic
interest in particular regions or countries. Nonetheless, gaps in
language proficiency can adversely affect State's diplomatic readiness
and its ability to execute critical duties. For example, officials at
one high visa fraud post stated that consular officers sometimes
adjudicate visas without fully understanding everything the applicants
tell them during the visa interview. Moreover, officers at some posts,
including those in countries important to the war on terror, cannot
communicate effectively with foreign audiences, hampering their ability
to cultivate personal relationships and explain U.S. foreign policy.
To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as the
language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, this report recommends
that the Secretary of State (1) consider using directed assignments, as
necessary, using a risk-based approach, to fill critical positions with
fully qualified officers who have the skills and experience necessary
to effectively manage and supervise essential mission functions at
hardship posts; (2) systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its
incentive programs for hardship post assignments, establishing specific
indicators of progress and adjusting the use of the incentives based on
this analysis; (3) consider an assignment system that allows for longer
tours, consecutive assignments in certain countries, and more regional
specialization in certain areas, in order to hone officers' skills in
certain superhard languages and better leverage the investment State
makes in language training; (4) systematically evaluate the
effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its
FSOs and specialists, establishing specific indicators of progress in
filling language gaps and adjusting its efforts accordingly; and (5)
conduct a risk assessment of critical language needs in regions and
countries of strategic importance, make realistic projections of the
staff time and related training float necessary to adequately train
personnel to meet those needs, and target its limited resources for
language training, as needed, to fill these critical gaps.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of State
generally concurred with the report's observations, conclusions, and
recommendations and described several initiatives that it believes
address the recommendations.
Background:
The Department of State is the lead agency in formulating and
implementing U.S. foreign policy. The department represents the United
States in about 172 countries, operating approximately 266 embassies,
consulates, and other posts. During several years in the 1990s, State
lost more staff than it hired, and the resultant shortfalls of staff
and skills endangered diplomatic readiness. To address these
shortfalls, in 2002, State implemented DRI, a $197 million effort
designed to address a range of goals. In particular, the goals of DRI
were to hire 1,158[Footnote 4] new foreign and civil service employees
over a 3-year period, support training opportunities for staff, enhance
the department's ability to respond to crises and emerging priorities
overseas and at critical domestic locations, improve State's hiring
processes to recruit personnel from more diverse experiences and
cultural backgrounds, and fill critical skill gaps. Table 1 shows DRI
hiring goals for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal 2004.
Table 1: DRI Hiring Goals for Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year
2004:
Skill group: Foreign service generalist;
FY 2002: 204;
FY 2003: 206;
FY 2004: 138;
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 548.
Skill group: Foreign service specialist;
FY 2002: 81;
FY 2003: 103;
FY 2004: 102;
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 286.
Skill group: Total foreign service;
FY 2002: 285;
FY 2003: 309;
FY 2004: 240;
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 834.
Skill group: Civil service;
FY 2002: 75;
FY 2003: 90;
FY 2004: 70;
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 235.
Skill group: Total;
FY 2002: 360;
FY 2003: 399;
FY 2004: 310;
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 1,069.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
As of October 2005, State had about 19,000 American employees,
including FSOs, also called generalists; foreign service specialists;
and civil servants. FSO generalists help formulate and implement the
foreign policy of the United States and are grouped into five career
tracks: management, consular, economic, political, and public
diplomacy. Foreign service specialists provide support services at
overseas posts worldwide or in Washington, D.C., and are grouped into
seven major categories: administration, construction engineering,
information technology, international information and English language
programs, medical and health, office management, and security. Civil
service employees support the foreign policy mission from offices in
Washington, D.C., and across the United States.
About 65 percent of Foreign Service employees serve overseas. State's
policy is that foreign service employees are to be available for
service worldwide. The process of assigning Foreign Service staff to
their positions begins when the staff receive a list of upcoming
vacancies for which they may compete. Staff then submit a list of
positions for which they want to be considered, or "bids," and consult
with their career development officer. The process varies, depending on
an officer's grade and functional specialty. Figure 1 describes this
process.
Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs:
[See PDf for Image]
Source: GAO.
[A] The Director General is the official who heads State's Bureau of
Human Resources.
[End of Figure]
About 64 percent of full-time FSOs serving overseas are assigned to
hardship posts. State defines hardship posts as those locations where
the U.S. government provides differential pay incentives--an additional
5 to 35 percent of base pay, depending on the severity or difficult of
the conditions--to encourage employees to bid on assignments at these
posts and to compensate them for the hardships they encounter there. A
hardship differential is established for a location only when that
location involves extraordinarily difficult living conditions,
excessive physical hardship, or notably unhealthful conditions
affecting the majority of employees officially stationed or detailed
there. Living costs are not considered in differential
determination.[Footnote 5] Among the conditions that State considers in
determining hardship pay are poor medical facilities, substandard
schools for children, severe climate, high crime, political
instability, physical isolation, and lack of spousal employment
opportunities. Some hardship posts have greater difficulty in
attracting qualified bidders than others. In response to severe
staffing shortages at such posts, State established the Service Need
Differential (SND) Program, which began with the 2001 summer
assignments cycle. Under this program, an employee who accepts a 3-year
assignment at a post designated for SND is eligible to receive an
additional hardship differential over and above existing hardship
differentials, equal to 15 percent of the employee's base salary.
However, chiefs of mission, principal officers, and deputy chiefs of
mission are not eligible to receive SND regardless of the length of
their tours. Entry-level employees on 2-year tours directed by the
Office of Career Development and Assignments (HR/CDA) are also
ineligible for SND. State's geographic bureaus initially identified the
posts designated to offer SND in 2001 and may add or remove posts once
per year. The program included 38 posts the first year. Table 2 lists
the fiscal year 2006 SND posts.
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts:
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Abuja;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: Chengdu;
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Almaty;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: Sana'a;
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: Dhaka;
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Georgetown.
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Asmara;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts:
Guangzhou;
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Ashgabat;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Paramaribo.
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Bamako;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: Port
Moresby;
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Astana;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Port au Prince.
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Bangui;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts:
Shenyang;
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Baku;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Brazzaville;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts:
Ulaanbaatar;
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Bishkek;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Conakry;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Chisinau;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Cotonou;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Dushanbe;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Djibouti;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Kiev;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Freetown;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Minsk;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Kigali;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tashkent;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Kinshasa;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tbilisi;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Lagos;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tirana;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Luanda;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Vladivostok;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: N'Djamena;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Yekaterinburg;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Niamey;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Yerevan;
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Nouakchott;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Ouagadougou;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Yaoundé;
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty];
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty].
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
In addition, in 2002, State established a working group to examine
incentives to encourage bidding on hardship posts. The working group
evaluated over 80 suggestions and ideas, such as requiring hardship
service for promotion to the senior foreign service and allowing
employees to negotiate shorter tours of duty. State implemented about
25 of the suggestions.
State's Foreign Language Requirements:
As of October 2005, State had 3,267 positions--43 percent of all
foreign service positions overseas--designated as requiring some level
of foreign language proficiency. These positions span about 69
languages. State places the required languages into three categories
based on the amount of time it takes to learn them.
² Category I languages are world languages, such as Spanish and French,
which relate closely to English. Fifty-five percent of the language-
designated positions require proficiency in a world language.
² Category II languages, such as Albanian or Urdu, are languages with
significant linguistic or cultural differences from English. State
refers to such languages as "hard" languages. Twenty-nine percent of
the language-designated positions require proficiency in a hard
language.
² Category III, the "superhard" languages, include Arabic and Chinese,
and are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers to learn.
Sixteen percent of the language-designated positions require
proficiency in a superhard language. Figure 2 shows the percentage of
language-designated positions by category.
Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
Note: Other languages include German, Indonesian, Malay, Swahili, and
Tetum, which take longer to learn than category I languages, but less
time than category II languages.
[End of Figure]
State's philosophy is to hire officers with a wide range of skills that
it believes are predictors of success in the foreign service. It does
not hire exclusively for skills that State can train, such as foreign
languages. As a result, State's primary approach to meeting its
language requirements is through language training, primarily through
classes provided at its training arm, the Foreign Service Institute
(FSI). FSI's School of Language Studies offers training in more than 60
languages. FSI also provides full-time advance training in superhard
languages at FSI field schools and programs overseas. In addition,
overseas posts offer part-time language training through post language
programs funded by the regional bureaus and their posts. Although
State's main emphasis is on enhancing its foreign language capability
through training, it does have special mechanisms to recruit personnel
with foreign language skills. For example, applicants who pass the oral
assessment can raise their ranking by passing a language test in any
foreign language used by State. Additional credit is given to
candidates who pass a test in languages that State has deemed as
critical needs languages, including Arabic; Chinese; Korean; Russian;
Turkic languages (Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkish, Turkmen, and
Uzbek); Indic languages (Urdu, Hindi, Nepali, Bengali, Punjabi); and
Iranian languages (Farsi/Persian, Tajiki, Pashto). Officers hired under
this initiative must serve in a post that requires the language for
which they were recruited, for their first or second tour.
State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls;
but Critical Gaps Remain at Hardship Posts:
Although DRI brought in a large number of new FSOs, it made minimal
impact in addressing the staffing gaps at hardship posts, largely
because of new staffing demands in Iraq and Afghanistan. The department
has implemented new incentives to address the chronic mid-level
shortfalls at hardship posts; however, since implementing these
incentives, State has not yet evaluated their effectiveness. In our
review, we found that mid-level staffing gaps persist; bids for mid-
level positions at hardship posts have not increased significantly
since we reported in 2002; and positions normally held by mid-level
officers are typically staffed by junior officers, sometimes on their
first assignment, with few mid-level officers to provide supervision or
guidance. Recently, State launched the Global Repositioning Initiative,
which will move positions from places like Europe and Washington D.C.,
to critical posts in areas such as Africa and the Middle East. However,
it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of this initiative, and
State's reluctance to direct its employees to serve in locations where
they have not bid on, means that these redirected positions may remain
vacant.
State Has Made Progress in Decreasing Staffing Shortages but Has Not
Fully Met Its Goals:
Since 2002, under its DRI, State has increased its number of permanent
positions and available staff worldwide for both the foreign and civil
service, but these increases were largely offset by urgent staffing
demands at critical posts in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In
2002, State had more than 500 unstaffed foreign service positions;
in 2005, there were fewer than 200 such openings. However, the deficit
in civil service staffing has increased. In 2002, State had over 800
unfilled civil service positions; in 2005, there were over 1,700 such
positions. State hired most of its new staff through DRI, bringing in
more than 1,000 new employees above attrition, thus achieving its
numerical hiring goals. These employees were hired primarily to allow
staff time for critical job training--also referred to as a "training
float"--to staff overseas posts, and to be available to respond to new
emerging priorities. However, according to State's Human Resources
officials, DRI's goals became quickly outdated as new pressures
resulted from staffing demands for Iraq and Afghanistan. For example,
the department has currently levied what it calls an "Iraq tax" on all
its bureaus in order to support its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the past 2 years, bureaus have had to give up a total of 280 mid-
level generalist and specialist positions for Iraq, and it is
anticipated that another such tax will be imposed for 2007.
Effectiveness of Hardship Incentives Has Not Been Measured:
Beginning in 2001, in an effort to address the growing number of mid-
level vacancies at hardship posts, State created a series of
incentives--including extra pay and negotiated tour lengths--to attract
mid-level employees to hardship posts around the world. For example,
the SND Program offers employees an extra 15 percent pay for an
additional year of service at the most difficult to staff posts. While
State has information on the number of officers actually enrolled in
the program, it was not able to provide data on the number of eligible
officers who did not. State's Director General and officials from its
HR/CDA said that State has not completed any formal evaluations of the
incentives; instead, officials from the HR/CDA meet informally to
discuss how well the incentives are working. Without formal
evaluations, the department has not been able to systematically measure
whether the extra hardship pay incentive has had a significant impact
on staffing at hardship posts. Senior officials with whom we spoke in
Washington, D.C., and FSOs at hardship posts had mixed views on whether
the SND program has been effective. Some officers stated that the pay
differential was indeed a factor in their decision to bid on the post.
However, several former ambassadors and the Executive Director of the
Bureau of African Affairs said they believe the program has not
attracted additional bidders to African posts. These officials stated
that the incentive has had limited impact at posts that were already
offering a 25 percent pay differential because the additional incentive
is offset by the harsh conditions at such posts.
While it may be too early too assess the effectiveness of more recently
implemented initiatives, such as negotiated tour lengths, former and
current ambassadors with whom we spoke stated that this initiative may
not benefit posts. In particular, they noted that although negotiating
a shorter tour length might initially attract bidders to hardship
posts, such frequent rotations negatively affect a post's ability to
carry out the United States' foreign policy goals. For example,
according to State, the average length of tours at posts in the Muslim
world is about 22 percent shorter than those elsewhere. Noting the
prevalence of 1-year tours in the Muslim world,[Footnote 6] a senior
official at State said that officers with shorter tours tend to produce
less effective work than those with longer ones.
In addition to incentives, State has implemented a new career
development program--the Generalist Career Development Program--that
stipulates service at a hardship post as a requirement for
consideration of promotion to the senior foreign service. The new
requirements include a mandatory tour at a 15 percent differential or
greater hardship post. Officials from HR/CDA stated that it was too
early to tell whether this new requirement for promotion to the senior
foreign service will be effective in attracting mid-level officers to
hardship posts.
Staffing Gaps for Key Mid-Level Positions Persist;
Positions Filled by Junior Officers in Stretch Positions:
State's largest staffing gaps continue to be at mid-level. These and
other gaps are exacerbated by continued low bidding for positions at
hardship posts. Furthermore, many mid-level vacancies are filled by
junior officers. Staff have cited family issues and the lack of
locality pay comparable with what they would receive in Washington,
D.C., as being among the key disincentives to bidding for hardship
positions.
Staffing Gaps at the Mid-Level Persist:
As of December 2005, State had a combined deficit of 154
officers,[Footnote 7] with the largest staffing deficits continuing to
affect mid-level positions across all career tracks. Table 3 shows
staffing surpluses and deficits by career track for foreign service
generalists as of December 31, 2005.
Table 3: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/(Deficit) across Career
Tracks as of December 31, 2005:
Grade level: Senior level: MC;
Management: (10);
Consular: 10;
Economic: 0;
Political: 21;
Public diplomacy: (8);
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: 13.
Grade level : Senior level: OC;
Management: Grade level : (16);
Consular: Grade level : (3);
Economic: Grade level : 18;
Political: Grade level : 29;
Public diplomacy: Grade level : (20);
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level : [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level : 8.
Grade level: Senior level;
Management: [Empty];
Consular: [Empty];
Economic: [Empty];
Political: [Empty];
Public diplomacy: [Empty];
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: 21;
Total Surplus/Deficit: [Empty].
Grade level: Mid level: 1;
Management: (19);
Consular: 34;
Economic: 32;
Political: 71;
Public diplomacy: (93);
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: 25.
Grade level: Mid level: 2;
Management: Grade level: (58);
Consular: Grade level: 31;
Economic: Grade level: 17;
Political: Grade level: 36;
Public diplomacy: Grade level: (186);
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level: [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level: (160).
Grade level : Mid level: 3;
Management: Grade level : 16;
Consular: Grade level : (143);
Economic: Grade level : (26);
Political: Grade level : (56);
Public diplomacy: Grade level : 28;
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level : [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level : (181).
Grade level: Mid level;
Management: [Empty];
Consular: [Empty];
Economic: [Empty];
Political: [Empty];
Public diplomacy: [Empty];
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: (316);
Total Surplus/Deficit: [Empty].
Grade level: Junior level: 4;
Management: 232;
Consular: (580);
Economic: 124;
Political: 166;
Public diplomacy: 199;
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: 141;
Total Surplus/Deficit: 141.
Grade level: Total;
Management: 145.0;
Consular: (651.0);
Economic: 165.0;
Political: 267.0;
Public diplomacy: (80);
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty];
Total Surplus/Deficit: (154.0).
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
Note: Senior foreign service grades include minister counselor (MC) and
counselor (OC).
[End of table]
In 2003, State officials told us that it would take about 9 to 10 years
to eliminate the mid-level gap.[Footnote 8] Officials whom we met with
more recently said it would take several years for DRI hiring to begin
addressing the mid-level staffing shortages because the earliest DRI
hires are just now being promoted to the mid-level. On average, it
takes approximately 4.3 years for a junior officer to receive a
promotion to the mid-level. According to State's comments on this
report, the department expects to eliminate mid-level deficits by 2010.
Mid-Level and Other Staffing Gaps Exacerbated by Low Bidding for
Positions at Hardship Posts:
Although bidding for hardship posts with the smallest pay differentials
has increased slightly since we last reported on this issue in
2002,[Footnote 9] it remained about the same for posts with the highest
differentials, such as those with 20 and 25 percent. Figure 3 shows the
average number of bids on FS-02, FS-03, and tenured FS-04 mid-level
positions at overseas posts by differential rate for the 2005 summer
assignments cycle. Overall, posts in Africa, the Middle East, and South
Asia continue to receive the lowest number of bids, averaging about 4
or 5 bids per position, while posts in Europe and the Western
Hemisphere receive the highest bids, averaging 15 and 17, respectively.
For example, in 2005, posts in Bujumbura, Burundi; Lagos and Abuja,
Nigeria; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Calcutta, India; received, on
average, between zero and two bids per mid-level officer position. In
addition, we found that in the 2005 assignments cycle, 104 mid-level
positions had no bidders at all, including 67 positions in Africa and
the Middle East.
Figure 3: Average Number of Bids by Hardship Differential for Grades 2,
3, and 4:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
Note: The line in the graph shows the median of the average number of
bids for each differential rate. Also, only selected posts are named.
[End of Figure]
Consular positions in the posts with the highest hardship differential
(25 percent) continued to receive some of the lowest number of bids in
2005. As shown in figure 4, consular positions at 25 percent
differential posts received, on average, only 2.5 bids per position
compared with 18 for nonhardship posts. Low numbers of bids at hardship
posts have resulted in positions remaining vacant for long periods of
time. For example, a senior consular position in Lagos, Nigeria, has
been vacant since July 2001, and a consular chief position in Shenyang
was vacant from December 2003 until August 2004. Such gaps negatively
impact a post's ability to carry out its mission.
Figure 4: Average Bids per Career Track by Hardship Differential for
2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
[End of Figure]
In 2005 consular and public diplomacy positions were the hardest to
fill, with 91 percent of the vacancies in these two tracks at the mid-
level. Although the department has seen an increase in spending on U.S.
public diplomacy programs, several embassy officials stated that they
do not have the capacity to effectively utilize increased funds.
Moreover, these staffing gaps also limit the amount of training public
diplomacy officers receive, because many officers are sent to fill a
position quickly and never benefit from full training, ultimately
limiting the success of their public diplomacy outreach efforts.
Further, due to staffing shortages in consular sections around the
world, there are fewer staff to implement the new interview
requirements and screening procedures for visas, resulting in extensive
wait times for applicants for visa interviews at consular posts
overseas. From November 2004 through May 2005, there were 63 posts
reporting wait times of 30 or more days on a given month, signaling a
significant resource problem for State.
Many Mid-Level Positions Are Staffed by Junior Officers:
In order to fill vacancies, primarily at hardship posts, State
sometimes allows stretch assignments, which enable staff to bid for a
position at either a higher grade than their current grade level
(called an "upstretch") or a lower grade (a "downstretch"). Often,
upstretch assignments are offered as a reward and career-enhancing
opportunity for staff who have demonstrated outstanding performance,
and many officers successfully fulfill the duties requested of the
higher grade level.[Footnote 10] However, a 2004 report by State's
Inspector General[Footnote 11] found that in many African posts, for
example, there were significant deficiencies in the ability, training,
and experience of FSOs serving in upstretch assignments.
At posts we visited in early 2006, we found staffing conditions similar
to those we reported on in 2002, when we found experience gaps and
other staffing shortfalls at hardship posts.[Footnote 12] For example,
in 2002, we reported that, in the 10-officer consular section in Lagos,
only the consul had more than one tour of consular experience. In
addition, we reported that the office had many unfilled mid-level
positions, many of which were at the time being staffed by first-tour
junior officers and civil service employees who had never served
overseas. In our most recent visit, we found that the consulate in
Lagos was staffed by a mix of officers, including numerous junior
officers in stretch positions.
Moreover, many officers in stretch positions at hardship posts continue
to lack the managerial experience or supervisory guidance needed to
effectively perform their job-duties. Junior officers in consular
sections at hardship posts consistently reported that they lack
management guidance. In addition, junior officers in stretch
assignments at the various posts we visited stated that, without mid-
level officers to guide them, many times they can only turn to senior
management, including the ambassador, for assistance. According to a
2004 State Inspector General report, more time is spent by senior
staff, including ambassadors, on operational matters, and less time is
devoted to overall planning, policy, and coordination than should be
the case.[Footnote 13] Many junior officers also stated that, although
they were filling stretch positions at the mid-level, they were not
allowed to receive management training from State due to their lower
grade status. According to one officer, she requested management
training to help her manage staff in accordance with her role as acting
chief of a key section of the embassy, but was denied the opportunity
because, despite her current assignment, she was not a tenured mid-
level officer.
Senior management at posts we visited shared some of these concerns. A
former Deputy Chief of Mission in Nigeria stated that it is extremely
difficult for junior officers to work in stretch assignments when there
are few mid-level officers to guide them. Ambassadors at these posts
also stated that, although many junior officers entering the foreign
service are highly qualified, they did not have sufficient training to
handle some of the high stress situations they encounter and often end
up making mistakes. For example, according to the U.S. Ambassador to
Nigeria--the third largest mission in Africa with nearly 800 employees-
-the embassy presently had only three senior officers at the time of
our visit, and public affairs were handled entirely by first tour
junior officers. Also, according to U.S. officials in Beijing, the mid-
level consular manager positions in Shenyang and Chengdu, China--two
locations with high incidence of visa fraud--were held by first tour
junior officers at the time of our visit. We observed similar shortages
and employees staffed above their grades in consular sections in Africa
and China when we reported on staffing of hardship posts in 2002.
Consular chiefs in Beijing raised concerns about the lack of management
guidance and supervision available to junior officers due to the lack
of mid-level officers at constituent posts in China. One consular chief
stated that the lack of adequate supervision at constituent posts
requires that he or his deputy frequently travel to the posts outside
of Beijing to provide guidance to the junior officers. Another was
concerned that her caseload limited the amount of guidance she was able
to give to her constituent posts.
Other areas, such as regional security, are also compromised as a
result of mid-level vacancies. Security officers at one hardship post
told us that, without mid-level staff, they sometimes lack the
resources to adequately perform basic duties, such as accompanying the
ambassador on diplomatic travel or, as was the case during a recent
visit by the First Lady, providing adequate personnel to accompany her
staff. Former ambassadors with whom we spoke expressed serious concerns
about the department's diplomatic readiness and conveyed their belief
that a post's ability to carry out critical duties is significantly
compromised when the proper staffing levels, and particularly well-
trained officers, are not in place.
Family Issues and Locality Pay Discourage Bidding at Hardship Posts:
Many of the overseas staff we whom we met cited family considerations-
-child-related and spousal employment concerns, in particular--as the
greatest obstacle to attracting mid-level officers to hardship posts.
The spouses and other household members of FSOs who responded to a
State internet survey[Footnote 14] listed spousal employment as the
primary reason why officers do not bid for hardship posts. In many
hardship posts, it is extremely difficult for spouses to find
employment, particularly in China and most of South Asia, where
bilateral work agreements are not in place. State officials told us
that the department has recently initiated new programs to mitigate
this problem, such as providing fellowships for spouses to continue
their professional development, offering online courses or
entrepreneurial workshops to encourage small business development, or
training spouses to find employment in the local economy. The
department plans to expand these programs in the future with a
particular emphasis on spouses in hardship locations.
The survey respondents also listed child-related issues as a major
factor in the officers not bidding for positions. A particular concern
is that many hardship posts do not have appropriate schooling for
American children, thus limiting options for employees with families.
In Sana'a, Yemen, for example, post positions are only available to
staff with children under age 5 or over 21 due to a lack of schools.
This has been an outstanding concern for the Sana'a post, and post
officials told us that post management is heavily engaged in trying to
find a solution to the problem. In addition, the number of
unaccompanied posts[Footnote 15] has increased in recent years, making
it difficult for employees with families to bid on them. As of April
2006, there were 21 unaccompanied and limited accompanied posts and
more than 700 positions at such posts. Moreover, State officials said
that this number will probably increase due to increasing security
concerns around the world.
Lastly, officers and State personnel we interviewed both, at hardship
posts and in Washington, D.C., consistently cited the lack of locality
pay[Footnote 16] as a deterrent to bidding at hardship positions. In
2002, we reported that the differences in the statutes governing
domestic locality pay and differential pay for overseas service had
created a gap in compensation penalizing overseas employees.[Footnote
17] This gap grows every year, as domestic locality pay rates increase,
creating an ever-increasing financial disincentive for overseas
employees to bid on hardship posts. After accounting for domestic
locality pay for Washington, D.C., a 25 percent hardship post
differential is eroded to approximately 8 percent. As estimated in our
2002 report, differential pay incentives for the 15 percent
differential hardship posts are now less than the locality pay for
Washington, D.C., which is currently 17 percent and can be expected to
soon surpass the 20 percent differential hardship posts. Currently,
there is legislation pending in Congress to alleviate the locality pay
disparity by providing FSOs stationed outside the United States with
locality-based pay equal to that of Washington, D.C.[Footnote 18]
However, there has been no final action in Congress regarding this
legislation since 2005.
State Reluctant to Use Directed Assignments:
Despite chronic staffing shortages at hardship posts, especially at the
mid-level, State is reluctant to use its authority to direct
assignments based on risk and priorities at particular posts;
rather, it assigns employees to posts for which they have expressed
interest. According to State officials, State has rarely directed FSOs
to serve in locations for which they have not bid on a position,
including hardship posts or locations of strategic importance to the
United States, due to concerns of an increase in poor morale or lower
productivity. With continuing budgetary limitations, it will be
increasingly difficult for the department to increase financial
incentives for hardship posts; moreover, given the lack of an increase
in bidders, the effectiveness of such incentives is questionable.
State's Global Repositioning Initiative, announced in January 2006,
will move positions from Washington and Europe to critical posts in
Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. However, there is no guarantee
that these positions will be filled because bidding will continue to be
on a voluntary basis. Throughout the past decade, some State officials
have urged the department to employ a more aggressive strategy to
ensure that employees serve where their skills are needed most.
Additionally, despite concerns of an increase in low morale, several
officials whom we spoke with at hardship posts believe that in order to
effectively address these persistent staffing gaps, State needs to
direct assignments more often, particularly to hard-to-fill posts.
State Has Made Progress in Increasing Its Foreign Language
Capabilities, but Significant Language Gaps Remain:
State has made several efforts in recent years to enhance its foreign
language capabilities, in particular by increasing the number of its
language-designated positions and its efforts to recruit and hire staff
with foreign language skills, as well as by creating additional
language requirements and incentives for staff. However, significant
foreign language gaps remain, and State has not assessed the
effectiveness of its efforts to increase its language capabilities.
State Has Increased the Number of Language-Designated Positions and
Made Efforts to Enhance Foreign Language Capabilities:
State has made several efforts to improve its foreign language
capabilities, including creating additional language-designated
positions and enhancing recruiting efforts. State has increased the
number of language-designated positions by 27 percent. In 2001, there
were 2,581 (29 percent) of all foreign service positions that required
some level of foreign language proficiency. As of October 2005, there
were 3,267 positions (43 percent) that required some level of foreign
language proficiency. These positions span about 69 languages. State
has also enhanced its efforts to recruit and hire FSOs with language
skills. For example, State's Office of Recruitment has targeted its
recruiting outreach efforts to universities with strong language
programs and conferences of language professionals, as well as
associations and professional organizations, such as the Arab American
Institute, that have members already fluent in critical needs
languages. In addition, State offers bonus points on the foreign
service exam to candidates who demonstrate proficiency in critical
needs languages. State then requires these officers to serve in
positions that will employ their language skills during their first or
second assignment. As of April, 2006, almost 80 percent of entry level
officers who received additional exam points for their critical
language skills were assigned to locations that could utilize their
language within their first or second tour.
State has also implemented career development criteria, effective
January 1, 2005, that require, among other things, foreign language
proficiency as a prerequisite for consideration for promotion.
Specifically, in order to become eligible for promotion to the senior
foreign service, generalists must demonstrate the ability to read and
write a foreign language at a general professional level. State's
career development criteria for some specialists also contain language
proficiency requirements. In addition to these requirements, State has
developed financial incentives for officers with certain proficiency
levels in critical languages. Moreover, State has enhanced its overseas
language programs through various initiatives, including expanded use
of overseas language schools and post language programs, as well as by
increasing the number of weeks of training offered in certain critical
languages and by providing language immersion courses for officers
transitioning to new posts.
State Continues to Have Shortages of Staff Proficient in Foreign
Languages:
Despite its efforts to enhance the language capabilities of its staff,
State continues to fill language-designated positions with staff who do
not meet the proficiency requirements. Even some officers who met the
requirements told us their language ability was not adequate for them
to effectively perform their job-related responsibilities. Furthermore,
some officers believe that State's assignment and promotion system
hindered their ability to maintain their language skills over time.
Officials whom we met with at several posts described a number of
situations in which the posts' operations were adversely effected by
their lack of language proficiency. State has not assessed the
effectiveness of its efforts to increase its language capabilities or
conducted a risk assessment to prioritize the allocation of foreign
language resources.
Some Staff Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions:
State assesses language proficiency based on a scale established by the
federal Interagency Language Roundtable. The scale has six levels--0 to
5--with 5 being the most proficient (see table 4). Proficiency
requirements for language-designated positions at State tend to
congregate at the second and third levels of the scale. When
proficiency substantially exceeds one base skill level yet does not
fully meet the criteria for the next base level, a plus sign (+)
designation may be added.
Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements:
Proficiency level: 0 - None;
Language capability requirements: No practical capability in the
language.
Proficiency level: 1 - Elementary;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to satisfy
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements.
Proficiency level: 2 - Limited working;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to meet routine
social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with concrete
topics in past, present, and future tense.
Proficiency level: 3 - General professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language with
sufficient ability to participate in most formal and informal
discussion on practical, social, and professional topics. Can
conceptualize and hypothesize.
Proficiency level: 4 - Advanced professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language fluently and
accurately in all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Has
range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, and
counseling.
Proficiency level: 5 - Functionally native;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language at a
functional level equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated
native speaker.
Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents.
[End of table]
We compared the language proficiency of staff in all language-
designated positions as of October 2005 with the requirements for the
positions, and our analysis showed that 71 percent of all worldwide
language-designated positions were filled by individuals who met the
position's proficiency requirements, while 29 percent of the positions
were not.[Footnote 19] Language deficiencies exist world-wide, but were
among the greatest in the Middle East, a region of great importance to
the war on terror, where 37 percent of all language-designated
positions were filled by staff without the language skills required of
their positions. The skills gap was even greater at some critical
posts; for example, 59 percent in Cairo, Egypt; and 60 percent in
Sana'a, Yemen. See appendix III for the worldwide percentages of staff
filling language-designated positions that did not meet the language
speaking and reading requirements of their positions.
To further illustrate how skill gaps differ among languages of varying
levels of difficulty, we analyzed data on superhard, hard, and world
language-designated positions. Our analysis showed that the greatest
deficiencies existed for positions requiring superhard languages, such
as Arabic, compared with hard and world languages. Almost 40 percent of
superhard language-designated positions worldwide (465 positions) were
filled by individuals who did not meet the language requirements of
their position; this figure was 30 and 25 percent for hard and world
language designated positions, respectively. Further, the highest
percentage--almost 40 percent--of superhard positions filled by
officers that did not meet the speaking and reading language
requirements were among positions requiring Arabic, Chinese, and
Japanese. (See fig. 5).
Figure 5: Percentage of Staff Who Meet Requirements for World, Hard,
and Superhard Languages as of October 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Several posts had dual language positions. For example, Tunis had
positions that could either be filled by an Arabic or French speaker.
See appendix I for more details on how we treated these positions.
[End of figure]
Further analysis of Arabic and Chinese, two languages spoken in regions
of strategic interest to the United States, showed that the percentage
of staff that did not meet language requirements for their positions
varied by career tracks. For example, 100 percent of the staff filling
positions in the management career track requiring Arabic and 88
percent of the staff filling positions in the management career track
requiring Chinese did not meet the language requirements of their
positions.
Foreign service specialists--staff who perform security, technical, and
other support functions--also had high percentages of staff that did
not meet the Chinese or Arabic language requirements of their
positions. In particular, 72 and 75 percent of specialist positions
requiring Chinese and Arabic, respectively, were filled by staff who
did not meet the language requirement. (See table 5). Six of the
specialists we met with in Beijing said they did not receive sufficient
language training before arriving at post. State officials have
acknowledged that foreign service specialists have not received the
required amount of training, and FSI officials attributed this
situation to time constraints. Most specialists only have enough time
to participate in FSI's Familiarization and Short-term Training
language courses designed for beginners with 2 months or less time to
devote to training. State's Director General, in a cable issued in
January 2006, stated that the department has been shortsighted in not
providing training to specialists, especially office management
specialists, and stated that required training would be available for
specialists in the future.
Table 5: Percentage of Staff Filling Chinese and Arabic Language-
Designated Positions Who Do Not Meet Proficiency Requirements, by Type
of Position:
Staff: Chinese language: Generalists;
Filled language-designated positions: 147;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 40;
Percent: 27%.
Staff: Chinese language: Consular;
Filled language-designated positions: 57;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 12;
Percent: 21%.
Staff: Chinese language: Management;
Filled language-designated positions: 8;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 7;
Percent: 88%.
Staff: Chinese language: Economic;
Filled language-designated positions: 29;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 10;
Percent: 34%.
Staff: Chinese language: Political;
Filled language-designated positions: 24;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5;
Percent: 21%.
Staff: Chinese language: Public diplomacy;
Filled language-designated positions: 18;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 6;
Percent: 33%.
Staff: Chinese language: Multifunctional;
Filled language-designated positions: 11;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 0;
Percent: 0%.
Staff: Chinese language: Specialists;
Filled language-designated positions: 53;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 38;
Percent: 72%.
Staff: Arabic language: Generalists;
Filled language-designated positions: 140;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 49;
Percent: 35%.
Staff: Arabic language: Consular;
Filled language-designated positions: 41;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 12;
Percent: 29%.
Staff: Arabic language: Management;
Filled language-designated positions: 5;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5;
Percent: 100%.
Staff: Arabic language: Economic;
Filled language-designated positions: 11;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 6;
Percent: 55%.
Staff: Arabic language: Political;
Filled language-designated positions: 31;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 7;
Percent: 23%.
Staff: Arabic language: Public diplomacy;
Filled language-designated positions: 40;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 14;
Percent: 35%.
Staff: Arabic language: Multifunctional;
Filled language-designated positions: 12;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5;
Percent: 42%.
Staff: Arabic language: Specialists;
Filled language-designated positions: 20;
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 15;
Percent: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
[End of table]
Some Question the Adequacy of the Language Proficiency Requirements of
Their Positions:
Some officers whom we met with who attained the proficiency
requirements for their assignments stated that they were not
sufficiently fluent to effectively perform their jobs. For example, the
50 language-designated, junior officer consular positions at posts
requiring Chinese require proficiency at a speaking level of 2 and
reading level of 0. Consular officers we met with in China who tested
at that level said they could ask appropriate questions during consular
interviews, but could not always understand the answers. They pointed
out that Spanish or French language-designated consular positions
require a level-3 speaking and reading language proficiency. Moreover,
a survey of junior officers currently serving in China revealed that
most of the officers not interested in serving in China again cited
language issues as the primary reason. According to the Deputy Chief of
Mission in Sana'a, the level-3 Arabic speaking and reading proficiency
requirements for senior officers do not provide staff with the
proficiency needed to participate in debates about U.S. foreign policy.
He described an instance when he was asked to appear as an embassy
spokesperson on an Arabic language media program. The program, which
involved a debate format and addressed U.S. politics, lasted 1 hour and
was conducted entirely in Arabic. The official said that, given his
4+proficiency in Arabic, he was the only official at the embassy
capable of engaging in such a debate.
According to a State Inspector General report on Embassy Tel Aviv, the
duties inherent in consular positions require staff to have better
speaking and reading Hebrew language skills than the required level
2.[Footnote 20] Therefore, the Office of the Inspector General
recommended that entry-level officers be given the opportunity to study
Hebrew for 4 weeks in Tel Aviv before they begin work at the embassy.
Another Inspector General report said that staff in Cairo who speak
Arabic below the required level-3 would prefer to be able to speak at a
more advanced level to conduct effective public outreach.[Footnote 21]
Officials from the Foreign Service Institute agreed that a level-3
speaking and reading language proficiency in Arabic and Chinese was
more appropriate for junior officers assigned to consular positions,
but they explained that language-designated position requirements are
set at a level officers can realistically achieve in the limited amount
of time available to obtain training.
State's Assignment and Promotion System May Hinder Efforts to Improve
Its Foreign Language Capability:
Several FSOs we met with said they believe State's current assignment
and promotion system may hinder officers' ability to enhance and
maintain their language skills over time, as well as State's ability to
take advantage of those skills and the investment it makes in training.
For example, State's requirements for tenure stipulate that junior
officers work in a variety of regions and jobs to prepare them for
careers as generalists, while State's assignment regulations do not
allow junior officers and specialists to serve consecutive tours at the
same post. As a result, junior officers are often assigned to second
tours that do not utilize the language skills they acquired for their
first tour. For example, according to FSI, assignments to Russian-
speaking posts would be complemented by assignments elsewhere in the
world or Washington, D.C., to provide the broader experience required
at the senior level. There is also a perception among some officers
that spending too much time in one region can lead to being labeled as
too narrowly specialized, which could adversely impact the officers'
career. However, a senior State official asserted that the belief that
regional specialization hurts an officer's career is untrue, and,
further, that State's new career development plan supports regional
specialization.
In addition, the short length of some tours, such as 1-year
unaccompanied assignments, may not give an officer sufficient time to
master a language. According to State's Inspector General, as long as
unaccompanied assignments are restricted to 1 year, there is little
incentive for officers to seek extensive language training.[Footnote
22] In an effort to make better use of the department's training
investment, the FSI has encouraged officers and specialists to take FSI
courses to refine their language skills and achieve greater facility
when dealing with the local community. But officers in both Yemen and
China stated that State's assignment system does not allow for
sufficient time between assignments to utilize FSI's continued language
training. Compounding this problem, officers stated that their language
skills often diminish when a new assignment takes them to a region
requiring different language skills. According to FSI, the need to fill
gaps at posts, the lack of a training float, and other circumstances
particular to individual staff--such as family issues, learning
difficulties and aptitude, and application--hinder FSI's language
training efforts.
Lack of Foreign Language Capability May Adversely Effect State's
Operations:
State's foreign language gaps may negatively impact posts' operations.
According to the Assistant Secretaries of State for Education and
Cultural Affairs and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, deficits in
foreign language education negatively affect our national security,
diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence gathering efforts, and
cultural understanding by preventing effective communication in foreign
media environments, impeding counter-terrorism efforts, and limiting
our capacity to work with people and governments in post conflict
zones. We found examples of this negative impact involving a variety of
officers and specialists serving in language-designated positions
without the required foreign language skills.
² Consular officers: Officials at one high visa fraud post that we
visited stated that, due to language skill deficiencies, consular
officers sometimes adjudicate visas without fully understanding
everything the applicants tell them during visa interviews. In Jakarta,
where almost all visa interviews are conducted in Indonesian, the
consul general position was filled, at the time of our review, by an
officer with a language waiver,[Footnote 23] making supervision and
monitoring of the six first tour junior consular officers problematic.
² Economic and political officers: An economic officer in a superhard
language-speaking country had been conducting several important
negotiations in English with foreign government officials over a number
of months with little results. When the officials began discussing the
same issue in the host country language, the whole tenure of the
negotiations changed. According to the officer, one of the foreign
government officials who did not understand English, and was therefore
silent throughout the initial meetings, had actually been the most
valuable source of information all along, yet could only convey that
information when the meeting was conducted in his own language.
Additionally, according to senior officials in two of the countries we
visited, officers without fluent language skills who accompany them to
high-level meetings often produce inaccurate notes. Since these notes
provide a basis for the embassy's reporting, the officials spend a
great deal of time correcting notes rather than addressing more
pressing concerns. Furthermore, in Beirut, State's Inspector General
reported that most of the political and economic officers did not
receive the Arabic-language training needed to work professionally in
Lebanon, limiting opportunities to expand their contacts to the less
sophisticated urban areas and into the countryside.
² Public diplomacy officers: Officers at many posts cannot communicate
effectively with foreign audiences in local languages, hampering their
ability to cultivate personal relationships and explain U.S. foreign
policy. According to a recent GAO report[Footnote 24] many public
diplomacy officers in the Muslim world cannot communicate with local
audiences as well as their positions require. For example, an
information officer in Cairo stated that his office does not have
enough Arabic speaking staff to engage the Egyptian media effectively.
According to a State Inspector General inspection report on the U.S.
embassy in Damascus, public affairs officers need Arabic language
skills to maintain and expand contacts with nongovernmental, human
rights, and civil society groups, but the language training offered in
Damascus fails to prepare them for the idiomatic Arabic spoken in the
country.
² Management officers: According to one ambassador we met with, a
senior level embassy official, who did not have sufficient speaking and
reading language requirements for his position, met with a prime
minister, but was unable to participate fully in the top-secret
discussion without an outside translator present. However, because the
prime minister would not speak freely with the translator present, the
meeting was not productive.
² Foreign service specialists: A regional security officer stated that
lack of foreign language capability may hinder intelligence gathering
because local informants are reluctant to speak through locally hired
interpreters.
State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Efforts:
State has yet to evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to improve
its foreign language capabilities. In 2002, we reported that State did
not know whether its language incentives had helped to close skill gaps
for certain languages. We recommended that State adopt a strategic,
results-oriented approach to its human capital management and workforce
planning. We recommended an approach that included setting strategic
direction, assessing agency gaps in foreign language skills, developing
an action plan, and monitoring its implementation and level of success.
In response, State described a number of activities it was undertaking
as examples of how it had addressed many of the elements of workforce
planning. However, we noted that State still needed to develop an
action plan for correcting foreign language shortfalls and institute a
monitoring process to assess the action plan's implementation and
performance.[Footnote 25]
In 2003, we reported that State had not established numerical targets
for the number of individuals with hard-to-learn language skills it
aimed to hire. We also reported that State could not provide current or
historical data showing the number of individuals it hired as a direct
result of its targeted outreach efforts. We further recommended that
State collect and maintain data on the effectiveness of its efforts to
address language gaps.[Footnote 26] At the time of that review, State
said that it maintains data on its recruitment efforts. More recently,
State's Director of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment told us
that State has made greater use of technology to track the results of
its outreach efforts. However, State was not using these data to
routinely and systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts.
For example, when we asked for data to demonstrate whether the
percentage of new hires with foreign language skills had increased
since our last review, State initially told us that such data were not
available.[Footnote 27] State also told us that it still could not link
the results of its hiring to its targeted outreach efforts. In its
comments on this report, State provided a skills gap analysis, which it
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the President's
Management Agenda, as an example of how it evaluates the effectiveness
of its efforts to increase the language proficiency of its FSO
generalists and specialists. This submission included targets for
increasing the number of officers who speak and read a language at a
level 3 or above in fiscal year 2007. However, these targets were not
linked to individual languages.
GAO's internal control standards[Footnote 28] instruct agencies to
identify risks that could impede the efficient and effective
achievement of their objectives and assess their impact. State has not
conducted an assessment that would prioritize the resources it devotes
to specific languages based on risk. However, a number of potential
risks are associated with not having staff with the right language
skills at critical posts, including the risks of (1) adjudicating visas
to the wrong applicants, thereby jeopardizing U.S. national security;
(2) missing opportunities to advance U.S. foreign policy positions due
to ineffective communication with foreign media environments;
and (3) compromising U.S. intelligence gathering as a result of lost
information from potential informants. State's Director General has
said that State has not conducted the type of risk assessment that
would potentially reallocate resources from one area to another based
on strategic importance. Instead, State refines its critical needs
languages list on a yearly basis.
Conclusions:
Despite the progress made under the DRI, critical gaps in staffing at
hardship posts and shortages of staff with foreign language proficiency
in critical languages continue to impact State's diplomatic readiness.
State has provided a variety of incentives and taken a number of other
actions to attract staff to hardship posts and to improve its foreign
language capabilities since we last reported on this issue in 2003;
however, State has not evaluated these efforts. Further, some mid-level
positions at hardship posts continue to remain vacant for years, and we
found that bids for such positions have not increased significantly.
Moreover, State has resisted using its authority to direct staff to
hardship posts to fill critical vacancies. Similarly, State has not
conducted the type of risk assessment of its critical language needs
that would allow it to reallocate limited staffing, training, and other
resources to fill critical language gaps in areas of high priority.
Because State does not currently have a sufficient level and mix of
staffing and language resources to immediately fill all of its gaps in
these areas, choices must be made about diplomatic readiness
priorities, given the risk and strategic interests in particular
regions and countries. Without taking a risk-based approach to the
allocation of these limited resources, these gaps will continue to
compromise State's ability to carry out its foreign policy objectives
and execute critical mission functions, including reaching out to
foreign audiences in regions of critical importance to the war on
terror.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as the
language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, this report recommends
that the Secretary of State take the following five actions:
² Consider using directed assignments, as necessary, using a risk-based
approach, to fill critical positions with fully qualified officers who
have the skills and experience necessary to effectively manage and
supervise essential mission functions at hardship posts;
² Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the department's
incentive programs for hardship post assignments, establishing specific
indicators of progress and adjusting the use of the incentives based on
this analysis;
² Consider an assignment system that allows for longer tours,
consecutive assignments in certain countries, and more regional
specialization in certain areas, in order to hone officers' skills in
certain superhard languages and better leverage the investment State
makes in language training;
² Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to improve
the language proficiency of its FSOs and specialists, establishing
specific indicators of progress in filling language gaps and adjusting
its efforts, accordingly; and:
² Conduct a risk assessment of critical language needs in regions and
countries of strategic importance, make realistic projections of the
staff time and related training float necessary to adequately train
personnel to meet those needs, and target its limited resources for
language training, as needed, to fill these critical gaps.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
State provided written comments on a draft of this report. The comments
and our responses to specific points are reprinted in appendix IV.
State generally concurred with the report's observations, conclusions,
and recommendations. For example, State said it would consider using
directed assignments when necessary and evaluate the effectiveness of
its incentives programs. The department also stated that it is
examining its assignment system and expects to make significant changes
that will address many of the concerns noted in this report. State
described a number of programs that it has initiated to address
staffing and foreign language shortfalls. State cited the Generalist
Career Development Program and its Global Repositioning Initiative as
examples of efforts to encourage service at hardship posts and enhance
foreign language proficiency.
State commented that it is evaluating the effectiveness of its efforts
to improve the language capabilities of its staff. However, while State
is evaluating some components of its efforts to enhance language
capabilities, it is not doing so routinely and systematically. For
example, it did not compile data to determine whether the percentage of
new hires with language skills had increased until we requested it, and
State acknowledged that the department still could not link the results
of its hiring to its targeted outreach efforts. In addition, State
commented that it conducts a risk assessment when the department
reassesses its language needs when realigning positions to support
administration priorities, conducts annual reviews of language
designations of positions, and modifies its critical language
requirements to align with its diplomatic strategies. However, State
does not conduct the type of assessment that we are recommending, which
would allocate language resources based on the strategic importance of
a country or region and the risks associated with not having language-
proficient staff at posts in those locations.
We are sending this report to other interested Members of Congress and
to the Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available 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. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
[End of section]
To assess the Department of State's (State) progress in eliminating
staffing gaps, we:
* reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports,
* reviewed documentation on the goals and results of the Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative (DRI) and reports on incentives to attract bidders
to hardship posts,
* analyzed staffing and vacancy data, including State surplus/deficit
reports,
* analyzed 2004 and 2005 bidding data to determine the average number
of bids per posts by hardship differential and by career track, and:
* interviewed officials in State's Bureau of Human Resources and Bureau
of Consular Affairs and six regional bureaus regarding vacancy and
staffing issues.
To determine the total staff surplus/deficit at the Department of
State, we analyzed State staffing data and compared the number of
positions in each career track with the number of FSOs in each track.
To calculate the deficit for the mid-level officers, we used data for
FS-01, FS-02, and FS-03. For example, if the total number of employees
in the consular career track is 1,055 and the total number of consular
positions is 1,866, the deficit in officers would be 811. We analyzed
data for each career track to determine the surplus/deficit for each.
We analyzed bidding data to determine the average number of position
bids by posts, the median average bid for each differential rate, and
the areas of specialization that are difficult to staff.[Footnote 29]
For these analyses, we used the mid-level bidding data for the 2005
summer assignments cycle. In order to compare 2005 data with 2002 data
from our previous report and remain consistent, we used FS-04 tenured,
FS-03, and FS-02 bid data. To obtain the average number of bids for
each post, we took the total number of bids received on all positions
at each post and divided it by the total number of positions to be
filled at the post. For example, in the 2002 summer assignments cycle,
Lagos had eight positions to be filled and received a total of 11 bids,
resulting in an average of 1.38 bids for this post. To obtain the
median bid at each differential rate, as represented in the line in
figure 3, we arranged in ascending order the average bid for each post
at the corresponding differential rate and used the middle average bid.
For example, assuming there are only five posts at the 25 differential
rate and their average bids are 3, 5, 7, 9, and 16, the median of the
average bids is 7. The bidding data include the number of positions to
be filled at each post and the number of bids received for each
position. We used the mid-level bidding data because mid-level
positions comprised 56 percent of the total foreign service workforce.
We also used the bidding data for the summer assignments cycle because,
according to State officials, most employees are transferred during
this cycle, compared to the winter cycle. Although we analyzed data for
the two cycles, we provided information for only the 2005 cycle because
the results for 2004 were similar.
To assess State's progress in filling gaps in the language proficiency
of foreign service officers and other staff, we performed the
following:
² reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports;
² analyzed data on the foreign language requirements of State and its
efforts to enhance its foreign language capability;
² analyzed worldwide data on language-designated positions by post,
languages, career track, specialty, and grade;
² analyzed data on the language proficiency of staff at specific posts
by career track, specialty, and grade; and:
² interviewed officials of the Office of Recruitment and the Office of
Resource Management and Organizational Analysis of the Bureau of Human
Resources, State's Office of Inspector General, and the Foreign Service
Institute (FSI) regarding the hiring and training of language
proficient staff.
We compared the number of language designated positions in fiscal year
2001 with the number in 2005 to determine whether the number of
language-designated positions had increased, decreased, or remained the
same. We also compared staff's language proficiency skills with their
position's language requirements to determine whether they met the
requirements for the positions. For this analysis we considered
language-designated generalist and specialist positions that were
filled as of October, 2005. We compared the positions' speaking and
reading requirements against their occupants' tested scores in the
designated languages. In cases where the occupants of language-
designated positions had no tested score, we deemed that they had
failed to meet the requirements. Several posts had "dual-language"
positions; for example, Tunis had a number of positions that could
either be filled by an Arabic or a French speaking officer. For some
dual-language positions, the occupants tested for both languages, and
in those instances we selected either the designated primary language,
according to State's records, or the secondary language if the occupant
failed to meet the primary language's requirements but met the second
language's requirements. In our tabulations, we classified those dual
language positions according to the ones we selected, which were
usually, but not always, the designated primary languages. There were a
number of dual language positions whose occupants met the requirements
for both languages. As our analysis was designed to test whether the
positions' requirements were being met, not to estimate the number of
occupants with language abilities at each post or for each language, we
did not include those secondary languages. For a few positions, State
had created two sets of language requirements; when that occurred, we
compared the higher of the requirements against the tested scores.
We obtained bidding, assignment, and foreign language data from State's
Global Employee Management System (GEMS) database, which tracks State
personnel actions. The data in GEMS are compiled from a variety of
sources. For example, the Office of Career Development and Assignments
(HR/CDA) in State's Bureau of Human Resources enters data in GEMS on
the results of the bidding and the assignment of employees to overseas
posts. FSI provides the data on the language proficiency of FSOs and
specialists. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and interviewed
officials from the Office of Resource Management and Organizational
Analysis and HR/CDA, and officials of the Foreign Service Institute
concerning the reliability of the data. The officials stated that all
employees are knowledgeable about their data, which serves as a
reliability check on the system. Based on our analysis of the data and
discussions with the officials, we determined the data are sufficiently
reliable for our purposes.
We conducted fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria;
Sana'a, Yemen; and Beijing, China, to study the impact of staffing and
language gaps at selected posts.[Footnote 30] We developed a matrix
containing information on staffing vacancies, number of bids per
position, officers in stretch positions, foreign language requirement,
and the foreign language capabilities of staff in language-designated
positions to identify potential fieldwork locations. We selected the
posts in Nigeria because of the low number of staff applying for each
position. We selected Sana'a because of the low number of staff
applying for each position, because it requires staff proficient in
Arabic, which is a difficult language to learn, and because of Yemen's
importance to the war on terrorism. We selected Beijing because it
requires staff proficient in Chinese, which is also a difficult
language to learn, and because of its strategic importance to the
United States. We performed our work from August 2005 to May 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Department of State Staffing:
As of September 30, 2005, the Department of State (State) had about
19,000 full-time American employees, including foreign service
generalists, foreign service specialists, and civil servants. Table 6
illustrates State's staffing by position type, as of September 30,
2005.
Table 6: State Department Worldwide Staffing by Position Type as of
September 30, 2005:
Total Department of State staffing;
Full-time permanent positions: 21,180;
Full-time Staff available: 19,255;
Staff surplus (deficit): (1,925);
Political appointees: 75.
Total foreign service staffing;
Full-time permanent positions: 11,387;
Full-time Staff available: 11,189;
Staff surplus (deficit): (198);
Political appointees: 49.
Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service generalist-overseas;
Full-time permanent positions: 4,457;
Full-time Staff available: 4,232;
Staff surplus (deficit): (225);
Political appointees: 45.
Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service specialist-overseas;
Full-time permanent positions: 3,403;
Full-time Staff available: 3,150;
Staff surplus (deficit): (253);
Political appointees: 4.
Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service generalist-domestic;
Full-time permanent positions: 1,890;
Full-time Staff available: 2,123;
Staff surplus (deficit): 233;
Political appointees: [Empty].
Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service specialist-domestic;
Full-time permanent positions: 1,637;
Full-time Staff available: 1,684;
Staff surplus (deficit): 47;
Political appointees: [Empty].
Total civil service staffing;
Full-time permanent positions: 9,793;
Full-time Staff available: 8,066;
Staff surplus (deficit): (1,727);
Political appointees: 26.
Source: Department of State.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Foreign Language Proficiency at Language-Designated
Positions:
Table 7: Location, Number of Language-Designated Positions, and Percent
of Staff Filling the Positions Who Do Not Meet the Speaking and Reading
Language Requirements:
Location: Abidjan;
Number of language-designated positions: 22;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47.
Location: Abu Dhabi;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Abuja;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Adana;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67.
Location: Addis Ababa;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Algiers;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11.
Location: Almaty;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30.
Location: Amman;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18.
Location: Amsterdam;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Ankara;
Number of language-designated positions: 31;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36.
Location: Antananarivo;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 55.
Location: Ashgabat;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Astana;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Asuncion;
Number of language-designated positions: 20;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22.
Location: Athens;
Number of language-designated positions: 27;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36.
Location: Baghdad;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67.
Location: Baku;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44.
Location: Bamako;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 77.
Location: Bangkok;
Number of language-designated positions: 41;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37.
Location: Bangui;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Banja Luka;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Barcelona;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Beijing;
Number of language-designated positions: 104;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38.
Location: Beirut;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12.
Location: Belgrade;
Number of language-designated positions: 23;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38.
Location: Belize City;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Berlin;
Number of language-designated positions: 37;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30.
Location: Bern;
Number of language-designated positions: 15;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 46.
Location: Bishkek;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11.
Location: Bogotá;
Number of language-designated positions: 97;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Bordeaux;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Brasilia;
Number of language-designated positions: 43;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47.
Location: Bratislava;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: Bridgetown;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Brussels;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Brussels NATO;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47.
Location: Brussels USE;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40.
Location: Bucharest;
Number of language-designated positions: 28;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Budapest;
Number of language-designated positions: 28;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 48.
Location: Buenos Aires;
Number of language-designated positions: 41;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24.
Location: Bujumbura;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Cairo;
Number of language-designated positions: 32;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 59.
Location: Caracas;
Number of language-designated positions: 45;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27.
Location: Casablanca;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 56.
Location: Chengdu;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 54.
Location: Chennai;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Chiang Mai;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Chisinau;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Ciudad Juarez;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Cologne;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Colombo;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Conakry;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36.
Location: Copenhagen;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12.
Location: Cotonou;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Curacao;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Dakar;
Number of language-designated positions: 29;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Damascus;
Number of language-designated positions: 19;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 41.
Location: Dar-es-Salaam;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67.
Location: Dhahran;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Dhaka;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18.
Location: Dili;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Djibouti;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 75.
Location: Doha;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Douala;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Dubai;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Dushanbe;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 62.
Location: Düsseldorf;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Florence;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Frankfurt;
Number of language-designated positions: 32;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 39.
Location: Fukuoka;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Geneva;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22.
Location: Georgetown;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Guadalajara;
Number of language-designated positions: 20;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 10.
Location: Guangzhou;
Number of language-designated positions: 35;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 31.
Location: Guatemala;
Number of language-designated positions: 36;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 26.
Location: Guayaquil;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Hamburg;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Hanoi;
Number of language-designated positions: 19;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24.
Location: Havana;
Number of language-designated positions: 27;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36.
Location: Helsinki;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14.
Location: Hermosillo;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Ho Chi Minh City;
Number of language-designated positions: 26;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16.
Location: Hong Kong;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44.
Location: Islamabad;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Istanbul;
Number of language-designated positions: 19;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Jakarta;
Number of language-designated positions: 35;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21.
Location: Jeddah;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14.
Location: Jerusalem;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: Kabul;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67.
Location: Kathmandu;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40.
Location: Kiev;
Number of language-designated positions: 40;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 9.
Location: Kigali;
Number of language-designated positions: 13;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30.
Location: Kinshasa;
Number of language-designated positions: 22;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24.
Location: Krakow;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18.
Location: Kuala Lumpur;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40.
Location: Kuwait;
Number of language-designated positions: 13;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: La Paz;
Number of language-designated positions: 29;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19.
Location: Lagos;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Leipzig;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Libreville;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Lima;
Number of language-designated positions: 50;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21.
Location: Lisbon;
Number of language-designated positions: 20;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Ljubljana;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12.
Location: Lome;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: London;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Luanda;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Luxembourg;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37.
Location: Lyon;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Madrid;
Number of language-designated positions: 35;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 13.
Location: Managua;
Number of language-designated positions: 30;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15.
Location: Manama;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Manila;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Maputo;
Number of language-designated positions: 15;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15.
Location: Marseille;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Matamoros;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Medan;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Merida;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Mexico City;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Mexico DF;
Number of language-designated positions: 96;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16.
Location: Milan;
Number of language-designated positions: 13;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18.
Location: Minsk;
Number of language-designated positions: 12;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 9.
Location: Monterrey;
Number of language-designated positions: 26;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Montevideo;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Montreal;
Number of language-designated positions: 13;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30.
Location: Moscow;
Number of language-designated positions: 95;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: Mumbai;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Munich;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: Muscat;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60.
Location: Nagoya;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Naha;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Nairobi;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Naples;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: N'Djamena;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 57.
Location: New Delhi;
Number of language-designated positions: 15;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38.
Location: Niamey;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 10.
Location: Nicosia;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Nogales;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67.
Location: Nouakchott;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Nuevo Laredo;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: OECD Paris;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Osaka-Kobe;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30.
Location: Oslo;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Ottawa;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Ouagadougou;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 43.
Location: Panama;
Number of language-designated positions: 31;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19.
Location: Paramaribo;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Paris;
Number of language-designated positions: 64;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22.
Location: Paris UNESCO;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40.
Location: Peshawar;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Phnom Penh;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Podgorica;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Punta Delgado;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Port Louis;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Prague;
Number of language-designated positions: 23;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12.
Location: Praia;
Number of language-designated positions: 3;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Pristina, KO;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Port-Au-Prince;
Number of language-designated positions: 30;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15.
Location: Quebec;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Quito;
Number of language-designated positions: 28;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Rabat;
Number of language-designated positions: 20;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 42.
Location: Rangoon;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37.
Location: Recife;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Reykjavik;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Riga;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Rio de Janeiro;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24.
Location: Riyadh;
Number of language-designated positions: 19;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 31.
Location: Rome;
Number of language-designated positions: 43;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38.
Location: San Jose;
Number of language-designated positions: 28;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16.
Location: San Salvador;
Number of language-designated positions: 38;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21.
Location: Sana'a;
Number of language-designated positions: 19;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60.
Location: Santiago;
Number of language-designated positions: 29;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22.
Location: Santo Domingo;
Number of language-designated positions: 50;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 7.
Location: Sao Paulo;
Number of language-designated positions: 30;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 28.
Location: Sapporo;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Sarajevo;
Number of language-designated positions: 20;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47.
Location: Seoul;
Number of language-designated positions: 33;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Shanghai;
Number of language-designated positions: 32;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37.
Location: Shenyang;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60.
Location: Singapore;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Skopje;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27.
Location: Sofia;
Number of language-designated positions: 17;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19.
Location: St. Petersburg;
Number of language-designated positions: 10;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12.
Location: Stockholm;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44.
Location: Strasbourg;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Surabaya;
Number of language-designated positions: 7;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17.
Location: Suva;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Tallinn;
Number of language-designated positions: 9;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25.
Location: Tashkent;
Number of language-designated positions: 22;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29.
Location: Tbilisi;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 70.
Location: Tegucigalpa;
Number of language-designated positions: 33;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19.
Location: Tel Aviv;
Number of language-designated positions: 22;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 28.
Location: The Hague;
Number of language-designated positions: 8;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14.
Location: Thessaloniki;
Number of language-designated positions: 2;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Tijuana;
Number of language-designated positions: 14;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14.
Location: Tirana;
Number of language-designated positions: 15;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Tokyo;
Number of language-designated positions: 45;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 39.
Location: Tokyo RLS;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Toulouse;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Tripoli;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60.
Location: Tunis;
Number of language-designated positions: 26;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 35.
Location: Tunis RLS;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Location: Ulaanbaatar;
Number of language-designated positions: 4;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Vatican;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 75.
Location: Vienna;
Number of language-designated positions: 16;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Vienna OSCE;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100.
Location: Vientiane;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27.
Location: Vilnius;
Number of language-designated positions: 11;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11.
Location: Vladivostok;
Number of language-designated positions: 5;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40.
Location: Warsaw;
Number of language-designated positions: 42;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21.
Location: Yaoundé;
Number of language-designated positions: 18;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33.
Location: Yekaterinburg;
Number of language-designated positions: 6;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20.
Location: Yerevan;
Number of language-designated positions: 17;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50.
Location: Zagreb;
Number of language-designated positions: 17;
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State Data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
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, "State
Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite
Initiatives to Address Gaps," GAO Job Code 320357.
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
Cynthia Nelson, Program Analyst, Bureau of Human Resources, at (202)
647-2655.
Sincerely,
Signed by: Bradford R. Higgins:
cc:
GAO - Laverne Tharpes:
DGHR - George M. Staples:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps (GAO-06-894, GAO Job Code 320357):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
draft report, which we believe is generally helpful in identifying the
challenges we face in staffing hardship posts around the world and in
ensuring that our officers have the language proficiency necessary to
perform their jobs. Since the last reports in 2002 and 2003, the
diplomatic challenges that we must address have significantly changed
and the Department has instituted new programs aimed at meeting the
opportunities of transformational diplomacy.
In January 2005, the Department launched a Generalist Career
Development Program (CDP), which addresses the issues of staffing
hardship posts and increasing the language proficiency of Generalist
officers that GAO discussed in the report. The CDP requires officers to
spend a minimum of three tours in a geographic region, developing a
"major" in the region in the mid-level years of an officer's career.
The CDP also requires that officers spend a minimum of two tours in a
second geographic region or a functional specialization, such as
political-military affairs or consular work. This second area of
expertise has been labeled an officer's "minor." Taken together, the
major and minor require each officer to serve five tours (typically ten
to 15 years) acquiring regional and/or functional expertise in
preparation for increasingly senior positions abroad or in Washington.
The CDP obliges officers to serve at a 15 percent or greater post
(hardship) differential/danger pay post after tenure and to have a
language proficiency of 3/3, tested within seven years, before applying
to compete for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. The CDP also
requires that officers fulfill a specific number of "electives,"
depending on their grade (class) on the program implementation date.
Three of the electives are proficiency in an additional language and
service in an officially designated critical needs position after
tenure and/or in an unaccompanied post from entry. In addition to
encouraging employees to gain the breadth of experience and training
required to excel as senior officers, the CDP provides the Department
with a means for staffing hardship posts, unaccompanied tours, and
critical needs posts, as well as encouraging officers to increase their
language proficiency.
In January 2006, we launched Career Development Programs for the 18
Specialist groups, each tailored to the needs of the Department for the
particular specialty. This year we have implemented Phase I of Global
Repositioning (GRP), an initiative to reorient our staffing on a
worldwide basis to focus on the issues that present some of the most
significant challenges to the safeguarding and promotion of U.S.
national interests today. This entailed establishing one hundred new
positions, the majority of which are located in East Asia, South and
Central Asia and the Near East, to focus on transformational diplomatic
priorities. To offset these increases, we eliminated one hundred
positions around the world, mostly in Europe and in the U.S., which had
been involved in the management of outdated or lower priority
activities. We are in the process of determining the positions that
will be shifted as part of Phase II of what is expect to be a multi-
year process. Senior management in the regional bureaus submitted
recommendations to the Secretary about where to establish the new
positions and identified the positions to eliminate based on their
expert knowledge of diplomatic issues in each country and their
strategic importance in implementing transformational diplomacy. The
Secretary made the final decisions.
We appreciate GAO's acknowledgement of a major challenge - the lack of
locality pay for our mid-level and junior employees serving overseas -
that the Department has been addressing over the last couple years. As
the report indicates, the lack of locality pay for employees serving
overseas is a disincentive for employees to bid on hardship posts
because the various differentials provided to compensate employees for
harsh and/or dangerous conditions are offset by the lack of locality
pay, which is currently 18 percent in Washington, D.C. In the last
year, and for the first time, we have secured Administration support
for budget and legal solutions to the pay gap in combination with the
institution of pay-for-performance for FS-01 s below. The Department
continues to work with Congressional members and staff to ensure
passage of the legislation and full funding of the President's related
budget request.
As the report indicates the Department received funding to hire over
1,000 employees above attrition under the Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative (DRI), between 2002 and 2004. These additional positions and
employees were intended to build our staffing levels, which had been
greatly reduced in the government downsizing of the mid 1990's, and
provide for a training "float", which would have given us the ability
to increase long-term language opportunities for our employees without
imposing significant staffing gaps on our overseas posts. However, the
increased demands for staffing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, as well
as to monitor Iran and North Korea - all of which are Administration
priorities - offset much of the increases in employees and positions we
received under the DRI, especially the extra funding we had intended to
use for long-term language training positions.
The report affirms the challenge of the mid-level deficit of Generalist
officers that we have been addressing for the last few years. The
Foreign Service is a closed system in which employees enter at the
junior level and are reviewed for promotion annually when they meet the
time-in-class requirements (two years for mid-level officers). The
first employees hired under DRI began competing for promotion from FS04
to FS03 in 2005. Employees must be tenured, which requires that they
have at least three years in the Foreign Service, before they first
compete for promotion to FS03. We anticipate eliminating the deficits
at the FS03 and FS02 (mid-level) levels by 2010. Once the deficits are
eliminated, we will be able to reduce the number of stretch assignments
(i.e., assigning employees to positions above their grade level). [As
the report indicates some employees seek up-stretch assignments for
career enhancing challenges. Employees bid on both up-stretch and down-
stretch assignments for personal and family reasons (e.g., being
assigned to a post with their spouse, education opportunities for
children, and elder care responsibilities)].
We would like to mention that when junior officers are considered for
stretch assignments, their prior work experience is often a factor. A
number of our junior officers are on their second or third career and
bring a wealth of management and leadership skills.
We are concerned about the statements in the report that Lagos and two
consulates in China, Chendu and Shenyang, are staffed mainly by first-
tour officers and Civil Service employees on excursion tours. Lagos is
staffed by a mix of officers: most are mid-level or entry-level
officers; however, three senior officers are assigned to post. The
Consular Section Chief position in Lagos was vacant for two years;
however, it is currently staffed by a newly-arrived senior officer. Two
FS02 officers (one serving in a FS03 position) as well as numerous
junior officers work in the consular section. In Chendu, the consulate
is staffed by a FS03 officer serving in a FS02 position and two FS04
officers. Currently, in Consulate Shenyang, the FS02 position is vacant
because the former incumbent (an FS02 officer) was medivaced about four
months ago; however, a FS02 officer has been assigned to the position
and is due to arrive in August. As indicated in the report, the
consulate currently has three FS04 officers/positions; however, one
position was recently upgraded to FS03.
The report discusses the assignment process, focusing primarily on
bidding on hardship posts. We agree that employees' preferences are a
factor in the assignments on which employees bid; however, employees
are required to submit bids that meet several criteria. For example,
employees must bid on hardship assignments at differential posts if
they have not served at least 18 months in a differential post (10
months if the tour of duty was only one year at the time of your
service) during the eight years prior to their upcoming transfer.
Moreover, employees must submit six "core" bids that include bids for
assignments in at least two geographic areas or bureaus. "Core" bids
must be for positions in the employee's cone/skill code, at the
employees grade level, and require a language proficiency that the
employee already has or has time to acquire between their transfer
eligibility date and that of the incumbent.
Employees bid on positions that will become available during the
bidding cycle: established positions that are or will become vacant
during the bidding period. Thus, employees are bidding on the 100 new
positions established in the GRP initiative and the positions that were
eliminated will not be staffed. In fact, because the GRP initiative was
implemented during the bidding cycle, several employees who had been
assigned to positions that were eliminated were required to bid on
other positions. (The Department worked with these employees
individually to ensure that they found appropriate assignments.)
Staffing these new positions is receiving high priority because they
are essential to implementing the Administration's and the Secretary's
transformational diplomacy initiative.
As discussed above, the new Career Development Program for Generalists,
as well as those for Specialists, is expected to encourage employees to
bid on hardship, unaccompanied, and critical needs assignments.
The analysis of bids at hardship posts is troubling because it is based
on two snapshots of data that are constantly changing until each
officer is assigned. A snapshot taken of bids in the fall is not an
accurate reflection of the number of bids a given post/position
eventually receives. For example, seventy people may bid on a Paris
position, but only one will be assigned, and the rest will bid
elsewhere. We are still assigning people to positions for this summer.
The process does not end when a bidder submits the first list. During
the assignment process, additional bidding, bureau recruitment, counter-
offers and pressure to accept jobs occur. Employees are required to
maintain active bid lists; thus if employees don't receive a job from
their first lists, they must bid on more jobs out of the remaining
unassigned positions, maintaining an active list of at least six bids
until they are assigned.
Moreover, snapshots of bidding data may be deceiving because they don't
take into account how the bidding process is structured. Employees are
required to bid on a minimum of six positions at-grade and in-cone;
thus, many bid one or two positions seriously then fill their core with
"throwaway" bids in order to focus their attention on the few positions
in which they are actively interested. A "throwaway" bid is usually
placed on a job in a very popular place (Paris, etc.) that the employee
has no real intention of pursuing. Thus, the bid snapshot is not an
accurate reflection of where bidders really want to go or where people
will end up being assigned.
As the report indicates, we have also established the Service Need
Differential (SND) Program to encourage employees to bid on hardship
posts that are often difficult to staff. GAO correctly reports that we
can provide the number of eligible employees who have received SND
payments over the last four years; however, we do not have
corresponding data for people who declined SND. The count of employees
who received SND payments came from our payroll system. We do maintain
assignment records of employees who declined and accepted SND when
first paneled, as well as people who accepted SND after arriving at
post; however, because of the nature of the program and the need to
regularize our recording of SND information, the data may contain
errors. It is important to note that employees frequently decline SND
initially, choosing to wait to decide if they want to extend their
assignments to three years and opt for SND until they have lived at
post for a while. [Under the current SND program, tour lengths at SND
posts must be at least three years.] We agree that we need to review
our method for recording SND information to ensure that we are
capturing the information necessary to track and evaluate the program's
effectiveness.
It is important to note, however, that the full impact of an incentive
cannot be measured by decisions recorded in a database: there are many
factors that affect employees' bidding and decision to accept and/or
decline SND. In addition to considering the job content of the position
and location, employees must factor in family-related aspects (e.g.,
schools, medical facilities, family member employment opportunities,
etc.)
We are pleased that GAO's examination of our foreign language
capability affirmed that we have made several major efforts to improve
our foreign language proficiency, including providing recruitment
incentives for those entering the Foreign Service with specific
language capabilities and instituting new language proficiency
requirements for officers competing for promotion into the Senior
Foreign Service. Moreover, GAO notes that we have increased the number
of language-designated positions (LDPs).
We are concerned by GAO's assertion that we have not conducted an
assessment that would prioritize the resources we devote to specific
languages based on risk and strategic interest in particular regions or
countries. Our language requirements are based on the language
designation of positions. As we align positions with the Department's
transformational diplomacy strategy, our language requirements and
corresponding resources are realigned. Each year, the regional bureaus,
with input from posts, and the Bureau of Human Resources review the
language designation of all positions to determine if the designations
are correct based on the requirements of the position and the current
diplomatic issues in each country. For example, we have realigned our
language requirements and languages resources to take into account the
changes triggered by the GRP initiative. As noted in the discussion of
the GRP initiative, 100 new positions were established, most of which
are language designated for Asian and Near Eastern languages, and 100
positions were eliminated, many of which were language designated for
world languages.
We would like to note that the Department has reported its language
competency gaps in the quarterly submissions to the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since
September 2005 as part of our accountability under the President's
Management Agenda (PMA). We have reported the total number of officers
with general professional (3/3) and advanced professional and/or native
speaker (4/4 or higher) proficiencies in critical needs languages, as
well as the corresponding ratios of officers with language proficiency
to LDPs. Moreover, our submissions have included out-year targets and
analyses of the data. It is important to note that we anticipate that
the ratio of officers to LDPs will decrease in the short term as more
positions become language designated, an initiative stemming from the
implementation of the CDP and aligning with the Department's
transformational diplomacy strategy.
We must take exception with the methodology GAO used in analyzing the
language proficiency of officers encumbering LDPs. First, GAO presents
information on both Generalists and Specialists combined, rather than
as separate groups. Because the Department has emphasized in the past
language proficiency and training for Generalists (commissioned Foreign
Service Officers), the report would present a more comprehensive
picture if it focused only on Generalists or provided separate analyses
of each workforce.
The table below contrasts the data presented by GAO with totals when
limiting the analysis to the generalist position subset:
Meet Superhard Requirement;
GAO Report: 61%;
Generalist Pos Only: 70%.
Meet Superhard Requirement: Arabic;
GAO Report: 62%;
Generalist Pos Only: 70%.
Meet Superhard Requirement: Chinese;
GAO Report: 60%;
Generalist Pos Only: 76%.
Meet World Lang. Requirement;
GAO Report: 75%;
Generalist Pos Only: 83%.
Meet Hard Lang. Requirement;
GAO Report: 70%;
Generalist Pos Only: 75%.
[End of table]
As noted above, we launched CDPs for all 18 specialist groups in
January of this year. For several of the specialist groups, proficiency
in a language is required; for others, it is optional.
Moreover, the GAO report does not present the complete picture
regarding language-qualified officers in LDPs. The report does not
differentiate between incumbents who have the language but do not meet
BOTH the speaking and reading requirement and those who do not have the
language at all. For example, the GAO report considers a 3/3 Chinese
LDP filled with an officer with a 3/2+ in Chinese equivalent to
staffing same position with a person who has no Chinese whatsoever.
Approximately 77 percent of the incumbents of super-hard generalist
LDPs and 94 percent of those filling generalist world language LDPs
have at least a 1/1 in the required language.
We are pleased that the report identifies some of the challenges we
face in trying to ensure that officers receive the language training
they need for their onward assignment. The Department often must
balance the need for language training with the requirement to reduce
the amount of time a post must endure a gap while the officer is in
training. In some instances, the Department decides that it is more
important for the post to have an employee at post with a lower
language proficiency level than to do without the employee for the
training period. As the GAO reported, the "training float" for which we
had planned under DRI has been consumed with priority staffing
requirements. For this reason, we often must make tradeoffs between
language training and reducing staffing gaps.
Another challenge that GAO mentioned pertains to junior officers
needing language proficiencies higher than a 2/0 in Chinese to
effectively communicate. We agree; however, the Foreign Service Act of
1980 restricts junior officers to limited, non-career appointments of
five years. If a junior officer spends a full two years learning a
language (required for a 3 in Chinese) and the better part of another
year getting orientation and training, then we will have to base a
tenure decision on a single overseas tour, which is not fair to the
employee or the Department. Junior officers need to be judged in how
they perform in a variety of posts and jobs in order to be meaningfully
evaluated as to their potential to serve over a full career.
The GAO report states that the short length of some tours, such as one-
year unaccompanied assignments, may not give an officer sufficient time
to master a language. We would like to clarify the assertion that one-
year unaccompanied assignments are restricted to one year. They are
made for one year; however, employees can and do extend for additional
years. This is an example of the Department balancing the needs of the
Department with the needs of our employees and their families.
Unaccompanied tours do not just affect the employee: many spouses and
children are placed in stressful situations and make significant
sacrifices during the assignment.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Our
comments are based on the original draft report after some informal
discussions with GAO.
Our responses to GAO's five recommendations follow:
Recommendation 1: The Secretary of State consider using directed
assignments, as necessary, using a risk-based approach, to fill
critical positions with fully qualified officers who have the skills
and experience necessary to effectively manage and supervise essential
mission functions at hardship posts.
The Director General of the Foreign Service is prepared to use directed
assignments if and when it becomes necessary in order to staff hardship
assignments.
Recommendation 2: The Secretary of State systematically evaluate the
effectiveness of its incentive programs for hardship post assignments,
establishing specific indicators of progress and adjusting the use of
the incentives based on this analysis.
The Department will evaluate, within its means, the effectiveness of
our incentive programs for hardship posts assignments and develop
appropriate indicators of progress.
Recommendation 3: The Secretary of State consider an assignment system
that allows for longer tours, consecutive assignments in certain
countries, and more regional specialization in certain areas, in order
to hone officers' skills in certain super-hard languages and better
leverage the investment State makes in language training.
We are currently examining our assignments system and expect to make
significant changes that will address many of the concerns noted in
this report.
Recommendation 4: The Secretary of State systematically evaluate the
effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its
Foreign Service officers and specialists, establishing specific
indicators of progress in filling language gaps and adjusting its
efforts accordingly.
We currently evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to improve the
language proficiency of our Foreign Service Generalists and Specialists
in our skills gap analysis, which is one of our quarterly submissions
to OMB under the President's Management Agenda; and we will continue to
monitor our recruitment initiatives and the results of the Career
Development Programs (CDPs). As detailed earlier in our formal
comments, our CDPs for Generalists and some Specialists require
language proficiency for employees to compete into the Senior Foreign
Service.
Recommendation 5: The Secretary of State conduct a risk assessment of
critical language needs in regions and countries of strategic
importance, make realistic projections of the staff time and related
training float necessary to adequately train personnel to meet those
needs, and target its limited resources for language training, as
needed, to fill these critical gaps.
We will continue to conduct risk assessments of our critical language
needs in regions or countries of strategic importance and make
realistic projections of resources required to meet our needs. As
explained above, we reassess our language needs when we realign
positions to support Administration priorities. Furthermore, each year
as we review the language designations of positions, we modify our
critical language requirements to align with our diplomatic strategies.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter
dated July 17, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. We have modified our discussion of staffing at posts in Nigeria and
China to show that there is a mix of officers.
2. Any analysis of bidding data will necessarily involve "snapshots" in
time. Our analysis of the 2005 bidding data was intended to demonstrate
whether posts with higher hardship differentials have difficulty
attracting applicants compared to posts with low or no differentials.
Our approach was identical to the one we used in 2002, and State raised
no such concerns then. Our analysis shows that State has not made much
progress since 2002 in attracting employees to bid on hardship posts.
3. We acknowledge that State has a system for identifying its language
requirements. However, State continues to fill language-designated
positions with staff who do not meet the language requirement. As noted
in this report, foreign language gaps may negatively impact posts'
operations. For example, consular officers at one post told us they
sometimes adjudicate visas without fully understanding everything the
applicants tell them during visa interviews. A risk-based approach will
allow State to make choices given its current mix of staffing and
language resources.
4. State did not provide these reports to us until after our report was
drafted, and we did not have sufficient time to assess them. The
language competency assessment State provided shows the total number of
officers with certain levels of proficiency in critical needs languages
and corresponding ratios of officers with language proficiency to
language designated positions. The assessment also establishes out-year
targets for increasing the number of officers with level-3 language
proficiency. However, it does not break out the data and targets by
individual language. Thus, State's overall targets could be achieved,
even if serious proficiency gaps remained for some languages but not
for others. We also note that the report does not include targets for
specialists. Further, State has acknowledged that it has not collected
data to link its recruitment efforts to the number of people it hires
with foreign language skills.
5. Our analysis of the language proficiency of officers in language
designated positions is based on State's own established requirements
for these positions, whether for generalists or specialists. We
provided information on the language proficiency of the two different
groups for Arabic and Chinese, and we noted that specialists had some
of the highest percentages of staff that did not meet their position's
requirements. We further noted that State's Director General had
stated, in a cable issued in January 2006 that the department had been
shortsighted in not providing sufficient language training to
specialists. We have included additional information on the overall
percentages of officers meeting language requirements for the two
different groups.
6. We have included additional information on the percentages of
officers meeting either the speaking or reading requirement, but not
both requirements. We note that the differences are only 3 percentage
points.
7. We added a statement to the discussion of 1-year tours noting that
employees may extend their tours.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess T. Ford (202) 512-4128:
Staff Acknowledgment:
In addition to the individual named above, Michael Courts, Assistant
Director; Joseph Carney, Martin de Alteriis, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders,
Julia Roberts, Josie Sigl, and La Verne Tharpes made key contributions
to the report.
(320357):
FOOTNOTES
[1] State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S.
government provides differential pay incentives--an additional 5 to 35
percent of base salary, depending on the severity or difficulty of the
conditions--to encourage employees to bid on assignments to these posts
and to compensate them for the hardships they encounter.
[2] GAO, State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective
Assignment System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts,
GAO-02-626 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2002).
[3] GAO, State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies
Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages, GAO-04-
139, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003) and GAO, Foreign Languages:
Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency
Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).
[4] State received funding for 1,069 employees.
[5] State pays an additional 15 percent to 35 percent of salary for
danger pay. The danger pay allowance is designed to provide additional
compensation above basic compensation to all U.S. government civilian
employees, including chiefs of mission, for service in foreign areas
where there exist conditions--such as civil insurrection, civil war,
terrorism, or war--that threaten physical harm or imminent danger to
employees. These conditions do not include acts characterized chiefly
as economic crime.
[6] According to State, the Muslim world is comprised of 58 countries
and territories with significant Muslim populations, many of which are
members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. These countries
have a combined population of 1.5 billion people and are located in
Africa, Asia, and Europe.
[7] The total deficit decreases to 82 when junior grade levels 05 and
06 positions are included. We did not include them in this calculation
because we were told that these grades were training positions that are
not counted against the deficit.
[8] GAO-04-139.
[9] GAO-02-626.
[10] According to State the rationale for stretch assignments
(upstretches and downstretches) is both system-and employee-driven.
Upstretches can be career enhancing, or accommodate family needs or
staffing gaps. Downstretches may happen to accommodate family needs or
be the end result after an employee is promoted when in an at-grade
position.
[11] Strengthening Leadership and Staffing at African Hardship Posts,
U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Memorandum
Report ISP-I-04-54, July 2004.
[12] GAO-02-626.
[13] ISP-I-04-54.
[14] State conducted an internet survey of foreign service spouses and
members of household from January 30 to February 21, 2006. The survey
has a 35 percent response rate (3,258 responses) and thus cannot be
generalized.
[15] Unaccompanied posts are posts where family members may not
accompany an officer. Limited accompanied posts are posts that are
restricted to adult dependents and minors less than 5 years of age.
[16] Locality pay is a salary comparability benefit to attract workers
in the continental United States to the federal government versus the
private sector. Currently locality pay for Washington, D.C., is 17
percent.
[17] GAO-02-626.
[18] Section 305, H.R. 2601 (109th Cong., 1st Sess.), "Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007."
[19] The percentages are for officers and specialists who met both the
speaking and writing requirement for their positions. The percentage
increases to 74 percent if individuals who met either the speaking or
the reading requirement, but not both, are included. This analysis
combined the language proficiency scores of FSO generalists and
specialists. If the specialists are excluded, 78 percent of generalists
met the requirement.
[20] ISP-I-05-13A.
[21] ISP-I-05-04A.
[22] Employees assigned to one-year unaccompanied posts may extend
their tours.
[23] A language waiver is granted to officers who do not comply with
the position's required language proficiency levels. A language waiver
is requested by a post or bureau and granted by the Bureau of Human
Resources under some circumstances, usually because of an urgent need
for the assignee to proceed to post.
[24] GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage
Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face
Significant Challenges, GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006).
[25] GAO-02-375.
[26] GAO-04-139.
[27] State later compiled the data from FSI records.
[28] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: September
1999).
[29] The bidding and assignment data that we reviewed were for tenured
FS-04, FS-03, and FS-02 mid-level positions. In terms of the foreign
service grade structure, mid-level positions are equivalent to the
civil service GS-12, GS-13, and GS-14, respectively.
[30] The results of the fieldwork cannot be generalized to posts
worldwide.
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:
