United Nations
Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at U.N. Agencies Gao ID: GAO-06-988 September 6, 2006The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the underrepresentation of U.S. professionals in some UN organizations and that insufficient progress has been made to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, GAO reported that several UN agencies fell short of their targets for U.S. representation and had not developed strategies to employ more Americans. This report reviews (1) U.S. representation status and employment trends at five UN agencies, (2) factors affecting these agencies' ability to meet employment targets, and (3) the U.S. Department of State's (State) efforts to improve U.S. representation and additional steps that can be taken. We reviewed five UN agencies that together comprise about 50 percent of total UN organizations' professional staff.
The United States is underrepresented at three of the five United Nations (UN) agencies we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed to meet employment targets. The three agencies where the United States is underrepresented are the International Atomic Energy Agency; UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. U.S. citizens are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its target range. The UN Development Program has not established a target for U.S. representation, although U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of its professional positions. Given projected staff levels, retirements, and separations, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR would need to increase hiring of Americans to meet their minimum targets for U.S. representation in 2010. While the five UN agencies face some common barriers to recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also face their own distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges are outside of the U.S. government's control. The common barriers include nontransparent human resource practices, limited external hiring, lengthy hiring processes, comparatively low or unclear compensation, required mobility, and limited U.S. government support. UN agencies also face distinct challenges. For example, at the Secretariat, candidates serving in professional UN positions funded by their governments are more likely to be hired than those who take the entry-level exam; however, the United States has not funded such positions. Also, IAEA has difficulty recruiting U.S. employees because the number of U.S. nuclear specialists is decreasing. Since 2001, State has increased its efforts to achieve equitable U.S. representation at UN agencies, and additional options exist. State has targeted efforts to recruit U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking UN positions, and although it is difficult to link State's efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies. U.S. representation in entry-level positions, however, has declined or did not reflect a trend in four of the five UN agencies despite State's increased efforts. Additional steps include maintaining a roster of qualified U.S. candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities, increasing UN employment information on U.S. agency Web sites, and assessing the costs and benefits of sponsoring entry-level employees at UN agencies.
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-06-988, United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at U.N. Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-988
entitled 'United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S.
Employment at UN Agencies' which was released on September 14, 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 Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2006:
United Nations:
Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies:
United Nations:
GAO-06-988:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-988, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the
underrepresentation of U.S. professionals in some UN organizations and
that insufficient progress has been made to improve U.S.
representation. In 2001, GAO reported that several UN agencies fell
short of their targets for U.S. representation and had not developed
strategies to employ more Americans. This report reviews (1) U.S.
representation status and employment trends at five UN agencies, (2)
factors affecting these agencies‘ ability to meet employment targets,
and (3) the U.S. Department of State‘s (State) efforts to improve U.S.
representation and additional steps that can be taken. We reviewed five
UN agencies that together comprise about 50 percent of total UN
organizations‘ professional staff.
What GAO Found:
The United States is underrepresented at three of the five United
Nations (UN) agencies we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S.
citizens is needed to meet employment targets. The three agencies where
the United States is underrepresented are the International Atomic
Energy Agency;
UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization;
and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. U.S. citizens
are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the
lower end of its target range. The UN Development Program has not
established a target for U.S. representation, although U.S. citizens
fill about 11 percent of its professional positions. Given projected
staff levels, retirements, and separations, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR
would need to increase hiring of Americans to meet their minimum
targets for U.S. representation in 2010.
While the five UN agencies face some common barriers to recruiting and
retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also face their
own distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges are
outside of the U.S. government‘s control. The common barriers include
nontransparent human resource practices, limited external hiring,
lengthy hiring processes, comparatively low or unclear compensation,
required mobility, and limited U.S. government support. UN agencies
also face distinct challenges. For example, at the Secretariat,
candidates serving in professional UN positions funded by their
governments are more likely to be hired than those who take the entry-
level exam;
however, the United States has not funded such positions. Also, IAEA
has difficulty recruiting U.S. employees because the number of U.S.
nuclear specialists is decreasing.
Since 2001, State has increased its efforts to achieve equitable U.S.
representation at UN agencies, and additional options exist. State has
targeted efforts to recruit U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking
UN positions, and although it is difficult to link State‘s efforts to
UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has
improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies. U.S.
representation in entry-level positions, however, has declined or did
not reflect a trend in four of the five UN agencies despite State‘s
increased efforts. Additional steps include maintaining a roster of
qualified U.S. candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities,
increasing UN employment information on U.S. agency Web sites, and
assessing the costs and benefits of sponsoring entry-level employees at
UN agencies.
Table: Estimated Number of U.S. Citizens to be Hired to Meet Geographic
Targets:
UN Agency: IAEA;
Average number of total staff hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 77;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 6;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year to reach
geographic target in 2010: 16.
UN Agency: UNESCO;
Average number of total staff hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 55;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 4.5;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year to reach
geographic target in 2010: 6.
UN Agency: UNHCR;
Average number of total staff hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 148;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005: 10;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year to reach
geographic target in 2010: 25.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO hiring data.
[End of Table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State provide more UN employment
information on State Web sites;
expand recruiting to reach qualified Americans;
and evaluate the costs and benefits of maintaining a roster of
qualified U.S. candidates for high priority positions, and of funding
entry-level professional staff where Americans are underrepresented. In
commenting on a draft of this report, State said it concurred with
GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-988].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202)
512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
U.S. Is Underrepresented in Three of Five UN Agencies and Increased
Hiring of Americans Is Necessary to Meet Employment Targets:
While Common Barriers to Increasing U.S. Representation Exist, UN
Agencies Also Face Distinct Employment Challenges:
State Has Increased Efforts to Promote U.S. Representation, but
Additional Options Exist to Target Professional Positions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional
Positions at Five UN Agencies:
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional
Positions at Five UN Agencies:
Appendix IV: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External
Hires:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies, 2005:
Table 2: Trends in U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies (covering
geographic positions at the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO and regular
positions at UNHCR and UNDP):
Table 3: Estimated Numbers of U.S. Citizens to Be Hired to Meet
Geographic and Other Targets for 2006 to 2010:
Table 4: Average Number of JPOs or Associate Experts Sponsored by
Leading Contributors to These Programs, 2001-2005:
Table 5: Cost and Retention Rate of JPOs and Associate Experts:
Table 6: Composition of Professional Positions at the Three UN Agencies
with Geographic Positions, 2005:
Table 7: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Three UN
Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005:
Table 8: Composition of Professional Positions at the Two UN Agencies
without Geographic Positions, 2005:
Table 9: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Two UN
Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005:
Table 10: Policy-making and Senior-level Positions at Three UN
Agencies, 2005:
Table 11: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External Hires
at Five UN Agencies Provided for the Purposes of This Report:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Vacancies Filled by Promotions, Internal
Candidates, and External Candidates, 2004 and 2005 Data Combined:
Figure 2: UN Secretariat National Competitive Recruitment Exam: Four-
Year Average of All Nationalities and for Americans for Each Stage of
the Exam (2001-2004):
Figure 3: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policy-making Positions at
Five UN Agencies as a Percentage of Agency Professional Senior and
Policy-making Positions, 2001-2005:
Figure 4: U.S. Representation in Entry-level Professional Positions as
a Percentage of Agency Entry-level Positions at Five UN Agencies, 2001-
2005:
Figure 5: Trends of U.S. Citizen Representation, by Grade, in
Professional Positions in Five UN Agencies:
Abbreviations:
ALD: assignment of limited duration:
APSIA: Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs:
CFE: cost free expert:
DPKO: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations:
FTA: fixed-term temporary assistance:
FTE: fixed-term extra-budgetary:
IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency:
IO: Department of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs:
JPO: Junior Professional Officer:
MST: monthly short term:
NCRE: National Competitive Recruitment Exam:
PRM: Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration:
UNDP: United Nations Development Program:
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization:
UNHCR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 6, 2006:
Congressional Requesters:
The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the
underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some United
Nations (UN) organizations and that insufficient progress has been made
to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, we reported[Footnote 1] that
several UN organizations continued to fall short of their own targets
for American representation[Footnote 2] and had not developed action
plans or strategies for achieving equitable U.S. representation within
a specified time frame. In addition, the U.S. Department of State
(State) has annually reported to Congress that Americans have been
underrepresented at a number of UN organizations.[Footnote 3] The
equitable representation of Americans at UN organizations is a priority
to Congress in part because the United States is the largest financial
contributor to most of these organizations. Moreover, according to
State, Americans bring desirable skills, values, and experience that
can have a significant impact on UN organizations' operational
effectiveness.
To address these concerns, this report reviews (1) U.S. representation
status and employment trends at five UN organizations, (2) factors
affecting these organizations' ability to meet U.S. representation
targets, and (3) State's current efforts to improve U.S. representation
and additional steps that can be taken.
To determine the United States' representation status, identify the
trends in the number of professional positions held by U. S. citizens,
and calculate hiring projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001
through 2005 that we obtained from five UN organizations: the United
Nations Secretariat[Footnote 4] and the United Nations Development
Program[Footnote 5] (UNDP) in New York; the International Atomic Energy
Agency[Footnote 6] (IAEA) in Vienna; the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization[Footnote 7] (UNESCO) in Paris;
and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees[Footnote 8] (UNHCR) in Geneva. Technically, the IAEA is an
independent international organization that has a relationship
agreement with the UN. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the
IAEA as a UN agency, or organization. Throughout this report, UNDP data
includes three UNDP suborganizations: UN Development Fund for Women, UN
Volunteers, and UN Capital Development Fund. Two organizations have
formal geographic targets: the Secretariat and UNESCO. The remaining
three UN organizations do not. IAEA informally calculates a member
state to be underrepresented if its geographic representation is less
than half of its percent contribution to the budget. Using this method,
we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR and the United States have agreed to
an informal target. UNDP has no targets. We determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. We also met with
human resources officials from these five organizations to discuss
various aspects of the data. We selected these agencies because they
represent a range of UN agencies with different funding mechanisms and
methods for calculating geographic representation. These five agencies
together comprise approximately 50 percent of total UN organizations'
professional staff.[Footnote 9] To assess factors affecting these
organizations' ability to meet the targets, we reviewed UN agency
documents and interviewed UN human resources officials, over 100
Americans employed at the five UN agencies, and U.S. officials. To
assess the strategies used by State to improve U.S. representation, we
reviewed State documents and interviewed State officials and
representatives of U.S. agencies that participated in inter agency task
force meetings on UN employment or that receive vacancy announcements.
We conducted our work from July 2005 through July 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I
contains a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The United States is underrepresented in three of the five UN agencies
we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed to meet
agreed-upon employment targets. Based on UN agencies' formal or
informal targets for equitable geographic representation, U.S. citizens
are underrepresented at IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR, and equitably
represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its
target range. UNDP has not established a target for U.S.
representation, although U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of the
agency's professional positions. Given projected staff levels,
retirements, and separations for 2006 to 2010, the Secretariat, IAEA,
UNESCO, and UNHCR would need to hire more Americans than they have
hired in recent years to meet their minimum targets for equitable U.S.
representation in 2010.
While the UN agencies we reviewed face some common barriers to
recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they
also face distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges
are outside the U.S. government's control. Six barriers common to UN
agencies we reviewed include nontransparent human resource practices;
a limited number of positions open to external candidates; lengthy
hiring processes; comparatively low or unclear compensation; required
staff mobility and rotation policies; and limited U.S. government
support during Americans' efforts to obtain, or be promoted at, a UN
job. These barriers combine with distinct agency-specific factors to
impede recruitment and retention. For example, candidates serving in
professional positions funded by their member governments are more
likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those who take the
Secretariat's entry-level exam; however, the United States has not
funded such positions at the Secretariat. IAEA has difficulty
attracting U.S. employees because the pool of American nuclear
specialists is decreasing. At UNESCO, U.S. representation is low, in
part, because the United States was not a member for 19 years. When the
United States withdrew its membership in 1984, Americans comprised 9.6
percent of UNESCO's professional staff; when it rejoined in 2003,
Americans comprised only 2.9 percent. UNHCR has difficulty retaining
staff, particularly at the mid-career level, because it has more
hardship duty stations than any other agency. Despite the agency's
efforts to increase the hiring of Americans, attrition keeps overall
U.S. representation below the agreed-to target. Finally, while common
barriers are the leading factors affecting U.S. representation at UNDP,
the agency is also seeking to increase the hiring of senior staff from
southern (mostly developing) countries, which could limit employment
opportunities for U.S. citizens.
Since 2001 the Department of State has increased its efforts to support
the goal of achieving equitable U.S. representation at UN
organizations, and additional options exist to target professional
positions. State has targeted efforts to recruit American candidates
for senior and policymaking UN positions and, although it is difficult
to directly link State's efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S.
representation in senior and policymaking positions has either improved
or did not reflect a trend in each of the five UN agencies we reviewed.
State also has undertaken several efforts to improve overall U.S.
representation, including adding staff to its UN employment office and
increasing coordination with other U.S. agencies that work with UN
organizations. For positions below the senior level, State focuses on
"getting the word out" by, for example, disseminating information on UN
vacancies through its Web site, attending career fairs and conferences,
and other means. Despite these efforts, U.S. representation in entry-
level positions has declined or did not display a trend in four of the
five UN agencies we reviewed. Additional steps to target potential
pools of candidates for professional positions include: maintaining a
roster of qualified American candidates; expanding marketing and
outreach activities; increasing UN employment information on U.S.
agency Web sites; and conducting an assessment of the costs and
benefits of sponsoring Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are
entry-level employees that are financially supported by their home
government.
To improve U.S. efforts to increase the employment of Americans at UN
agencies, we are making several recommendations. We recommend that the
Secretary of State (1) provide more consistent and comprehensive
information about UN employment on the State and U.S. mission Web sites
and work with U.S. agencies to expand the UN employment information on
their Web sites; (2) expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more
strategically reach populations of Americans that may be qualified for
and interested in entry-and mid-level UN positions; and (3) conduct an
evaluation of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of maintaining a
roster of qualified candidates for professional and senior positions
determined to be a high priority for U.S. interests and an evaluation
of funding JPOs, or other gratis personnel, where Americans are
underrepresented or could become underrepresented.
In commenting on a draft of this report, State concurred with and
agreed to implement all of our recommendations. We received technical
comments from State, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP, which we have
incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The United Nations is comprised of six principal bodies: the General
Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship
Council, International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The
United Nations system also encompasses funds and programs, such as
UNDP, and specialized agencies, such as UNESCO. These funds, programs,
and specialized agencies have their own governing bodies and budgets,
but follow the guidelines of the UN charter. Article 101 of the UN
Charter calls for staff to be recruited on the basis of "the highest
standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity" as well as from "as
wide a geographical basis as possible." Each UN agency also has its own
personnel policies, procedures, and staff rules. The Secretariat and
several specialized agencies have quantitative formulas that establish
targets for equitable geographical representation in designated
professional positions. Other agencies have negotiated informal targets
with the United States, while some agencies do not have formal or
informal targets.
Agencies with formal quantitative targets for equitable representation
do not apply these targets to all professional positions. Instead,
these organizations set aside positions that are subject to geographic
representation from among the professional and senior positions
performing core agency functions, funded from regular budget resources.
Positions that are exempted from being counted geographically include
linguist and peacekeeping positions, and those funded by extra-
budgetary resources. In addition, UN agencies employ staff in short-
term positions that also are not geographically counted. Nongeographic
staff members include employees tied to specific projects (L-staff),
employees in assignments of limited duration (ALD) contracted for 4
years or less, temporary employees contracted for less than 1 year, and
gratis personnel, such as JPOs, who are funded by member states. In
addition, these organizations utilize various nonstaff positions, such
as contractors and consultants.
Of the five agencies we reviewed, three--the Secretariat, IAEA, and
UNESCO--have designated positions subject to geographic distribution.
The Secretariat and UNESCO have established formulas to determine
member states' targets for equitable representation, which consider
three factors: membership status,[Footnote 10] financial
contribution,[Footnote 11] and population size.[Footnote 12] IAEA
informally calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its
geographic representation is less than half of its percent contribution
to the budget. Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR
has not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to
geographic representation, but has agreed to an informal target for
equitable U.S. representation. UNDP generally follows the principle of
equitable geographic representation, but has not adopted formal or
informal targets.
The Department of State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for
leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in
UN organizations. In doing so, State cooperates with at least 17
federal agencies that have interests in specific UN organizations. A
1970 executive order assigns the Secretary of State responsibility for
leading and coordinating the federal government's efforts to increase
and improve U.S. participation in international organizations through
transfers and details for federal employees.[Footnote 13] The order
further calls for each agency in the executive branch to cooperate "to
the maximum extent feasible" to promote details and transfers through
measures such as (1) notifying well-qualified agency employees of
vacancies in international organizations and (2) providing
international organizations with detailed assessments of the
qualifications of employees being considered for specific positions. In
addition, under legislation enacted in 1991,[Footnote 14] the Secretary
of State is required to report to Congress on whether each
international organization with a geographic distribution formula is
making "good faith steps to increase the staffing of United States
citizens and has met its geographic distribution formula." State's
Bureau of International Organization Affairs is responsible for
implementing these requirements.[Footnote 15] While State is
responsible for promoting and seeking to increase U.S. representation
in the UN, the UN entities themselves are ultimately responsible for
hiring their employees and achieving equitable representation.
We previously reviewed U.S. representation in UN organizations and
found that, between 1992 and 2001, Americans were not equitably
represented in the UN system, given the agencies' own targets.[Footnote
16] In addition, the UN agencies lacked long-range workforce planning
strategies to improve the geographic distribution imbalance. We also
reported that State's efforts to improve U.S. representation in the UN
system did not reflect its high priority status, particularly relative
to other member countries. We recommended that the Secretary of State
(1) develop a comprehensive strategy that specifies performance goals
and time frames for achieving equitable representation of Americans in
the UN System and include efforts to foster interagency coordination,
(2) work with human resources directors of UN organizations to develop
plans and strategies for achieving equitable geographic representation
within specified time frames, and (3) provide copies of State's annual
report to Congress on UN progress to the heads of UN organizations for
appropriate attention and action. State has subsequently implemented
these recommendations, including adding a performance indicator on the
UN's employment of Americans to its performance and accountability
documents.[Footnote 17] We also recommended that State develop
guidelines defining its goal of obtaining an equitable share of senior-
level and policy-making positions for U.S. citizens and that it use
these guidelines to assess whether the United States is equitably
represented in high-level positions in UN organizations. State did not
agree with this final recommendation and has not implemented it.
U.S. Is Underrepresented in Three of Five UN Agencies and Increased
Hiring of Americans Is Necessary to Meet Employment Targets:
U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three of the five UN agencies we
reviewed: IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. Given projected staff levels,
retirements, and separations for 2006-2010, these agencies need to hire
more Americans than they have in recent years to meet their minimum
targets for equitable U.S. representation in 2010.
U.S. Citizens Are Underrepresented Relative to Targets at Three UN
Agencies:
Relative to UN agencies' formal or informal targets for equitable
geographic representation, U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three
of the five agencies we reviewed--IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. U.S.
citizens are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though at the
lower end of its target range, while the fifth agency--UNDP--has not
established a target for U.S. representation. U.S. citizens fill about
11 percent of UNDP's professional positions. Table 1 provides
information on U.S. representation at the five UN agencies as of 2005.
Table 1: U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies, 2005:
UN agency: Secretariat;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[A]:
11.5%-15.6%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[A]: 12.1%;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]: 9.5%.
UN agency: IAEA;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[A]:
12.9%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[A]: 11.5%;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]:
17.1%.
UN agency: UNESCO;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[A]:
6.2%-10.2%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[A]: 4.1%;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]: 1.9%.
UN agency: UNHCR;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[A]:
13%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[A]: 8.0%;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]:
11.1%.
UN agency: UNDP;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[A]:
Not applicable;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[A]: 10.8%;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]:
12.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP
data.
Note: Geographic targets are an average of 2004 and 2005 data. All
other percentages are based on 2005 data for all the agencies.
[A] UNHCR and UNDP do not have geographic positions;
however, UNHCR has agreed to an informal 13 percent target with the
U.S. government. For these agencies, we calculated the percentage of
regular professional positions filled by U.S. citizens, which includes
staff under contracts of longer fixed term (100-series contracts in
UNHCR and 100-and 200- series contracts in UNDP).
[B] For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, nongeographic positions
include regular professional positions not subject to geographic
distribution, temporary positions, JPOs, and consultants and
contractors. UNESCO was unable to provide nationality data for its 572
consultants and contractors, which comprise nearly two thirds of
UNESCO's nongeographic staff; hence the U.S. percentage of
nongeographic positions does not reflect U.S. citizen employment in
this category. For UNHCR and UNDP, nongeographic positions are all
other, nonregular professional staff, which includes temporary staff
(limited fixed term at UNHCR and assignments of limited duration at
UNDP), JPOs, and consultants and contractors. Data provided by the
agencies did not differentiate between support and professional level
positions for consultants and contractors.
[End of table]
Table 1 also shows that the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in
nongeographic positions (or nonregular positions in the case of UNHCR
and UNDP) is higher at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP and lower at the
Secretariat and UNESCO compared to the percentage of geographic (or
regular) positions held by U.S. citizens. The most notable difference
is at the IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in
nongeographic positions is considerably higher than the percentage
employed in geographic positions due to the high percentage of
temporary,[Footnote 18] JPO, and consultant and contractor positions
held by Americans. (See app. II for details on the composition of
Americans in geographic and nongeographic positions.)
As shown in table 2, U.S. citizen representation in geographic
positions in "all grades" between 2001 and 2005 has been declining at
UNHCR and displays no clear trend in "all grades" at the other four UN
agencies.
Table 2: Trends in U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies (covering
geographic positions at the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO and regular
positions at UNHCR and UNDP):
UN agency: Secretariat;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. equitably represented based on agreed-upon
targets[A]: Yes;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in all professional grade levels:
No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in policy-making and senior-level
positions[B]: No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in entry- level positions[C]: No
trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in mid-level positions[D]: No
trend.
UN agency: IAEA;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. equitably represented based on agreed-upon
targets[A]: No;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in all professional grade levels:
No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in policy-making and senior-level
positions[B]: Increasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in entry- level positions[C]:
Decreasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in mid-level positions[D]: No
trend.
UN agency: UNESCO;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. equitably represented based on agreed-upon
targets[A]: No;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in all professional grade levels:
No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in policy-making and senior-level
positions[B]: No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in entry- level positions[C]:
Increasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in mid-level positions[D]: No
trend.
UN agency: UNHCR;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. equitably represented based on agreed-upon
targets[A]: No;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in all professional grade levels:
Decreasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in policy-making and senior-level
positions[B]: No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in entry- level positions[C]:
Decreasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in mid-level positions[D]:
Decreasing.
UN agency: UNDP;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. equitably represented based on agreed-upon
targets[A]: Not applicable;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in all professional grade levels:
No trend;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in policy-making and senior-level
positions[B]: Increasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in entry- level positions[C]:
Decreasing;
Trend from 2001-2005: U.S. citizens in mid-level positions[D]: No
trend.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP
data.
Notes:
Trends in U.S. citizen representation refer to the number of U.S.
citizens employed as a percentage of agency employment, in the
respective grade, over the period 2001 to 2005. Increases or decreases
are determined by decidedly positive or negative average changes over
the period. For additional details on our methodology, see appendix I.
See appendix III for graphic illustration of the trends presented in
table 2.
For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, the trend analysis is for U.S.
citizens in geographic positions from 2001 to 2005. For UNHCR and UNDP,
the trend analysis, also for 2001 to 2005, is for U.S. citizens in
regular professional positions since these agencies do not have
geographic positions. Regular professional positions for UNHCR and UNDP
include staff under contracts of longer fixed-term (100-series
contracts for UNHCR and 100-and 200-series contracts for UNDP).
[A] The three agencies with geographic targets are the Secretariat,
IAEA, and UNESCO. UNHCR does not have geographic positions, although it
has agreed to an informal target.
[B] Senior-level positions represent UN position levels D1 and D2,
roughly equivalent to U.S. government Senior Executive Service. Policy-
making positions represent UN position levels of Deputy or Assistant
Director General at IAEA and UNESCO and Under or Assistant Secretary
General at the Secretariat, UNHCR, and UNDP.
[C] Represents UN position levels P1 to P3, roughly equivalent to U.S.
government grade levels 9 to 12/13.
[D] Represents UN position levels P4 to P5, roughly equivalent to U.S.
government grade levels 13 to 15.
[End of table]
U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions
increased at two agencies --IAEA and UNDP--and displayed no overall
trend at the Secretariat, UNESCO and UNHCR over the full five years. At
the Secretariat, although no trend is indicated, U.S. representation
has been decreasing in policy-making and senior-level positions since
2002. At UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect a trend, but
the overall percentage of Americans increased in 2005, reflecting
increased recruiting efforts after the United States rejoined UNESCO in
2003.[Footnote 19] At UNHCR, the representation of U.S. citizens in
these positions grew steadily from 2001 through 2004, but declined in
2005. Regarding entry-level positions, U.S. representation in these
positions increased at UNESCO, decreased at IAEA, UNHCR and UNDP, and
showed no trend at the Secretariat. (See app. III for more detailed
information on the trends in geographic employment.)
Increased Hiring of Americans Needed to Meet Several UN Agencies'
Minimum Targets:
We estimate that each of the four agencies with geographic targets--the
Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR--would need to hire U.S. citizens
in greater numbers than they have in recent years to achieve their
minimum targets by 2010, given projected staff levels, retirements, and
separations; otherwise, with the exception of UNESCO,[Footnote 20] U.S.
geographic representation will decline further. As shown in table 3,
IAEA and UNHCR would need to more than double their current average
hiring rate to achieve targets for U.S. representation. The Secretariat
could continue to meet its minimum geographic target for U.S. citizens
if it increased its annual hiring of U.S. citizens from 20 to 23.
UNESCO could achieve its minimum geographic target by increasing its
current hiring average of 4.5 Americans to 6 Americans. Although the
fifth agency, UNDP, does not have a target, it would have to increase
its annual hiring average of U.S. citizens from 17.5 to 26 in order to
maintain its current ratio of U.S. regular professional staff to total
agency regular professional staff.
Table 3: Estimated Numbers of U.S. Citizens to Be Hired to Meet
Geographic and Other Targets for 2006 to 2010:
UN agency: Secretariat;
Average annual number of total staff hired into geographic positions
each year, 2001-2005[A]: 170;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005[A]: 20;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[B]:
11.5%-15.6%;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 2006-
2010, to reach geographic target in 2010: 23;
Resulting geographic representation in 2010 if agency follows 2001-2005
hiring average for U.S. citizens: 10.9%.
UN agency: IAEA;
Average annual number of total staff hired into geographic positions
each year, 2001-2005[A]: 77;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005[A]: 6;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[B]:
12.9%;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 2006-
2010, to reach geographic target in 2010: 16;
Resulting geographic representation in 2010 if agency follows 2001-2005
hiring average for U.S. citizens: 7.1%.
UN agency: UNESCO;
Average annual number of total staff hired into geographic positions
each year, 2001-2005[A]: 55;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005[A]: 4.5;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[B]:
6.2%-10.2%;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 2006-
2010, to reach geographic target in 2010: 6;
Resulting geographic representation in 2010 if agency follows 2001-2005
hiring average for U.S. citizens: 5.1%.
UN agency: UNHCR[C];
Average annual number of total staff hired into geographic positions
each year, 2001-2005[A]: 148;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005[A]: 10;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[B]:
13%;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 2006-
2010, to reach geographic target in 2010: 25;
Resulting geographic representation in 2010 if agency follows 2001-2005
hiring average for U.S. citizens: 7.9%.
UN agency: UNDP;
Average annual number of total staff hired into geographic positions
each year, 2001-2005[A]: 153;
Average number of U.S. citizens hired into geographic positions each
year, 2001-2005[A]: 17.5;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for U.S. citizens[B]:
Not applicable;
Minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 2006-
2010, to reach geographic target in 2010: 26;
Resulting geographic representation in 2010 if agency follows 2001-2005
hiring average for U.S. citizens: 8.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP
data.
[A] For UNHCR and UNDP, which do not have geographic positions, we
calculated the average number of regular professional U.S. staff hired
each year, (2001 to 2005), including separations and retirements.
Regular professional includes staff under contracts of longer fixed
term (100-series contracts in UNHCR and 100-and 200-series contracts in
UNDP).
[B] For UNHCR, we used the informal target of 13 percent for U.S.
citizens, agreed upon by UNHCR and the U.S. government. For UNDP, we
used the target of 11.1 percent, the average U.S. employment from 2001
through 2005.
[C] The minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year,
25, is based on a zero percent rate of growth of staff, which UNHCR
officials indicated was appropriate for 2006 to 2010. From 2001 to
2005, UNHCR's staff grew at an average annual rate of 6 percent. Under
this assumption, the minimum number of U.S. citizens to be hired
annually would increase to 40.
[End of table]
If current hiring levels are continued through 2010, two of the five
agencies--IAEA and UNHCR--would fall substantially below their minimum
targets. In only one agency--UNESCO--would the percentage of geographic
positions filled by U.S. citizens increase under current hiring levels
due in part, to the recent increased hiring of U.S. citizens. (See app.
I for a discussion of our hiring projection methodology.)[Footnote 21]
While Common Barriers to Increasing U.S. Representation Exist, UN
Agencies Also Face Distinct Employment Challenges:
A combination of barriers, including some common factors as well as
agency-specific factors, adversely affects recruitment and retention of
professional staff, including Americans, at each of the five UN
agencies. Barriers common to most UN agencies we reviewed include
nontransparent human resource practices, a limited number of positions
open to external candidates, lengthy hiring processes, comparatively
low or unclear compensation, required mobility and rotation, and
limited U.S. government support. These barriers combine with distinct
agency-specific factors to impede recruitment and retention. For
example, candidates serving in professional UN positions funded by
their member governments are more likely to be hired by the Secretariat
than those who take the Secretariat's entry-level exam;
however, the United States has not funded such positions at the
Secretariat. IAEA has difficulty attracting U.S. employees because the
pool of American nuclear specialists is decreasing. At UNESCO, U.S.
representation is below the negotiated target, in part, because the
United States was not a member for 19 years. UNHCR has difficulty
retaining staff, particularly at the mid-career level, because it has
more hardship duty stations than any other agency. UNDP faces several
barriers that are also present at other UN agencies, such as limited
U.S. government support, and is also seeking to increase the hiring of
senior staff from developing countries.
Common Barriers Adversely Affect U.S. Representation at Several UN
Agencies:
We identified six barriers that commonly affect U.S. representation in
the UN agencies we reviewed, although often to differing degrees.
* Nontransparent Human Resource Practices: According to Americans
employed at UN organizations, a key barrier to American representation
across the five UN agencies we reviewed was the lack of transparent
human resource management practices. For example, some UN managers
circumvent the competitive hiring process by employing individuals on
short-term contracts--positions that are not vetted through the
regular, competitive process--for long-term needs. In addition, some
Americans at each of the agencies, except IAEA, said that "cronyism"
exists and that certain individuals only hire their fellow nationals.
Others said that the perception of U.S. overrepresentation[Footnote 22]
hinders managers from hiring or promoting U.S. citizens regardless of
their skills. In response, UN human resource officials expressed
concern about U.S. employees' perception of "cronyism" and lack of
transparent practices. UN human resource officials said that hiring
processes include rigorous reviews involving the personnel division;
managers; and appointment, promotion and review boards. However, the UN
Secretary-General also acknowledged in a report to the General Assembly
that management systems, including human resources, lacked
transparency.[Footnote 23]
* Limited External Opportunities: Recruiting U.S. candidates is
difficult because agencies offer a limited number of posts to external
candidates. Each of the organizations we reviewed, except IAEA,
advertises professional, or P-level, vacancies to current employees
before advertising them externally in order to provide career paths for
their staff and to motivate staff. Furthermore, the definition of
external candidates used at the Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR is
quite broad and may include current staff with temporary appointments,
JPOs, former staff, or staff in other agencies in the UN Common System.
In reviewing hiring data, we found that three of the five agencies--
UNESCO, UNHCR and UNDP--filled 50 percent or more of new appointments
by promotions or other internal candidates rather than by hiring
external candidates. (See fig. 1. For definitions of promotion,
internal hire, and external hire, see app. IV.)
Figure 1: Number of Vacancies Filled by Promotions, Internal
Candidates, and External Candidates, 2004 and 2005 Data Combined:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN agencies' data.
Note: UNHCR figure based on 2003 to 2004 data.
[End of figure]
IAEA fills a large percentage of its positions with external candidates
because, in addition to not giving internal candidates hiring
preference, the agency employs the majority of its staff members for 7
years or less. Although the data indicate that the Secretariat hires a
significant percentage of external candidates, the Secretariat's
definition of "external candidates," as describe above, includes staff
on temporary contracts and individuals who have previous experience
working at the agency.
* Lengthy Hiring Process: For positions that are advertised externally,
the agencies' lengthy hiring processes can deter candidates from
accepting UN employment. For example, a report from the Secretary
General[Footnote 24] states that the average hiring process is too
slow, taking 174 days from the time a vacancy announcement is issued to
the time a candidate is selected, causing some qualified applicants to
accept jobs elsewhere. One American at UNESCO noted that his hiring
process took about 9 months, while another said it took about 1 year.
At UNHCR, even its "fast-track" system used to staff emergency
situations takes five months, on average. Many Americans that we
interviewed concurred with the report's sentiment, saying that it is
difficult to plan a job move when there is a long delay between
submitting an application and receiving an offer. In March 2006, the
Secretary General proposed cutting the average recruitment time in
half.
* Comparatively Low or Unclear Compensation: Comparatively low salaries
and benefits that were not clearly explained were among the most
frequently mentioned deterrents to UN employment for Americans.
American employees we interviewed noted that UN salaries, particularly
for senior and technical posts, are not comparable with U.S. government
and private sector employment. The International Civil Service
Commission[Footnote 25] also reported that remuneration across the UN
common system[Footnote 26] is not competitive in the international
labor market.[Footnote 27] When candidates consider current UN salaries
in tandem with UN employee benefits, such as possible reimbursement for
U.S. taxes and school tuition allowances through college, UN
compensation may be more attractive. However, U.S. citizens employed at
IAEA and UNESCO said that their agency did not clearly explain the
benefits, or explained them only after the candidate accepted a
position. Incomplete or late information hampers a candidate's ability
to decide in a timely manner whether a UN position is in his or her
best interest.
In addition, difficulty securing spousal employment can decrease family
income and may also affect American recruitment since many U.S.
families have two wage earners. At many overseas UN duty stations, work
permits can be difficult to obtain, the local economy may offer few
employment opportunities, and knowledge of the local language may be
required. In addition, Americans with whom we spoke said that an
unemployed spouse might not be happy as such, and might prefer to
return to the United States where he or she can continue a career. U.S.
employees at IAEA (located in Vienna) noted that difficulty in securing
spousal employment is a significant problem for recruiting and
retaining U.S. professionals at their agency.
* Required Mobility or Rotation: UNHCR and UNDP require their staff to
change posts at least every 3 to 6 years with the expectation that
staff serve the larger portion of their career in the field;
the UN Secretariat and UNESCO are implementing similar policies. While
IAEA does not require its employees to change posts, it generally only
hires employees for 7 years or less. Such policies dissuade some
Americans from accepting or staying in a UN position because of the
disruptions to personal or family life such frequent moves can cause.
* Limited U.S. Government Support: At four of the five agencies we
reviewed, all except IAEA, a number of American employees said that
they did not receive U.S. government support during their efforts to
obtain a UN job or to be promoted at the job they held. The U.S.
government currently supports candidates applying for director-level,
or higher, posts, and puts less emphasis on supporting candidates
seeking lower-level professional posts. State said that only on an
exceptional basis is assistance given in support of promotions because
the U.S.'s general policy is not to intervene in internal UN matters,
such as promotions. State said the UN's "code of conduct"[Footnote 28]
makes it clear that it is improper for international civil servants to
lobby or seek support from governments to obtain advancement for
themselves and that governments should not accede to such requests nor
intervene in such matters. Although UN employees are international
civil servants directly hired by UN agencies, some countries facilitate
the recruitment of their nationals by referring qualified candidates,
conducting recruitment missions, and sponsoring JPOs or Associate
Experts.[Footnote 29]
UN Secretariat: Lower Probability of Employment for Young Professionals
Taking the Recruitment Exam than Those Participating in Country-
Sponsored Program:
At the entry level, hiring for professional positions is limited to an
average of 2 percent of individuals invited to take the Secretariat's
National Competitive Recruitment Exam (NCRE), while in contrast, the
Secretariat hired an average of 65 percent of Associate Experts
sponsored by their national government; however, the U.S. government
has not sponsored any Associate Experts at the Secretariat between 2001
and 2005.[Footnote 30] In addition, a lack of career development
opportunities affects retention.
Exam Applicants Less Likely to Be Hired than Associate Experts at the
Entry Level:
Our review of the Secretariat's data shows individuals who take the
NCRE[Footnote 31] have a lower probability of being hired than do
Associate Experts sponsored by their national government at the end of
their tenure. Of the 3,398 individuals invited to take the NCRE each
year, the UN Secretariat hired an average of 71 individuals, or 2
percent, per year from 2001 through 2004. Though U.S. citizens fare
slightly better than the general population (the Secretariat hires an
average of 4 percent of Americans invited to take the exam), the UN
Secretariat hires just an average of 7 Americans through the NCRE each
year. Employees hired from the exam fill geographic posts and count
toward country representation. Human resource officials noted that
individuals who are hired through the exam process may be on the roster
for 1 year or more before being hired. Figure 2 shows the number of
applicants between 2001 and 2004 at various stages of the exam from all
nationalities and from the United States, respectively.
Figure 2: UN Secretariat National Competitive Recruitment Exam: Four-
Year Average of All Nationalities and for Americans for Each Stage of
the Exam (2001-2004):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of UN Secretariat data.
Note: The number hired from any year could increase, because candidates
who pass the exam can remain on the Secretariat's roster until their
country is equitably represented, though most are offered posts in the
first 1 or 2 years. The Secretariat provided preliminary data for 2005,
but it is incomplete because the hiring process is ongoing for these
applicants.
[End of figure]
In contrast, the Secretariat hires an average of 83 individuals each
year who have finished their tenure as Associate Experts. Given that
donor countries together sponsor an average of 128 associate experts
each year, 65 percent, on average, have been hired when they finish
their tenure. However, individuals hired at the end of their Associate
Expert service may or may not fill geographic posts. An average of 16
countries[Footnote 32] sponsor[Footnote 33] young professionals in this
program each year. The United States has not sponsored any Associate
Experts at the Secretariat since at least 2001; therefore, no Americans
have been hired in this manner between then and July 2006.
Lack of Career Development Opportunities Decreases Retention:
The lack of career and promotion opportunities is one of the two most
"demotivating" factors for UN employees, according to a 2005 survey of
5,320 UN staff.[Footnote 34] Fifteen of the 19 American employees we
interviewed at the UN Secretariat also cited a lack of career
development opportunities as a factor negatively affecting U.S.
retention. Staff also mentioned that contract distinctions limit career
development, as individuals with short-duration contracts have
difficulty obtaining regular posts. Peacekeepers, for example, work
under an assignment of limited duration that can last up to 4 years.
Although they have actual experience working for the Secretariat, they
are considered external candidates and cannot apply as an internal
candidate. Moreover, their time working in field posts does not count
toward promotion eligibility. In recognition of this seeming inequity,
the Secretary General has proposed instituting a single contract type
to expand career opportunities.
IAEA: Decreasing Pool of American Candidates Limits U.S.
Representation:
Continuing U.S. underrepresentation at IAEA has been described by U.S.
government officials as a "supply-side issue," with the pool of
American candidates with the necessary education and experience
decreasing, as nuclear specialists are aging and few young people have
entered that field. For those candidates that are qualified, IAEA may
not be a particularly attractive place to work owing to its rotation
policy.
Pool of Qualified American Applicants Decreasing:
IAEA's Director General reported that the recruitment of staff,
particularly in the scientific and technical areas, is becoming
increasingly difficult because the nuclear workforce is aging and
retiring.[Footnote 35] Similarly, a discussion paper from DOE's
Brookhaven National Laboratory[Footnote 36] stated that American
experts in the nuclear industry are aging and retiring while fewer U.S.
citizens are seeking relevant technical degrees.[Footnote 37] For
example, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nearly half of
nuclear industry employees are over age 47 and less than 8 percent of
such employees are younger than age 32. The institute states further
that over the next 5 years nuclear companies may lose an estimated
23,000 workers, representing 40 percent of all jobs in the sector.
IAEA, as with all UN agencies, has a mandatory retirement age of 62,
and according to State officials, the agency generally will not
consider applicants above age 57 because they will not be able to
complete the average 5-year contract. IAEA said it prefers to hire
staff who can fulfill the normal five-year appointment but recently
hired a staff member who would reach the mandatory retirement age in
two years. Disqualifying nuclear specialists over age 57 dramatically
limits the already small pool of qualified Americans able to work at
IAEA.
Rotation Makes IAEA Employment Less Attractive:
For candidates who are qualified, IAEA may not be an attractive place
to work owing to its rotation policy, particularly given that the
agency tends to hire individuals at the mid-career level. American
employees and U.S. and UN officials we interviewed cited IAEA's 7-year
rotation policy as a disincentive to recruiting and retaining staff.
The agency usually offers international professionals a 3-year contract
that can be extended up to 7 years.[Footnote 38] While IAEA is
forthright about not being a "career" agency, the prospect of working
only 3 to 7 years dissuades some Americans who are unsure if they can
find meaningful employment at the end of their IAEA tenure. According
to U.S. government officials who recruit candidates for IAEA, working
at IAEA for a relatively short amount of time is not worth the risk to
Americans already well-established in their careers. While the U.S.
government guarantees its civil servants reemployment rights after
working with an international organization, federally contracted
national laboratories have inconsistent reemployment policies, which
can be negotiated on an individual basis. Private sector firms may not
offer any expectation of reemployment. U.S. government agencies who do
rehire employees may not make use of the IAEA experience or may offer a
salary that does not compensate for the intervening years of work
experience, according to U.S. officials. Moreover, regarding
retirement, some Americans working at IAEA told us that U.S. government
agencies do not count their years at IAEA toward their years in U.S.
government service. In addition, individuals may have to give up their
U.S. security clearance to work at IAEA, which can take more than a
year to reinstate.
UNESCO: Long U.S. Absence Contributed to Low Representation:
The United States' 19-year withdrawal from UNESCO contributed to its
current underrepresentation. Increasing American representation in the
future may be complicated by budget restrictions.
Nineteen-Year Absence Decreased the Number of Americans Employed at
UNESCO:
The number of Americans employed at UNESCO declined during the 19 years
that the United States was not a member. In 1984, the United States--
accompanied by the United Kingdom in 1985--withdrew from the
organization over concerns about the agency's management and other
issues. During the intervening years, in part because funding decreased
considerably with the withdrawal of these two countries, UNESCO's staff
decreased in size by about one-third. When the United States left
UNESCO in 1984, Americans comprised 9.6 percent of the organization's
geographic professional staff. When it rejoined in 2003, Americans
comprised only 2.9 percent. By 2005 that number had increased to 4.1
percent--the third largest group of nationals UNESCO employed, although
still below the minimum geographic target. Although UNESCO did employ
American citizens during that time, it was not held to any geographic
target for Americans because the United States was not a member.
Hiring Freeze Limits Opportunities:
UNESCO must hire Americans in greater numbers to meet its minimum
target for U.S. representation, which may be difficult in part because
UNESCO may have limited hiring in the future. Vacancies available to
external candidates may decrease given current budget restrictions, as
UNESCO has applied a zero-nominal-growth policy to its regular budget.
The organization thus plans to limit hiring for regular budget
positions--which include all geographic positions--to filling vacancies
created by retirement and other attrition.[Footnote 39]
UNHCR: Difficult Working Conditions and Rigid Human Resource Policies
Hamper Retention and Recruitment:
The difficult conditions that accompany much of UNHCR's work, coupled
with the requirement to change duty stations every 4 years, causes
attrition at the mid-career levels. Moreover, various human resource
peculiarities, including the predominance of indefinite contracts and
staff-in-between-assignments, complicate the staffing process.
Required Mobility through Hardship Posts Causes Attrition:
UNHCR's requirement that employees change duty stations every 4 years
was one of the most frequently cited barriers to retaining staff among
the American employees we interviewed. UNHCR's mission to safeguard the
rights and well-being of refugees necessitates work in hardship and
high-risk locations. As such, UNHCR has twice as many hardship duty
stations as any other UN agency. At least one-third of its
international professional staff works in posts where, in some cases,
their family may not be allowed to accompany them. To alleviate the
burden of serving in hardship posts, the majority of international
professionals are expected to rotate between different categories of
duty stations. However, a UN Joint Inspection Unit report found that
the staffing system may not always allow staff to rotate out of the
more difficult locations.[Footnote 40] For example, employees who serve
in hardship locations, especially in Africa, are less likely to rotate
to headquarters and other nonhardship locations than other staff. Aside
from possibly having to serve in hardship locations, moving frequently
creates an unstable environment for staff and their families. UNHCR
officials acknowledged that the organization faces a challenge in
balancing its staff's personal and career goals with UNHCR's
operational requirements. Several U.S. government officials noted that
attrition among Americans has counteracted efforts UNHCR has made to
hire U.S. citizens. For example, in 2004 and 2005, UNHCR hired 24
Americans, but in the same years 14 Americans left the agency, leaving
a net gain of only 10 U.S. citizens.
Inflexible Human Resource System Limits Opportunities for External
Hiring:
UNHCR's policy to fill vacancies first with internal candidates coupled
with the reality that most employees have indefinite contracts limits
its external hiring, particularly given its number of staff-in-between-
assignments. Given that UNHCR's workforce requirements regularly expand
and contract, the agency typically has a number of staff-in-between-
assignments for whom it does not have assignments corresponding to
their grades and skills. As of July 2006, UNHCR had 135 such staff.
However, human resource officials said that some individuals have
remained in between assignments for an extended period of time--some as
long as 2 years. Because all staff-in-between-assignments have
indefinite, rather than fixed-term, contracts,[Footnote 41] management
has difficulty terminating those that refuse assignments or who lack
needed skills, and the agency gives these staff placement preference
over hiring external candidates. The priority given to placing staff-
in-between-assignments limits the type of open external recruitment
needed to ensure that UNHCR maintains an optimally skilled, dynamic,
competitive, and gender-balanced workforce. In November 2003, to ensure
that UNHCR adequately meets its workforce requirements, management
created a policy to terminate the indefinite appointments of staff
members who remained without a post for a protracted period. UNHCR
human resource officials said that new rules entering into force in
September 2006 are intended to reduce the protracted period from 12-18
months to 6 months. As of July 2006, UNHCR had terminated one staff who
had remained in between assignments for an excessive period of time.
Despite high mid-level attrition, UNHCR currently limits recruitment to
entry level positions, filling posts with candidates who must now pass
an entry exam. Before introducing the exam in 2004, employees in JPO
positions were allowed to apply to posts as an internal candidate.
However, individuals that have served as JPOs or in other temporary
assignments now must pass the entry exam and be added to the roster of
qualified candidates before being eligible to apply for regular staff
positions. U.S. citizens employed at UNHCR expressed strong concern
about this policy because UNHCR recently hired 67 percent of Americans
at the end of their JPO service into an agency position. Having to take
a test may increase the time it takes to get a post, as the exam is
only given once a year, and could decrease JPO retention.
UNHCR positions offered to external candidates will be further limited
due to budgetary restrictions. As with UNESCO, UNHCR is planning to
freeze hiring from the regular budget this year in order to limit the
growth of the organization and realign the size of the workforce with
the budget. One official estimated that there will be about 30 percent
less recruitment this year because of the hiring freeze.
UNDP: While Several Common Factors Are the Leading Barriers, UNDP Is
Also Seeking to Improve the North-South Balance of Senior Staff:
Several barriers to increasing U.S. representation that are also
present at other UN agencies are the leading factors at UNDP, according
to American employees and other officials with whom we spoke. For
example, many American UNDP employees told us that they did not receive
support from the U.S. government during their hiring process or the
course of their careers. Several of these employees stated that their
discussions with us were the first time they had been contacted by U.S.
government officials during their UNDP careers, and that both they and
the U.S. mission would benefit from increased communication. U.S. staff
also discussed UNDP's nontransparent hiring and personnel management
policies, and the limited opportunities for external candidates, as
barriers for increasing U.S. representation.[Footnote 42] In addition,
UNDP's Executive Board has traditionally managed the organization with
the understanding that its staff be equally represented from northern
(mostly developed) and southern (mostly developing) countries, and has
recently focused on improving the north-south balance of staff at
management levels by increasing the hiring of candidates from southern
countries. While this is a worthy goal, some American staff at UNDP
commented that the organization's recent attention to increasing the
hiring of senior staff from southern countries could increase the
difficulty for American candidates seeking these positions. A senior
UNDP official stated that he did not see the increased hiring of U.S.
nationals (to maintain current representation levels) as a realistic
and attainable target, given the above focus as well as profile, donor,
program country, gender, and diversity considerations.
State Has Increased Efforts to Promote U.S. Representation, but
Additional Options Exist to Target Professional Positions:
State targets its recruitment efforts for senior and policy-making UN
positions, and, although it is difficult to directly link State's
efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions
has either improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies we
reviewed. State also has increased its efforts to improve overall U.S.
representation, including adding staff to its UN employment office and
increasing coordination with other U.S. agencies; however, despite
these efforts, U.S. representation in entry-level positions has
declined or did not reflect a trend in four of the five UN agencies we
reviewed. Additional steps to target potential pools of candidates for
these positions include maintaining a roster of qualified American
candidates; expanding marketing and outreach activities; and conducting
an assessment of the costs and benefits of sponsoring JPOs.
State Recruiting Efforts Focus on Senior Positions, and U.S.
Representation in These Positions Improved or Showed No Trend:
In 2001, we reported that State focused its recruiting efforts for U.S.
citizen employment at UN agencies on senior-level and policy-making
positions, and State officials told us that this focus has continued.
Although it is difficult to directly link State's efforts to UN hiring
decisions, the percentage of U.S. representation in senior and policy-
making positions either increased or did not display a trend at each of
the five UN agencies we reviewed between 2001 and 2005 (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policy-making Positions at
Five UN Agencies as a Percentage of Agency Professional Senior and
Policy-making Positions, 2001-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO,
UNHCR, and UNDP.
Note: For the Secretariat, UNESCO, and IAEA, we used positions subject
to geographic distribution. For UNHCR and UNDP, we used regular
professional positions.
[End of figure]
At all five UN agencies, the percentage of Americans employed in senior
and policymaking positions was higher in 2005 than in 2001, but the
trends and magnitude varied somewhat across the agencies, as figure 3
shows. The U.S. share of senior and policy-making positions has
increased at IAEA and UNDP. The U.S. share of these positions at the
other three UN agencies displayed no trend over the period. At the
Secretariat, the U.S. share of senior and policymaking positions was
slightly higher in 2005 than in 2001, although the number and
percentage of Americans in these positions has decreased since 2002. At
UNHCR, the number and percentage of U.S. citizens in these positions
grew between 2001 and 2004, but declined in 2005. At UNESCO, the data
for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect a trend, but the percentage of
Americans increased in 2005. Overall, Americans hold over 10 percent of
senior and policymaking positions at four of the five agencies we
reviewed. (App. III contains more detailed information on U.S. citizens
employed in all professional positions, by grade, at the five UN
agencies.)
A U.S. mission official told us that the mission focuses its efforts on
vacancies for critical senior jobs because of the influence that these
positions have within the organization. If an American makes the short
list for one of these positions, the U.S. Ambassador or another high-
ranking U.S. mission official contacts the UN agency on behalf of that
candidate. Officials at one of the U.S. missions we visited told us
that the ambassador called UN agency officials on behalf of American
candidates almost weekly. Several senior UN agency positions have
recently been filled by Americans, including the UN Under-Secretary-
General for Management and the Executive Director of UNICEF. UNESCO
also recently hired U.S. citizens for the positions of Assistant
Director-General for Education and the Deputy Assistant Director-
General for External Relations.
As a part of this effort to recruit for high-level positions, State's
UN employment office added a senior advisor in 2004 focused on
identifying and recruiting American candidates for senior-level
positions at UN organizations. This official works closely with the
U.S. missions and U.S. agencies to identify senior-level UN vacancies
and assist in the recruitment and support of Americans as candidates
for these positions. The advisor also focuses on UN senior-level
positions that may soon become vacant, including positions currently
held by Americans, as well as by other nationals. Officials from one
U.S. mission told us that it is critical to find out about vacancies
before they become open because of the lead time needed to find
qualified candidates. For those positions determined to be of
particular interest to the United States, the senior advisor works with
mission and agency counterparts to identify appropriate candidates to
apply for the position when it becomes vacant.
State Has Increased Activities to Support Greater U.S. Representation,
but the Employment of Americans in Entry-level Positions Declined or
Displayed No Trend in Four Agencies:
Since 2001, State has devoted additional resources and has undertaken
several new initiatives in its role as the lead U.S. agency for
supporting and promoting the employment of Americans in UN
organizations, including adding staff to its UN employment office.
State also has begun sharing its U.S. representation reports with UN
officials. Additionally, State has increased coordination with other
U.S. agencies. However, despite these efforts, U.S. representation in
entry-level positions has declined or did not display a trend in four
of the five UN agencies we reviewed.
State Increased Resources for Disseminating UN Vacancy Information:
In 2001, State had two staff members working in its UN employment
office, and since that time has increased the number of staff positions
to five, plus a sixth person who works part-time on UN employment
issues.[Footnote 43] The new staff positions include the official
focused on senior-level positions at UN organizations referred to
earlier. According to State, the other staff in this office recruit
candidates for professional positions at career fairs and in other
venues; however, a large portion of their work focuses on providing
information to potential applicants and disseminating information on UN
vacancies and opportunities. A key part of this effort is the
publication and distribution of a biweekly list of UN vacancy
announcements. State officials publish these announcements on the
department's UN employment Web site and also distribute the vacancies
to agency contacts.[Footnote 44] With this list, potential applicants
are able to view externally advertised professional and senior level
vacancies throughout the UN system in one location. Additionally, State
recently coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management to add a
link to its UN employment Web site from the USAJOBS Web site. State's
Web site also includes a brochure with general information on UN
employment opportunities and requirements, and a fact sheet requesting
that candidates who have made a short list for a UN position contact
the department for information and assistance. State's UN employment
office staff also attend career fairs and other outreach activities at
universities and professional associations to discuss UN employment
opportunities. For example, State officials reported that they attended
15 events in 2005, including a nuclear technology expo and a conference
on women in international security.
State also has increased outreach for the Secretariat's annual National
Competitive Recruitment Exam for entry-level candidates by advertising
for the exam in selected newspapers. The number of Americans invited to
take the exam increased from 40 in 2001 to 277 in 2004. According to
State and UN officials, in 2005, State placed one-day advertisements
publicizing application procedures for the exam in five newspapers
across the country.[Footnote 45]
U.S. Missions Share U.S. Representation Reports and Discuss Openings
with UN Officials:
Another of State's responsibilities is to collect U.S. employment data
from UN agencies and compile these data in annual reports to Congress.
These reports include State's assessment of U.S. representation at
select UN organizations and these organizations' efforts to hire more
Americans. State now provides these reports to UN agencies, as we
recommended in 2001, and does so by sending them to U.S. missions,
which share them with UN officials. U.S. mission officials told us that
they periodically meet with UN officials to discuss U.S. representation
and upcoming vacancies. For example, officials from the U.S. mission in
Geneva regularly meet with UNHCR's Director of Human Resources to
discuss efforts to increase U.S. representation. One outcome of these
efforts was that, in 2005, UNHCR representatives conducted a recruiting
mission to the United States, visiting five graduate schools. In
addition, the U.S. mission in Vienna meets with IAEA's director of
human resources on a biweekly basis to discuss U.S. staffing issues.
State Increased Coordination with U.S. Agencies:
In 2003, State established an inter agency task force to address the
low representation of Americans in international organizations.
According to State, the initial meeting was intended as a first step to
coordinate and re-energize efforts to identify Americans for
international organization staff positions. Since then, task force
members have met annually to discuss U.S. employment issues. Task force
participants told us that at these meetings, State officials reported
on their outreach activities and encouraged agencies to promote the
employment of Americans at UN organizations. One of the topics
discussed by task force members was how to increase support for details
and transfers of U.S. agency employees to UN organizations. In May
2006, the Secretary of State sent letters to the heads of 23 Federal
agencies urging that they review their policies for transferring and
detailing employees to international organizations to ensure that these
mechanisms are positively and actively promoted.[Footnote 46]
Transferring and detailing federal employees to UN organizations for
fixed-term assignments could allow Americans to gain UN experience
while providing UN organizations with technical and managerial
expertise.[Footnote 47] While the Secretary's letters may help to spur
U.S. agencies to clarify their support for these initiatives, agency
officials told us that their offices lack the resources for staff
details, which involve paying the salary of the detailed staff as well
as "backfilling" that person's position by adding a
replacement.[Footnote 48]
State also periodically meets one-on-one with U.S. agencies to discuss
in more detail strategies for increasing U.S. representation at
specific organizations. A State official told us that State's UN
employment office holds a few of these one-on-one meetings per year.
For example, in 2005, State met with the Federal Aviation
Administration to discuss U.S. underrepresentation at the International
Civil Aviation Organization. State also participated in a network of
agencies and National Laboratories that work with IAEA, which has
discussed ideas to address declining U.S. representation at that
agency.[Footnote 49] The U.S. mission in Vienna conducts periodic video-
conference meetings with State, other U.S. agencies, and the U.S.
national laboratories to discuss upcoming IAEA vacancies and identify
U.S. candidates for these positions.
U.S. Entry-level Representation Declined or Displayed No Trend in Four
of Five UN Agencies:
Despite the new and continuing activities undertaken by State, U.S.
representation in entry-level positions[Footnote 50] declined or
displayed no trend in four of the five agencies we reviewed. U.S.
representation in these positions declined at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP.
The representation of Americans in entry-level positions at the
Secretariat displayed no trend during the time period. At UNESCO, U.S.
representation increased from 1.3 percent in 2003 to 2.7 percent in
2004, reflecting the time period when the United States rejoined the
organization (See fig. 4).
Figure 4: U.S. Representation in Entry-level Professional Positions as
a Percentage of Agency Entry-level Positions at Five UN Agencies, 2001-
2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN SEcretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and
UNDP.
Note: For the Secretariat, UNESCO, and IAEA we used positions subject
to geographical distribution. For UNHCR and UNDP, we used professional
positions.
[End of figure]
Additional Steps to Target Professional Positions Exist:
We identified several additional steps to target U.S. representation in
professional positions. These steps include maintaining a roster of
qualified candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities,
increasing and improving UN employment information on U.S. agency Web
sites, and analyzing the costs and benefits of sponsoring JPOs.
Roster of Qualified Americans Not Maintained:
In 2001, we reported that State had ended its practice of actively
recruiting Americans for UN employment in professional positions. As an
example, we noted that State had previously maintained a roster of
qualified American candidates for professional and technical positions,
but discontinued its use of this roster. State officials told us that
the office has not maintained a professional roster, or the
prescreening of candidates, despite its recent increase in staff
resources, because maintaining such a roster had been resource
intensive and because the office does not actively recruit for UN
professional positions at the entry-and mid-levels. However, State
acknowledged that utilizing new technologies, such as developing a Web-
based roster, may reduce the time and cost of updating a roster. A
State official added that it is difficult to make a direct causal link
between current or proposed efforts by the department and the number of
Americans ultimately hired by the UN because of the many factors at
work that State cannot control.
Other U.S. government and UN officials told us that some other
countries maintain rosters of prescreened, qualified candidates for UN
positions and that this practice is an effective strategy for promoting
their nationals. For example, some countries prescreen candidates for
positions at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and
thus are able to provide names of well-qualified applicants when
openings arise that need to be filled quickly. An official also
emphasized that peacekeeping in particular is a "growth area," and the
Secretary-General recently reported that the Peacekeeping budget has
increased from $1.25 billion to more than $5 billion between 1996 and
2005. As discussed earlier, peacekeeping positions are not counted
toward geographic representation targets and thus the increased hiring
of Americans in these positions would not directly improve the United
States' representation status. However, these positions, along with
other nongeographic positions, do provide an entry point into the UN
system.
Recruiting and Outreach Efforts Do Not Reach Some Potential Applicants:
Although State has increased staff resources in its UN employment
office, it has not taken steps that could further expand the audience
for its outreach efforts. For example, State has increased its
coordination with other U.S. agencies on UN employment issues and
distributes the biweekly vacancy announcements to agency contacts.
However, some U.S. agency officials that receive these vacancy
announcements told us that they lacked the authority to distribute the
vacancies beyond their particular office or division. For example, one
official commented that the vacancies were distributed within his nine-
person office, but the office is not able to distribute the vacancies
throughout the agency. An official from another agency commented that
State has not established the appropriate contacts to facilitate agency-
wide distribution of UN vacancies, and that the limited dissemination
has neutralized the impact of this effort. Several inter- agency task
force participants also stated that no specific follow-up activities
were discussed or planned between the annual meetings, and they could
not point to any tangible results or outcomes resulting from the task
force meetings.
As discussed earlier, State officials attend career fairs and other
conferences to discuss UN employment opportunities with attendees, but
they have not taken advantage of some opportunities to expand the
audience for their outreach activities. For example, State does not
work with the Association of Professional Schools of International
Affairs (APSIA), which has 19 U.S. member schools.[Footnote 51] A
representative of APSIA told us that the association does not receive
vacancy announcements or have contact with State on UN employment
opportunities but would welcome the opportunity to do so. Although
State employees have attended Peace Corps career fairs to discuss UN
employment, officials told us that State does not advertise in other
outlets that reach the population of current and returned Peace Corps
volunteers, such as the Peace Corps jobs hotline newsletter or the
National Peace Corps Association's[Footnote 52] quarterly magazine,
Worldview.
By contrast, a State official told us that the department's Office of
Recruitment, Examination and Employment[Footnote 53]--which recruits
candidates for the U.S. Foreign Service Exam--has worked with an
advertising firm to develop a marketing strategy and campaigns focused
on targeted pools of candidates for this exam. This official said that
State has had a major emphasis on increasing the diversity of
applicants for the U.S. Foreign Service, and its marketing campaigns
have targeted schools with diverse student bodies and diversity-focused
professional associations. State's recruiting office also has
established an e-mail subscription service on its Web site that allows
individuals to sign up to receive e-mail updates pertaining to their
specific areas of interest. A State recruiting official commented that
targeted campaigns are more effective than general vacancy
announcements or print advertisements, and that the e-mail subscription
service has been worth the cost of implementation. The official said
that the cost of maintaining this service, for which she stated 100,000
people have signed up thus far, is about $44,000 per year.
State, U.S. Mission, and Agency Web Sites Have Limited Information on
UN Employment Opportunities:
State's UN vacancy list and its UN employment Web site also have
limitations. For example, the list of vacancies is not organized by
occupation, or even organization, and readers must search the entire
list for openings in their areas of interest. Further, State's UN
employment Web site has limited information on other UN employment
programs and does not link to U.S. agencies that provide more specific
information, such as the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National
Laboratory Web site. In addition, the Web site provides limited
information or tools to clarify common questions, such as those
pertaining to compensation and benefits. For example, the Web site does
not provide a means for applicants to obtain more specific information
on their expected total compensation, including benefits and U.S.
income tax. As mentioned earlier, some American staff in UN agencies
told us that in considering whether to apply for a UN position,
information on benefits was not clear. Incomplete or late information
hampers a candidate's ability to decide in a timely manner whether a UN
position is in his or her best interest.
Including State, we reviewed 22 U.S. mission and U.S. agency Web sites,
and they revealed varying, and in many cases limited, information on UN
employment opportunities. Overall, nine of the 22 U.S. Mission and
agency Web sites we reviewed did not have links to UN employment
opportunities, and only seven had links to UN recruiting Web sites. In
addition, only six of the Web sites provided links to State's webpage
on UN employment opportunities. Only three of the Web sites had
information on details and transfers, six had information on JPO or
Associate Expert programs, and 13 had no link to information on UN
internships. Nearly 60 percent of the missions and agencies provided
some information or links to information on salaries and benefits.
U.S. Government Has Not Assessed the Costs and Benefits of Sponsoring
JPOs Across UN System:
The U.S. government currently sponsors JPOs at two of the five UN
agencies that we reviewed, but has not assessed the overall costs and
benefits of supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S.
representation across UN agencies.[Footnote 54] Among the five
agencies, State has funded a long-standing JPO program only at UNHCR,
sponsoring an average of 15 JPOs per year between 2001 and 2005.
According to State officials, the JPO program at UNHCR is funded by
State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM),[Footnote
55] which has a separate budget from State's UN employment office in
the International Organization (IO) Affairs Bureau. State officials
told us that the Department's IO Bureau does not fund JPOs or Associate
Experts at any UN agencies, including the Secretariat, which hires an
average of 65 percent of Associate Experts following the completion of
their programs. The other JPO sponsorship program among the five
agencies we reviewed is run by the Department of Energy's Brookhaven
National Laboratory, which has supported two JPOs at IAEA since
2004.[Footnote 56] Table 4 provides data on the average number of JPOs
and Associate Experts sponsored by the United States and by leading
contributors to JPO programs at the five UN agencies we reviewed.
Table 4: Average Number of JPOs or Associate Experts Sponsored by
Leading Contributors to These Programs, 2001-2005:
Name of program: All donors;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 128;
(UNDP) JPO: 217;
(UNHCR) JPO: 95;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 52;
(IAEA) JPO: 6;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 498.
Name of program: Japan;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 7;
(UNDP) JPO: 32;
(UNHCR) JPO: 11;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 14;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 64.
Name of program: Italy;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 28;
(UNDP) JPO: 10;
(UNHCR) JPO: 7;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 7;
(IAEA) JPO: 1;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 54.
Name of program: Denmark;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 11;
(UNDP) JPO: 26;
(UNHCR) JPO: 10;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 49.
Name of program: Netherlands;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 14;
(UNDP) JPO: 15;
(UNHCR) JPO: 7;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 40.
Name of program: Germany;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 18;
(UNDP) JPO: 12;
(UNHCR) JPO: 3;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 5;
(IAEA) JPO: 1;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 39.
Name of program: France;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 12;
(UNDP) JPO: 16;
(UNHCR) JPO: 8;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 1;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 39.
Name of program: Sweden;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 9;
(UNDP) JPO: 18;
(UNHCR) JPO: 8;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 38.
Name of program: Finland;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 8;
(UNDP) JPO: 11;
(UNHCR) JPO: 4;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 25.
Name of program: Norway;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 3;
(UNDP) JPO: 9;
(UNHCR) JPO: 6;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 3;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 21.
Name of program: Spain;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 3;
(UNDP) JPO: 13;
(UNHCR) JPO: 1;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 0;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 17.
Name of program: USA;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 0;
(UNDP) JPO: 0;
(UNHCR) JPO: 15;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 0;
(IAEA) JPO: 1;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 16.
Name of program: Belgium;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 4;
(UNDP) JPO: 7;
(UNHCR) JPO: 2;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 1;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 15.
Name of program: Switzerland;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 4;
(UNDP) JPO: 6;
(UNHCR) JPO: 2;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 0;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 12.
Name of program: Canada;
(Secretariat) Associate Expert: 0;
(UNDP) JPO: 8;
(UNHCR) JPO: 2;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 0;
(IAEA) JPO: 0;
Average yearly total for all five agencies: 10.
Source: GAO analysis of data from UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR,
and UNDP.
Note: The totals for each agency may not match the sum of the listed
donors because not all donors are included in this table. We included
countries that sponsored 10 or more JPOs across the five UN agencies.
Also, the totals for each row do not necessarily add up to the sum of
each cell in the row due to rounding.
[End of table]
For four of the five agencies we reviewed,[Footnote 57] the percentage
of individuals that were hired for regular positions upon completion of
the JPO program ranged from 34 to 65 percent. In some cases, former
JPOs were offered regular positions and did not accept them, or took
positions in other UN organizations, according to officials with whom
we spoke. The estimated annual cost for these positions to the
sponsoring government ranges from $100,000 to $140,000 at the five UN
agencies.[Footnote 58] (See table 5.) This cost can include salary,
benefits, and moving expenses.
Table 5: Cost and Retention Rate of JPOs and Associate Experts:
Estimated cost per JPO/Associate Expert per Year[A];
(Secretariat) Associate Experts: $140,000;
(IAEA) JPO: $100,000;
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: $104,000;
(UNHCR) JPO: $125,000;
(UNDP) JPO: $130,000.
Retention rate;
(Secretariat) Associate Experts: 65%[B];
(IAEA) JPO: NA[C];
(UNESCO) Associate Expert: 34%[D];
(UNHCR) JPO: 52%[E];
(UNDP) JPO: 43%[F].
Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN Secretariat, UNDP,
UNHCR,UNESCO and IAEA.
[A] Yearly cost for a JPO/Associate Expert at each agency varies
depending on the individual's qualifications, duty station, and other
factors.
[B] Retention rate for Associate Experts who served in 2001 through
2003. The average retention rate between 1990 and 2003 is approximately
58 percent:
[C] IAEA did not provide retention rates.
[D] Retention rate of Associate Experts who completed their contract
between January 2001 and December 2005. Twenty percent were retained on
fixed-term contracts;
14 percent were retained on other types of contracts.
[E] Retention rate of JPOs and former JPOs retained for UNHCR posts
through the Appointments and Promotions Board from 1996 to 2005.
Retention rate of American JPOs who served at UNHCR between 2001 and
2005 is 67 percent;
it increases to 71 percent if employment at other UN agencies is
included.
[F] Retention rate for JPOs who finished their service between 2001 and
2003. Retention is defined as JPOs being given a contract of at least 6
months somewhere in the UN-system.
[End of table]
A PRM official told us that the goals of its JPO program at UNHCR are
both to help the organization accomplish its mission in the field and
to help Americans gain employment at the agency. This official stated
that of the 24 American JPOs who completed their service at UNHCR
between 2002 and 2005, 16 (or 67 percent) were hired back by the
agency, and 1 was hired by UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs. This official also told us that because the JPO
program is actively used by other countries as a means of getting their
nationals into the organization, not supporting JPOs at UNHCR would put
the United States at a disadvantage.
As shown above, funding JPOs has a cost that must be considered
together with other funding priorities. PRM and IO have acted
independently in their determinations of whether or not to fund JPOs,
with the overall result that State has funded an average of 15 JPOs at
one UN agency and none at any of the other agencies. State has not
conducted an assessment to determine which UN agencies the United
States should prioritize in terms of increasing U.S. employment by
funding JPOs. Such an assessment would also involve weighing the trade-
offs between funding JPOs and other agency programs.
Conclusions:
Achieving equitable U.S. representation will be an increasingly
difficult hurdle to overcome at UN organizations. Four of the five UN
organizations we reviewed, all except UNESCO, will have to hire
Americans in increasing numbers merely to maintain the current levels
of U.S. representation. Failure to increase such hiring will lead the
four UN organizations with geographic targets to fall below or stay
below the minimum thresholds set for U.S. employment.
As the lead department in charge of U.S. government efforts to promote
equitable American representation at the UN, the Department of State
will continue to face a number of barriers to increasing the employment
of Americans at these organizations, most of which are outside the U.S.
government's control. For example, lengthy hiring processes and
mandatory rotation policies can deter qualified Americans from applying
for or remaining in UN positions.
Nonetheless, if increasing the number of U.S. citizens employed at UN
organizations remains a high priority for State, it is important that
the department facilitate a continuing supply of qualified applicants
for UN professional positions at all levels. State focuses much of its
recruiting efforts on senior and policy-making positions, and U.S.
citizens hold over ten percent of these positions at four of the five
agencies we reviewed. While State increased its resources and
activities in recent years to support increased U.S. representation
overall, additional actions to facilitate the employment of Americans
in entry-and mid-level professional positions are needed to overcome
declining U.S. employment in these positions and meet employment
targets.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Because equitable representation of Americans employed at UN
organizations has been a high priority for U.S. interests, we recommend
that the Secretary of State take the following three actions:
* provide more consistent and comprehensive information about UN
employment on the State and U.S. mission Web sites and work with U.S.
agencies to expand the UN employment information on their Web sites.
This could include identifying options for developing a benefits
calculator that would enable applicants to better estimate their
potential total compensation based on their individual circumstances;
* expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more strategically reach
populations of Americans that may be qualified for and interested in
entry-and mid-level UN positions;
and:
* conduct an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of:
* maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for professional and
senior positions determined to be a high priority for U.S. interests;
* funding Junior Professional Officers, or other gratis personnel,
where Americans are underrepresented or in danger of becoming
underrepresented.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received comments from State, which are reprinted in appendix V.
State concurred with and agreed to implement all of our
recommendations. State said it attaches high priority to increasing the
number of Americans at all professional levels in the United Nations
and other international organizations. We received technical comments
from State, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP, which we have incorporated
as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other
interested congressional committees. We also will provide copies of
this report to the Secretary of State; the United Nations Secretariat;
the International Atomic Energy Agency; the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the United Nations Office of the
High Commissioner for Refugees; and the United Nations Development
Program. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be made available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601. 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.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Lantos:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on International Relations:
United States House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In this report we reviewed (1) U.S. representation status and
employment trends at five United Nations (UN) organizations, (2)
factors affecting these organizations' ability to meet U.S.
representation targets, and (3) the U.S. Department of State's current
efforts to improve U.S. representation and additional steps that could
be taken.
We reviewed five UN organizations: the UN Secretariat; International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR); and UN Development Program (UNDP).[Footnote 59]
Technically, the IAEA is an independent international organization that
has a relationship agreement with the UN. For the purposes of this
report, we refer to the IAEA as a UN agency or organization. We
selected these agencies based on a range of factors such as: funding
mechanisms (including agencies funded through assessed contributions as
well as those funded primarily through voluntary contributions);
methods for calculating geographic representation status (including
agencies using formal geographic distribution formulas and those
without formal targets for U.S. representation); agency size; agency
location (including U.S.-based and overseas-based organizations); and
agencies with varying levels of U.S. employment. These five agencies
together comprise approximately 50 percent of total UN organizations'
professional staff.
Methodology for Reviewing U.S. Representation Status and Employment
Trends at Five UN Organizations:
To determine the U.S. representation status, identify the trends in the
number of professional positions held by U.S. citizens, and calculate
hiring projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001 through 2005
that we obtained from the five UN organizations. Data generally refer
to end of the calendar year, except for the Secretariat, which is for
the year ending June 30. We had extensive communications with staff
from each organization's personnel and budget departments to clarify
details regarding the data. We determined the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this review.
Calculating U.S. Representation Levels and Trends:
To determine U.S. representation at the three U.N. agencies with
geographic targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), we calculated
the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in geographic positions and
compared this percentage with the agency's target. We calculated the
geographic target for the Secretariat and UNESCO as a percentage range,
in which the minimum and maximum number of national staff, as provided
by the agency, is divided by the actual (full-time equivalent)
geographic staff in the agency. The two agencies--the Secretariat and
UNESCO--that set geographic targets consider three key factors to
varying degrees in establishing the targets: membership
status,[Footnote 60] financial contribution,[Footnote 61] and
population size.[Footnote 62] The Secretariat and UNESCO both use
formulas for calculating geographic targets that take into account all
three factors. For the Secretariat, the factors are 55 percent for
contribution, 40 percent for membership, and 5 percent for population.
UNESCO's formula consists of a membership factor of 65 percent, a
contribution factor of 30 percent, and a population factor of 5
percent. IAEA informally calculates a member state to be
underrepresented if its geographic representation is less than half of
its percent contribution to the budget. Using this method, we
calculated a U.S. target.
The remaining two agencies--UNHCR and UNDP--have not adopted formal
geographic representation targets. However, UNHCR has established an
informal target with the United States. To determine U.S.
representation at UNHCR in comparison to this target, we calculated the
percentage of regular professional positions (100-series contracts)
filled by U.S citizens. Similarly, at UNDP, we calculated U.S.
representation as a percentage of regular professional positions (100
and 200-series contracts) filled by U.S. citizens.[Footnote 63]
For all five UN organizations, we also calculated U.S. citizen
representation at each grade--policy-making and senior level (such as
USG/ASG, D1/D2), mid-level (P4/P5), and entry level (P1-P3)--as well as
for all grades combined. U.S. grade level employment representation is
calculated by dividing the number of U.S. staff at that grade level by
the organization's total employment for the corresponding grade level.
We also calculated U.S. citizen representation in nongeographic
positions (for the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), and in the
nonregular professional positions (UNHCR and UNDP)[Footnote 64] as a
percentage of nongeographic (or nonregular) employment, respectively in
these positions.
To determine whether there was a trend in U.S. representation between
2001 and 2005, we determined whether or not the slope of the best
fitting line through these points would have a computed confidence
level of 90 percent or more. If there is a trend, the sign of the slope
(i.e., the coefficient) determines whether the trend is increasing or
decreasing. A designation of no trend means that the confidence level
does not reach 90 percent; however, the percentage representation of
U.S. citizens may have fluctuated during the period. We cannot say
these trends are statistically significant because of the small number
of observations, the fact that these numbers are the actual population
and not a sample, and because these numbers are not independent over
time. Thus the 90 percent computation is not an objective criterion
indicating statistical significance.
Calculating Hiring Projections:
Our methodology assumed a gradual approach to the target. We calculated
the minimum average number of U.S. citizens that each agency would need
to hire each year between 2006 and 2010 to reach their respective
percentage targets in 2010. The 2005 U.S. staff percentage
representation was the starting point and an annual percentage
increment (or decrement) was added to reach the minimum target in 2010.
We then projected the required number of U.S. staff for each year as
that year's percentage target multiplied by the projected size of the
total staff for that year. The estimated number of U.S. staff in the
agency in each year, before additional hiring of Americans, was based
on the prior year's employment, less the projected retirements and
separations for that year. If the projected number of Americans
required to meet that year's target is greater than the estimated
number of Americans in the agency, based on the prior year's employment
and given departures in that year, then the number of Americans the
agency has to hire is positive; otherwise, it is zero. Summing each
year's number of Americans required to be hired to achieve each year's
target, and then dividing by 5, yielded the minimum average number of
U.S. citizens that the agency would have to hire to achieve the 2010
target.
We made three assumptions to calculate the hiring projections. First,
for the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, we based our 2006 to 2010 staff
projections on the recent growth rate (2001 through 2005) of each
agency's staff. We calculated the future staff growth rate based on an
ordinary least squares growth rate of staff during 2001 through 2005.
UNHCR provided us with an official agency projected growth rate of zero
percent, and UNDP provided a 6 percent growth rate that we used in our
analysis. Second, we projected staff separations for 2006 through 2010
based on an average of the separation data that the agencies provided
for 2001 through 2005. Third, we projected U.S. staff separations for
2006 through 2010 based on the average of U.S. staff separations to
total staff separations during 2001 through 2005. We did not project
future retirements because each agency provided their official
retirement projections for total staff and for Americans. In addition,
we performed sensitivity analyses by varying the staff growth and
separation rates. We found that minor changes did not produce major
differences in the results.
Methodology for Reviewing Factors Affecting UN Organizations' Ability
To Meet U.S. Representation Targets:
To review the factors affecting organizations' ability to meet the
employment targets, we reviewed UN agency documents and interviewed UN
human resources officials, over 100 Americans employed at the five UN
agencies, and U.S. officials. At each of the five agencies covered in
our review, we met with human resources officials to discuss efforts
taken to achieve equitable U.S. representation, the agency's hiring
process, personnel policies and procedures, types of contracts and
positions, and factors affecting U.S. representation. These officials
also provided documents with further explanations of agency human
resources policies and practices. We also met with State and U.S.
mission officials and officials from other U.S. agencies that interact
with the five UN agencies to discuss their views on factors impacting
U.S. employment at these agencies.
In addition, we received the views of a total of 112 Americans[Footnote
65] employed across the five agencies on various UN employment issues.
We gathered information from these employees through individual
interviews, interviews in a small-group setting, or through group
discussions. We also received written comments from some American
employees. We met with employees in a range of grade levels (G, P, D,
and ASG), contract types (such as temporary, assignment-of-limited-
duration, fixed-term, indefinite, permanent), and with varying levels
of experience at the agency. We did not select representative samples
of American employees at any agency. Some individuals invited to
participate in our review were unable to due to scheduling conflicts;
some did not respond to our invitation. The American employees we
interviewed as a percent of the total number of Americans employed
varied at each agency. We asked each employee common open-ended
questions about their background and experience, the hiring process,
the extent of U.S. government assistance they received, and factors
affecting U.S. representation.
Using the information gathered from the American employees, we coded
comments about the factors affecting American recruitment and retention
at the UN agencies into about 30 categories. As in any exercise of this
type, the categories developed can vary when produced by different
analysts. To address this issue, two independent GAO analysts reviewed
and verified categorization of comments for each agency and suggested
new categories. We then rectified differences. We then compiled a
summary of factors across the five agencies and ranked them by the
frequency they were mentioned. Another independent GAO analyst then
reviewed and verified the summary compiled of all agency comments. We
selected the factors affecting U.S. representation discussed in the
body of this review by analyzing this ranked list in conjunction with
information we gathered from UN and U.S. officials and our analysis of
UN employment data.
Methodology for Reviewing the U.S. State Department's Current Efforts
to Improve U.S. Representation and Additional Efforts That Could Be
Taken:
To assess strategies that the Department of State is using to improve
U.S. representation and additional efforts that could be taken, we
reviewed documents and interviewed officials from State's UN employment
office. We discussed activities that State has taken since our 2001
report on U.S. representation at UN organizations, in response to
recommendations made in that report, and reviewed State's documentation
of these activities. We also reviewed other State documents, including
its annual reports to Congress, U.S. Representation in United Nations
Agencies and Efforts Made to Employ U.S. Citizens. In addition, we
reviewed State's performance and accountability plans and reports,
including State's fiscal year 2007 performance summary and the Bureau
of International Organization Affairs fiscal year 2007 performance
plan. In addition to meeting with State officials, we also met with
U.S. agency officials that have participated in State's inter agency
task force on UN employment or received UN vacancy announcements from
State, as well as other U.S. agency officials. In these meetings, we
discussed the activities and outcomes of the task force and these
officials' views on efforts to increase the UN employment of Americans.
We also discussed U.S. strategies and efforts for increasing U.S.
representation with UN personnel officials and American employees of UN
organizations. We also analyzed 22 U.S. agency and U.S. mission Web
sites to review information that they made available on UN employment
opportunities.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., New York; Geneva,
Switzerland; Vienna, Austria; and Paris, France, from August 2005 to
July 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional
Positions at Five UN Agencies:
This appendix provides information on the number and percentage of U.S.
citizens employed in professional positions at the five UN agencies we
reviewed. For the three agencies that have geographic targets, we
provide information on the number and percentage of U.S. citizens
employed in geographic positions as well as in nongeographic positions.
For the 2 agencies that do not have geographic targets, we provide
information on the number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in
regular and all other professional positions.
Percentage of U.S. Citizens in Geographic and Nongeographic Positions
Is Almost Equal:
At two of the three UN agencies (the Secretariat and UNESCO) with
geographic targets, the percentage of geographic positions filled by
U.S. citizens is slightly higher than the percentage of nongeographic
positions filled by U.S. citizens. The variation is more significant at
IAEA where U.S. citizens fill 11.5 percent of the geographic positions
and 17.1 percent of the nongeographic positions. Table 6 shows the
number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in geographic and
nongeographic positions at the three UN agencies with geographic
targets.
Table 6: Composition of Professional Positions at the Three UN Agencies
with Geographic Positions, 2005:
Professional positions: Geographic positions;
Secretariat: Total number of staff in these positions: 2,581;
Secretariat: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 312 (12.1%);
IAEA: Total number of staff in these positions: 764;
IAEA: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
88 (11.5%);
UNESCO: Total number of staff in these positions: 739;
UNESCO: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 30 (4.1%).
Professional positions: Nongeographic positions[A];
Secretariat: Total number of staff in these positions: 5,837;
Secretariat: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 557 (9.5%);
IAEA: Total number of staff in these positions: 421;
IAEA: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
72 (17.1%);
UNESCO: Total number of staff in these positions: 898;
UNESCO: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 17 (1.9%).
Professional positions: Total positions;
Secretariat: Total number of staff in these positions: 8,418;
Secretariat: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 869 (10.3%);
IAEA: Total number of staff in these positions: 1,185;
IAEA: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
160 (13.5%);
UNESCO: Total number of staff in these positions: 1,637;
UNESCO: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 47 (2.9%)[A].
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data.
[A] Nongeographic positions include nongeographic regular
professionals, temporary staff, JPOs, and consultants and contractors.
The agency total professional staff for UNESCO, 1,638, includes all
professional staff indicated; however, UNESCO was unable to provide
nationality data for its contractors and consultants. Therefore, the
U.S. percentage of nongeographic positions does not include U.S.
citizens employed as contractors and consultants.
[End of table]
Table 7 shows that, on average at the three UN agencies with geographic
positions and targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), the
percentage of U.S. citizens employed in all professional positions was
fairly evenly divided between geographic positions (51.6 percent) and
nongeographic positions (48.4 percent). However, the representation of
U.S. citizens in geographic and nongeographic positions was close to
the average only at IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens was 55
and 45 percent, respectively.
Table 7: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Three UN
Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005:
Professional positions: Geographic positions;
Secretariat: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 30.7%;
Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 35.9%;
IAEA: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 64.5%;
IAEA: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 55%;
UNESCO: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 45.1%;
UNESCO: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 63.8%;
Average percentage of U.S. staff in these positions: 51.6%.
Professional positions: Nongeographic positions;
Secretariat: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 69.3%;
Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 64.1%;
IAEA: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 35.5%;
IAEA: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 45%;
UNESCO: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 54.9%;
UNESCO: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 36.2%;
Average percentage of U.S. staff in these positions: 48.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data.
[End of table]
As shown in table 8, in the two agencies without geographic positions,
UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of regular professional positions filled
by U.S. citizens is lower than the percentage of "all other"
professional positions filled by U.S. citizens.[Footnote 66]
Table 8: Composition of Professional Positions at the Two UN Agencies
without Geographic Positions, 2005:
Professional positions: Regular professional positions;
UNHCR: Total number of staff in these positions: 1,495;
UNHCR: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 119 (8.0%);
UNDP: Total number of staff in these positions: 1,336;
UNDP: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
144 (10.8%).
Professional positions: All other professional positions[A];
UNHCR: Total number of staff in these positions: 314;
UNHCR: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 35 (11.1%);
UNDP: Total number of staff in these positions: 996;
UNDP: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
125 (12.6%).
Professional positions: Total professional staff;
UNHCR: Total number of staff in these positions: 1,809;
UNHCR: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S.
citizens: 154 (8.5%);
UNDP: Total number of staff in these positions: 2,332;
UNDP: Number and percentage of these positions filled by U.S. citizens:
269 (11.5%).
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAE, and UNESCO data.
[A] All other professional staff includes: temporary staff (limited
fixed-term professionals at UNHCR and assignments of limited duration
at UNDP), JPOs, and consultants and contractors. While data provided by
the agencies did not differentiate between support and professional
level positions for consultants and contractors, UNDP indicated that 80
percent of these positions (known as Special Short-Term Assignments or
SSAs) are for temporary support functions. There were 635 SSAs at UNDP
in 2005.
[End of table]
As shown in table 9, at UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of U.S. citizens
in regular professional positions (staff under contracts of longer
fixed terms) averaged 65.4 percent of the total U.S. professional staff
compared with 34.6 percent for U.S. representation in all other, or
more temporary, professional positions. That is, there are relatively
more Americans in regular professional positions, 65.4 percent, than
there are Americans in all other professional positions, 34.6 percent.
Table 9: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Two UN
Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005:
Professional positions: Regular professional positions;
UNHCR: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 82.6%;
UNHCR: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 77.3%;
UNDP: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 57.3%;
UNDP: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 53.5%;
Average percentage of U.S. staff in these positions: 65.4%.
Professional positions: All other professional positions;
UNHCR: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 17.4%;
UNHCR: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 22.7%;
UNDP: Percentage of total staff in these positions: 42.7%;
UNDP: Percentage of total U.S. staff in these positions: 46.5%;
Average percentage of U.S. staff in these positions: 34.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR and UNDP data.
[End of table]
Americans Held Geographic and Nongeographic Policy-making and Senior
Level Positions at Three UN Agencies:
At IAEA and UNESCO, over 80 percent of the policy-making and senior-
level positions are geographic. However, these positions are more
evenly divided at the Secretariat, with 54 percent subject to
geographic designation and 46 percent not subject to geographic
designation. (See table 10).[Footnote 67]
Table 10: Policy-making and Senior-level Positions at Three UN
Agencies, 2005:
Secretariat: Geographic positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 330;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 54%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 46;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 14%.
Secretariat: Nongeographic positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 276;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 46%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 24;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 9%.
IAEA: Geographic positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 42;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 93%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 5;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 12%.
IAEA: Nongeographic positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 3;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 7%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 0;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 0%.
UNESCO: Geographic Positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 91;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 81%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 4;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 4%.
UNESCO: Nongeographic Positions;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Total number: 21;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Percentage of total number of
positions: 19%;
Policy-making and senior level positions: Number of positions held by
U.S. citizens: 1;
Policy- making and senior level positions: Percentage of positions held
by U.S. citizens: 5%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional
Positions at Five UN Agencies:
In "all grades," U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions at
the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO and in regular professional positions
at UNDP displays no trend at the 90 percent confidence level. However,
at UNHCR, U.S. representation decreased in regular professional
positions. Figure 5 shows the trends in U.S. representation, by grade,
at each agency.
Figure 5: Trends of U.S. Citizen Representation, by Grade, in
Professional Positions in Five UN Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP
data.
[A] Confidence level 90 percent or higher.
Notes:
For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, the trend analysis is for U.S.
citizens in geographic positions, 2001 through 2005;
the trend analysis covers 2001 through 2005 for UNHCR and UNDP and is
for U.S. citizens in regular professional positions since these
agencies do not have geographic positions. Regular professional
positions for UNHCR and UNDP include staff under contracts of longer
fixed-term (100-series contracts for UNHCR and 100-and 200-series for
UNDP).
Senior-level positions represent UN position levels D1 and D2, roughly
equivalent to U.S. government Senior Executive Service. Policy-making
positions represent UN position levels of Deputy or Assistant Director
General at IAEA and UNESCO and Under or Assistant Secretary General at
the Secretariat, UNHCR, and UNDP. UN position levels P1 to P3 are
roughly equivalent to U.S. government grade levels 9 to 12/13. UN
position levels, P4 and P5 are roughly equivalent to US government
grade levels 13 and 15.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 5, U.S. citizen representation in policy making and
senior level positions increased at IAEA and UNDP and increased in
entry level positions at UNESCO. However, U.S. citizen representation
in entry level positions decreased at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP. In
addition, U.S. citizen representation decreased in mid-level positions
at UNHCR, as well as over "all grades." The 90 percent confidence
interval does not imply statistical significance. Refer to our
methodology for calculating trends in app. I.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External
Hires:
Table 11 provides further information on the terms promotion, internal
hire, and external hire, as provided by each of the five UN agencies we
reviewed for the purposes of this report.
Table 11: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External Hires
at Five UN Agencies Provided for the Purposes of This Report:
Secretariat: Promotion: All promotions are internal. (See below.);
IAEA: Changes in grade for staff holding fixed-term and long-term
contracts resulting from competitive vacancy notice action. Merit
promotions and reclassification of posts are not competitive and are
not included in figure 1;
UNESCO: Appointment to a higher grade post after competition;
reclassification of post and promotion in a linked grade post whereby
the incumbent of a P1/P2 post moves from the P1 grade to the P2 are not
competitive and are not included in figure 1;
UNHCR: Official appointment to a higher grade post;
UNDP: Assignment at a higher level post (after competitive selection)
and/or demonstrated performance at the higher level based on time in
grade.
Secretariat: Internal: Staff currently serving under a 100-series
appointment, recruited after a competitive examination or after the
advice of a Secretariat joint body. Staff whose appointment is limited
to service in a particular department are not considered internal;
IAEA: Staff holding a contract with the IAEA at the time of their
application;
UNESCO: Staff members with an indeterminate or fixed-term contracts
(excluding Associate Experts) and temporary appointments;
UNHCR: Recruitment into the international professional category of
persons who are already UNHCR staff appointed on regular posts and with
regular contracts, including general service staff and National
Professional Officers;
UNDP: Staff who have had previous UNDP assignments (i.e., ALD).
Includes UNDP International Professional Staff 100-and 200-Rule Series,
or staff who have been in the UN Common System prior to joining UNDP.
Secretariat: External: All appointments are external and all external
posts are advertised. Includes those who have previous experience
working at the Secretariat;
IAEA: Staff not holding a contract with the IAEA at the time of their
application, including former staff members;
UNESCO: All other candidates, including those from the UN system not
mentioned above, are external;
UNHCR: Recruitment into the international professional category of
persons who may have had prior working experience with UNHCR (e.g.,
JPOs) but who were not appointed on a regular post through the
established appointment and postings procedures;
UNDP: Staff who are not internal are considered external, for the
purposes of GAO reporting on UNDP appointments.
Source: GAO compilation of information from the UN Secretariat, IAEA,
UNESCO, UNHCR and UNDP.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D. C. 20520:
AUG 18 2006
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, "United
Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN
Agencies," GAO Job Code 320364.
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
Lynette Podolsky, Program Analyst, Bureau of International
Organizational Affairs, at (202) 647-6396.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO - Cheryl Goodman:
IO - James B. Warlick:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report United Nations:
Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies
(GAO-06-988, GAO Code 320364):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment
at UN Agencies. The Department of State attaches high priority to
increasing the number of Americans at all professional levels in the
United Nations and other international organizations. This is the
second GAO review concerning issues relevant to this subject.
We appreciate GAO's recognition of the Department of State's increased
efforts to improve the representation of Americans in international
organizations. Nevertheless, we agree that more can be done and will
act on GAO's recommendations to this effect. We believe that the GAO
report reflects an important balance by highlighting some aspects of
international organization employment that are beyond U.S. control.
Specifically, we concur with GAO's recommendation that the websites of
the Department and U.S. missions should be expanded to include more
information relevant to employment in international organizations and
believe this can be done on a generic, and sometimes on an organization-
specific, basis. Although compensation practices vary by international
organization, and within organizations the salaries and benefits vary
by grade level, we will look into the feasibility of developing a
benefits calculator that surmounts the problems inherently involved
with such dissimilarities.
Also, we concur with the recommendation to expand targeted recruiting
and outreach and will attempt to more strategically reach populations
of Americans who may be interested in all professional level jobs, not
just the entry-and mid-level positions mentioned in the report.
Lastly, as recommended, we will evaluate the feasibility of 1)
establishing and maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for
professional and higher positions of particular interest to the U.S.
government and 2) the use of Junior Professional Officers or gratis
personnel where it would be in the interests of the U.S. government.
We appreciate GAO's recommendations in its report on some tangible ways
to improve the Department's outreach efforts. We will continue to work
with other U.S. agencies, U.S. missions, and the international
organizations themselves to try to increase the representation of
Americans on their rolls in professional positions.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above Cheryl Goodman, Assistant
Director; Jeremy Latimer; Miriam Carroll; Roberta Steinman; Barbara
Shields; and Joe Carney made key contributions to this report. Martin
De Alteriis, Bruce Kutnick, Anna Maria Ortiz, and Mark Speight provided
technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, United Nations: Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S.
Representation, GAO-01-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2001).
[2] The Secretariat and several UN organizations have quantitative
formulas that establish targets for equitable geographical
representation for designated professional and senior-level positions.
Other agencies have negotiated informal targets with the United States.
Some agencies, however, do not maintain any targets at all.
[3] In 1991, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary of
State to report annually on whether UN organizations with geographic
targets were meeting their targets for Americans and whether these
organizations were making good faith efforts to hire more Americans.
[4] The United Nations was founded in 1945, and the UN Secretariat,
headed by the Secretary-General, carries out the day-to-day work of the
organization. According to the UN Charter, the four purposes of the
organization are to maintain international peace and security;
develop friendly relations among nations;
cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect
for human rights;
and be a center for harmonizing the acts of nations.
[5] UNDP was formed in 1965 and is the UN's global development network.
UNDP works with countries to develop solutions to global and national
development challenges.
[6] IAEA was established in 1957, and works with its member states and
other partners to promote safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear
technologies. IAEA's mission focuses on safety and security, science
and technology, and safeguards and verification.
[7] UNESCO was founded in 1945 with the purpose of contributing to
peace and security by promoting nations' collaboration through
education, science, and culture to further respect for justice, the
rule of law, and human rights.
[8] UNHCR was established in 1950 with the mandate of leading and
coordinating international efforts to protect refugees and resolve
refugee problems. The organization's central purpose is to safeguard
the rights and well-being of refugees.
[9] As of December 31, 2004.
[10] Membership status refers to the right of each member state to a
number of positions. For example, in the UN Secretariat, a minimum of
about 1 to 14 positions are assigned to each member state. This
provision is especially important for countries with a relatively small
population and small UN assessment, which could receive only one
position if a minimum number of positions were not set.
[11] Member state contributions are the common factor used by UN
organizations to determine targets or ranges because the level of
budgetary contribution is an inherent factor in a state's membership in
the organization.
[12] Population size is used to ensure that member states are
represented in keeping with their respective demographic profiles.
[13] Exec. Order No. 11,552, 35 Fed. Reg. 13,569 (Aug. 24, 1970).
[14] 22 U.S.C. 276c-4.
[15] State also reports about UN organizations it deems to be of high
interest to the United States.
[16] GAO-01-839.
[17] State began reporting on this indicator in its Fiscal Year 2002
Performance and Accountability Report.
[18] Temporary positions at IAEA include staff on the following
contracts: fixed-term temporary assistance (FTA), fixed-term extra-
budgetary (FTE), monthly short term (MST), and cost-free experts (CFE),
the latter which are financed by member state governments.
[19] Between 2003 and 2005, UNESCO increased the number of U.S.
nationals employed in geographic positions from 21 to 30 professionals,
an increase of over 40 percent.
[20] If UNESCO continues to hire at the same rate that it has in the
past, U.S. representation would increase from its current level of 4.1
percent to 5.1 percent in 2010.
[21] We performed sensitivity analyses by varying the staff growth and
separation rates. We found that minor changes did not produce major
differences in the results.
[22] Americans comprised the largest number of geographic professionals
at every agency we reviewed, except UNESCO, where they ranked fourth.
[23] UN General Assembly, 60th Session. Investing in the United Nations
for a Stronger Organization Worldwide: Report of the Secretary-General
(A/60/692). 7 March 2006.
[24] UN General Assembly, 60th Session (A/60/692).
[25] The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) is an
independent expert body established by the UN General Assembly. Its
mandate is to regulate and coordinate the conditions of service of
staff in the UN common system, while promoting and maintaining high
standards in the international civil service.
[26] The UN common system represents common standards, methods, and
arrangements applied to salaries, allowances, and benefits for the
staff of the United Nations and those specialized agencies that have
entered into a relationship with it. The common system is designed to
avoid serious discrepancies in terms and conditions of employment, to
avoid competition in recruitment of personnel, and to facilitate the
inter change of personnel.
[27] UN General Assembly, 60th Session. Report of the International
Civil Service Commission for the year 2005. Supplement No. 30 (A/60/
30). 12 August 2005. Official Record.
[28] United Nations Secretariat, Secretary-General's Bulletin, Status,
Basic Rights and Duties of United Nations Staff Members (ST/SGB/2002/
13) 1 November 2002.
[29] Associate Experts, also known as Junior Professional Officers
(JPO) at other UN agencies, are entry-level employees that are
financially supported by their home country. The sponsoring country may
select candidates for the positions they fund, though the UN agency has
the final decisions as to which candidate actually is hired. The
standard length of Associate Expert and JPO appointments vary by donor,
however, most serve from 1 to 3 years.
[30] NCRE hiring data are averaged from 2001 through 2004. Associate
Expert retention data are averaged from 2001 through 2003. The average
percent of Associate Experts retained from 1990 through 2003 is 58
percent.
[31] To meet its geographic targets, the UN Secretariat recruits
employees for its entry-level (grades P1 through P3), geographically-
designated posts through the NCRE. The Secretariat invites citizens of
member states that are underrepresented or at risk of becoming
underrepresented to submit exam applications. A certain number of
individuals who meet all application requirements are invited to take
the exam and then must pass both written and oral portions. However,
for each country, a maximum number of 50 individuals may take the exam
per occupational group. If the number of applicants exceeds 50, only
the most qualified (as determined by the UN) will be allowed to take
the exam. Successful individuals are then put on a roster;
not all will actually be hired.
[32] The leading supporters of Associate Experts at the Secretariat, on
average from 2001 to 2005 are: Italy, Germany, Netherlands, France,
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Japan. See table 4.
[33] According to the Secretariat, the cost for sponsoring an Associate
Expert can vary substantially given the individual and the duty
station, ranging from approximately $100,000 to $200,000.
[34] This survey is cited in the following document, UN General
Assembly, 60th Session (A/60/692).
[35] Established to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic
energy to peace, health, and prosperity throughout the world, IAEA's
work requires much of its professional staff to be skilled in highly
technical areas such as nuclear engineering and physics. IAEA's demand
for qualified applicants will increase over the next 7 years as staff
members retire and 60 percent of the posts subject to geographic
distribution become vacant.
[36] White Paper: Obstacles to Recruiting U.S. Citizens for IAEA
Safeguards Positions. Prepared by the International Safeguards Project
Office, Brookhaven National Laboratory, April 2005, updated December
2005.
[37] Experts in the nuclear power field report that the growth of
nuclear capacity slowed greatly in the 1980s and 1990s due, in part, to
safety problems, the inability to dispose of nuclear waste, the
uncontrolled proliferation of fissile materials, and the lack of
economic competitiveness. As such, the demand for--and therefore the
training of--nuclear specialists decreased.
[38] According to IAEA officials, at any point in time, about 39
percent of the staff is granted long-term contracts and stay for more
than 7 years. The Director General decides every long-term contract
based on the program's need, diversity issues, and the person's age and
potential for growth.
[39] As an exception, UNESCO advertises D-level positions at
headquarters internally and externally, concurrently.
[40] U.N. Joint Inspection Unit. Review of Management and
Administration in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees. (JUI/REP/2004/4). Geneva, 2004.
[41] By the end of 2004, 83 percent of UNHCR's regular professional
staff held indefinite appointments. As of January 2006, 94 percent of
staff at the P-4 and P-5 levels held indefinite appointments.
[42] A senior UNDP official said that UNDP recently reviewed its
selection and placement process to address the issue of transparency
and the majority of UNDP staff commented favorably on the transparency
principles being met. However, UNDP declined to provide us with this
review, as it is an internal working document that includes other
sensitive information.
[43] One of the five staffers told us that she spends about 60 percent
of her time on UN employment issues. The other four staff work on these
issues full time.
[44] http://www.state.gov/p/io/empl/.
[45] State placed advertisements in the Dallas Morning News, Los
Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post.
[46] Executive Order 11552, issued in 1970, mandates that federal
agencies shall assist and encourage details and transfers of their
employees to international organizations and that State shall lead and
coordinate these efforts. The order also specifies that international
organization vacancies should be brought to the attention of well-
qualified federal employees and that upon the return of an employee to
his agency, the agency shall give due consideration to the experience
the employee may have gained during the detail or transfer.
[47] State reported that in fiscal year 2004, 168 federal employees
from 16 agencies served on transfer or detail to UN agencies. Of the 84
employees detailed to UN agencies, the vast majority were from the
Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, on assignment at the World Health Organization.
[48] Transferred employees are paid by the UN organization, while
detailed employees would remain on the U.S. agency's payroll.
[49] In addition to State's Bureau of International Organization
Affairs, participants in this network include the U.S. Mission in
Vienna, State's Bureau for International Security and Nonproliferation,
the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the
Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories.
[50] We define entry-level UN positions as positions in the P1 to P3
grade levels.
[51] APSIA also has 11 foreign schools as members.
[52] The National Peace Corps Association is a nonprofit organization
of returned Peace Corps volunteers, former staff, and friends that
works to foster peace through service, education, and advocacy.
[53] State's Office of Recruitment does not recruit Americans for UN
positions.
[54] JPO or Associate Expert positions are funded by member states for
2 or 3 years and provide opportunities for young professionals to gain
experience in UN organizations. While, upon completion of the programs,
these young professionals are not guaranteed employment at the agency
and must apply for positions through the regular process, UN officials
stated that the JPO experience provides applicants an advantage over
their competitors. For four of the five agencies we reviewed, JPOs and
Associate Experts must apply for regular positions as external
candidates. At UNDP, JPOs may apply as an internal candidate if they
apply before the end of their tenure.
[55] According to PRM officials, the bureau has funded 98 JPOs at UNHCR
since 1984.
[56] According to officials, Brookhaven and State's Bureau for
International Security and Non-Proliferation also fund Cost-Free
Experts at IAEA. These are technical specialists who work on short-term
projects at IAEA for periods of 1 to 3 years.
[57] IAEA did not provide JPO retention rate data.
[58] As with other UN employees, compensation for JPOs is determined on
an individual basis and takes into consideration marital status, number
of children, duty station, and several other factors.
[59] Throughout this report, UNDP data includes three UNDP
suborganizations: UN Development Fund for Women, UN Volunteers, and UN
Capital Development Fund.
[60] Membership status refers to the right of each member state to a
number of positions. For example, in the UN Secretariat, a minimum of
about 1 to 14 positions are assigned to each member state. This
provision is especially important for countries with a relatively small
population and small UN assessment, which could receive only one
position if a minimum number of positions were not set.
[61] Member state contributions are the common factor used by UN
organizations to determine targets or ranges because the level of
budgetary contribution is an inherent factor in a state's membership in
the organization.
[62] Population size is used to ensure that member states are
represented in keeping with their respective demographic profiles.
[63] At UNDP, 100-series contracts are issued for core functions. They
are fixed-term contracts. The 200-series contracts are used for project
posts.
[64] For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, nongeographic positions
include regular professional positions not subject to geographic
distribution, temporary positions, JPOs, and consultants and
contractors. For UNHCR and UNDP, nongeographic positions are all other,
nonregular professional staff, which includes temporary staff (limited
fixed term at UNHCR and assignments of limited duration at UNDP), JPOs,
and consultants and contractors.
[65] Specifically, we gathered information from 19 Americans employed
at the UN Secretariat, 28 at IAEA, 15 at UNESCO, 32 at UNHCR, and 18 at
UNDP.
[66] "All other" professional positions is analogous to nongeographic
in that "all other" and "nongeographic" both include temporary staff,
JPOs, and consultants and contractors. However, nongeographic positions
do include some regular professional positions for the 3 geographic
agencies.
[67] The 24 high-level nongeographic positions that Americans held at
the Secretariat in 2005 included 2 policy-making and 22 senior-level
positions. Significantly, the number of nongeographic policy-making
positions held by U.S. citizens declined at the Secretariat from 7
positions in 2001 to 2 in 2005, while the number of geographic policy-
making positions held by U.S. citizens has remained constant at 3.
During this time, there was virtually no change in the number of
geographic policy-making positions at the Secretariat, but the number
of nongeographic policy-making positions increased by 12 between 2004
and 2005.
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:
