Department of State
Human Capital Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign Assistance Responsibilities Gao ID: GAO-07-1153 September 28, 2007The Secretary of State has made foreign assistance a pillar of the department's Transformational Diplomacy Initiative and has sought better policy coordination, planning, and oversight by establishing a Director of Foreign Assistance (F Bureau). Even though the U.S. Agency for International Development has been the principal agency for development and humanitarian aid, the Department of State (State) has had a significant role delivering this type of assistance. Thus, it is essential that State have the right staff, with the right skills, in the right places to carry out its foreign assistance management responsibilities and ensure that U.S. funds are well spent. As requested, this report (1) describes the size and scope of development and humanitarian foreign assistance programs managed by State, (2) describes State's approaches to managing and monitoring such programs, and (3) evaluates State's processes for determining its human capital requirements for managing these programs.
In fiscal year 2006, State had about $4.7 billion available for development and humanitarian assistance activities, nearly double the amount it was responsible for managing in 2000. This funding supported, for example, programs aimed at alleviating poverty and the suffering of refugees, as well as funding international drug interdiction efforts. State primarily uses grants and cooperative agreements to deliver this type of assistance. State manages its development and humanitarian assistance programs centrally, obligating about 80 percent of the funds and making awards from headquarters. State uses a variety of oversight approaches. Grants officers and grants officer representatives have formal oversight responsibilities, but other staff also carry out functions informally. A mix of headquarters and overseas staff monitor program implementation. State's strategic workforce planning does not reflect its foreign assistance activities. A key principle of strategic workforce planning is to define the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future programmatic goals. State has not defined its staff needs to manage and monitor its foreign assistance programs and has not collected critical information on current staff with these responsibilities. Moreover, GAO found inconsistent training and skills requirements for staff involved in foreign assistance oversight. For example, grants officers--who are responsible for the legal aspects of entering into, amending, and terminating awards--must meet educational and training requirements, while grants officer representatives--who are delegated some monitoring responsibilities--do not. Further, a recent State survey suggests that Foreign Service officers overseas recognize that there is a gap in their foreign assistance management skills. Various State officials have concerns about the department's ability to effectively manage its development and humanitarian assistance. Finally, State has not used strategic workforce planning to align F Bureau budget reforms with staffing and skill requirements.
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-07-1153, Department of State: Human Capital Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign Assistance Responsibilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1153
entitled 'Department Of State: Human Capital Strategy Does Not
Recognize Foreign Assistance Responsibilities' which was released on
October 1, 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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Honorable:
Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
U.S. Senate:
September 2007:
Department Of State:
Human Capital Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign Assistance
Responsibilities:
GAO-07-1153:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1153, a report to the Honorable Richard G. Lugar,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Secretary of State has made foreign assistance a pillar of the
department‘s Transformational Diplomacy Initiative and has sought
better policy coordination, planning, and oversight by establishing a
Director of Foreign Assistance (F Bureau). Even though the U.S. Agency
for International Development has been the principal agency for
development and humanitarian aid, State has had a significant role
delivering this type of assistance. Thus, it is essential that State
have the right staff, with the right skills, in the right places to
carry out its foreign assistance management responsibilities and ensure
that U.S. funds are well spent. As requested, this report (1) describes
the size and scope of development and humanitarian foreign assistance
programs managed by State, (2) describes State‘s approaches to managing
and monitoring such programs, and (3) evaluates State‘s processes for
determining its human capital requirements for managing these programs.
What GAO Found:
In fiscal year 2006, State had about $4.7 billion available for
development and humanitarian assistance activities, nearly double the
amount it was responsible for managing in 2000. This funding supported,
for example, programs aimed at alleviating poverty and the suffering of
refugees, as well as funding international drug interdiction efforts.
State primarily uses grants and cooperative agreements to deliver this
type of assistance.
State manages its development and humanitarian assistance programs
centrally, obligating about 80 percent of the funds and making awards
from headquarters. State uses a variety of oversight approaches. Grants
officers and grants officer representatives have formal oversight
responsibilities, but other staff also carry out functions informally.
A mix of headquarters and overseas staff monitor program
implementation.
State‘s strategic workforce planning does not reflect its foreign
assistance activities. A key principle of strategic workforce planning
is to define the critical skills and competencies that will be needed
to achieve current and future programmatic goals. State has not defined
its staff needs to manage and monitor its foreign assistance programs
and has not collected critical information on current staff with these
responsibilities. Moreover, GAO found inconsistent training and skills
requirements for staff involved in foreign assistance oversight. For
example, grants officers”who are responsible for the legal aspects of
entering into, amending, and terminating awards”must meet educational
and training requirements, while grants officer representatives”who are
delegated some monitoring responsibilities”do not. Further, a recent
State survey suggests that Foreign Service officers overseas recognize
that there is a gap in their foreign assistance management skills.
Various State officials have concerns about the department‘s ability to
effectively manage its development and humanitarian assistance.
Finally, State has not used strategic workforce planning to align F
Bureau budget reforms with staffing and skill requirements.
Line Graph:
Funding Available for International Development and Humanitarian
Assistance, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006:
Vertical axis: Dollars in billions from 0.0 to 5.0:
Horizontal axis: Fiscal years 2000-2006.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. budget and State allotment reports.
[See PDF for image]
[End of graph]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that State (1) define the skills and competencies it
needs to manage its foreign assistance responsibilities and develop
critical information on staff currently doing so, and (2) develop a
strategy to address any gaps it identifies. State agreed with our
recommendations and plans to take appropriate action.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
hyperlink, http://www.GAO-07-1153]. For more information, contact Jess
Ford at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State's Amount of International Development and Humanitarian Assistance
Has Increased Significantly in Recent Years:
State Uses a Variety of Approaches to Manage and Monitor Development
and Humanitarian Assistance Programs:
State Does Not Use Strategic Workforce Planning to Support Its Foreign
Assistance Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Amounts Available from Each Part of the International
Affairs (function 150) Budget, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006:
Appendix III: State's Available Funding from Development and
Humanitarian Assistance Fiscal Accounts for Fiscal Years 2000 through
2006:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Development and Humanitarian Assistance Funding Available to
State for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2006, by Assistance Areas:
Table 2: Obligation of Funds during Fiscal Year 2006:
Table 3: Primary Monitoring Responsibilities:
Figures:
Figure 1: Five Types of International Affairs (function 150) Budget
Funding Available for Fiscal Year 2006:
Figure 2: State Funding Available for International Development and
Humanitarian Assistance, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006:
Abbreviations:
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor:
F Bureau: Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance:
FSI: Foreign Service Institute:
G/TIP: Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons:
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement:
INL: Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs:
MEPI: Middle East Partnership Initiative:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PRM: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 28, 2007:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Lugar:
The Secretary of State has designated foreign assistance as a pillar of
the Transformational Diplomacy Initiative, which aims to integrate U.S.
foreign assistance activities into overall diplomatic efforts.
Accordingly, in January 2006, the Secretary established the Office of
the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F Bureau) to serve as an
umbrella leadership structure for aligning foreign assistance policy,
planning, and oversight. According to the Director of the F Bureau,
foreign assistance is a mainstream commitment of the U.S. government,
because--in addition to its traditional objectives--it has been
elevated to a national priority as a core part of U.S. national
security strategy.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been and
remains the principal U.S. agency for delivering development and
humanitarian assistance, such as democracy and refugee programs, which
fall under the U.S. government's broad foreign assistance efforts.
Nonetheless, the Department of State (State) has a significant role in
providing this type of assistance. State received about $23 billion
from fiscal years 2000 through 2006 for delivering such assistance, and
annually it has been responsible for managing between 7 and 11 percent
of total U.S. government developmental and humanitarian assistance over
this time period. Due to this higher profile for foreign assistance in
State, it is essential that State have the right staff, with the right
skills, in the right places to implement its foreign assistance
management responsibilities and ensure that U.S. funds are well spent.
As you requested, this report (1) describes the size and scope of
development and humanitarian foreign assistance programs managed by
State; (2) describes State's approaches, including types of staff
involved, to managing and monitoring international development and
humanitarian assistance programs; and (3) evaluates State's processes
for determining its human capital requirements for managing foreign
assistance programs.
To determine the size and scope of State's development and humanitarian
assistance, we first reviewed U.S. budget documents and used State
allotment reports to capture the fiscal accounts that were available to
State for obligation between fiscal years 2000 and 2006. For the
purposes of this review, we defined foreign assistance management as
obligating funds, selecting grantees, making assistance awards, and
monitoring the implementation of development and humanitarian
assistance programs. To identify State's approaches to managing
programs, we reviewed program information and interviewed agency
officials. To assess foreign assistance human capital requirements, we
reviewed staffing, workload, and workforce planning data, and
interviewed agency officials. We focused on the portion of the
International Affairs budget defined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as development and humanitarian assistance, which includes
funding for Migration and Refugee Assistance, International Narcotic
Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), and other fiscal accounts.
[Footnote 1] We met with five functional bureaus/offices that manage
development and humanitarian assistance programs and all six regional
bureaus. We also met with officials of F Bureau, Bureau of
Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive; Bureau of Human
Resources; Bureau of Resource Management; the Foreign Service Institute
(FSI); State's Office of the Inspector General; and USAID. We
determined that the budget and obligations data we used were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, based on our
review of the reasonableness and consistency of methodology and
discussions with knowledgeable officials. We conducted our review
between August 2006 and August 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. A detailed description of our
scope and methodology is included in appendix I of this report.
Results in Brief:
State had about $4.7 billion available in fiscal year 2006 for its
development and humanitarian assistance activities, which was nearly
double the amount it was responsible for managing in fiscal year 2000.
These amounts consisted mostly of annual appropriations and unused
portions from previous years. This increased funding, and related
management responsibilities, supported activities in such areas as
economic, social, and political assistance; and it included programs
aimed at alleviating poverty, alleviating the suffering of refugees, as
well as international drug interdiction efforts. Most of the increase
in available funding was from fiscal accounts that are annually
appropriated to State, such as (1) the migration and refugee assistance
account and (2) the INCLE and Andean Counterdrug Initiative accounts.
About a quarter of the overall increase was from other fiscal accounts,
such as the economic support fund account and the assistance for
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States account. Many State bureaus manage
development and humanitarian assistance funding, primarily through the
use of grants and cooperative agreements.
State uses a variety of approaches to manage its foreign assistance
responsibilities. The bureaus and offices principally responsible for
this assistance obligated about 80 percent of their funds and awarded
the majority of their grants and cooperative agreements from
headquarters. A variety of staff are involved in managing State's
foreign assistance activities. Some employees, such as grants officers,
are formally assigned managerial and monitoring roles and
responsibilities, while others are not. The location of staff that
monitor the implementation of the programs varies. Seven of the bureaus
have no assigned overseas staff and rely mainly on headquarters staff
to monitor the implementation of some of their grants. Three of the
State bureaus we visited have overseas staff specifically assigned to
monitor the implementation of their programs overseas. For example, the
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) has 22 refugee
coordinators assigned to overseas posts to oversee the bureau's refugee
activities.
State's strategic workforce planning does not reflect its foreign
assistance activities. A key principle of strategic workforce planning
is to define the critical skills and competencies that will be needed
to achieve current and future programmatic goals. However, State has
not identified the skills and competencies needed by its staff to
manage and monitor foreign assistance activities and has not collected
critical information on current staff with foreign assistance
management responsibilities. For example, most of the bureaus we
visited could only provide estimates of the number of staff working on
their foreign assistance programs. Moreover, we found that State has
inconsistent training and skills requirements for staff involved in
foreign assistance oversight. We found, for example, grants officers--
who are responsible for the legal aspects of entering into, amending,
and terminating awards--must meet educational and training
requirements, while grants officer representatives in some State
Bureaus--who are delegated some of these monitoring responsibilities--
do not have to meet such requirements. Further, a recent survey
conducted by State suggests that Foreign Service officers overseas
recognize that there is a gap in their foreign assistance management
skills. Grant officers and other officials whom we spoke with have
concerns about the department's ability to effectively carry out its
grant management responsibilities. Finally, State has not used
strategic workforce planning to align the efforts of the F Bureau to
reform the foreign assistance budget with staffing and skill
requirements.
This report recommends that the Secretary of State (1) take steps to
define the skills and competencies the department's employees need to
manage foreign assistance responsibilities, including developing
information on the number and type of staff who are currently managing
foreign assistance programs, their roles and responsibilities,
workload, experience, and training; and (2) develop a strategy to
address any gaps it identifies.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of State
generally concurred with the report's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations and described steps it plans to take to address the
recommendations. For example, the Bureau of Human Resources will define
critical skills and competencies needed by all State employees managing
foreign assistance. Nevertheless, State expressed concern that our
draft did not adequately reflect the department's oversight of its
foreign assistance programs and described PRM's monitoring and
evaluation procedures as an example. We have included additional
details on PRM's monitoring efforts throughout the report as
appropriate.
Background:
Development and humanitarian assistance is one of five parts of the
International Affairs (function 150) budget that support U.S.
government foreign assistance efforts. Development and humanitarian
assistance includes State and USAID assistance activities, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, Treasury
contributions, and, from fiscal year 2003 through 2006, spending for
the relief and reconstruction of Iraq. In fiscal year 2006, development
and humanitarian assistance made up $44 billion,[Footnote 2] or just
over one-half of the total $84 billion of International Affairs
(function 150) budget funds available to support foreign assistance
(see fig. 1).[Footnote 3]
Figure 1: Five Types of International Affairs (function 150) Budget
Funding Available for Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Pie chart depicting the following categories of budget funding:
International Development and Humanitarian Assistance (151), 44.3
billion (52%);
International Financial Programs (155), 18.0 billion (21%);
Conduct of Foreign Affairs (153), 14.9 billion (18%);
International Security Assistance (152), 5.7 billion (7%);
Foreign Information and Exchange Activities (154), 1.3 billion (2%).
Source: GAO analysis of actual fiscal year 2006 data as reported in the
fiscal year 2008 International Affairs (150) budget.
Note: Includes funding available for obligation in fiscal year 2006
regardless of when funds were appropriated.
[End of figure]
The four other types of funding in the International Affairs (function
150) budget that support foreign assistance activities include the
following:
* International security assistance, to finance and train foreign
militaries, promote nonproliferation activities, and support
international peacekeeping operations;
* The conduct of foreign affairs, which fund the salaries, information
technology, housing, and security for State staff, including those with
responsibilities to administer and monitor foreign assistance
activities;
* Foreign information and exchange activities, which include fiscal
accounts supporting education, cultural exchange activities, and U.S.
broadcasts overseas; and:
* International financial programs, which primarily support the
International Monetary Fund and the Export-Import Bank of the United
States.
(See app. II for a break down of budget amounts available from each
part of the International Affairs (function 150) budget in recent
years.)
Of the total $44 billion of development and humanitarian assistance
available in fiscal year 2006, State received about $5 billion, or 11
percent.[Footnote 4] Other agencies received more of these funds,
including USAID, which received about $15 billion, or 34 percent, and
the Department of Treasury, which received about $13 billion, or about
30 percent.
In January 2006, the Secretary of State established F Bureau to serve
as an umbrella leadership structure for coordinating all foreign
assistance policy, planning, and oversight. The purpose of this
reorganization was to:
* ensure that foreign assistance is used as effectively as possible to
meet broad foreign policy objectives,
* more fully align the foreign assistance activities carried out by the
Department of State and USAID, and:
* demonstrate responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
In announcing these changes, the Secretary noted that "the current
structure of America's foreign assistance risks incoherent policies and
ineffective programs and perhaps even wasted resources."
The director of U.S. Foreign Assistance serves concurrently as the
USAID Administrator, and has authority over all State and USAID foreign
assistance funding and programs.[Footnote 5] According to State, the F
Bureau provides coordination and guidance to all foreign assistance
delivered through other agencies and entities of the U.S. government.
Specifically, the director was given authority over program planning,
implementation, and oversight of the various bureaus and offices within
State and USAID, to:
* develop a coordinated U.S. government foreign assistance strategy,
including developing 5-year country specific assistance strategies and
annual country-specific assistance operational plans;
* create and direct consolidated policy, planning, budget and
implementation mechanisms and staff functions required to provide
umbrella leadership to foreign assistance;
* provide guidance to foreign assistance delivered through other
agencies and government entities, including the Millennium Challenge
Corporation and the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator; and:
* direct the required transformation of the government's approach to
foreign assistance in order to achieve the President's Transformational
Development Goals.
State's Amount of International Development and Humanitarian Assistance
Has Increased Significantly in Recent Years:
State's funding available for international development and
humanitarian assistance, such as democracy promotion, drug
interdiction, and refugee assistance, nearly doubled between fiscal
years 2000 and 2006. State uses certain fiscal budget accounts to fund
its development and humanitarian assistance programs, with accounts
related to refugees and international narcotics control providing the
most funding.
Funding Available for State's International Development and
Humanitarian Assistance Doubled between 2000 and 2006:
State's funding for international development and humanitarian
assistance nearly doubled from $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4.7
billion in fiscal year 2006. This increase in the funds available each
year for obligation meant more management responsibilities for State.
This funding consisted primarily of annual congressional appropriations
and unused portions from previous fiscal years, but it excluded money
that State allocated to other agencies to obligate. After decreasing
slightly in fiscal year 2001, the available funding increased steadily
through fiscal year 2006, with the sharpest increases coming after
fiscal year 2003 (see fig 2).
Figure 2: State Funding Available for International Development and
Humanitarian Assistance, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006:
Vertical axis: Dollars in billions from 0.0 to 5.0:
Horizontal axis: Fiscal years 2000-2006.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. budget and State allotment reports.
[See PDF for image]
Note: From 2003 to 2006 supplemental funding for Iraq reconstruction
were included.
[End of figure]
These increased amounts varied by assistance areas (see table 1). About
a quarter of the overall increase in funding available to State was
from (1) fiscal accounts annually appropriated to the President, such
as the economic support fund account, and (2) the assistance for
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States account--which fund assistance in
areas such as economic support, democracy promotion, and efforts to
combat human trafficking. However, most of the increase was from
migration and refugee assistance, Global HIV/AIDS assistance, INCLE,
and drug interdiction accounts that are annually appropriated to
State.[Footnote 6]
Table 1: Development and Humanitarian Assistance Funding Available to
State for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2006, by Assistance Areas Dollars
(rounded) in millions:
Assistance areas: Economic support, democracy promotion, human
trafficking;
2000: $58;
2006: $705.
Assistance areas: Migration and refugee assistance;
2000: $819;
2006: $947.
Assistance areas: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative;
2000: N/A;
2006: $251.
Assistance areas: Iraq Reconstruction;
2000: N/A;
2006: $282.
Assistance areas: Contributions to international organizations;
2000: $309;
2006: $308.
Assistance areas: International narcotics, law enforcement, and drug
interdiction;
2000: $1,207;
2006: $2,153.
Assistance areas: Other humanitarian assistance;
2000: $3;
2006: $9.
Source: GAO analysis of the U.S. budget and State allotment reports.
[End of table]
The amounts appropriated by Congress to particular areas do not always
match the amounts available to State each year because appropriated
funds may be available for obligation for more than a year or
transferred to other agencies.[Footnote 7] For example, according to
State officials, State allocates most of the funding that it is
appropriated from the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative account to other
agencies, which then obligate the funds. For instance, in fiscal year
2006, State allocated over 90 percent of the nearly $2 billion Global
HIV/AIDS Initiative appropriation to USAID, the departments of Health
and Human Services and Labor, and others. State also received funding
from the supplemental appropriation for Iraq Reconstruction.[Footnote
8] (See app. III for a breakdown of State's funding from development
and humanitarian assistance fiscal accounts for fiscal years 2000
through 2006).
Many State Bureaus Manage Certain Types of Development and Humanitarian
Assistance:
Many State bureaus are responsible for managing at least some types of
development and humanitarian assistance funds. Fifteen State functional
bureaus and all six regional bureaus have received development and
humanitarian assistance funds to some degree since fiscal year 2000.
The primary users of this funding among the bureaus include the
following:
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL);
* The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP);
* Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM);
* The Office of the U.S. Global HIV/AIDS Coordinator;
* Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL):
* Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; and:
* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.
These bureaus and offices that manage development and humanitarian
assistance rely on funding from particular assistance accounts. DRL and
G/TIP primarily receive funds from the economic support fund to manage
their respective programs.[Footnote 9] In addition, G/TIP receives some
funds from the INCLE fiscal account. PRM manages money from the
migration and refugee assistance and emergency refugee migration
assistance accounts, and the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator
manages money from State's Global HIV/AIDS initiative fiscal account.
INL manages most of State's funding from the INCLE account, and it
manages all of State's funding from the Andean counterdrug initiative
account. The Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs manages
assistance for Eastern Europe and Baltic States and the assistance for
the independent states of the former Soviet Union accounts. Finally,
the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs uses funds from the economic support
fund to manage its Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) democracy
promotion programs.
State does not always obligate all of its available funds each year.
State's authority to commit unobligated funds for spending can be
carried over to the following year or may expire, depending on how long
Congress makes the appropriated funding available. State obligates
funds on particular foreign assistance activities as it awards grants,
enters into contracts, and enters into cooperative agreements.[Footnote
10]
State primarily uses grants and cooperative agreements to fund
development and humanitarian assistance activities. State defines a
grant as assistance used to support a public purpose, but for which no
substantial involvement by government is anticipated. A cooperative
agreement is a type of grant that State uses if it anticipates
substantial government involvement during the course of the agreement.
There are exceptions to State's reliance on grants and cooperative
agreements for delivering foreign assistance. PRM primarily uses
voluntary contributions to deliver foreign assistance through
international organizations. According to PRM officials, voluntary
contributions do not have the same terms or conditions required for
grants or cooperative agreements, but PRM contribution letters require
international organizations to maintain financial reports and
accounting records, provide documentation for payment requests, and
submit published program and financial reports to PRM in accordance
with each international organizations' policies and procedures.
According to State, INL mainly delivers its assistance through
bilateral agreements with foreign governments.[Footnote 11]
State Uses a Variety of Approaches to Manage and Monitor Development
and Humanitarian Assistance Programs:
State primarily manages its development assistance and humanitarian
programs centrally, obligating the majority of the funds and making the
assistance awards from State headquarters in Washington, D.C. Grants
officers and grants officer representatives have formal oversight
responsibilities, though other staff also carry out such functions
informally. A mix of headquarters and overseas staff monitor the
implementation of program activities, and only a few bureaus have staff
overseas specifically assigned to their programs.
Most Programs are Centrally Managed:
State generally carries out its program planning, solicitation of
proposals, selection of grantees, and approval of the release of funds
for overseas programs from its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The
major bureaus and offices that are responsible for development and
humanitarian assistance made assistance awards and obligated the
majority of their funds--about 77 percent of the $2.6 billion[Footnote
12] in total obligations in 2006--from their headquarters in
Washington. Three bureaus and one office--PRM, DRL, the Bureau of South
and Central Asian Affairs and the Office of the Global HIV/AIDS
Coordinator--obligated all of their funds from headquarters during
fiscal year 2006. An exception was the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, for which overseas posts obligated 86 percent of the funds.
Generally, funds were obligated for assistance awards to U.S.-based
nongovernmental organizations with ties to overseas organizations. The
bureaus and offices in our scope awarded over 7,000 grants and
cooperative agreements totaling about $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2006.[Footnote 13] Table 2 shows funds obligated in Washington and
overseas during fiscal year 2006 for these bureaus and offices.
Table 2: Obligation of Funds during Fiscal Year 2006; Dollars (rounded)
in millions:
Bureau/Office: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement[A];
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: $659;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: $470;
Operating expenses: $53;
Total assistance account obligations: $1,182;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 56%.
Bureau/Office: Population, Refugees, and Migration;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 995;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0;
Operating expenses: 23;
Total assistance account obligations: 1,017;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 98%.
Bureau/Office: Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 160;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0;
Operating expenses: 1;
Total assistance account obligations: 161;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 99%.
Bureau/Office: Trafficking in Persons;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 20;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 2;
Operating expenses: 0;
Total assistance account obligations: 22;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 89%.
Bureau/Office: Global HIV/AIDS Coordinator;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 3;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0;
Operating expenses: 11;
Total assistance account obligations: 14;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 24%.
Regional bureaus: European and Eurasian Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 60;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 15;
Operating expenses: 3;
Total assistance account obligations: 78;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 77%.
Regional bureaus: Near Eastern Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 52;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 4;
Operating expenses: 0;
Total assistance account obligations: 56;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 93%.
Regional bureaus: African Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 28;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0.7;
Operating expenses: 0;
Total assistance account obligations: 28;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 98%.
Regional bureaus: Western Hemisphere Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 4;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0.4;
Operating expenses: 0.2;
Total assistance account obligations: 4.6;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 87%.
Regional bureaus: East Asian and Pacific Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 0.5;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 3;
Operating expenses: 0;
Total assistance account obligations: 3.5;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 14%.
Regional bureaus: South and Central Asian Affairs;
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: 0.2;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: 0;
Operating expenses: 0;
Total assistance account obligations: 0.2;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 100%.
Total:
Program expenses obligated at headquarters: $1,981;
Program expenses obligated by overseas posts: $495;
Operating expenses: $91;
Total assistance account obligations: $2,567;
Percent obligated for program expenses at headquarters: 77%.
Source: Department of State.
Note: Operating expenses were only counted if they came out of economic
support funds or a development and humanitarian assistance account.
[A] INL also receives funding from the assistance for Eastern Europe
and Baltic States and assistance for the independent states of the
former Soviet Union accounts that is not included in this table.
[End of table]
Assistance awards and funds obligated by overseas posts were small in
comparison with those obligated at headquarters. For example, in fiscal
year 2006 the overseas posts, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, obligated about $4 million in MEPI funds,
compared with over $50 million obligated at headquarters. The bureau's
regional office in Tunis obligated and disbursed the bulk of the $4
million to be used for small grants of no more than $100,000 (the
grants were generally $25,000 or less). In addition, some bureaus allot
small amounts of funds to overseas posts for grants up to $20,000. For
example, PRM administers the Ambassador's Fund for Refugees, which
generally supports small projects, such as digging a well in a refugee
camp. PRM allotted $578,000 to U.S. embassies, primarily in Africa, for
such activities in fiscal year 2006. G/TIP administers a similar
program, the Ambassador's Fund for Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Initiative, typically in Africa, for public awareness campaigns. In
2006 G/TIP had 54 active grants totaling about $4.9 million. Twenty-
nine of the 54 grants were for small grants of $20,000.
Grants Officers and Grants Officer Representatives Have Formal
Oversight Responsibilities:
Grants officers are responsible for the legal aspects of entering into,
amending, and terminating awards. Such actions include the following:
* approving the initial determination by the program office of the
appropriate assistance instrument to be utilized;
* determining a potential recipient's responsibility and management
competence in carrying out a planned activity;
* preparing the award with the departmentwide standard award form;
* preparing and executing amendments to awards such as adjustments to
the scope, budget, and period of performance; and:
* carrying out all other responsibilities, as required, to ensure
prudent award and administration of assistance for State within the
scope of all applicable State policies, OMB circulars, and federal
regulations.
State has 39 grants officers, including 10 that work directly for the
Office of Acquisitions Management of State's Bureau of Administration.
Five of the Administrative Bureau grants officers are responsible for
awarding grants for DRL, G/TIP, and all of the regional bureaus as well
as nine other bureaus. The Procurement Executive within the Bureau of
Administration provides overall leadership of the procurement and
grants functions for the Department of State and issues procurement and
grants policy, provides quality assurance and statistical reporting,
and appoints grants officers. Four of the seven primary bureaus
delivering development and humanitarian assistance have grants officers
assigned to their programs: PRM and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
each have five grants officers, INL has two, and the Bureau of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs has one. The Administrative Bureau grants
officers serve as a resource to overseas posts as well as to program
and regional bureaus that have their own grants officers.
Some of the grants officers' duties are delegated to other staff. State
Policy Directive 16 authorizes grants officers to designate technically
qualified personnel as grants officer representatives to assist in
grants management. The directive is mandatory for domestic grant
activities, which according to State's Office of the Procurement
Executive means awards granted by a U.S-based grants officer, and is
recommended for overseas grant activities. Grants officer
representatives are responsible for ensuring that State exercises
prudent management and oversight of the award. The representatives
receive an official designation letter when they are appointed that
describes their authorities and responsibilities. Some of the grants
officer representatives' authorities and responsibilities include the
following:
* coordinating and consulting with the grantee on all programmatic,
scientific, and/or technical matters that may arise in the
administration of the grant;
* evaluating project performance to ensure compliance with the grant
terms and conditions;
* assisting the grantee in problem identification and resolution;
* promptly notifying the grants officers in writing of any
noncompliance or deviation in performance or failure to make progress;
* visiting the grantee's place of performance to evaluate progress or
problems, with prior approval from the grants officers;
* promptly submitting findings to the grants officers through a trip
report after visiting the grantee's location of performance;
* receiving and reviewing required grantee reports (progress,
financial, or other) on behalf of the government to ensure they are
timely and complete; and:
* preparing a statement of satisfactory performance, or a statement of
any deviations, shortcomings, shortages, or deficiencies upon
completion of the grant.
The grants officer representative designation letter also describes the
limitations to the grants officer representative's authority. For
example, the grants officer representative does not have the authority
to modify or alter the grant or any of its terms and conditions.
However, not all staff responsible for monitoring the implementation of
foreign assistance activities receive formal appointments as grants
officer representatives. For example, PRM grant officials told us that
PRM does not designate its staff as grants officer
representatives.[Footnote 14] State's Procurement Executive officials
could not tell us the extent to which staff from the six regional
bureaus and the overseas posts were officially designated as grants
officer representatives. PRM officials said the primary responsibility
for monitoring PRM program activities rests with its refugee
coordinators,[Footnote 15] and that these staff are aware of their
oversight responsibilities although they do not receive a formal
designation letter. Further, the officials said each PRM grant and
cooperative agreement formally designates grant monitoring
responsibilities. In addition, the PRM officials said that the bureau
sends the refugee coordinators instructions on monitoring and
evaluating the grants when it notifies them of grant awards.
State Uses Headquarters and Overseas Staff to Monitor Assistance
Activities:
A variety of headquarters and overseas staff--regardless of whether
they are officially assigned to a program or formally appointed as
grants officer representatives--are responsible for monitoring foreign
assistance activities. Monitoring is an important control to ensure
that grantees comply with applicable rules and regulations. Federal
monitoring requirements are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations
and OMB circulars such as OMB Circular A110, which, in part, states
that federal agencies prescribe the frequency of performance reports,
obtain financial information from grantees, and make site visits as
needed.[Footnote 16] The grants officer determines the monitoring
activities that will be required to ensure that a recipient is in
adherence with department, bureau, and program requirements. State
includes its monitoring requirements in the individual grant or
cooperative agreement--which commits the department to exercise federal
stewardship responsibility, including, but not limited to performing
site visits; reviewing and responding to performance, technical, or
subject matter, and financial reporting and audits--to ensure that the
objectives, terms, and conditions of the award are accomplished.
The bureaus in our scope that obligated the greatest amount of
development and humanitarian assistance funds--PRM and INL--have
overseas staff specifically assigned to manage and monitor their
programs. PRM has about 22 full-time Foreign Service officers serving
as refugee coordinators at 18 overseas posts to oversee refugee
programs. Many of the coordinators have regional responsibility over a
number of countries, and are assisted by Foreign Service nationals. PRM
processed 481 grant, cooperative agreement, and contribution funding
actions in fiscal year 2006. INL, which primarily provides foreign
assistance through bilateral agreements with foreign governments, uses
about 35 Foreign Service officers and 428 Foreign Service nationals
overseas who are assigned to manage its programs in about 47 locations
overseas.
DRL and G/TIP rely mainly on headquarters staff to monitor their
programs. DRL--which obligated considerably more funds than the
remaining bureaus--uses its 36 headquarters policy analysts and program
officers to monitor program implementation, including the overseas
activities of the grantees. DRL staff monitor grant activities, as
follows:
* maintaining contact with grantees, often through e-mail and meetings
in Washington, D.C.;
* reading grantee quarterly reports to assess how well grantees are
meeting their goals and objectives; and:
* holding semiannual, internal review panels to determine whether each
grant requires follow-up.
DRL staff may also make monitoring trips to the projects in order to
assess the grant. G/TIP, which receives a comparatively small amount of
funds, uses a similar process for monitoring its centrally managed
programs from headquarters. Although these bureaus use headquarters
staff for monitoring, they also request assistance from the overseas
posts. For example, DRL encourages the overseas posts to review
proposals, attend events that grantees hosts in their country, send
feedback to DRL, visit grantees regularly, and meet with DRL staff
during their visits. G/'TIP also encourages overseas staff to visit its
centrally managed grants. However, DRL officials stated that they
cannot directly task overseas staff to monitor their programs, because
any help overseas staff provide to DRL is beyond the overseas staffs'
assigned duties.
Five of the six regional bureaus generally use their headquarters' desk
officers and varying levels of assistance from the overseas posts to
monitor their programs. The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs--which
obligated a small amount of funds compared with PRM and INL--has full-
time coordinators for MEPI. All of these staff are locally engaged, and
are located at five overseas posts in Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Egypt,
and Morocco. In addition, overseas posts are responsible for monitoring
the implementation of the small grants they award. Table 3 shows the
primary location of staff primarily responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the foreign assistance activities of the bureaus and
offices within the scope of our review.
Table 3: Primary Monitoring Responsibilities:
Bureau/Office: International Narcotics and Law Enforcement;
Headquarters staff: [Empty];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Check];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Empty].
Bureau/Office: Population, Refugees, and Migration;
Headquarters staff: [Empty];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Check];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Empty].
Bureau/Office: Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Empty].
Bureau/Office: Trafficking in Persons;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Empty].
Regional bureaus: European and Eurasian Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Empty];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Check];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Check].
Regional bureaus: Near Eastern Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Check];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Check].
Regional bureaus: African Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Check].
Regional bureaus: Western Hemisphere Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Check].
Regional bureaus: East Asian and Pacific Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Check].
Regional bureaus: South and Central Asian Affairs;
Headquarters staff: [Check];
Overseas staff assigned to specific program: [Empty];
Overseas staff not specifically assigned to program: [Empty].
Source: Department of State.
Note: The Office of the Global Aids Coordinator is not included because
other U.S. agencies account for the use of Global HIV/AIDS funds.
[End of table]
State Does Not Use Strategic Workforce Planning to Support Its Foreign
Assistance Efforts:
A key principle of strategic workforce planning is to define the
critical skills and competencies that will be needed to achieve current
and future programmatic goals.[Footnote 17] However, State does not
have an accurate picture of the number and type of staff responsible
for overseeing and monitoring foreign assistance responsibilities.
Without this critical information, State cannot develop strategies,
such as training, to address any gaps in the number, skills, and
competencies of its workforce--another key strategic workforce planning
principle. Internal control standards also require that all personnel
possess and maintain a level of competence that allows them to
accomplish their assigned duties.[Footnote 18] We found that State has
inconsistent training and skills requirements for staff involved in
foreign assistance oversight. For example, grants officers--who are
responsible for the legal aspects of entering into, amending, and
terminating awards--must meet educational and training requirements,
while grants officer representatives in some State Bureaus--who are
delegated some of these monitoring responsibilities--do not have to
meet such requirements. In addition, grants officers responsible for
awarding grants for several of the bureaus within the scope or our work
and other officials whom we met with in State's Bureau of
Administration expressed concern about their ability to handle their
grant monitoring responsibilities because of workload, staffing, and
training issues. Finally, State has not used strategic workforce
planning to align the efforts of its recently established Office of the
Director of Foreign Assistance to reform the foreign assistance budget
with staffing and skill requirements.
State Has Not Determined Foreign Assistance Skills Requirements:
We have developed a model of strategic human capital planning to help
agency leaders effectively use their personnel, or human capital, and
determine how well they integrate human capital considerations into
daily decisionmaking and planning for the program results they seek to
achieve. Our human capital model is consistent with similar efforts by
OMB and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop federal
human capital standards.[Footnote 19] Under the principles of effective
workforce planning an agency should determine the critical skills and
competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future
programmatic results. State needs people with foreign assistance
management skills and competencies to achieve its development and
humanitarian goals and objectives. Agencies can take a range of
approaches to identifying current and future skills requirements, but
they should be based on the collection of fact-based
information.[Footnote 20] State has not taken such action for staff
with foreign assistance management responsibilities. For example, there
is no specific foreign assistance grant management skill set for
Foreign Service officers, according to a senior Human Resources
official. Moreover, State has never specifically examined foreign
assistance workload indicators to identify resulting workforce needs,
according to its workforce planners. Further, although the delivery of
development and humanitarian assistance is a critical component of
three of State's seven strategic goals it is not part of the official
State mission as communicated by the current workforce plan.
State Has Not Collected Critical Information on Current Staff with
Foreign Assistance Management Responsibilities:
The collection of information on critical skills and competencies
needed to perform an agency's mission is one step in determining
current and future human capital needs. Such information includes the
number, type, and skills of staff involved in the oversight and
monitoring of foreign assistance activities. However, State does not
have complete and accurate information on staff that manage and monitor
foreign assistance programs. We asked the bureaus and officers in our
scope of work to provide information on the number and type of staff in
headquarters and overseas posts that work on their development and
humanitarian assistance programs and the amount of time they spend on
those programs. Only 3 of the 10 bureaus could provide detailed
information on overseas staff devoted to their programs. INL and PRM--
the two program bureaus with overseas staff assigned to their programs-
-were able to provide the number of headquarters and overseas staff
devoted to their programs, while the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was
also able to provide data on the number, type of staff, and percentage
of time devoted to MEPI programs in 15 countries. However, the other
bureaus could provide only estimates of overseas staff devoted to
foreign assistance activities. A few bureaus, such as South and Central
Asian Affairs, Western Hemisphere Affairs, and African Affairs,
referred to the information they provided as best guesses. East Asian
and Pacific Affairs Bureau officials said they had to query their
overseas posts to obtain the staffing information they provided.
State officials attributed the difficulty in identifying current staff
devoted to foreign assistance activities to a variety of factors. For
one, State's primary role has traditionally been to implement U.S.
foreign policy. State bureaus and offices manage foreign assistance
programs in support of their foreign policy objectives, and some staff
in policy positions may also work on foreign assistance programs.
Therefore, it is difficult to separate the foreign assistance
activities from State's diplomatic functions, according to State
resource managers. Moreover, State's mission planning process only
tracks staff time by strategic objective and cannot identify staffing
devoted to a specific program.
State workforce planners said they do not have a systematic way of
identifying personnel working on foreign assistance unless it is
obvious from their job title. In response to our request for
information, the workforce planners were able to identify about 300
foreign assistance-related full-time positions in headquarters
functional bureaus. They said State's most recent domestic staffing
model does not contain the critical information necessary to identify
foreign assistance-related functions in the regional bureaus.
Furthermore, State does not have a systematic way of identifying all
staff officially designated as grants officer representatives, because
State does not maintain a comprehensive list of these designees. Grants
officers stated that the letters designating the grants officer
representatives are included in the grants file; however, State's
current grants database management system does not capture information
on grants officer representatives, according to Administrative Bureau
procurement officials. Thus there is no systematic workforce
information on staff to whom foreign assistance responsibilities are
delegated. Moreover, it is not clear whether staff with grants
management responsibility who are not officially appointed as grants
officer representatives are bound by the same responsibilities,
authorities, and limitations described in the designation letter.
State Does Not Have Consistent Training Requirements for Staff Managing
Foreign Assistance Activities:
In accordance with internal control standards all personnel should
possess and maintain a level of competence that allows them to
accomplish their assigned duties, as well as understand the importance
of developing and implementing good internal control. This includes
identifying appropriate knowledge and skills as well as providing
needed training.[Footnote 21] However, as State does not have complete
data that would allow it to identify any gaps in the numbers, skills,
and competencies it needs to manage foreign assistance programs and
develop strategies--such as providing training--to address those gaps,
State cannot assure itself that all employees who manage and monitor
foreign assistance activities have the necessary skills.
We found that State has inconsistent training and skills requirements
for its staff involved in foreign assistance oversight. For example,
grants officers must meet a number of requirements under State Grant
Policy Directive 1 to obtain a Grants Officer Warrant to award federal
assistance. This directive establishes State's policy that grants
officers possess the minimum qualifications necessary to ensure that
federal assistance agreements issued by State are sound and in
compliance with laws and regulations. The directive requires domestic
applicants to meet specific education and training qualifications to
obtain a grants warrant--such as completion of a 56-hour course in
grants management training and 4-year course of study leading to a
bachelor's degree. The warrant limits the dollar amount of awards the
officers can make. In contrast, State does not have agencywide training
requirements for grants officer representatives who are often delegated
some of the grants officers' oversight responsibilities. For example,
State Policy Directive 16 states that education and special training
may be considered when designating grants officer representatives, but
it does not provide specifics on what training and education to
consider. Further, grants officers do not have control over whether or
not the grants officer representatives are qualified, because the
bureau for which the assistance award is made generally appoints the
grants officer representative when it submits the award package to the
grants officer for final processing. For example, Near Eastern Affairs
Bureau and INL grants officers stated that program staff with subject
area knowledge are designated as grants officer representatives and
that these staff do not have to meet any specific training requirements.
Overseas staff with foreign assistance management responsibilities also
do not always have to meet foreign assistance management specific
training or experience requirements. For example, INL officials said
that Foreign Service officers applying for their bureau's overseas
positions did not have to meet any specialized management skill
requirements. INL human resources officials added that INL has
difficulty matching staff with the assignments because there is no
guidance on skills requirements. Further, some DRL and G/TIP officials
stated that overseas staff generally lacked the training to monitor
their grants. Moreover, State's Inspector General reported that Foreign
Service officers overseas with MEPI responsibilities lacked grants
related training. The Inspector General further reported that political
and economic officers supporting small bilateral MEPI grants and larger
regional initiatives did not have grants training and showed an
uncertain grasp of their oversight responsibilities and of MEPI
expectations.[Footnote 22] Lack of properly trained staff could
negatively impact State's ability to effectively deliver foreign
assistance, and would be an internal control weakness that puts grants
at risk.
Several of the Administration Bureau and Near Eastern Affairs Bureau
grants officers we interviewed recommended that all grants officer
representatives receive training, such as the grants management courses
offered by FSI: "Introduction to Grants and Cooperative Agreements for
Federal Personnel" and "Monitoring Grants and Cooperative Agreements."
The former course is required for Public Diplomacy officers
substantially involved in pre and postaward assistance processes
overseas. Any Federal personnel responsible for overseeing
administrative, financial, or program performance of grant recipients
would benefit from the latter class, according to the FSI course
catalog.
Although State does not have agencywide training requirements, some
individual bureaus do. For example, DRL has internal training
requirements for bureau staff who serve as grants officer
representatives, requiring them to complete the two FSI classes on
grants management, according to DRL officials. In addition, PRM
officials stated that the bureau--which does not designate grants
officer representatives--requires its headquarters and overseas staff
to take the FSI's Population, Refugee and Migration Officers Monitoring
and Evaluation Workshop. FSI also offers a week-long introductory
orientation for staff who work on refugee issues led by PRM officials.
Moreover, an FSI survey in response to employee requests for grants
management training suggests that Foreign Service officers overseas
recognize that there is a gap in their foreign assistance management
skills. FSI officials stated that the Institute conducted a needs
assessment, including a survey, in response to anecdotal information
about the need for the training. The officials said that based on the
survey responses, FSI created a new training course--Managing Foreign
Assistance Awards Overseas. According to FSI, the new training was
designed to meet the changing needs of Foreign Service officers under
the Diplomatic Readiness and Transformational Diplomacy Initiatives.
The 3-day elective course is geared toward economic and political
officers who need to learn the fundamentals of assistance awards
management and who will have project management or oversight
responsibilities. According to FSI, the course targets officers who
will design, develop, and oversee assistance programs at post in
support of mission performance plan goals, and is not geared toward
officers providing assistance on activities managed from headquarters.
FSI began offering the course in April 2007. The FSI officials said
they were not aware of any additional training needs or proposed
training related to foreign assistance management.
State Officials Concerned About Department's Ability to Effectively
Manage Grants:
Grants officers and other officials whom we met with expressed concern
about their ability to handle their grant management responsibilities
to ensure that federal funds are being spent as intended. For example,
we interviewed all five Administrative Bureau grants officers
responsible for awarding grants for some of the bureaus and offices in
our scope. We also interviewed Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and INL
grants officers. The Administrative Bureau grants officers who are
responsible for much of State's development and humanitarian assistance
awards stated that they did not have sufficient time to fully oversee
the implementation of the grants, including pre and postaward
activities. Preaward activities include determining the level of
competition, soliciting the proposal, and selecting the grantee.
Postaward activities include the monitoring required to ensure a
recipient is in adherence with State, bureau, and program requirements.
Various officials with whom we spoke expressed concerns about preaward
management activities. Two of the Administrative Bureau grants officers
told us they were concerned about whether program and regional bureau
staff were sufficiently knowledgeable to solicit proposals and
competitively select grantees. These grants officers stated they
generally are not involved in the process for soliciting proposals and
selecting the grantee because of their workload. Instead, the program
bureau is responsible for the review and selection of assistance
recipients prior to the award. The grants officers said that, as a
result, they did not know whether the solicitations complied with
relevant laws and regulations. For example, one of the grants officers
did not believe a program bureau selecting grantees had sufficiently
advertised its grant solicitations to reach the most potential grantees
possible. Other State officials with whom we met raised this same
issue. Moreover, in June 2006, State's Inspector General raised
concerns about the lack of competition for some foreign assistance
awards, reporting that PRM had not consistently followed State or U.S.
government policies that require applications for federal assistance to
be solicited in a manner that provides for competition.[Footnote 23] In
response, PRM established policies and procedures that require that all
awards are advertised and that relevant State regulations to justify
noncompetitive awards are complied with, according to PRM officials.
The Administrative Bureau grants officers and other officials with whom
we spoke also discussed postaward activities. For example, three of the
grants officers told us they were concerned about the lack of time they
had to devote to the grants after funds are obligated. They said they
receive a number of program and financial reports from the grantees at
the same time and consequently do not have enough time to thoroughly
review them. They said that they rely on the grants officer
representatives, who are not subject to agencywide training
requirements, to review the reports and notify them of problems. The
grants officers further stated that their workload did not permit them
to close out the grants and that they had to rely on what the grantee
reported.
Grants officers and other officials also discussed issues related to
site visits to monitor the grantees. For example, Administrative Bureau
grants officers expressed concerns over their lack of opportunity to
make site visits. They said that the program bureaus responsible for
the grants would have to set aside travel funds for them to travel, but
that this is rarely done. Most of the grants officers we interviewed
said that they have not traveled overseas for monitoring visits and
that they rely on the grants officer representatives to perform this
duty. However, some of the Administrative and Near Eastern Affairs
Bureau grants officers said the grants officer representatives do not
consistently inform them of upcoming site visit. Grants Policy
Directive 16 requires the grants officer representatives to obtain
prior approval from the grants officer before visiting the grantee's
place of performance to evaluate progress or performance. For example,
one of the grants officer said the grants officer representative does
not consult with her on whether there are financial issues to be
addressed, and another stated that the grants officer representatives
focus more on programmatic rather than management or financial issues.
Both stated that they do not receive any reports after site visits.
We also met with about 20 DRL program and policy officers who serve as
grants officer representatives, and they generally indicated that grant
oversight would be improved by more frequent site visits to monitor
grantee activity.[Footnote 24] The DRL grants officer representatives
said they make site visits as workload, travel funds, and conditions in
the country permit. A G/TIP grants officer representative expressed
similar concerns, stating that G/TIP does not have the time or the
budget to visit every grantee. State's Inspector General has found the
lack of monitoring to be an issue in the past, and reported in 2005
that G/TIP did not adequately monitor its grantee activities. The
report found that the grants officer for G/TIP relied on a G/TIP grants
officer representative who in turn relied on overseas posts to monitor
grantee activity. The Inspector General found very few embassy
evaluations verifying monitoring had been occurring and recommended
that G/TIP improve its recordkeeping.[Footnote 25]
State Has Not Yet Integrated Workforce Planning into Foreign Assistance
Reform Efforts:
State is implementing foreign assistance budgetary reforms without
considering the potential impact of these reforms on its staffing and
skills requirements, which does not conform to strategic workforce
principles. One such principle is that an agency's management lead the
effort to align its human capital program with current and emerging
mission and programmatic goals.[Footnote 26] The Secretary of State
recently established the F Bureau within State to serve as an umbrella
leadership structure for aligning and coordinating all foreign
assistance, policy, planning, and oversight. Since its establishment,
the F Bureau has developed a strategic framework for foreign assistance
and established new priority objectives. The budget reforms could
result in some countries and programs receiving more funding, while
others receive less. Such changes could shift where staff with foreign
assistance responsibilities are needed from one bureau to another or
from headquarters to overseas missions. For example, the fiscal year
2008 budget request includes INCLE funds for many countries that had no
such funding in previous years. However, as of July 2007, State had not
begun to align human capital resources with the reforms, according to a
senior F Bureau official. The official said that the F Bureau would
eventually address human capital requirements, but he did not provide a
time frame. Further, State's Human Resources Bureau officials told us
they had not attended meetings in which foreign assistance budget
decisions were made that could potentially impact human capital
requirements. Moreover, the Human Resources Bureau had not taken any
workforce planning actions related to F Bureau reform efforts, and its
future role had not been determined. Consequently, the impact of the F
Bureau reforms on foreign assistance staffing and skills requirements
is not clear to State officials.
Conclusions:
Strategic workforce planning focuses on developing long-term strategies
for acquiring, developing, and retaining an organization's total
workforce to meet the needs of the future. A key principle of strategic
workforce planning is to define the critical skills and competencies
that will be needed to achieve current and future programmatic goals.
However, despite its increasing role in development and humanitarian
assistance, State has limited data to determine whether department
staff responsible for managing and monitoring the programs have
sufficient skills to ensure that applicable U.S. laws and regulations
are being complied with and U.S. dollars are being spent as intended.
Moreover, bureaus and offices that manage development and humanitarian
assistance programs could not readily provide data on staffing devoted
to foreign assistance activities, particularly overseas staffing. In
accordance with human capital principles and internal control
standards, agencies should have individuals with specialized knowledge,
skills, and abilities necessary to perform complex and technical
administrative responsibilities--such as managing grants--effectively.
However, we found that State does not have departmentwide skills and
training requirements for all staff who are formally or informally
delegated some of the oversight and monitoring responsibilities of
grants officers, who have formal responsibility for overseeing grants.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of State (1) take steps to define the
skills and competencies the department's employees need to manage
foreign assistance responsibilities, including developing information
on the number and type of staff who are currently managing foreign
assistance programs, their roles and responsibilities, workload,
experience, and training and (2) develop a strategy to address any gaps
it identifies.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this
report. These comments and our response are reprinted in appendix IV.
State also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into
this report as appropriate.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of State
generally concurred with the report's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. To address the recommendations State plans to (1)
define critical skills and competencies needed by all department
employees managing foreign assistance, (2) align workforce planning
strategies with the management of foreign assistance programs
departmentwide, (3) review the overseas staffing and domestic staffing
models to determine if refinements are required to the components that
address foreign assistance programs, (4) review the workforce plan to
determine where enhancements to include aspects of foreign assistance
functions are warranted, and (5) consider further training of personnel
with grants management responsibilities.
Although State agreed with our recommendations, the letter expressed
concern that the draft report did not adequately reflect the
department's current oversight of its foreign assistance programs.
State provided a detailed description of how PRM monitors and evaluates
its programs as an example. We noted State's concerns in the results in
brief section of this report and have included additional details on
PRM's monitoring efforts as appropriate.
We are sending this report to other interested Members of Congress and
to the Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the size and scope of the Department of State's (State)
development and humanitarian assistance, we first reviewed U.S. budget
documents to identify funding supporting U.S. foreign assistance, as
well as State's part in supporting these overall efforts. We then
reviewed the portion of the U.S. budget that funded development and
humanitarian assistance and used State allotment reports to capture the
fiscal accounts that were available to State for obligation between
fiscal years 2000 and 2006.
To identify overall funding supporting U.S. government foreign
assistance activities, we reviewed the U.S. budget general fund to
identify International Affairs (function 150) budget accounts. Function
150 budget accounts are classified by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)[Footnote 27] as those related to:
* international development and humanitarian assistance (function 151),
* international security assistance (152),
* the conduct of foreign affairs (153),
* foreign information and exchange activities (154), and:
* international financial programs (155).
We focused on the general fund because it contains the fiscal accounts
that are funded from regular congressional appropriations, as opposed
to accounts that are nonbudgetary or receive appropriations from other
general fund accounts, or trust funds that hold foreign government
payments, gifts, or contributions. To capture funds available for
obligation, including the congressional appropriation as well as funds
carried over from the previous year, we used the amounts shown on line
23.90 (total budgetary resources available for obligation) of the
program and financing table of the Department of State and Other
International Programs budget appendix for fiscal years 2002 through
2008.[Footnote 28] We used the budgets for these years because they
have final (actual) amounts for fiscal years 2000 through 2006. If line
23.90 was not applicable for a certain account, such as when no
unobligated funds were being carried over, we used line 22.00 (new
budget authority). For accounts that had not received new funds, we
used line 21.40 (unobligated balance brought forward from the previous
year).
To identify the 150 budget accounts from which State received funding,
we used Treasury budget identification codes as well as assistance
account information obtained from State's office of the director of
foreign assistance. We also referred to Treasury Financial Management
Service's combined statement on appropriations and outlays to identify
accounts from which State received 150 funds and accounts State sent to
other agencies, such as the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative account. From
the function 150 fiscal accounts we separated out development and
humanitarian budget lines (function 151) as well as the economic
support fund. While the economic support fund is not a function 151
account, we included it in our scope of development and humanitarian
assistance fiscal accounts because it was a primary account that State
used for funding this type of assistance.
To identify State's share of the 151 account, we used allotment reports
provided by State's resource management office that reported how much
development and humanitarian assistance State received annually, by
fiscal account. These allotment amounts included funds carried over
from the previous year, and so represented funds available to State for
obligation. We used transfer data from State's resource management
office to identify transfers of the economic support fund and other
fiscal accounts to the International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement account (INCLE) and the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. We
determined State's allotment and transfer information was sufficiently
reliable for our purposes, through (1) discussions with State resource
management officials and (2) cross-checks with the U.S. budget
appendix, the Treasury Financial Management Service's combined
statement, and publicly available information from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
To identify State's approaches to managing programs, we reviewed
program information, including obligations data, monitoring plans, trip
report templates, grant policy directives, and grants data. For the
purposes of this review, we defined foreign assistance management as
obligating funds, selecting grantees, making assistance awards, and
monitoring the implementation of development and humanitarian
assistance programs. The sources of the obligations data were excel
spreadsheets used to track transactions, including obligations and
State's central financial management system. We reviewed the data for
reasonableness and consistency of methodology and discussed the
accuracy of the data with knowledgeable officials at the bureaus and
offices that provided the data. Based on our analysis and discussions
with the officials, we determined that these data are sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We also obtained information on the number
of grants from State's grants management database, but, as mentioned in
this report, we determined this information was not reliable; and
therefore, we did not use these data as support of our findings.
To assess foreign assistance human capital requirements, we reviewed
staffing, workload, workforce planning documents, and data from State's
Workforce Plan. We also reviewed our reports on human capital
management and strategic workforce planning and consulted with GAO
experts on these issues. We also assessed the extent to which certain
management functions related to determining skills and training
requirements met internal control standards for the federal government.
We interviewed agency officials at the Bureau of Human Resources,
Bureau of Resource Management, the Foreign Service Institute, and the
State's Office of the Inspector General. We also discussed staffing and
skills requirements with all of the program and regional bureaus in our
scope.
The bureaus and offices in our scope included the Bureaus of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor; International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs; Population, Refugees, and Migration; the Office of the U.S.
Global AIDS Coordinator, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons, and all of the regional bureaus: African Affairs; East
Asian and Pacific Affairs; European and Eurasian Affairs; Near Eastern
Affairs; South and Central Asian Affairs; and Western Hemisphere
Affairs. We also met with officials of the Office of the Director of
Foreign Assistance; Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement
Executive; and USAID. We interviewed a non-statistical sample of 11
grants officers that included 5 officers from the bureau responsible
for awarding grants for all of the bureaus we examined. We also
interviewed another non-statistical sample of 21 program and policy
officers that serve as grant officer representatives. We selected these
individuals to ensure that we covered the range of actual grant
officers as well as the program and policy officers that serve as grant
officers. We reviewed State's fiscal year 2005 Performance and
Accountability Report, publicly available assistance account obligation
information, and the foreign assistance framework developed by the
Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance to identify State program
bureaus with comparable assistance activities to USAID. We excluded
bureaus that managed military, antiterrorism, and cultural and
educational exchange programs. With the exception of the regional
bureaus, we also excluded some bureaus and offices managing
developmental and humanitarian assistance programs obligating less than
$20 million.
We conducted our review between August 2006 and August 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Amounts Available from Each Part of the International
Affairs (function 150) Budget, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006 (Dollars
in millions):
Part: 151: International Development and Humanitarian Assistance;
2000: $25,580;
2001: $25,580;
2002: $28,453;
2003: $35,361;
2004: $52,695;
2005: $48,690;
2006: $44,287.
Part 152: International Security Assistance;
2000: 5,633;
2001: 4,568;
2002: 5,289;
2003: 7,077;
2004: 5,321;
2005: 6,128;
2006: 5,696.
Part: 153: Conduct of Foreign Affairs;
2000: 8,871;
2001: 9,884;
2002: 11,227;
2003: 11,052;
2004: 12,297;
2005: 14,690;
2006: 14,891.
Part 154: Foreign Information and Exchange Activities;
2000: 883;
2001: 954;
2002: 1,092;
2003: 1,181;
2004: 1,156;
2005: 1,146;
2006: 1,316.
Part 155: International Financial Programs;
2000: 26,616;
2001: 31,848;
2002: 29,976;
2003: 31,396;
2004: 28,559;
2005: 24,635;
2006: 18,039.
Total;
2000: $67,583;
2001: $72,834;
2002: $76,037;
2003: $86,067;
2004: $100,028;
2005: $95,289;
2006: $84,229.
Source: GAO analysis of International Affairs (function 150) budget.
Note: Fiscal years 2003 through 2006 included supplemental funding for
relief and reconstruction in Iraq.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State's Available Funding from Development and
Humanitarian Assistance Fiscal Accounts for Fiscal Years 2000 through
2006 Dollars in millions):
Fiscal accounts: Migration and refugee assistance;
2000: $770;
2001: $721;
2002: $813;
2003: $841;
2004: $831;
2005: $904;
2006: $900;
Total: $5,781.
Fiscal accounts: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement;
2000: $382;
2001: $354;
2002: $476;
2003: $470;
2004: $589;
2005: $1,285;
2006: $1,599;
Total: $5,155.
Fiscal accounts: Andean Counterdrug Initiative;
2000: $825;
2001: $95;
2002: $449;
2003: $700;
2004: $637;
2005: $620;
2006: $554;
Total: $3,880.
Fiscal accounts: Iraq reconstruction supplemental;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: N/A;
2003: $39;
2004: $1,205;
2005: $684;
2006: $282;
Total: $2,210.
Fiscal accounts: International organizations;
2000: $309;
2001: $302;
2002: $300;
2003: $293;
2004: $298;
2005: $303;
2006: $308;
Total: $2,113.
Fiscal accounts: Economic support fund;
2000: $28[A];
2001: $76;
2002: $296;
2003: $198;
2004: $302;
2005: $371;
2006: $382;
Total: $1,654.
Fiscal accounts: Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States;
2000: $2[A];
2001: $143;
2002: $127;
2003: $118;
2004: $125;
2005: $130;
2006: $111;
Total: $756.
Fiscal accounts: Assistance for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union;
2000: $27[A];
2001: $98;
2002: $87;
2003: $126;
2004: $99;
2005: $123;
2006: $118;
Total: $679.
Fiscal accounts: Emergency refugee and migration assistance;
2000: $49;
2001: $86;
2002: $78;
2003: $80;
2004: $69;
2005: $44;
2006: $47;
Total: $453.
Fiscal accounts: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: N/A;
2003: N/A;
2004: $14;
2005: $77;
2006: $251;
Total: $342.
Fiscal accounts: International disaster and famine assistance;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: N/A;
2003: N/A;
2004: $42;
2005: $63;
2006: N/A;
Total: $104.
Fiscal accounts: Democracy fund;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: N/A;
2003: N/A;
2004: N/A;
2005: N/A;
2006: $94;
Total: $94.
Fiscal accounts: Tsunami fund;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: N/A;
2003: N/A;
2004: N/A;
2005: $10;
2006: $9;
Total: $19.
Fiscal accounts: Child survival and health;
2000: N/A;
2001: N/A;
2002: $4[A];
2003: $5[A];
2004: $4[A];
2005: $4[A];
2006: N/A;
Total: $16.
Fiscal accounts: Development assistance;
2000: $3[A];
2001: $3[A];
2002: N/A;
2003: $2;
2004: $0;
2005: $4[A];
2006: $0
Total: $8.
Fiscal accounts: Total;
2000: $2,396;
2001: $1,879;
2002: $2,628;
2003: $2,873;
2004: $4,215;
2005: $4,618;
2006: $4,655
Total: $23,264.
Source: GAO analysis of International Affairs (function 150) budget and
State allotment reports.
Note: Amounts capture funding from certain fiscal accounts, such as the
economic support fund account and the assistance for Eastern Europe and
the Baltic States account that State received but then transferred into
the international narcotics control and law enforcement account.
[A] Amounts that are primary allocations to State from USAID. While
these amounts remained on USAID's budget, State had authority to
obligate the funds.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
September 14 2007:
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, "Department
Of State: Human Capital Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign Assistance
Responsibilities," GAO Job Code 320449.
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
Peggy Hoyle, Policy Coordination Director, Office of the Director of
Foreign Assistance, at (202) 647-2624.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Marilyn P. Wiles (Acting):
cc: GAO ” Adam Cowles:
F ” Henrietta Fore (Acting):
State/OIG ” Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Department Of State: Human Capital Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign
Assistance Responsibilities (GAO-07-1153, GAO Code 320449):
Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to
comment on the draft report, "Department of State: Human Capital
Strategy Does Not Recognize Foreign Assistance Responsibilities." We
appreciate the recommendations offered by the GAO therein.
We agree that there is value in researching and establishing a specific
set of foreign assistance skills, to include grant management, for both
Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service Program Managers responsible
for foreign assistance implementation. The Department's Bureau of Human
Resources (HR) will define critical skills and competencies needed by
all Department employees managing foreign assistance, working with the
Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (F). HR can provide the
analytical skills required to identify competency gaps, which may be
used by F and other bureaus in determining hiring strategies and
training requirements for employees working and managing foreign
assistance programs. Recently, HR partnered with F to develop position
descriptions and then classified the positions with major foreign
assistance components. These descriptions, along with expert knowledge
from bureau managers and F, will be key in defining the required
critical skills and competencies and enabling the alignment of
workforce planning strategies with the management of foreign assistance
programs Department-wide.
We note the Bureau of Administration (A) is currently involved with a
government-wide working group under the auspices of the Grants Policy
Committee that will establish competencies, skills and training, and
certification programs at a core level for civil service grants
professionals in federal awarding agencies, pass-through entities, and
recipients. A Bureau will coordinate with HR to ensure that HR benefits
from developments arising from this forum which might be useful with
respect to defining skills for foreign assistance.
In terms of the staffing models, HR plans to review the overseas and
domestic staffing models to determine if refinements are required to
the components that address foreign assistance programs. The models,
which are aligned with the Department's strategic goals, already
intertwine aspects of foreign assistance as they apply in each
strategic goal and related priorities. HR will also review the
Department's workforce plan to determine where enhancements to include
aspects of foreign assistance functions are warranted. We anticipate
that these changes will be based on the gap analysis of critical skills
and competencies.
To the extent resources permit, the Department will consider further
training of grants personnel and grants management, especially in light
of the increases in foreign assistance programs. Greater centralization
of the grants business management function and increased staffing
levels, in conjunction with adequate travel funding to ensure adequate
oversight of grantees, is a key component for successful grants
management.
As above, while the Department is taking steps consistent with the
GAO's recommendation, we are concerned that the draft report does not
adequately reflect the Department's oversight of its foreign assistance
programs. The Report does not recognize the significant
responsibilities and capacity for program monitoring and evaluation
that currently exist within the Department. The case of the Bureau of
Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) provides an example.
PRM program officers in every office in Washington have monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) responsibilities, particularly those in regional
assistance and refugee admissions offices, but also officers
responsible for the USG relationship with multilateral partners (UNHCR,
ICRC, IOM), as well as policy, budget and grants officers. Washington-
based program officers travel at least annually to monitor programs in
the field, supplementing the work of PRM's Refugee Coordinators, who
hold primary responsibility for field monitoring.
In addition to field travel, PRM staff conduct ongoing desk monitoring
by reviewing program and financial reports, triangulating information
about field conditions with awardees' reporting, communicating
regularly with awardees to address concerns and provide guidance on
program progress, meeting with key stakeholders, and consulting
independent or third-party information sources. In FY 2006, PRM program
officers and Refugee Coordinators reported through formal channels the
results of their monitoring and evaluation of 74% of PRM's foreign
assistance programs.
While staff in the Bureau's Comptroller's office have formal training
and certification as grants officers, PRM program officers receive
significant training to be able to monitor and evaluate foreign
assistance programs according to international humanitarian standards
and Department strategic priorities. The Bureau's annual Monitoring &
Evaluation Workshop, while located at the Foreign Service Institute, is
organized and conducted largely by experienced PRM staff and technical
experts (e.g., colleagues from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention). This week-long course teaches basic monitoring and
evaluation methods (e.g., how to write strong program objectives &
indicators), as well as standards for humanitarian response across all
program sectors, such as health and nutrition, water and sanitation,
shelter, gender-based violence, etc. The course is required for all
incoming PRM staff, including Washington-based program officers and
field-based Refugee Coordinators.
In addition to its annual M&E Workshop, the PRM Bureau conducts semi-
monthly training sessions on specific M&E topics throughout the year
for all Washington-based PRM staff. Information from these sessions is
posted on PRM's intranet site, making the training materials accessible
to PRM's staff overseas. To support Bureau-wide responsibilities for
M&E, PRM's Office of Policy and Resource Planning includes a small M&E
unit dedicated to organizing training, developing guidance and tools,
reviewing program objectives, indicators and reports, and providing
tailored guidance for field monitoring. This unit conducts staff
surveys and analyzes the PRM policies and procedures to identify gaps
in M&E skills and capacities and develop training and other tools
accordingly.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess Ford (202) 512-4128:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Adam Cowles (Assistant
Director); Donald Morrison, and La Verne Tharpes made key contributions
to this report. The team benefited from the expert advice and
assistance of Martin de Alteriis, Joe Carney, William Doherty, Clarette
Kim, Grace Lui, Jeremy Sebest, and Mona Sehgal.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Our scope of work represents a subset of the foreign assistance
programs that State is responsible for and does not include military,
antiterrorism, cultural and educational exchange programs, and some
assistance programs receiving less than $20 million.
[2] Amount includes about $6 billion of economic support funding.
[3] From fiscal year 2000 through 2006 development and humanitarian
assistance, including economic support funding, increased from $26
billion to $44 billion.
[4] In fiscal year 2006 State's development and humanitarian
assistance, including economic support funding, was 22 percent of
State's total funding through the International Affairs budget.
[5] USAID's status as an independent organization with an administrator
reporting directly to the Secretary of State remains unchanged.
[6] State also uses funding from the international narcotics control
and law enforcement account to fund its efforts to combat human
trafficking.
[7] From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2006, development and
humanitarian assistance funds available to State for obligation from
current year appropriations rose from $2.1 billion to $3.4 billion.
[8] Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. L.
No. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108-106, 117 Stat. 1209 (2003); Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231; Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-234, 120 Stat. 418.
[9] DRL also received an appropriation through the Democracy Fund in
fiscal year 2006.
[10] See next section for a report on State's obligated, or committed
assistance funding.
[11] INL, and to a lesser extent, PRM, also use contracts to deliver
foreign assistance, according to bureau officials.
[12] This amount includes operating expenses, voluntary contributions,
and contracts as well as grants and cooperative agreements.
[13] We cannot attest to the reliability of this information due to
problems State has identified with the quality of its grants management
database. The department has identified a number of problems with the
accuracy and completeness of the data. State is undertaking corrective
actions. State's long-term solution is the joint assistance management
system, which will serve as the mandatory system of record for all
assistance actions awarded by State both domestically and overseas.
However, implementation of this system is estimated for fiscal year
2009 at the earliest.
[14] PRM plans to revise its procedures to implement the grants policy
directive requiring formal designation of a grants officer
representative.
[15] State officials later told us that PRM program officers in
Washington, particularly those in regional assistance and refugee
admissions offices, have monitoring and evaluating responsibilities.
[16] OMB, Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals,
and Other Non-Profit Organizations.
[17] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[18] See GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). The
five standards for internal control include: control environment, risk
assessment, control activities, information and communications, and
monitoring. One factor in the internal control environment is
management's commitment to competence. See also Internal Control
Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August
2001).
[19] In 2001, OMB announced the President's Management Agenda, designed
to address management weakness across the government. As part of this
initiative, in October 2002, OPM released a Human Capital Assessment
and Accountability Framework that built on its prior guidance for
workforce planning. It has also developed Human Capital Standards for
Success, which is consistent with the GAO model. OPM's Human Capital
Assessment and Accountability Framework and Human Capital Standards for
Success can be found at its Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.opm.gov]. OPM's Web site also provides a link to the
President's Management Agenda and the Strategic Management of Human
Capital Initiative, or this document can be accessed through OMB's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb].
[20] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[21] GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.
[22] OIG Report No. ISP-1-06-18, Review of Middle East Partnership
Coordination and Implementation, March 2006.
[23] OIG Report No. ISP-I-05-40, Inspection of the Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration, June 2006.
[24] State does not require a specific number of site visits.
[25] OIG Report No. ISP-I-06-04, Inspection of the Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, November 2005.
[26] GAO-04-39.
[27] OMB periodically consults with the congressional budget office and
relevant budget and appropriation committee staff members regarding
these classifications.
[28] We also included function 150 budget lines from the budget
appendixes of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Defense, along
with those for the Executive Office of the President and Other
Independent Agencies.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: hyperlink, http://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:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
