United Nations Organizations
Enhanced Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies Gao ID: GAO-07-1152T August 1, 2007This testimony discusses ways to improve the representation of American professionals at United Nations (UN) organizations. The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some UN organizations and that insufficient progress has been made to improve U.S. representation. 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 the U.S. Department of State (State), Americans bring desirable skills, values, and experience that can have a significant impact on UN organizations' operational effectiveness. This testimony is based on a report that we issued on September 6, 2006. This testimoney will discuss (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 efforts to improve U.S. representation and additional efforts that can be taken.
The United States was 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 were underrepresented at IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR, and equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its target range. UNDP had not established a target for U.S. representation, although U.S. citizens filled 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. Summary While the UN agencies we reviewed faced some common barriers to recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also faced distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges were outside of the U.S. government's control. Six barriers common to UN agencies we reviewed included 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 combined with distinct agency-specific factors to impede recruitment and retention. For example, candidates serving in professional positions funded by their member governments were more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those who took the Secretariat's entry-level exam; however, the United States had not funded such positions at the Secretariat. In addition, IAEA had difficulty attracting U.S. employees because the number of U.S. nuclear specialists was decreasing. 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 U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking UN positions, and, although it was difficult to directly link State's efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in senior and policymaking positions 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 focused 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 declined or did not display a trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed. Additional options 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.
GAO-07-1152T, United Nations Organizations: Enhanced Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1152T
entitled 'United Nations Organizations: Enhanced Efforts Needed to
Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies' which was released on August
2, 2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, August 1, 2007:
United Nations Organizations:
Enhanced Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at UN Agencies:
Statement of Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
GAO-07-1152T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1152T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate
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. This testimony is based on GAO‘s September 2006 report
that reviewed (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) the U.S.
Department of State‘s (State) efforts to improve U.S. representation
and additional steps that can be taken. GAO reviewed five UN
organizations that together comprised about 50 percent of UN
organizations‘ total professional staff.
What GAO Found:
The United States was underrepresented in three of the five UN agencies
we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed to meet
employment targets. The three agencies where the United States was
underrepresented were the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and
the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). U.S.
citizens were equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though close
to the lower end of its target range. The UN Development Program had
not established a target for U.S. representation, although U.S.
citizens filled about 11 percent of its professional positions. Given
projected staff levels, retirements, and separations, IAEA, UNESCO, and
UNHCR would need to increase hiring of U.S. citizens to meet their
minimum targets for U.S. representation in 2010. While the five UN
agencies faced some common barriers to recruiting and retaining
professional staff, including Americans, they also faced distinct
challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges were outside of the
U.S. government‘s control. The common barriers included 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 faced
distinct challenges. For example, at the Secretariat, candidates
serving in professional UN positions funded by their governments were
more likely to be hired than those who took the entry-level exam;
however, the United States had not funded such positions at the
Secretariat. Also, IAEA had difficulty recruiting U.S. employees
because the number of U.S. nuclear specialists was decreasing. Since
2001, State has increased its efforts to achieve equitable U.S.
representation at UN agencies, and additional options exist. State
targeted efforts to recruit U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking
UN positions, and although it was difficult to link State‘s efforts to
UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions improved or
displayed no trend in the five UN agencies. U.S. representation in
entry-level positions, however, declined or did not show a trend in
four of the five UN agencies despite State‘s increased efforts.
Additional options include maintaining a roster of qualified U.S.
candidates, expanding marketing and outreach, 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 IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR hiring data.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommended 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 GAO‘s 2006 report, State
concurred with GAO‘s recommendations. In July 2007, State officials
updated GAO on the actions they have taken in response to these
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1152T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202)
512-6571 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to appear today to discuss ways to improve the
representation of American professionals at United Nations (UN)
organizations. The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the
underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some UN
organizations and that insufficient progress has been made to improve
U.S. representation. 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 the U.S. Department of State
(State), Americans bring desirable skills, values, and experience that
can have a significant impact on UN organizations' operational
effectiveness.
My testimony is based on a report that we issued on September 6,
2006.[Footnote 1] Today I will discuss (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 efforts to improve U.S. representation and additional
efforts that can be taken.
In preparing this testimony, we relied on our completed review of U.S.
government efforts to increase U.S. employment at UN agencies. To
address our objectives, we analyzed employment data for 2001 through
2005 that we obtained from five UN agencies; reviewed UN agency and
State documents; and interviewed UN human resources officials, over 100
Americans employed at the five UN agencies, and U.S. officials. We
reviewed the following five UN agencies: the International Atomic
Energy Agency[Footnote 2] (IAEA); the UN Secretariat; the UN
Development Program (UNDP); the UN Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We selected these agencies because
they represented a range of UN agencies with different funding
mechanisms and methods for calculating geographic representation. These
five agencies together comprised approximately 50 percent of UN
organizations' total professional staff. In July 2007, State officials
updated us on the actions they have taken in response to our September
2006 recommendations. We conducted our work for the September 2006
report from July 2005 through July 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Summary:
The United States was 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
were underrepresented at IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR, and equitably
represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its
target range. UNDP had not established a target for U.S.
representation, although U.S. citizens filled 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 faced some common barriers to
recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they
also faced distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges
were outside of the U.S. government's control. Six barriers common to
UN agencies we reviewed included 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 combined with distinct agency-specific
factors to impede recruitment and retention. For example, candidates
serving in professional positions funded by their member governments
were more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those who took the
Secretariat's entry-level exam; however, the United States had not
funded such positions at the Secretariat. In addition, IAEA had
difficulty attracting U.S. employees because the number of U.S. nuclear
specialists was decreasing.
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 U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking UN
positions, and, although it was difficult to directly link State's
efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in senior and
policymaking positions 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 focused 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 declined or
did not display a trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed.
Additional options 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, our report made several recommendations. We recommended 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. In July 2007, State officials said they had
begun to take some actions to implement our recommendations, such as
outreaching to new groups of Americans and completing a preliminary
analysis of the cost of maintaining a roster.
Background:
The United Nations comprises six principal bodies, including the
General Assembly and the Secretariat, as well as 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 has
developed its own human resource policies and practices, and staff
rules.
Of the five agencies we reviewed, three--the Secretariat, IAEA, and
UNESCO--had quantitative formulas that establish targets for equitable
geographical representation in designated professional positions. UNHCR
had not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to
geographic representation, but had agreed to an informal target for
equitable U.S. representation. UNDP generally followed the principle of
equitable geographic representation, but had not adopted 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 exempt from being counted
geographically include linguist and peacekeeping positions, positions
funded by extra-budgetary resources, and short-term positions. In
addition, these organizations utilize various nonstaff positions, such
as contractors and consultants.
The Department of State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for
leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. employment
representation in UN organizations. 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.
U.S. Was Underrepresented in Three of Five UN Agencies and Increased
Hiring of Americans Is Necessary to Meet Employment Targets:
U.S. citizens were 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 Were Underrepresented Relative to Targets at Three UN
Agencies:
Relative to UN agencies' formal or informal targets for equitable
geographic representation, U.S. citizens were underrepresented at three
of the five agencies we reviewed-IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. U.S. citizens
were equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though at the lower
end of its target range, while the fifth agency-UNDP-had not
established a target for U.S. representation. U.S. citizens filled
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 non- geographic 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 non- geographic 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 non- geographic 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 non-geographic 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 non- geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens[B]:
12.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP
data.
Note: Geographic targets were an average of 2004 and 2005 data. All
other percentages were based on 2005 data.
[A] UNHCR and UNDP did not have geographic positions; however, UNHCR
had 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 included 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
included 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 comprised nearly two thirds of
UNESCO's nongeographic staff; hence the U.S. percentage of
nongeographic positions did not reflect U.S. citizen employment in this
category. For UNHCR and UNDP, nongeographic positions were all other,
nonregular professional staff, which included temporary staff (limited
fixed term at UNHCR and assignments of limited duration at UNDP), JPOs,
and consultants and contractors. Agency-provided data 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) was 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.
As shown in table 2, U.S. citizen representation in geographic
positions in "all grades" between 2001 and 2005 had been declining at
UNHCR and displayed no clear trend 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
were determined by positive or negative average changes over the
period. For more information on our methodology, see GAO-06-988,
appendix I.
For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, the trend analysis was for U.S.
citizens in geographic positions from 2001 to 2005. For UNHCR and UNDP,
the trend analysis, also for 2001 to 2005, was for U.S. citizens in
regular professional positions since these agencies did not have
geographic positions. Regular professional positions for UNHCR and UNDP
included 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 were the Secretariat,
IAEA, and UNESCO. UNHCR did not have geographic positions, although it
had 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 policy-making 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 was indicated, U.S.
representation had 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. At UNHCR, the representation of U.S. citizens
in these positions grew steadily from 2001 to 2004, but declined in
2005.
Increased Hiring of Americans Needed to Meet Several UN Agencies'
Minimum Targets:
We estimated 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 had in recent years to achieve their
minimum targets by 2010, given projected staff levels, retirements, and
separations; otherwise, with the exception of UNESCO, 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, did 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 did 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 included 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
to 2005.
[C] The minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year,
25, was 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 maintained 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.
While Common Barriers to Increasing U.S. Representation Existed, UN
Agencies Also Faced Distinct Employment Challenges:
A combination of barriers, including some common factors as well as
agency-specific factors, adversely affected recruitment and retention
of professional staff, including Americans, at each of the five UN
agencies. These barriers combined with distinct agency-specific factors
to impede recruitment and retention.
Common Barriers Adversely Affected U.S. Representation at Several UN
Agencies:
We identified the following six barriers that affected U.S.
representation in the UN agencies we reviewed, though often to
differing degrees:
* Nontransparent human resource practices. A key barrier to American
representation across the five UN agencies was the lack of transparent
human resource management practices, according to Americans employed at
UN organizations. For example, some UN managers circumvented the
competitive hiring process by employing individuals on short-term
contracts--positions that were not vetted through the regular,
competitive process--for long-term needs.
* Limited external opportunities. Recruiting U.S. candidates was
difficult because agencies offered a limited number of posts to
external candidates. Each of the organizations we reviewed, except
IAEA, advertised professional vacancies to current employees before
advertising them externally in order to provide career paths and
motivation for their staff. We found that three of the five agencies--
UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP--filled 50 percent or more of new appointments
through promotions or with other internal candidates rather than by
hiring external candidates. IAEA filled a large percentage of its
positions with external candidates because, in addition to not giving
internal candidates hiring preference, the agency employed the majority
of its staff members for 7 years or less. Although the data indicated
that the Secretariat hired a significant percentage of external
candidates, the Secretariat's definition of "external candidates"
included staff on temporary contracts and individuals who had previous
experience working at the agency.
* Lengthy hiring process. The agencies' lengthy hiring processes can
deter candidates from accepting UN employment. For example, a report
from the Secretary General[Footnote 3] stated that the average hiring
process was too slow, taking 174 days from the time a vacancy
announcement was issued to the time a candidate was selected, causing
some qualified applicants to accept jobs elsewhere. Many Americans that
we interviewed concurred with the report, saying that it was difficult
to plan a job move when there was 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.
* 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, were not comparable with U.S. government and private
sector salaries. When candidates consider 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 a candidate had accepted a position. Incomplete or late
information hampered a candidate's ability to decide in a timely manner
whether a UN position was in his or her best interests. 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.
* Required mobility or rotation. UNHCR and UNDP required 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 were implementing similar policies. While IAEA
did not require its employees to change posts, it generally only hired
employees for 7 years or less. Such policies dissuaded 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 supported candidates applying for director-level, or higher,
posts, and put less emphasis on supporting candidates seeking lower-
level professional posts. 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 4]
Agency-specific Factors Adversely Affected U.S. Representation at
Several UN Agencies:
Distinct agency-specific factors also impeded recruitment and
retention. For example,
* Candidates serving in professional positions funded by their member
governments were more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those
who took the Secretariat's entry-level exam; however, the United States
had not funded such positions at the Secretariat. At the entry level,
hiring for professional positions was limited to an average of 2
percent of individuals invited to take the Secretariat's National
Competitive Recruitment Exam. In contrast, the Secretariat hired an
average of 65 percent of Associate Experts sponsored by their national
government.
* Continuing U.S. underrepresentation at the IAEA was 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 are
entering the nuclear field.
* The United States' 19-year withdrawal from UNESCO contributed to its
underrepresentation. 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.
* The difficult conditions that accompany much of UNHCR's work, coupled
with the requirement to change duty stations every 4 years, contributed
to attrition at the mid-career levels. 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.
* Several barriers to increasing U.S. representation were the leading
factors at UNDP and were also present at other UN agencies, according
to American employees and other officials. In addition, UNDP's
Executive Board had traditionally managed the organization with the
understanding that its staff be equally represented from northern
(mostly developed) and southern (mostly developing) countries, and had
recently focused on improving the north-south balance of staff at
management levels by increasing the hiring of candidates from southern
countries.
State Increased Efforts to Promote U.S. Representation, but Additional
Options Exist to Target Professional Positions:
State targeted its recruitment efforts for senior and policy-making UN
positions, and, although it was difficult to directly link State's
efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions
either improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies we
reviewed. State also increased its efforts to improve overall U.S.
representation; however, despite these efforts, U.S. representation in
entry-level positions declined or did not reflect a trend in four of
the five UN agencies. Additional options exist to target potential
pools of candidates for these positions.
State Recruiting Efforts Focused on Senior Positions, and U.S.
Representation in These Positions Improved or Showed No Trend:
State focused its recruiting efforts for U.S. citizen employment at UN
agencies on senior-level and policy-making positions because of the
influence that these positions have within the organization. Although
it is difficult to directly link State's efforts to UN hiring
decisions, the percentage of U.S. representation in senior and
policymaking positions either increased or did not display a trend at
each of the five UN agencies we reviewed between 2001 and 2005. The
U.S. share of senior and policymaking positions increased at IAEA and
UNDP, whereas the U.S. share of these positions at the other three UN
agencies displayed no trend over that period.
State 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 undertaken
several new initiatives in its role as the lead U.S. agency for
supporting and promoting the employment of Americans in UN
organizations. First, State increased resources for disseminating UN
vacancy information. State increased the number of staff positions from
two to five, and added a sixth person who worked part-time on UN
employment issues. One of the new staff focused on recruiting Americans
for senior-level positions at UN organizations.[Footnote 5] According
to State, the other staff have been recruiting candidates for
professional positions at career fairs and other venues; however, a
large portion of their work has been focused on providing information
to potential applicants and disseminating information on UN vacancies
and opportunities. In addition, State has increased outreach for the
Secretariat's annual National Competitive Recruitment Exam for entry-
level candidates by advertising it in selected newspapers. The number
of Americans invited to take the exam increased from 40 in 2001 to 277
in 2004. State reported that 178 Americans in 2007 were invited to take
the exam. Second, U.S. missions have shared U.S. representation reports
and discussed openings with UN officials. State prepares annual reports
to Congress that provide data on U.S. employment at UN agencies as well
as State's assessment of U.S. representation at selected UN
organizations and these organizations' efforts to hire more Americans.
State is providing these reports to UN agencies, as we recommended in
2001. U.S. mission officials told us that they periodically meet with
UN officials to discuss U.S. representation and upcoming vacancies.
Finally, State has increased coordination with U.S. agencies. In 2003,
State established an interagency task force to address the low
representation of Americans in international organizations. Since then,
task 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 6] 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 lacked 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 7] State also has been periodically meeting one-
on-one with U.S. agencies to discuss the employment situation and
recruiting efforts at specific UN organizations. A State official told
us that State's UN employment office meets with a few U.S. agencies per
year to discuss UN agency staffing issues.
Despite the new and continuing activities undertaken by State, U.S.
representation in entry-level positions 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.
Additional Options to Target Professional Positions Exist:
We identified several options to target U.S. representation in
professional positions, including the following:
* Maintaining a roster of qualified candidates. Prior to 2001, State
had maintained a roster of qualified American candidates for
professional and technical positions, but discontinued it. State
officials told us that they have not maintained a professional roster,
or the prescreening of candidates, despite the 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. Other
U.S. government and UN officials told us that some other countries
maintained rosters of prescreened, qualified candidates for UN
positions and that this practice was an effective strategy for
promoting their nationals. In July 2007, State officials said that they
began researching Internet-based options for compiling a roster of
potential U.S. candidates. State estimated the cost to set up such a
roster at about $100,000, but had not received funding for the roster.
* Expanding marketing and outreach activities. State had not taken
steps that could further expand the audience for its outreach efforts.
For example, while State had increased its coordination with other U.S.
agencies on UN employment issues and distributed the biweekly vacancy
announcements to agency contacts, U.S. agency officials that received
these vacancy announcements told us that they lacked the authority to
distribute the vacancies beyond their particular office or division.
One official commented that State had not established the appropriate
contacts to facilitate agency-wide distribution of UN vacancies, and
that the limited dissemination had 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 meetings. State also had not taken
advantage of opportunities to expand the audience for its outreach
activities. For example, State did not work with the Association of
Professional Schools of International Affairs to reach potential
candidates or advertise in some outlets that reach Peace Corps
volunteers. In July 2007, State officials said they continue to
outreach to new groups and attend new career fairs but have faced
difficulty in identifying pools of candidates with the required skills
and experience.
* Increasing and improving UN employment information on U.S. agency Web
sites. State's UN vacancy list and its UN employment Web site had
limitations. For example, the list of vacancies was not organized by
occupation, or even organization, and readers had to search the entire
list for openings in their areas of interest. Further, State's UN
employment Web site had limited information on other UN employment
programs and did 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 provided limited
information or tools to clarify common questions, such as those
pertaining to compensation and benefits. For example, the Web site did
not provide a means for applicants to obtain more specific information
on their expected total compensation, including benefits and U.S.
income tax. Since we issued our report, State has added a UN pamphlet
on benefits and compensation to its Web site. In July 2007, State
officials told us they are exploring ways to improve the information
available on UN compensation and benefits. For our 2006 report, we
reviewed 22 additional U.S. mission and U.S. agency Web sites, and they
revealed varying, and in many cases limited, information on UN
employment opportunities. Overall, 9 of the 22 U.S. mission and agency
Web sites did not have links to UN employment opportunities. Nearly 60
percent of the missions and agencies provided some information or links
to information on salaries and benefits. We updated our analysis in
July 2007 and found the situation had worsened somewhat. Eleven of the
22 U.S. mission and agency Web sites did not have links to UN
employment opportunities[Footnote 8] and only about 50 percent of these
Web sites provided some information or links to information on salaries
and benefits.
* Analyzing the costs and benefits of sponsoring JPOs. The U.S.
government sponsored JPOs at two of the five UN agencies that we
reviewed, but had not assessed the overall costs and benefits of
supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S. representation
across UN agencies. Among the five agencies, State had funded a long-
standing JPO program only at UNHCR, sponsoring an average of 15 JPOs
per year between 2001 and 2005. The Department of Energy's Brookhaven
National Laboratory also had supported two JPOs at IAEA since
2004.[Footnote 9] For four of the five agencies we reviewed,[Footnote
10] 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. The estimated
annual cost for these positions to the sponsoring government ranged
from $100,000 to $140,000 at the five UN agencies. State officials told
us in July 2007 that they had not assessed the overall costs and
benefits of supporting JPOs.
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, 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 10 percent of these positions at four of the five
agencies we reviewed. While State has 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.
Because equitable representation of Americans employed at UN
organizations has been a high priority for U.S. interests, we
recommended that the Secretary of State take the following 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.
In commenting on a draft of our 2006 report, State concurred with and
agreed to implement all of our recommendations. In July 2007, State
officials updated us on the actions they have taken in response to our
2006 report recommendations.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact
Thomas Melito, Director, at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. Other
major contributors to this testimony were Cheryl Goodman, Assistant
Director; Jeremy Latimer; Miriam Carroll; R.G. Steinman; Barbara
Shields; Lyric Clark; Sarah Chankin-Gould; Joe Carney; and Debbie
Chung. Martin De Alteriis, Bruce Kutnick, Anna Maria Ortiz, Mary
Moutsos, Mark Speight, and George Taylor provided technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S.
Employment at UN Agencies, GAO-06-988 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006).
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] JPO or Associate Expert positions are funded by member states for
periods of 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.
[5] State officials said this staff member left the department in June
2007.
[6] 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 vacancies in
international organizations 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.
[7] Transferred employees are paid by the UN organization, while
detailed employees would remain on the U.S. agency's payroll.
[8] Four of the six U.S. missions have Web sites. All four Web sites
have links to State's employment page.
[9] 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.
[10] IAEA did not provide JPO retention rate data.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
