U.S. Employment in the United Nations
State Department Needs to Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation Gao ID: GAO-10-1028 September 30, 2010The U.S. Congress has continuing concerns about U.S. underrepresentation in United Nations (UN) organizations. Some UN organizations establish targets for member state representation, and such positions are classified as geographic positions. GAO's 2006 report found that the State Department (State) could take additional steps to increase U.S. representation. This report examines (1) U.S. representation at five UN organizations; (2) issues affecting the employment of professional staff, including Americans at these organizations; and (3) efforts State has undertaken to increase U.S. representation. GAO analyzed employment data from five UN organizations that comprise over 50 percent of total UN professional staff and interviewed U.S. and UN officials, including 63 Americans employed at the five organizations.
In 2009, the United States was underrepresented, based on formal and informal targets, at all five of the UN organizations GAO reviewed--the Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This follows general U.S. underrepresentation at most of these organizations from 2006 to 2009. At the four UN organizations that distinguish geographic and nongeographic positions, there was an increase in the percentage of nongeographic professional positions during 2006 to 2009. The United States is not as well represented in nongeographic as geographic positions at FAO and the Secretariat, which could affect future overall U.S. representation. In addition, U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions generally decreased at these UN organizations from 2006 to 2009. The five UN organizations GAO reviewed have challenges that affect the recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff, including Americans. Challenges include Americans' lack of proficiency in UN languages, difficulty for spouses to obtain employment in some locations, lengthy hiring processes, and limited opportunities for promotion and professional growth. For example, 45 out of 63 Americans we interviewed identified the lengthy hiring process as a challenge to recruiting and hiring. While these UN organizations have initiated human resource reforms that may address some of the issues, such as efforts to decrease hiring time, it is too early to determine their impact. Since 2006, State has made efforts to increase U.S. representation in the UN, including implementing some of GAO's 2006 recommendations. State has improved its Web site; increased outreach initiatives; begun developing a Web-based database, so interested UN job applicants can receive automatic vacancy announcements; and conducted an informal review of funding JPOs, but it continues to allocate JPOs at only a few UN organizations. State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of its current efforts to increase U.S. representation. Despite State's efforts, many Americans employed at the five organizations learned about UN job opportunities through their own networks, not through State. GAO recommends that the Secretary of State (1) include data on U.S. representation in all professional positions in its annual report to Congress, (2) evaluate its ongoing activities to increase U.S. representation, and (3) consider a pilot program to fund Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are entry-level employees funded by member states, at UN organizations where the United States currently does not have any JPOs. In commenting on a draft of this report, State concurred with GAO's recommendations.
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: Thomas Melito Team: Government Accountability Office: International Affairs and Trade Phone: (202) 512-9601GAO-10-1028, U.S. Employment in the United Nations: State Department Needs to Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-1028
entitled 'U.S. Employment In The United Nations: State Department
Needs to Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to
Increase U.S. Representation' which was released on September 30, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
U.S. Employment In The United Nations:
State Department Needs to Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate
Its Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation:
GAO-10-1028:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-1028, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Congress has continuing concerns about U.S.
underrepresentation in United Nations (UN) organizations. Some UN
organizations establish targets for member state representation, and
such positions are classified as geographic positions. GAO‘s 2006
report found that the State Department (State) could take additional
steps to increase U.S. representation. This report examines (1) U.S.
representation at five UN organizations; (2) issues affecting the
employment of professional staff, including Americans at these
organizations; and (3) efforts State has undertaken to increase U.S.
representation. GAO analyzed employment data from five UN
organizations that comprise over 50 percent of total UN professional
staff and interviewed U.S. and UN officials, including 63 Americans
employed at the five organizations.
What GAO Found:
In 2009, the United States was underrepresented, based on formal and
informal targets, at all five of the UN organizations GAO reviewed”the
Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (see table). This follows
general U.S. underrepresentation at most of these organizations from
2006 to 2009. At the four UN organizations that distinguish geographic
and nongeographic positions, there was an increase in the percentage
of nongeographic professional positions during 2006 to 2009. The
United States is not as well represented in nongeographic as
geographic positions at FAO and the Secretariat, which could affect
future overall U.S. representation. In addition, U.S. representation
in policymaking and senior-level positions generally decreased at
these UN organizations from 2006 to 2009.
Table: U.S. Representation at Five UN Organizations, Year-end 2009:
UN organization: Secretariat;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%-
16.9%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.9%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 9.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.2%.
UN organization: WHO[A];
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 8.3%-
11.2%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 8.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 8.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 8.3%.
UN organization: FAO;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13.7%-
18.5%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.7%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 6.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.5%.
UN organization: IAEA;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 20.1%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 13.8%.
UN organization: UNHCR[B];
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: data not
applicable;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: data not
applicable;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 7.4%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR data.
[A] WHO raised questions about the reliability of its data.
[B] UNHCR does not have geographic positions; State has determined
U.S. representation at UNHCR should be at least 13 percent of total
professional positions.
[End of table]
The five UN organizations GAO reviewed have challenges that affect the
recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff, including
Americans. Challenges include Americans‘ lack of proficiency in UN
languages, difficulty for spouses to obtain employment in some
locations, lengthy hiring processes, and limited opportunities for
promotion and professional growth. For example, 45 out of 63 Americans
we interviewed identified the lengthy hiring process as a challenge to
recruiting and hiring. While these UN organizations have initiated
human resource reforms that may address some of the issues, such as
efforts to decrease hiring time, it is too early to determine their
impact.
Since 2006, State has made efforts to increase U.S. representation in
the UN, including implementing some of GAO‘s 2006 recommendations.
State has improved its Web site; increased outreach initiatives; begun
developing a Web-based database, so interested UN job applicants can
receive automatic vacancy announcements; and conducted an informal
review of funding JPOs, but it continues to allocate JPOs at only a
few UN organizations. State has not assessed the effectiveness of most
of its current efforts to increase U.S. representation. Despite
State‘s efforts, many Americans employed at the five organizations
learned about UN job opportunities through their own networks, not
through State.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State (1) include data on U.S.
representation in all professional positions in its annual report to
Congress, (2) evaluate its ongoing activities to increase U.S.
representation, and (3) consider a pilot program to fund Junior
Professional Officers (JPO), who are entry-level employees funded by
member states, at UN organizations where the United States currently
does not have any JPOs. In commenting on a draft of this report, State
concurred with GAO‘s recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1028] or key
components. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-
9601 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The United States Was Generally Underrepresented in Geographic
Positions, and the Growth of Nongeographic Positions Could Further
Weaken U.S. Representation:
Challenges within UN Organizations Affect the Recruitment, Hiring, and
Retention of Professional Staff, including Americans, but Human
Resource Reforms May Help Mitigate These Issues:
State Has Made Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation but Has Not
Evaluated the Effectiveness of Most of These Efforts and Allocates
JPOs at Only a Few UN Organizations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: U.S. Representation in Geographic and Nongeographic
Positions at Five UN Organizations, 2006-2009:
Appendix III: U.S. Representation, by Grade, in Geographic Positions
in Four UN Organizations and in Total Professional Positions at UNHCR,
2006-2009:
Appendix IV: Use of Extrabudgetary Resources to Fund Nongeographic
Professional Staff:
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: UN Grade Scale and Approximate U.S. Government Equivalent:
Table 2: Total Numbers of Professional and American Staff at UNHCR,
2006 and 2009:
Table 3: U.S. Representation at Five UN Organizations, as of Year-end
2009:
Table 4: Geographic Policymaking and Senior-Level Positions at the
Five UN Organizations and Percentage-Held by Americans, 2006 and 2009:
Table 5: Geographic and Nongeographic Policymaking and Senior-Level
Positions at the Five UN Organizations and the Percentage-Held by
Americans, 2006 and 2009:
Table 6: Selected Human Resource Reform Initiatives Under Way or
Recently Completed at the Five UN Organizations Reviewed:
Table 7: Number of JPOs at Five UN Organizations, 2009:
Table 8: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at Secretariat, 2006 to 2009:
Table 9: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at WHO, 2006 to 2009:
Table 10: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at FAO, 2006 to 2009:
Table 11: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at IAEA, 2006 to 2009:
Table 12: U.S. Representation in Nongeographic and Total Professional
Positions at UNHCR, 2006 to 2009:
Table 13: Percentage of Geographic and Nongeographic Professional
Staff Funded from Extrabudgetary Funds, for each UN Organization, 2006-
2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Geographic and Nongeographic Staff at Four UN
Organizations, 2006 and 2009:
Figure 2: Number of Geographic and Nongeographic American Staff at
Four UN Organizations, 2006 and 2009:
Figure 3: Average Length of the Hiring Process for Five UN
Organizations, as of 2010:
Figure 4: Four-Year Average of American Applicants at Each Stage of
the Secretariat's National Competitive Recruitment Exam, 2006-2009:
Figure 5: U.S. Representation in the UN Secretariat Geographic
Positions by Grade Level:
Figure 6: U.S. Representation in WHO Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
Figure 7: U.S. Representation in FAO Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
Figure 8: U.S. Representation in IAEA Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
Figure 9: U.S. Representation in UNHCR Total Professional Positions by
Grade Level:
Abbreviations:
AE: Associate Expert:
ALD: Assignments of Limited Duration:
APO: Associate Professional Officer:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
CFE: Cost-Free Experts:
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization:
FTA: fixed-term temporary assistance:
FTE: fixed-term extra budgetary:
IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency:
ICSC: International Civil Service Commission:
IO: State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs:
ISN: State Department's Bureau of International Security and
Nonproliferation:
JIU: United Nations Joint Inspection Unit:
JPO: Junior Professional Officer:
MST: monthly short term:
PRM: State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration:
UN: United Nations:
UNHCR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
WHO: World Health Organization:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 2010:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The U.S. Congress has long-standing concerns about U.S.
underrepresentation in some United Nations (UN) organizations. The
equitable representation of Americans at UN organizations is a
priority to Congress in part because the United States is the largest
financial contributor to most of these organizations. According to the
State Department (State), the U.S. agency primarily responsible for
leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in
UN organizations, Americans bring desirable skills, values, and
experience that can have a significant impact on UN organizations'
operational effectiveness. The UN Charter recognizes the importance of
recruiting staff on as wide a geographic basis as possible.[Footnote
1] In response, some UN organizations have created quantitative
formulas that establish formal targets for member state
representation. Other UN organizations have negotiated informal
geographic targets with member states or give some consideration to
geographic balance when filling positions. Positions that count toward
these formal or informal targets are referred to in this report as
geographic positions. UN organizations may also employ staff in
professional positions not based on geography, referred to in this
report as nongeographic positions.[Footnote 2] According to State
officials, geographic positions generally have better job security
than the nongeographic positions. Since 1991, Congress has required
the Secretary of State to provide it with annual reports on whether
international organizations with geographic targets were meeting their
targets for Americans and whether organizations were making a good
faith effort to hire more Americans.[Footnote 3] Members of Congress
have concerns that the United States is underrepresented with respect
to the geographic employment targets set by several UN organizations.
In its 2009 report to Congress, State reported that many of the 10 UN
organizations it reviewed had not met their U.S. geographic targets.
In 2006, we reported on U.S. employment at five UN organizations: the
UN Secretariat (the Secretariat); the United Nations Development
Program; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
[Footnote 4] We found that the United States was underrepresented, or
close to the lower end of its target range with respect to geographic
employment targets, at many of these UN organizations. We also found
that UN organizations face several challenges to recruiting and
retaining professional staff, most of which are outside the U.S.
government's control. In addition, we reported that State could take
additional steps to target candidates for professional positions. We
recommended that State (1) provide more consistent and comprehensive
UN employment information on the State and U.S. Mission Web sites; (2)
expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more strategically reach
populations of Americans that may be qualified for and interested in
entry-and mid-level UN positions; (3) evaluate the costs, benefits,
and trade-offs of maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for
high-priority positions; and (4) evaluate the costs, benefits, and
trade-offs of funding Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are
entry-level employees funded by member states, where Americans are
underrepresented. State's Bureau of International Organization Affairs
(IO) is the lead entity responsible for promoting and seeking to
increase U.S. representation at the UN and for implementing State's
requirement to provide the annual reports to Congress on U.S.
representation. State IO also relies on other bureaus within State,
U.S. Missions to the UN, and other U.S. government agencies to assist
with efforts to improve U.S. representation and support Americans
currently employed in the UN. While State is responsible for promoting
and seeking to increase U.S. representation in the UN, the UN
organizations themselves are ultimately responsible for hiring their
employees and achieving equitable representation.
In response to your request and to address the concerns discussed
above, we examined (1) U.S. representation at five UN organizations;
(2) issues affecting the recruitment, hiring, and retention of
professional staff, including Americans at these five UN
organizations; and (3) efforts State has undertaken to increase U.S.
representation at UN organizations, including its implementation of
our 2006 recommendations.
To address these objectives, we focused our review on U.S. employment
at five UN organizations: the Secretariat[Footnote 5] in New York; the
IAEA[Footnote 6] in Vienna; the Food and Agriculture Organization
[Footnote 7] (FAO) in Rome; and the UNHCR[Footnote 8] and World Health
Organization[Footnote 9] (WHO) in Geneva. We reviewed three of these
UN organizations in 2006 (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNHCR) and
selected two additional organizations (FAO and WHO) for this review.
We selected these five organizations because, as of 2009, they had
either formal--the Secretariat, FAO, and WHO--or informal--IAEA and
UNHCR--geographic targets,[Footnote 10] and together comprise over 50
percent of total UN organizations' professional staff. To determine
the staffing levels of Americans in these UN organizations, and how
U.S. representation has changed, we analyzed employment data for 2006
through 2009 that we obtained from the five UN organizations. For the
purpose of this report, the United States is considered equitably
represented if the number of Americans is within the UN organizations'
geographic target range. We determined the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this review for the Secretariat, FAO,
IAEA and UNHCR, while WHO raised questions about the reliability of
its data. To examine issues affecting the recruitment, hiring, and
retention of Americans at the five UN organizations, we analyzed
documents from these organizations and interviewed UN human resources
officials, 63 Americans employed at the five UN organizations, and
U.S. government officials. The results of our interviews with the
Americans employed at the five UN organizations are not generalizeable
to those organizations or the UN system. To assess efforts State has
undertaken to increase U.S. representation at UN organizations, we
reviewed documents from State, other U.S. agencies, and the UN. We
also interviewed State officials, representatives of U.S. government
agencies, human resources and other staff from the five UN
organizations, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in issues
related to U.S. representation in the UN.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
contains a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
Based on UN organizations' formal and informal targets for equitable
geographic representation in 2009, the United States was
underrepresented at all five UN organizations we reviewed--the
Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR. For example, the minimum
geographic target for Americans at the Secretariat in 2009 was 12.5
percent, whereas U.S. representation was only 11.9 percent. From 2006
to 2009, the United States was generally underrepresented, or at the
low end of the target range, at four of the five UN organizations--the
Secretariat, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR. Geographic positions are the only
positions that State is required to include in its annual report to
Congress. At each of the four organizations that distinguish between
geographic and nongeographic positions, there was a notable increase
in the percentage of nongeographic compared with all professional
positions during the time period from 2006 to 2009, reflecting the
considerably higher growth rate of nongeographic positions compared
with geographic positions. Nongeographic positions are funded
primarily from extrabudgetary sources, which are increasingly being
used to supplement core resources. However, the United States is not
as well represented in nongeographic positions compared with
geographic positions in two of the four organizations with geographic
and nongeographic positions--FAO and the Secretariat. This situation
could affect future overall U.S. representation at these two
organizations because the relative increase of nongeographic to
geographic positions could result in a lowering of overall U.S.
representation. The situation is reversed at IAEA where American
representation in nongeographic positions is nearly twice as large as
in geographic positions. U.S. representation in policymaking and
senior-level positions generally decreased at these UN organizations
from 2006 to 2009.
At all five of the UN organizations we reviewed, we identified
challenges to the recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional
staff, including Americans. Our 2006 report identified similar types
of challenges to American employment, most of which are outside of
direct U.S. government control. According to Americans employed at
these UN organizations, UN human resources officials, and U.S.
officials, challenges to recruiting, hiring, or retaining staff
include, but are not limited to, the following:
* American candidates lack proficiency in more than one UN language.
U.S. Mission officials in New York and Geneva said that many Americans
are at a disadvantage in competing for UN jobs because they lack
proficiency in multiple languages required for many UN organizations.
* Difficulty obtaining spousal employment. At the four UN
organizations located in Europe, many spouses of American employees
cannot obtain work visas, which could contribute to attrition of
American employees at UN organizations. For example, FAO human
resources officials acknowledged that the difficulty for American
spouses to get employed in Rome causes major challenges among American
candidates and employees. As a result, FAO has revised its policies
and begun to explore ideas with other UN organizations in Rome to
accommodate spousal employment.
* Lengthy hiring process. According to UN officials, the average
length of time for UN organizations to hire regular staff positions
ranges from approximately 6 months at the Secretariat to 9 months at
WHO. Human resources officials at FAO and the Secretariat acknowledged
that lengthy hiring times cause problems because applicants find work
elsewhere while waiting to hear from the UN organizations.
* Limited opportunity for promotion and professional growth. Many
Americans we spoke with said that limited opportunities for promotion
and professional growth are a challenge to retaining Americans in
their organizations. For example, at FAO, 24 percent of staff have
been in the same job or grade level for 8 or more years.
In the last several years, the five UN organizations we reviewed have
initiated a variety of human resource reforms to begin addressing some
of these challenges. For example, most of the UN organizations we
reviewed are working on initiatives to decrease the average time it
takes to hire personnel and to implement or improve performance
management systems.
While State has made efforts to increase U.S. representation,
including the implementation of some of our 2006 recommendations, it
has not evaluated the effectiveness of most of these efforts and
allocates JPOs in only a few UN organizations. In response to our 2006
recommendations, State has taken the following actions:
* Improved its Web site beginning in 2007 to provide more information
on UN employment.
* Increased its outreach initiatives, such as attending more career
fairs, from 15 events in 2005 to 38 events in 2009.
* Begun developing a Web-based database in 2009 so that interested job
applicants can receive UN vacancy announcements that fit their
interests. As of August 2010, the database was near completion but not
yet operational.
* Conducted an informal review of funding JPOs. U.S. and UN officials
we interviewed found the JPO program to be a successful route for
getting Americans hired by UN organizations, but the United States
only sponsors JPO positions at certain UN organizations.
State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of its efforts to
increase U.S. representation. For example, State has not surveyed
attendees of its outreach events to determine ways to improve its
presentations. During our fieldwork, we found that many Americans
employed at the five UN organizations did not know about, or did not
seek assistance from, State IO or a U.S. Mission when they considered
working for UN organizations. Instead, many Americans we spoke to
learned about UN job opportunities through their own personal or
professional networks.
This report contains three recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(1) To provide more complete information on the level of U.S.
representation at UN organizations, we recommend that the Secretary of
State include data on U.S. representation in all professional
positions, similar to the information it currently provides on staff
in geographic positions, in State's annual report to Congress on U.S.
representation in UN organizations. (2) To improve U.S. efforts to
increase the employment of Americans at UN organizations, we recommend
that the Secretary of State develop a means to evaluate the
effectiveness of State's efforts to increase U.S. representation. The
evaluation should include an assessment of State's ongoing efforts,
such as its Web-based database for sending UN vacancy announcements to
interested job candidates. (3) Consider implementing a pilot program
to fund JPOs at UN organizations where the United States currently
does not have JPOs, such as the Secretariat.
We solicited comments on a draft of this report from State, FAO, IAEA,
the Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO. State concurred with our
recommendations, noting that it plans to seek additional information
on nongeographic positions to include in its annual report to
Congress, develop a new Web-based tool as a key means for making
decisions on priorities and directions for some of its approaches, and
consider funding for JPOs at UN organizations in conjunction with
other funding priorities. We also received technical comments from
State, FAO, IAEA, the Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO, which we have
incorporated as appropriate. In its technical comments, WHO raised
questions about the reliability of its data. A full description of
this issue is contained in appendix I.
Background:
The UN is composed of six principal bodies: the General Assembly,
Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council,
International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The UN system
also encompasses funds and programs, such as the United Nations
Development Program, and specialized agencies, such as FAO. These
funds, programs, and specialized agencies have their own governing
bodies and budgets but follow the guidelines of the UN
charter.[Footnote 11] Article 101 of the UN Charter states that, in
recruiting staff, the primary consideration is to obtain "the highest
standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity" and recognizes the
importance of recruiting staff on "as wide a geographical basis as
possible."[Footnote 12] Each UN organization has its own personnel
policies, procedures, and staff rules that it uses to fulfill these
recruitment goals. Generally, UN organizations use a standard pay
scale based on a common job classification system to compensate their
professional staff. Table 1 shows the UN grade scale and the
approximate U.S. government equivalent. UN organizations also have
their own governing bodies composed of member states that provide
those countries with a method of influencing the policies of the
organization.
Table 1: UN Grade Scale and Approximate U.S. Government Equivalent:
UN grade;
UN entry-level: P1;
UN entry-level: P2;
UN entry-level: P3;
UN mid-level: P4;
UN mid-level: P5;
UN senior-level and policymaking: D1/D2;
UN senior-level and policymaking: Under Secretary-General/Assistant
Secretary-General.
U.S. grade;
UN entry-level: GS-11;
UN entry-level: GS-12;
UN entry-level: GS-13;
UN mid-level: GS-14;
UN mid-level: GS-15;
UN senior-level and policymaking: Senior Executive Service;
UN senior-level and policymaking: Executive Schedule.
Source: GAO analysis based on State Department information.
[End of table]
Of the five agencies we reviewed, four--the Secretariat, FAO, WHO, and
IAEA--have designated positions subject to geographic distribution.
The Secretariat, FAO, and WHO have established formulas to determine
member states' targets for equitable representation, which consider
three factors: membership status, financial contribution, and
population size. IAEA informally calculates a member state to be
underrepresented if its geographic representation is less than half of
its percentage contribution to the budget. Using this method, we
calculated a U.S. target for geographic representation at IAEA. UNHCR
has not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to
geographic representation, but it acknowledges U.S. concerns regarding
the appropriate level of U.S. representation. According to State's
2009 report to Congress on U.S. representation in the UN, State has
determined that, for organizations to which the United States
contributes 22 percent, Americans should hold at least 13 percent of
professional positions to be considered equitably represented.
[Footnote 13]
Figure 1 shows the number of total staff in geographic and
nongeographic professional positions, in 2006 and 2009, at four UN
organizations we reviewed.[Footnote 14] Figure 2 shows the number of
Americans in geographic and nongeographic positions at these four UN
organizations in 2006 and 2009. Americans comprised the largest number
of staff in geographic positions, as well as the largest number in all
professional positions--except at FAO where the United States ranked
second--at the organizations we reviewed.[Footnote 15]
Figure 1: Number of Geographic and Nongeographic Staff at Four UN
Organizations, 2006 and 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: Secretariat-2006;
Geographic: 2,634;
Nongeographic: 4,620;
Total: 7,254.
Year: Secretariat-2009;
Geographic: 2,809;
Nongeographic: 6,708;
Total: 9,517.
Growth rate of Secretariat geographic staff: 2.2%, nongeographic
staff: 13.0%.
Year: WHO-2006;
Geographic: 1,682;
Nongeographic: 165;
Total: 1,847.
Year: WHO-2009;
Geographic: 1,717;
Nongeographic: 447;
Total: 2,164.
Growth rate of WHO geographic staff: 1.4%, nongeographic staff: 26.7%.
Year: FAO-2006;
Geographic: 1,039;
Nongeographic: 376;
Total: 1,415.
Year: FAO-2009;
Geographic: 928;
Nongeographic: 583;
Total: 1,511.
Growth rate of FAO geographic staff: -3.6%, nongeographic staff: 15.2%.
Year: IAEA-2006;
Geographic: 771;
Nongeographic: 255;
Total: 1,026.
Year: IAEA-2009;
Geographic: 757;
Nongeographic: 303;
Total: 1,060.
Growth rate of IAEA geographic staff: -0.9%, nongeographic staff: 5.8%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, and IAEA data.
Note: Because the Secretariat reports each year's staffing data as of
June 30 rather than December 31 of the calendar year, all data
reported for the Secretariat are for the year ending June 30.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Number of Geographic and Nongeographic American Staff at
Four UN Organizations, 2006 and 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: Secretariat-2006;
Geographic: 313;
Nongeographic: 414;
Total: 727.
Year: Secretariat-2009;
Geographic: 333;
Nongeographic: 640;
Total: 973.
Growth rate of Secretariat geographic staff: 2.3%, nongeographic
staff: 15.1%.
Year: WHO-2006;
Geographic: 201;
Nongeographic: 13;
Total: 214.
Year: WHO-2009;
Geographic: 141;
Nongeographic: 38;
Total: 179.
Growth rate of WHO geographic staff: -10.5%, nongeographic staff:
42.0%.
Year: FAO-2006;
Geographic: 132;
Nongeographic: 24;
Total: 156.
Year: FAO-2009;
Geographic: 118;
Nongeographic: 40;
Total: 158.
Growth rate of FAO geographic staff: -3.7%, nongeographic staff: 20.0%.
Year: IAEA-2006;
Geographic: 94;
Nongeographic: 51;
Total: 145.
Year: IAEA-2009;
Geographic: 85;
Nongeographic: 61;
Total: 146.
Growth rate of IAEA geographic staff: -3.6%, nongeographic staff: 4.5%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, and IAEA data.
[End of figure]
UNHCR is not depicted above as it does not distinguish between
geographic and nongeographic positions. Table 2 shows the total number
of professional staff at UNHCR in 2006 and 2009, the number of
Americans who filled those positions, and the respective growth rates
of each.
Table 2: Total Numbers of Professional and American Staff at UNHCR,
2006 and 2009:
Year: 2006;
Total number of professional staff: 1,586;
Number of American professional staff: 130.
Year: 2009;
Total number of professional staff: 1,612;
Number of American professional staff: 120.
Year: Growth rate, 2006-2009;
Total number of professional staff: .8%;
Number of American professional staff: -2.3%.
Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.
[End of table]
State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for leading U.S.
efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in UN
organizations. In doing so, State cooperates with at least 17 federal
agencies that have interests in specific UN organizations. For
example, Brookhaven and Argonne National Laboratories, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) all play active roles in recruiting Americans to
work for IAEA, FAO, and WHO, respectively. A 1970 executive order
assigns the Secretary of State responsibility for leading and
coordinating the federal government's efforts to increase and improve
U.S. participation in international organizations through transfers
and details for federal employees.[Footnote 16] The order further
calls for each agency in the executive branch "to the maximum extent
feasible" promote details and transfers to international organizations
through measures such as (1) notifying well-qualified agency employees
of vacancies in international organizations and (2) upon request of an
appropriate authority, providing international organizations with
detailed assessments of the qualifications of employees being
considered for specific positions. Some U.S. agencies allow for
secondments, in which the agency's employees are detailed to a UN
organization for a certain period of time, while the U.S. agency pays
the salaries, benefits, and other allowances for these secondees. The
Department of Health and Human Services has about 45 officials,
usually from CDC, seconded to WHO worldwide. Similarly, Argonne and
Brookhaven National Laboratories currently have 25 American CFEs
working at IAEA, according to these agencies' officials. These are
technical specialists, mid-to senior-level staff, who work on short-
term projects at IAEA for periods of 2 to 5 years.
The United States Was Generally Underrepresented in Geographic
Positions, and the Growth of Nongeographic Positions Could Further
Weaken U.S. Representation:
In 2009, the United States was underrepresented at all five UN
organizations we reviewed--the Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR.
[Footnote 17] During the period 2006 to 2009, the United States was
generally underrepresented, or at the low end of the target range, at
four of the five UN organizations--the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA, and
UNHCR. However, during that same time period, the relative number of
nongeographic positions in the five UN organizations, positions
primarily funded by extrabudgetary sources, has significantly
increased. An assessment of the full picture of professional
employment, which includes both geographic and nongeographic
positions, shows that the relative increase in nongeographic positions
at these organizations could result in even lower overall U.S.
representation at FAO and the Secretariat but lead to an increase in
overall representation at IAEA. U.S. representation in policymaking
and senior-level positions generally decreased at most UN
organizations we reviewed.
The United States Was Generally Underrepresented at All Five UN
Organizations:
Based on UN organizations' formal and informal targets for equitable
geographic representation in 2009, the United States was
underrepresented at all five of the UN organizations we reviewed--the
Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR. For example, the minimum
geographic target for Americans at the Secretariat in 2009 was 12.5
percent, whereas U.S. representation was 11.9 percent. Table 3 shows
the targets for geographic positions for each of the UN organizations
for 2009 and the percentage of those positions filled by Americans. In
addition, table 3 also shows the percentage of nongeographic positions
filled by Americans. The percentage of nongeographic positions filled
by Americans is higher at WHO and IAEA and lower at the Secretariat
and FAO compared with the percentage of geographic positions held by
Americans at these organizations. From 2006 to 2009, the United States
was generally underrepresented, or at the low end of the target range,
at four of the five UN organizations--the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA, and
UNHCR, but became underrepresented in all of the organizations by
2009.[Footnote 18] See appendix II for details of U.S. representation
at the five organizations during 2006 to 2009.
Table 3: U.S. Representation at Five UN Organizations, as of Year-end
2009:
UN organization: Secretariat[B];
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%-
16.9%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.9%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 9.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans[A]:
10.2%.
UN organization: WHO[C];
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 8.3%-
11.2%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 8.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 8.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans[A]:
8.3%.
UN organization: FAO;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13.7%-
18.5%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.7%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 6.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans[A]:
10.5%.
UN organization: IAEA;
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 20.1%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans[A]:
13.8%.
UN organization: UNHCR[D];
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13%;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: data not
applicable;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: data not
applicable;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans[A]:
7.4%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR data.
[A] Total professional positions is the sum of geographic and
nongeographic positions.
[B] Data are for end of calendar year, except for the Secretariat,
which is for the year ending June 30.
[C] WHO raised questions about the reliability of its data.
[D] State has determined U.S. representation at UNHCR should be at
least 13 percent of total professional positions. As UNHCR does not
distinguish between geographic and nongeographic positions, we also
calculated the percentage of core professional positions, which GAO
defines as including only indefinite contracts and contracts of longer
fixed term, filled by Americans. This was 7.6 percent in 2009.
[End of table]
Only the number of Americans employed in UN organizations' geographic
positions, not those in nongeographic positions, is required and
tracked for congressional reporting and represents State IO's
performance indicator for U.S. employment at the UN. However, State
officials told us that their goal is to increase U.S. representation
overall, regardless of the grade level or type of position, or whether
positions count toward the U.S.'s geographic targets at UN
organizations. State officials said that their recruitment efforts are
not targeted solely toward geographic positions, in part because UN
vacancy announcements do not distinguish between geographic and
nongeographic positions.
The Relative Increase of Nongeographic to Geographic Positions Could
Lower Overall U.S. Representation in Two UN Organizations:
From 2006 to 2009, in the four organizations with geographic
positions, the growth rate of staff in nongeographic positions was
considerably higher compared with the growth rate of staff in
geographic positions. For example, from 2006 to 2009, the annual
growth rate of nongeographic positions at the Secretariat was 13
percent, leading to an increase in nongeographic positions as a
percentage of all professional positions from about 64 percent in 2006
to 70.5 percent in 2009. Correspondingly, the growth rate of American
staff in nongeographic positions at the Secretariat was 15 percent,
and the percentage of Americans in nongeographic positions (computed
as a percentage of total American professional positions) increased
from 57 percent to nearly 66 percent. Meanwhile, both overall
geographic positions at the Secretariat and geographic positions held
by Americans grew by slightly more than 2 percent.
Examining employment data for both geographic and nongeographic
positions shows that the relative increase in the number of
nongeographic positions at these organizations could result in even
lower overall U.S. representation at FAO and the Secretariat but lead
to an increase in overall U.S. representation at IAEA.[Footnote 19] As
previously shown in table 3, in 2009, the United States had a lower
percentage of Americans in nongeographic positions compared with
geographic positions at the Secretariat and FAO. For example, at FAO,
U.S. nongeographic representation was 6.9 percent, and geographic
representation was 12.7 percent. On the other hand, a relative
increase in nongeographic positions could mean an improvement in
overall U.S. representation at IAEA, where the United States had
nearly twice the representation in nongeographic (20.1 percent) as
compared with geographic positions (11.2 percent). At WHO, U.S.
representation in geographic and nongeographic positions was
relatively equal in 2009.
The majority of the funding for nongeographic professional positions
in 2009 came from extrabudgetary funds at three of the four UN
organizations with geographic positions--the Secretariat, WHO, and
FAO. At IAEA, about one-third of the nongeographical positions are
funded from extrabudgetary sources. At UNHCR, extrabudgetary funds are
the primary funding source for nearly all professional positions (see
appendix IV). In particular, the funding for the shorter-term or more
limited-duration positions--the fastest growing component of
nongeographic professional staff positions during the 2006 to 2009
time period[Footnote 20]--comes almost exclusively from extrabudgetary
sources rather than the regular budget at the Secretariat, FAO, and
UNHCR.[Footnote 21] For example, at the Secretariat, Assignments of
Limited Duration (ALD), which are funded almost entirely from
extrabudgetary funds, grew by 18.2 percent, increased from 950
positions in 2006 to 1,538 in 2009.[Footnote 22] Similarly, at FAO,
ALDs, also primarily funded from extrabudgetary funds, grew by 29.5
percent, increasing from 32 to 65 positions over this time period. The
UN JIU noted in a 2007 report that some UN organizations were facing
critical shortages of core resources and were using their
extrabudgetary resources to close gaps and fund key functions and
staff.[Footnote 23] The same report also stated that the increase in
extrabudgetary resources affects the management of UN organizations.
U.S. Representation in Policymaking and Senior-Level Positions
Generally Decreased at UN Organizations:
With regard to Americans in geographic policymaking and senior-level
positions,[Footnote 24] we found that, from 2006 to 2009, U.S.
representation in these positions decreased at three of the four
organizations that distinguish between geographic and nongeographic
positions--the Secretariat, WHO, and IAEA. In addition, U.S.
representation in policymaking and senior-level positions at UNHCR,
which does not differentiate geographic and nongeographic positions,
also declined. (See table 4. See appendix III for U.S. representation,
by grade, at the five UN organizations from 2006 to 2009.)
Table 4: Geographic Policymaking and Senior-Level Positions at the
Five UN Organizations and Percentage-Held by Americans, 2006 and 2009:
Secretariat;
2006: Total: 340;
2006: U.S.: 52;
2009: Total: 354;
2009: U.S.: 51;
2006: U.S. percentage: 15.3%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 14.4%.
WHO;
2006: Total: 140;
2006: U.S.: 12;
2009: Total: 80;
2009: U.S.: 4;
2006: U.S. percentage: 8.6%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 5.0%.
FAO;
2006: Total: 153;
2006: U.S.: 18;
2009: Total: 134;
2009: U.S.: 19;
2006: U.S. percentage: 11.8%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 14.2%.
IAEA;
2006: Total: 43;
2006: U.S.: 5;
2009: Total: 45;
2009: U.S.: 5;
2006: U.S. percentage: 11.6%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 11.1%.
UNHCR;
2006: Total: 86;
2006: U.S.: 11;
2009: Total: 110;
2009: U.S.: 9;
2006: U.S. percentage: 12.8%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 8.2%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR data.
Note: There are no geographic positions at UNHCR. The UNHCR numbers in
the table include all policymaking and senior-level positions.
[End of table]
Additionally, we found that the relative increase in nongeographic
positions translates into a substantial increase in the total number
of policymaking and senior-level positions at the Secretariat, WHO,
and FAO, along with an increase in the number of Americans holding
these positions. For example, the total number of policymaking and
senior-level positions at the Secretariat in 2009 increased from 354
positions (see table 4) to 722 (see table 5) when the nongeographic
positions are included as well. However, comparing the percentage of
these positions held by Americans in 2009 from both tables shows that,
at the Secretariat and IAEA, the percentage of policymaking and senior-
level positions held by Americans, when these nongeographic positions
are included, is lower compared with these geographic positions held
by Americans; whereas at WHO and FAO, U.S. representation in
nongeographic policymaking and senior-level positions is somewhat
higher when compared with the geographic positions held by Americans.
Table 5 shows the total number of all policymaking and senior-level
positions--geographic and nongeographic--for each UN organization and
the percentage of these positions held by Americans.
Table 5: Geographic and Nongeographic Policymaking and Senior-Level
Positions at the Five UN Organizations and the Percentage-Held by
Americans, 2006 and 2009:
Secretariat;
2006: Total: 632;
2006: U.S.: 78;
2009: Total: 722;
2009: U.S.: 95;
2006: U.S. percentage: 12.3%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 13.2%.
WHO;
2006: Total: 278;
2006: U.S.: 23;
2009: Total: 275;
2009: U.S.: 21;
2006: U.S. percentage: 8.3%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 7.6%.
FAO;
2006: Total: 172;
2006: U.S.: 21;
2009: Total: 151;
2009: U.S.: 22;
2006: U.S. percentage: 12.2%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 14.6%.
IAEA;
2006: Total: 45;
2006: U.S.: 5;
2009: Total: 48;
2009: U.S.: 5;
2006: U.S. percentage: 11.1%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 10.4%.
UNHCR;
2006: Total: 86;
2006: U.S.: 11;
2009: Total: 110;
2009: U.S.: 9;
2006: U.S. percentage: 12.8%;
2009: U.S. percentage: 8.2%.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR data.
Note: There are no geographic positions at UNHCR. The UNHCR numbers in
the table include all policymaking and senior-level positions. For the
other four UN organizations, policymaking and senior-level positions
comprise all professional staff positions, including staff with
appointments of more limited duration.
[End of table]
When nongeographic policymaking and senior-level positions are
included with the geographic positions, U.S. representation declines
in two organizations and increases in two organizations. For example,
in 2009, U.S. representation in geographic policymaking and senior-
level positions at the Secretariat was 14.4 percent, but it falls to
13.2 when nongeographic policymaking and senior-level positions are
included. However, at WHO, U.S. representation in geographic
policymaking and senior-level positions in 2009 was 5.0 percent, but
increases to 7.6 percent when nongeographic policymaking and senior-
level positions are included.
Challenges within UN Organizations Affect the Recruitment, Hiring, and
Retention of Professional Staff, including Americans, but Human
Resource Reforms May Help Mitigate These Issues:
All five of the UN organizations we reviewed face challenges to
recruiting, hiring, and retaining professional staff, including
Americans, most of which are outside direct U.S. government control.
The UN organizations have taken steps to mitigate the effects of some
of these challenges, including a variety of human resource reform
initiatives, and the U.S. government has also made some efforts to
lessen the effect of these challenges on Americans.
UN Organizations Face Challenges to Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining
Professional Staff, Including Americans:
Based on our interviews with 63 Americans employed at the UN
organizations, UN human resources officials, and U.S. officials, we
identified eight issues that present challenges to recruiting, hiring,
and retaining American professional staff at the five UN organizations
we reviewed. These issues range from challenges related to the
organizations' human resource policies and practices, such as policies
limiting hiring opportunities, to the particular situations of
individual candidates, such as whether they have proficiency in more
than one UN language. Our 2001 and 2006 reports identified similar
types of human resource challenges.[Footnote 25] These challenges are
as follows:
* American candidates lack proficiency in more than one UN language.
UN organizations face challenges finding qualified Americans who
sometimes lack proficiency in more than one UN language, a requirement
for many UN organizations. For example, a FAO human resources official
said that, while most other nationals know at least two languages,
Americans and Japanese particularly struggle to meet FAO's language
requirement. As a result, for unrepresented and underrepresented
countries, FAO is working on reducing the barrier created by lack of
another foreign language by offering language training once the
candidate is hired. U.S. Mission officials in New York and Geneva also
commented that many Americans are at a disadvantage in competing for
UN jobs because they lack knowledge of multiple languages. UNHCR human
resources officials said that knowledge of English, French, and one
other language is important for the organization, particularly for
promotion, and Americans experience difficulties in meeting this
requirement.
* Difficulty obtaining spousal employment. At the four UN
organizations located in Europe, many spouses of American employees
have difficulty finding employment, which could contribute to the
attrition of American employees at those organizations. In contrast,
citizens of European Union countries have the right to employment
without a work permit in any European Union country. As we reported in
2006, at many overseas UN duty stations, work permits can be difficult
to obtain, the local economy may offer few employment opportunities,
and knowledge of the local language may be required. According to a
Brookhaven National Laboratory discussion paper on obstacles to
recruiting Americans for IAEA positions, since "U.S. families tend to
have two wage earners, lack of employment for the spouse represents a
loss of wages and the unemployed spouse can feel unfulfilled."
[Footnote 26] FAO, UNHCR, and IAEA human resources officials said that
it is difficult for American spouses to get employed in Rome, Geneva,
and Vienna, which is a major challenge for American candidates and
employees. The majority of Americans we spoke with also identified
spousal employment as a challenge to recruiting, hiring, and retaining
Americans in UN organizations. For example, at IAEA, several Americans
said that their spouses gave up jobs to move to Vienna, and one said
that she would leave the organization when her contract ends if her
spouse remained unemployed. U.S. government officials acknowledge the
challenge of spousal employment, and State IO's Web site now has a
booklet with resources for families seeking employment abroad. The
Brookhaven National Laboratory also plans to develop resources for
spousal employment in Vienna in 2010. The UN organizations we reviewed
allow spousal employment; however, at most of these organizations,
spouses must obtain jobs through the normal competitive process. FAO
and IAEA have explored ideas with other UN organizations in Rome and
Vienna to accommodate spousal employment, although human resources
officials at IAEA said they have not yet been successful in finding
employment for spouses at other UN organizations. FAO said that it has
been designated the lead organization in a pilot program to negotiate
with the Italian government on obtaining work permits for UN spouses.
* Lengthy hiring process. UN organizations' lengthy hiring processes
can deter candidates from accepting employment. According to UN human
resources officials, the average hiring process can take from
approximately 6 to 9 months. (See figure 3 for the average length of
the hiring process at the five UN organizations we reviewed.) As we
noted in 2006, a report from the Secretary-General stated that the
average hiring process is too slow, taking 174 days from the date a
vacancy announcement is issued to the date a candidate is selected. An
independent external evaluation of FAO in 2007 found that FAO's
recruitment processes were slow, complex, and overly centralized.
Human resources officials at FAO and the Secretariat acknowledged that
lengthy hiring times cause problems because applicants find work
elsewhere while waiting to hear from the UN organization. Human
resources officials at the Secretariat and WHO also said that the
lengthy hiring process can cause some hiring managers to circumvent
the process by hiring people on short-term contracts. For example, at
WHO, candidates can obtain temporary contracts of less than 6 months
without having to go through the competitive hiring process. Of the 63
Americans we spoke with, 45 identified the length of the hiring
process as a challenge to recruitment and hiring. Most of the
organizations we reviewed are working on initiatives to decrease
average hiring time at their organizations. For instance, IAEA is
preparing to implement an initiative to reduce the hiring time to 15
weeks by advertising job vacancies for a shorter period of time and
having hiring managers review applications as they come in, rather
than after the vacancy announcement has closed. In response to the
independent external evaluation, FAO has begun streamlining its hiring
process, for instance, eliminating the "onerous" requirement to enter
data on all job applicants, regardless of whether they meet the job
qualifications.
Figure 3: Average Length of the Hiring Process for Five UN
Organizations, as of 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
UN Organization: UNHCR;
Months: 5.5.
UN Organization: UN Secretariat;
Months: 6.
UN Organization: FAO;
Months: 8.
UN Organization: IAEA;
Months: 8.5.
UN Organization: WHO;
Months: 9.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR
information.
Note: Average length of hiring time as of April 2010 for the
Secretariat; May 2010 for UNHCR, IAEA, and WHO; and September 2010 for
FAO.
[End of figure]
* Limited opportunity for promotion and professional growth. According
to many Americans employed at the five UN organizations, limited
opportunities for promotion and professional growth present a
challenge to retaining Americans. Promotion is generally achieved by
applying to a new position at a higher grade level rather than through
the reclassification of one's current position. For example, IAEA
human resources officials said that only about 5 percent of promotions
at each grade level occur through the reclassification of a position
to a higher grade-level and that the primary means of moving to a
higher grade level is by competing for a new position. Likewise, at
WHO, promotion occurs through applying for a new job at a higher grade
level, although human resources officials said that their human
resource reform initiatives will change the promotion process. Human
resources officials at FAO also told us about the limited availability
for promotion at their organization, where 24 percent of staff have
been in the same job or grade level for 8 or more years. At UNHCR, a
2008 survey of headquarters and field staff found that only 23 percent
of staff surveyed thought that promotion at UNHCR was based on merit.
* Low or unclear benefits or compensation. Officials at three of the
five UN organizations said that either their organizations could do a
better job explaining their employment benefits to prospective
employees or that low compensation makes it difficult to recruit and
retain Americans. At FAO, for example, vacancy announcements do not
provide consistent information on benefits and salary. Some FAO
announcements provide a link to the general Web site of the
International Civil Service Commission (ICSC),[Footnote 27] some
provide a link to the specific ICSC Web page that has information on
salaries and benefits, and some only provide the salary range without
giving any information on other employment benefits. Representatives
of the staff association at FAO said that benefit and salary
information is not clear when applying for FAO positions and even
difficult to obtain after being hired. FAO human resources officials
acknowledged that it could be helpful to provide more compensation and
benefits information in their vacancy announcements. At IAEA, a human
resources official explained that it is difficult for people outside
the organization to understand all of the benefits of UN employment,
which vary significantly from candidate to candidate. For example,
people often do not understand that their salary at IAEA would be
composed of a base salary plus a post-adjustment that depends on the
location where they will be working. IAEA provides prospective
employees with a link to a salary estimation calculator created by the
United Nations Development Program that allows them to estimate items
such as the post-adjustment, as well as dependency and hardship
allowances but does not include information on other benefits, such as
education grants. The U.S. government provides prospective UN
employees with some information on UN benefits and salary. For
instance, some Americans at IAEA said that Brookhaven National
Laboratory's Web site provides helpful information on salary and
benefits. State IO's Web site also provides a general list of the UN's
benefits.
* Noncompetitive practices. The 2007 independent external evaluation
of FAO found a strong and consistent perception among FAO staff that
the appointment process for FAO representatives lacks transparency and
results in politicized appointments. Additionally, the Office of the
UN Ombudsman and Mediation Services reported in 2009 that it received
cases from individuals who said that the recruitment and selection
processes in the UN lacked rigor and were not transparent. Of the 63
American employees at the five UN organizations we interviewed, 28
said that noncompetitive human resource practices at their
organizations present challenges to recruitment, hiring, and
retention. Some Americans expressed the perception that friends and
fellow nationals help each other within their organization. Other
Americans also noted that some UN officials have ways to bypass an
organization's procedures and policies, or vacancy announcements
appear to be written for specific candidates. Several Americans at
IAEA expressed the perception that promotion based on merit is almost
nonexistent and that Americans who start at the entry to midcareer
level cannot move up through the organization.[Footnote 28] UNHCR's
Office of the Ombudsman reported in 2009 that, in its opinion, UNHCR
had failed to come up with a methodology for promotion that staff see
as credible and fair. However, several Americans said that the hiring
process at their organizations were rigid with many steps or were very
competitive processes. UN human resources officials described
competitive recruitment processes for professional staff--such as
selection panels composed of officials from various parts of the
organization, interviews, and tests--while also needing to be
responsive to organizations' commitments to gender and geographic
diversity.
* Preference for hiring internal candidates. As we reported in 2006,
increased recruitment and hiring of U.S. candidates may be difficult
because some UN organizations give preference to internal candidates.
For example, both the Secretariat and UNHCR have human resource
policies that give priority to internal job candidates, which could
make it more difficult for external applicants to obtain jobs.
[Footnote 29] All of the Americans we spoke to at the Secretariat and
UNHCR perceived limited opportunities for external candidates to be a
barrier to hiring. The Secretariat's human resources officials said
that, prior to a recent change, the Secretariat's policy ensured that
hiring managers reviewed internal candidates' applications for
vacancies 30 to 45 days prior to those submitted by external
candidates. One path for external candidates to be hired into entry-
level positions at the Secretariat involves taking the National
Competitive Recruitment Exam, which the Secretariat offers to
candidates in underrepresented countries such as the United States.
However, of the 240 Americans invited to take the exam, only 9 were
hired on average each year between 2006 and 2009. (See figure 4.)
Figure 4: Four-Year Average of American Applicants at Each Stage of
the Secretariat's National Competitive Recruitment Exam, 2006-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Exam stage: Applied to take exam;
Applicants: 1,186.
Exam stage: Invited to take exam;
Applicants: 240.
Exam stage: Took written exam;
Applicants: 167.
Exam stage: Successful at exam;
Applicants: 24.
Exam stage: Hired;
Applicants: 9.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat data.
[End of figure]
* Required mobility or rotation. UNHCR requires most professional
staff to change posts every few years, while IAEA requires the
majority of its regular staff to leave the agency after 5 to 7 years.
UNHCR expects its staff to be mobile and work in different locations
worldwide during their career. At IAEA, the organization's position is
that the rotation policy provides it with a continuous influx of new
knowledge and experience. However, such a policy may dissuade some
Americans from accepting or staying in a UN position because moves to
different locations may cause disruptions to personal or family life.
A majority of Americans we interviewed at UNHCR and IAEA indicated
that required mobility or rotation is a challenge to recruitment,
hiring, and retention. At UNHCR, officials said that the hardship of
rotation is a major challenge for the organization, and the frequent
reassignment of staff can destabilize families and also causes staff
to feel insecure about their career development. Most Americans we
spoke with at IAEA cited the policy requiring rotation out of the
organization as a primary reason why Americans leave IAEA.
UN Organizations Are Currently Implementing Human Resources Reform
Initiatives:
The five UN organizations we reviewed have initiated or are in the
process of implementing a variety of human resource reforms that may
lessen some of the human resource challenges affecting the
recruitment, hiring, and retention of Americans and other nationals.
See table 6 for an overview of selected human resource reforms at the
five UN organizations. For instance, initiatives to reform the
performance management processes could help address concerns over
promotion processes and perception of limited professional growth in
the UN organizations we reviewed. According to UN officials, many of
these reforms have recently been completed or are still under way. For
example, contract reforms to consolidate the different types of
contracts at the Secretariat went into effect in July 2009, although
agreement on the terms of one type of contract, the continuing
appointment, has yet to be reached by the General Assembly. UNHCR
officials said that they are waiting for the General Assembly's
decision on this type of appointment before finishing UNHCR's own
contract reforms. Since many of these reforms are in the process of
being implemented, the full impact of these initiatives has yet to be
realized.
Table 6: Selected Human Resource Reform Initiatives Under Way or
Recently Completed at the Five UN Organizations Reviewed:
Recruitment and hiring policies;
Secretariat:
* Shorten hiring time by streamlining selection process;
* National Competitive Recruitment Exam;
streamline selection process for P2 staff;
UNHCR:
* Implement Professional Recruitment Induction and Deployment Exercise
to recruit generalists;
* Improve gender balance;
WHO:
* Shorten hiring time;
* Update recruitment and placement policies and practices for gender
and geographic balance;
* Develop measures for reaching target recruitment audience;
FAO:
* Shorten hiring time by streamlining process;
* Started a new internship program;
* Wider publication of vacancies;
* Revise policy for gender and geographic representation;
* Decentralize hiring authority;
IAEA:
* Shorten hiring time to 15 weeks;
* Improve gender balance.
Performance management;
Secretariat:
* Increase staff training;
* Integrate performance management into other human resource processes;
UNHCR:
* Change in staff performance evaluation;
WHO:
* Develop managerial competence;
* Improve staff development and learning;
* Establish performance-based rewards and sanctions;
* Induction and mentoring program;
FAO:
* Increase staff training;
* Link performance to FAO objectives in staff appraisal system;
* Establish incentive based rotation policy to promote movement to and
from headquarters to field;
IAEA:
* Move to 360 review process.
Streamlining and restructuring;
Secretariat:
* Streamline contracts;
UNHCR:
* Streamline contracts;
* Decentralize staff from headquarters to field;
* Limit growth of professional staff size;
* Move select human resource services to Budapest service center;
WHO:
* Streamline contracts;
* Move select human resource services to Kuala Lumpur;
FAO:
* Reduce D-level positions to flatten the organization;
* Move select human resource services to Budapest service center;
IAEA:
* Streamline contracts.
Human resource management;
Secretariat:
* Reform workforce planning;
* Consolidate multiple data systems in headquarters and field;
* New personnel management system;
* Harmonize conditions of service in field and headquarters locations;
UNHCR:
* Institutionalize results based management;
WHO:
* Revised rotation and mobility policy;
* Improve cross-organization planning;
* Link human resource planning linked to WHO short-and medium-term
strategic plan;
FAO:
* Upgrade data system and improve human resource information reporting;
IAEA:
* Implement Oracle human resource management tool.
Sources: GAO analysis of Secretariat, FAO, WHO, IAEA, and UNHCR
documents.
[End of table]
State Has Made Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation but Has Not
Evaluated the Effectiveness of Most of These Efforts and Allocates
JPOs at Only a Few UN Organizations:
State has taken steps to increase U.S. representation in UN
organizations, including the implementation of some of our 2006 report
recommendations. However, State has not evaluated the effectiveness of
most of its ongoing efforts to increase U.S. representation. In
addition, State continues to sponsor JPO programs, used to place
Americans in entry-level UN jobs, at only a few UN organizations.
State Has Taken Actions Intended to Increase U.S. Representation:
Since 2006, State has continued its activities toward its goal of
increasing U.S. representation at UN organizations, including the
following:
* compiling and disseminating a biweekly list of international vacancy
announcements, accessible on State's Web site;
* attending recruiting events such as career fairs and information
sessions;
* responding to questions from individuals interested in UN positions
or from candidates who are finalists for UN positions; and:
* coordinating with other U.S. agencies, including holding annual
interagency task force meetings, to discuss strategies for increasing
U.S. representation at specific UN organizations.
State has also undertaken further efforts in response to some of our
2006 recommendations to increase U.S. representation at UN
organizations, as follows:
* Improved Web site information. In 2006, we reported that State, U.S.
Missions, and agency Web sites had limited information on UN
employment opportunities. For example, the Web site did not provide a
means for applicants to obtain more specific information on their
expected total compensation, which may hamper a candidate's ability to
decide whether a UN position is in his or her best interest. Since
2007, State has provided more information on its Web site, such as
information on UN benefits and compensation; an updated and expanded
fact sheet on UN employment; and information on resources for spousal
employment.
* Expanded recruitment activities. In 2006, we reported that State's
recruitment and outreach efforts did not reach some potential
applicants. State officials attended career fairs and other
conferences to discuss UN employment opportunities with attendees, but
they had not taken advantage of other opportunities to expand the
audience for their outreach activities. Since then, State reported
that it had increased its number of outreach events from 15 events in
2005 to 38 in 2009, including outreach to new groups.
* Roster of prospective American applicants. In 2006, we reported that
State no longer maintained a roster of qualified American candidates
for professional and technical positions. Other U.S. government and UN
officials informed us that some countries maintained rosters of
prescreened, qualified candidates for UN positions and that this
practice was an effective strategy for promoting their nationals. In
August 2010, State officials noted that they were in the process of
finalizing the implementation of a roster database, in which people
interested in UN jobs could self-populate information about their
skills and interests, then receive an automated e-mail listing
relevant UN organizations' vacancy announcements.
In addition, the U.S. Missions to the UN in New York, Rome, Geneva,
and Vienna work with State IO to promote U.S. employment. However, the
U.S. Missions have varying levels of involvement to support Americans
at the five UN organizations we reviewed. According to U.S. and UN
officials, U.S. Missions to the UN have open dialogues with UN
organizations' human resources officials to promote the U.S. presence
at these organizations. For example, the U.S. Mission to the UN in
Rome has provided lists of professional associations to FAO officials
to identify targeted groups of American candidates. State IO officials
told us that, in their meetings with Americans employed by UN
organizations, they found that many Americans were interested in a
forum where they could discuss concerns with other Americans. In 2008,
State IO requested that the U.S. Missions intensify their efforts to
improve support of Americans working at UN organizations by
maintaining active and open communication with them, such as regularly
holding events to foster relationships. However, we found that
different U.S. Missions provided different levels of support. For
example, the U.S. Mission in Rome has periodically hosted meetings for
Americans employed at UN organizations there to discuss their common
concerns, but the U.S. Mission in New York has not held such a
meeting, which some American employees of the Secretariat we
interviewed noted would be beneficial. Several American employees of
UN organizations in Geneva said they experienced problems overseas,
but they did not have the means for seeking out other Americans in
order to share information. According to State officials, the U.S.
Mission's level of involvement depends on different factors, such as
the size of the mission.
State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Most of Its Ongoing
Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation:
According to State, two bureaus outside of IO have made some efforts
to determine the effectiveness of a few U.S. recruitment efforts. For
example, State, through Argonne National Laboratory, has been working
on a survey to determine the effectiveness of current IAEA recruitment
efforts. However, State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of
its efforts to increase U.S. representation. For instance, despite the
increased number of outreach events State officials attend, State does
not survey the attendees to determine ways to improve its presentation
of information. Recognizing the need to understand recruitment
problems at IAEA, Brookhaven National Laboratory convened a workshop
with participants who have expertise in the technical area or with
recruitment issues, to discuss ways in which the laboratory can
increase U.S. representation. The report resulting from the workshop
provided specific recommendations, such as polling Americans currently
working at IAEA to gather information about how they learned about
IAEA. State has not conducted such formal analysis of its approach to
increasing American presence in UN organizations overall. In its
fiscal year 2011 Bureau Strategic Plan, State IO has a performance
indicator of the average percentage of Americans as part of UN
organizations' workforce in geographic positions. As discussed
earlier, in 2009, the United States was underrepresented in all five
UN organizations we reviewed. State officials' position remains that
it is difficult to make a direct link between current or proposed
efforts by the department and the number of Americans ultimately hired
by the UN because of the many factors that State cannot control. For
example, interested American candidates may not attend State's
outreach events and may not be aware of State IO's Web site.
Furthermore, UN organizations ultimately make their own hiring
decisions, and State has limited influence over these decisions.
We found that many Americans we interviewed did not seek assistance
from State IO or the U.S. Missions when they considered working for UN
organizations. Many did not know that State IO and U.S. Missions to
the UN provided information or assistance on UN employment
opportunities. Instead, many Americans we spoke with learned about UN
job opportunities through their own personal or professional networks.
Only 9 out of 59 Americans we interviewed sought the assistance of
State IO or U.S. Missions when they applied for UN positions. Some of
the Americans noted that the U.S. government could increase its
support for Americans during the application and hiring process to
better promote the hiring of Americans at UN organizations. State
officials told us that any means to increase American employment at UN
organizations, whether through State's assistance or not, would help
the United States toward achieving its goal of equitable
representation.
State Allocates JPOs at Only a Few UN Organizations:
JPO, Associate Expert (AE), and Associate Professional Officer (APO)
programs provide UN organizations with young professionals who usually
work in entry-level positions for a period of 2 to 4 years.[Footnote
30] JPOs are considered staff members of the UN organizations but are
funded by member states. The U.S. government, including State
entities, sponsors JPOs to work at three of the five UN organizations
we reviewed.[Footnote 31] State officials noted that State's Bureaus
of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and International
Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) can fund JPOs at UNHCR and IAEA,
respectively, because funding JPOs to work at these UN organizations
is aligned with the PRM's and ISN's missions and activities.
Information about JPO and APO programs sponsored by the United States
at each of the three UN organizations is as follows:
* JPOs at UNHCR. PRM sponsors the JPO program at UNHCR. According to
State officials, about 88 JPOs have completed the program since 1983.
About 60 percent of American JPOs returned to work at UNHCR. State
officials noted that, on an annual basis, PRM informally evaluates the
effectiveness of the JPO program performance in getting Americans
hired at UNHCR.
* JPOs at IAEA. ISN funds the JPO program at IAEA. The program is
implemented by the Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories. In
2009, 11 out of a total of 16 JPOs at IAEA were American. IAEA
officials noted that the organization intends for JPOs to eventually
return to IAEA after gaining additional work experience.
* APOs at FAO. USDA funds the APO program. Since 2000, USDA has
sponsored approximately 1 to 3 American APOs annually at FAO.
Table 7 provides 2009 data on the number of American JPOs compared
with the total number of JPOs at the five UN organizations we reviewed.
Table 7: Number of JPOs at Five UN Organizations, 2009:
Number of American JPOs;
Secretariat: 0;
WHO: 0;
FAO: 2;
IAEA: 11;
UNHCR: 10;
Total number, all five organizations: 23.
Total number of JPOs, all nationalities;
Secretariat: 248;
WHO: 31;
FAO: 71;
IAEA: 16;
UNHCR: 105;
Total number, all five organizations: 471.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and
UNHCR.
Note: JPOs includes JPOs, APOs, and AEs at these organizations.
[End of table]
In 2006, we recommended that State evaluate the overall costs and
benefits of supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S.
representation across UN organizations. Such an evaluation would help
determine which UN organization the United States should prioritize in
terms of increasing U.S. employment by funding JPOs. We noted that the
assessment would also involve weighing the trade-offs between funding
JPOs and other agency programs. According to a State official, State
did not conduct its own formal assessment of funding JPOs. Instead,
its informal review of funding the JPO program consisted of relying on
and agreeing with the findings of a 2008 JIU report that reviewed JPO
programs across the UN system.[Footnote 32] The JIU report noted that
countries may use the JPO program as a tool to remedy their
underrepresentation in UN organizations, and UN organizations have
high retention rates of JPOs. State officials informed us that they
support the program and acknowledge the program's general benefits as
noted in the JIU report.
According to the JIU report on JPOs, the largest sponsors of JPOs make
periodic evaluations of their programs and, according to changes in
circumstances, modify their priorities or reformulate the scope and
focus. State does not currently make determinations about how to
prioritize which UN organization could benefit most from having JPOs.
The overall result is that State has funded as many as 11 JPOs at one
UN organization and none at some other organizations that may benefit
from having JPOs. For example, in 2009, 39 countries sponsored 248
JPOs at the Secretariat, with no representation from the United States
where the Secretariat headquarters is located. Many U.S. and UN
officials told us that the JPO program is a good entry point into the
UN system. In addition, we found that 33 of the 61 American
respondents we interviewed would recommend that the U.S. government
fund JPOs to increase American representation in the UN, the primary
suggestion among these Americans for increased U.S. government
involvement.
Conclusions:
Despite State's ongoing efforts, the United States is underrepresented
in geographic positions at a number of UN organizations. While many of
the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of Americans at
these organizations are outside U.S. control, actions by the U.S.
government may still have a positive effect. However, State's lack of
information on the effectiveness of its current efforts limits State's
ability to modify its approach by expanding on its best practices and
eliminating ineffective activities. The JPO program represents one
area with the potential for positive impact on improving U.S.
representation at the UN; however, State allocates JPOs at only a few
UN organizations. Furthermore, geographic positions only represent a
subset of the overall level of employment at UN organizations.
Examining employment data for both geographic and nongeographic
positions shows the UN organizations in which the United States may
have an even more difficult time achieving equitable representation.
Although State's recruitment efforts are directed at increasing U.S.
representation without regard to geographic or nongeographic
positions, its current reporting does not capture important trends of
U.S. representation in UN organizations. Without a more accurate and
complete representation of overall U.S. professional employment in UN
organizations, State will not have the necessary information to target
its efforts, particularly in light of the many challenges that
Americans experience while employed in the UN. Congress could also
benefit from receiving more complete reporting on the overall level of
U.S. employment at UN organizations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
This report contains three recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(1) To provide more complete information on the level of U.S.
representation at UN organizations, we recommend that the Secretary of
State include data on U.S. representation in all professional
positions, similar to the information it currently provides on staff
in geographic positions, in State's annual report to Congress on U.S.
representation in UN organizations. (2) To improve U.S. efforts to
increase the employment of Americans at UN organizations, we recommend
that the Secretary of State develop a means to evaluate the
effectiveness of State's efforts to increase U.S. representation. The
evaluation should include an assessment of State's ongoing efforts
such as its Web-based database for sending UN vacancy announcements to
interested job candidates. (3) Consider implementing a pilot program
to fund JPOs at UN organizations where the United States currently
does not have JPOs such as the Secretariat.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We solicited comments on a draft of this report from State, FAO, IAEA,
the Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO. We received comments from State,
which are reprinted in appendix V. State concurred with our
recommendations. State noted the challenges in obtaining employment
data from the various UN organizations, but said that it plans to seek
additional information on nongeographic positions to include in its
annual report to Congress. In concurring with our recommendation to
evaluate the effectiveness of State's efforts to increase U.S.
representation at UN organizations, State said that a key tool for
making decisions on priorities and directions for some its approaches
will be its new Web-based tool, designed to enhance outreach to
Americans on opportunities in the UN system. State also agreed to
consider funding for JPOs at UN organizations in conjunction with
other funding priorities. In addition, we received technical comments
from State, FAO, IAEA, the Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO, which we have
incorporated as appropriate. In its technical comments, WHO raised
questions about the reliability of its data. A full description of
this issue is contained in appendix I.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of State, the United Nations Secretariat,
the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization,
the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The report also is available
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Other contacts and major
contributors are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to examine (1) U.S. representation
at five United Nations (UN) organizations; (2) issues affecting the
recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff, including
Americans at these five UN organizations; and (3) efforts the State
Department (State) has undertaken to improve U.S. representation at UN
organizations, including its implementation of our 2006
recommendations. Our scope included five UN organizations: the UN
Secretariat (the Secretariat), International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Health
Organization (WHO). Technically, the IAEA is an independent
international organization that has a special relationship with the
UN. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the IAEA as a UN
organization. We reviewed three of these UN organizations in 2006 (the
Secretariat, IAEA, and UNHCR) and selected two additional
organizations (FAO and WHO). We selected these five organizations
because they have the largest professional staff sizes among UN
organizations with formal or informal geographic targets and also to
provide some overlap with the organizations we reviewed in 2006.
Together they comprised over 50 percent of total UN organizations'
professional staff as of December 2008. We conducted our work in
Washington, D.C.; New York; Geneva, Switzerland; Rome, Italy; and
Vienna, Austria.
Methodology for Reviewing U.S. Representation Status and Employment at
Five UN Organizations:
To determine U.S. representation status, trends in the number of
professional positions held by Americans, and the growth in
nongeographic positions, we analyzed employment data for 2006 through
2009 that we obtained from the five UN organizations. Data are for end
of calendar year, except for the Secretariat, which is for the year
ending June 30. We had extensive communications with the staff
responsible for providing each organization's personnel data to
clarify details regarding the data. We determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review for the
Secretariat, FAO, IAEA and UNHCR. However, WHO raised questions about
the reliability of its data. See below for discussion.
To determine U.S. geographic representation at the four UN
organizations with geographic targets (the Secretariat, WHO, FAO, and
IAEA), we calculated the percentage of geographic positions filled by
Americans and compared this percentage with the organization's target.
We calculated the geographic target for the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO
as a percentage range, in which the minimum and maximum number of
national staff, as provided by the organization, is divided by the
actual geographic staff in the organization. IAEA informally
calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its geographic
representation is less than half of its percentage contribution to the
budget. Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR has not
adopted a formal geographic representation target but acknowledges
U.S. concerns regarding the appropriate level of U.S. representation.
We based our target representation for Americans at UNHCR on State's
determination that, for organizations to which the United States
contributes 22 percent, American representation should be at least 13
percent to be considered equitably represented. To determine U.S.
representation at UNHCR in comparison to this target, we calculated
the percentage of total professional positions (including both
geographic and nongeographic positions) filled by Americans. For the
purpose of this report, the United States is considered equitably
represented if the number of Americans is within the UN organizations
geographic target range.
We also calculated U.S. representation, as shown in table 3, in
nongeographic positions and in total professional positions.
Nongeographic positions are regular professional positions without
geographic status. These positions include staff on both longer-and
shorter-term contracts of varying duration. Total professional
positions include both geographic and nongeographic positions. U.S.
representation in nongeographic positions is calculated as the
percentage of each UN organization's nongeographic positions filled by
Americans. U.S. representation in total professional positions is
calculated as the percentage of each UN organization's total
professional positions filled by Americans. For the four UN
organizations with geographic positions, as seen in figures 1 and 2,
we calculated the change from 2006 to 2009 in the number of geographic
and nongeographic positions and the annual growth rate of both
geographic and nongeographic positions for each organization's total
staff and for Americans. For details on U.S. representation in each of
the UN organizations we reviewed, see tables 8 through 12 in Appendix
II.
U.S. representation in geographic policymaking and senior-level
positions in 2006 and 2009, as shown in table 4, is computed as the
number of Americans in these geographic positions as a percentage of
the organization's total geographic policymaking and senior-level
positions. U.S. representation in all policymaking and senior-level
positions--including both geographic and nongeographic--as shown in
table 5, is computed as the number of Americans in these positions as
a percentage of the organization's total number of geographic and
nongeographic policymaking and senior-level positions. For UNHCR, U.S.
representation in policymaking and senior level positions in both
tables is computed as the number of all Americans in these positions
as a percent of UNHCR's total policymaking and senior level positions.
For all five organizations, we have also included graphs (see figs. 5
to 9 in appendix III) to illustrate U.S. geographic representation
(or, in the case of UNHCR, U.S. representation in total professional
positions) at each grade--policymaking and senior-level (such as
USG/ASG, D1/D2), mid-level (P4/P5), and entry-level (P1-P3)--as well
as for all grades combined. U.S. geographic grade-level employment
representation is calculated by dividing the number of U.S. staff at
that grade level by the organization's total geographic employment for
the corresponding grade level. At UNHCR, U.S. representation at each
grade level is calculated by dividing the number of U.S. staff at that
grade level by UNHCR's total employment for the corresponding grade
level.
Reliability of WHO data:
For our review, we used the data that WHO provided for our analysis.
During the course of our review of these data, we had numerous
communications with WHO data officials and went through multiple steps
to establish the accuracy, consistency, and completeness of the data
we report. At our briefing with State, officials noted a discrepancy
between the numbers WHO provided GAO in July 2010 and the official
numbers used by State, which were based on WHO's Human Resources
Annual Report published in April 2010. We alerted WHO of this
discrepancy well in advance of sending WHO a copy of our draft report.
We did not receive a response until just prior to publication. In
their response, WHO noted that its new Global Management system is not
fully implemented and that, since the system's inception in July 2008,
it has created some problems for WHO, such as data consolidation. WHO
advised us to use the data it published in WHO's Human Resources
Annual Reports as "this data is tracked and verified manually."
However, WHO was unable to substantiate this assertion in response to
our request to provide evidence demonstrating that the more outdated
Annual Report numbers would be more reliable than the more recent data
they provided us. As such, throughout the report, we have decided to
use the more recent numbers that WHO provided us beginning in July
2010.
Methodology for Reviewing Issues Affecting the Recruitment, Hiring,
and Retention of Professional Staff at UN Organizations:
To assess issues affecting the recruitment, hiring, and retention of
Americans at the five UN organizations, we reviewed UN organizations'
human resource policies and other documents and interviewed UN human
resources officials; U.S. government officials from State, Brookhaven
and Argonne National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and 63 Americans employed
at the five UN organizations' headquarters. Using a structured
interview questionnaire, we received the views of a total of 63
Americans' employed across the five UN organizations on various UN
employment issues.[Footnote 33] We gathered information from these
employees through individual interviews, small-group interviews, and a
large-group interview. We also received written answers to our
questionnaire from some American employees. Because of time
constraints, not all questions were asked of every individual.
Questions with less than 63 respondents are identified as such in the
body of this review. We met with employees in a range of professional
grade levels from P1 (entry-level) to D2 (senior-level) and contract
types (such as temporary, fixed-term, and indefinite). We did not
select representative samples of American employees at any
organization. Therefore, the results of our interviews with the
Americans employed at the five UN organizations are not generalizable
to those organizations or the UN system. The structured interview
questionnaire included a set of 25 closed and open-ended questions
covering interviewees' backgrounds, work experience, and experiences
within their organization. In conjunction with information we gathered
from UN and U.S. officials and our analysis of UN documents, we used
responses to the closed-ended question on factors that might hinder UN
organizations from recruiting, hiring, and retaining Americans to
select the factors affecting U.S. representation discussed in the body
of this review. To analyze how current human resource reform
initiatives may affect these challenges, we used information collected
from interviews with UN human resources officials and UN documents.
Methodology for Reviewing U.S. State Department's Efforts to Increase
U.S. Representation at UN Organizations:
To assess State's efforts to increase U.S. representation, including
the implementation of our 2006 recommendations, we reviewed documents
and interviewed officials from State's Bureau of International
Organization Affairs (IO). We discussed improvements that State has
made since our 2006 report on U.S. representation in UN organizations,
in response to recommendations made in that report, and reviewed
State's documentation of these activities. We reviewed other State
documents, including its annual reports to Congress, U.S.
Representation in United Nations Agencies and Efforts Made to Employ
U.S. Citizens, and State IO's fiscal year 2011 strategic plan. In
addition, we met with State officials outside of IO, and other U.S.
agency officials that have participated in State's interagency task
force on UN employment or been involved with recruiting Americans to
work at the UN organizations we reviewed. We reviewed documents these
U.S. agencies provided on their strategies to improve U.S. employment
at UN organizations. Furthermore, we met with UN human resources
officials, American employees of UN organizations, officials
representing the U.S. Missions to the UN, and representatives of
nongovernmental organizations, to obtain their views on U.S. efforts
for increasing representation at UN organizations. We also reviewed
the UN Joint Inspection Unit report that assessed the JPO program at
the UN.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: U.S. Representation in Geographic and Nongeographic
Positions at Five UN Organizations, 2006-2009:
For the four organizations that distinguish between geographic and
nongeographic positions, the following tables show the percentage and
numerical target for U.S. representation in geographic positions set
by each organization, the number of geographic positions that
Americans hold, the percentage of geographic positions that Americans
fill, and the equitability of this representation based on the
targets. In addition, tables 8 to 12 show the percentage of
nongeographic positions filled by Americans and the percentage of
total professional positions (geographic and nongeographic, where
applicable, and the more limited duration appointments) held by
Americans, at all five UN organizations we reviewed. The table for
UNHCR, which does not distinguish between geographic and nongeographic
positions, indicates, in addition to the informal target percentages
and numbers, U.S. representation in core professional positions
(indefinite contracts and contracts of longer fixed term), as well as
U.S representation in total professional positions, which also
includes fixed-term appointments (contracts for less than 1 year).
Table 8: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at Secretariat, 2006 to 2009:
2006:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 11.7%-
15.9%;
Target range (in numbers): 309-418;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 313;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.9%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 9.0%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.0%.
2007:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 11.7%-
15.9%;
Target range (in numbers): 320-433;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 327;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.0%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 8.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.0%.
2008:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 11.8%-
16.0%;
Target range (in numbers): 330-447;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 341;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 8.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.0%.
2009:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%-
16.9%;
Target range (in numbers): 352-476;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 333;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.9%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 9.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.2%.
Growth rate:
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 2.3%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat data.
[End of table]
Table 9: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at WHO, 2006 to 2009:
2006:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 8.4%-
11.5%;
Target range (in numbers): 142-193;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 201;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.0%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Over;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 7.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 11.6%.
2007:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 7.6%-
10.4%;
Target range (in numbers): 142-193;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 168;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 9.0%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 21.0%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.0%.
2008:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 7.1%-
9.6%;
Target range (in numbers): 142-193;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 160;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 8.0%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 52.4%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 9.8%.
2009:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 8.3%-
11.2%;
Target range (in numbers): 142-193;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 141;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 8.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 8.5%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 8.3%.
Growth rate:
Number of Americans in geographic positions: -10.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.
[End of table]
Table 10: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at FAO, 2006 to 2009:
2006:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.4%-
16.8%;
Target range (in numbers): 129-175;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 132;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.7%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Equitable;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 6.4%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 11.0%.
2007:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13.0%-
17.7%;
Target range (in numbers): 129-175;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 126;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.7%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 5.6%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.6%.
2008:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13.1%-
17.8%;
Target range (in numbers): 127-172;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 121;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.5%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 6.8%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.6%.
2009:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 13.7%-
18.5%;
Target range (in numbers): 127-172;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 118;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.7%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on targets: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 6.9%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 10.5%.
Growth rate:
Number of Americans in geographic positions: -3.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.
[End of table]
Table 11: U.S. Representation in Geographic, Nongeographic, and Total
Professional Positions at IAEA, 2006 to 2009:
2006:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Informal target number: 96;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 94;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on target: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 20.0%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 14.1%.
2007:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Informal target number: 98;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 94;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 12.0%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on target: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 23.3%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 14.9%.
2008:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Informal target number: 95;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 88;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.6%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on target: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 20.2%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 14.0%.
2009:
Percentage of total geographic positions targeted for Americans: 12.5%;
Informal target number: 95;
Number of Americans in geographic positions: 85;
Percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans: 11.2%;
Equitability of U.S. representation based on target: Under;
Percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans: 20.1%;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 13.8%.
Growth rate:
Number of Americans in geographic positions: -3.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of IAEA data.
[End of table]
Table 12: U.S. Representation in Nongeographic and Total Professional
Positions at UNHCR, 2006 to 2009:
2006:
Past informal target: 13.0%;
Informal target number: 197;
Number of Americans in core professional positions: 121;
Percentage of core professional positions filled by Americans: 8.0%;
Equitability of U.S. based on informal target: Under;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 8.2%.
2007:
Past informal target: 13.0%;
Informal target number: 197;
Number of Americans in core professional positions: 117;
Percentage of core professional positions filled by Americans: 7.7%;
Equitability of U.S. based on informal target: Under;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 8.0%.
2008:
Past informal target: 13.0%;
Informal target number: 202;
Number of Americans in core professional positions: 121;
Percentage of core professional positions filled by Americans: 7.8%;
Equitability of U.S. based on informal target: Under;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 7.8%.
2009:
Past informal target: 13.0%;
Informal target number: 203;
Number of Americans in core professional positions: 118;
Percentage of core professional positions filled by Americans: 7.6%;
Equitability of U.S. based on informal target: Under;
Percentage of total professional positions filled by Americans: 7.4%.
Growth rate:
Number of Americans in core professional positions: -0.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.
Note: Core professional positions at UNHCR exclude staff on
appointments of less than 1 year. Total professional positions
includes those staff.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: U.S. Representation, by Grade, in Geographic Positions
in Four UN Organizations and in Total Professional Positions at UNHCR,
2006-2009:
Figures 5 to 8 show U.S. representation in geographic positions at
each grade level--policymaking and senior-level (USG/ASG, D1/D2); mid-
level (P4/P5); entry-level (P1-P3); and "all grades"--in the four UN
organizations that distinguish between geographic and nongeographic
positions. Figure 9 shows U.S. representation at UNHCR--a UN
organization that does not differentiate between geographic and
nongeographic positions--in total professional positions at each of
these grade levels. The bold line in the figures indicates the average
minimum target for U.S. representation over the period from 2006 to
2009. At IAEA and UNHCR, this target was constant over this period.
For the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO, the minimum target varied within 2
percentage points over this period.
Figure 5: U.S. Representation in the UN Secretariat Geographic
Positions by Grade Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of agency grade-level total:
U.S. minimum geographic target, 2006-2009 average: 11.9% of total
geographic staff. 2009 target low range, 12.5%.
Year: 2006;
Policy making and senior level: 15.3%;
Mid-level: 12.6%;
Entry level: 9.9%;
All grades: 11.9%.
Year: 2007;
Policy making and senior level: 13.6%;
Mid-level: 13.2%;
Entry level: 10.1%;
All grades: 12%.
Year: 2008;
Policy making and senior level: 14.5%;
Mid-level: 12.4%;
Entry level: 11.3%;
All grades: 12.2%.
Year: 2009;
Policy making and senior level: 14.4%;
Mid-level: 11.5%;
Entry level: 11.4%;
All grades: 11.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat data.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: U.S. Representation in WHO Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of agency grade-level total:
U.S. minimum geographic target, 2006-2009 average: 7.9% of total
geographic staff. 2009 target, low range, 8.3%.
Year: 2006;
Policy making and senior level: 8.6%;
Mid-level: 12.2%;
Entry level: 12.6%;
All grades: 12%.
Year: 2007;
Policy making and senior level: 6.3%;
Mid-level: 10%;
Entry level: 6.3%;
All grades: 9%.
Year: 2008;
Policy making and senior level: 5.9%;
Mid-level: 8.6%;
Entry level: 6%;
All grades: 8%.
Year: 2009;
Policy making and senior level: 5%;
Mid-level: 8.6%;
Entry level: 7.6%;
All grades: 8.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: U.S. Representation in FAO Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of agency grade-level total:
U.S. minimum geographic target, 2006-2009 average: 13.1% of total
geographic staff. 2009 target low range, 13.7%.
Year: 2006;
Policy making and senior level: 11.8%;
Mid-level: 14.1%;
Entry level: 10.2%;
All grades: 12.7%.
Year: 2007;
Policy making and senior level: 11.5%;
Mid-level: 13.8%;
Entry level: 10.9%;
All grades: 12.7%.
Year: 2008;
Policy making and senior level: 12.5%;
Mid-level: 12.9%;
Entry level: 11.4%;
All grades: 12.5%.
Year: 2009;
Policy making and senior level: 14.2%;
Mid-level: 12.5%;
Entry level: 12.4%;
All grades: 12.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: U.S. Representation in IAEA Geographic Positions by Grade
Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of agency grade-level total:
Informal U.S. geographic target: 12.5%, half of the U.S. budgetary
contribution.
Year: 2006;
Policy making and senior level: 11.6%;
Mid-level: 13.2%;
Entry level: 10.4%;
All grades: 12.2%.
Year: 2007;
Policy making and senior level: 11.1%;
Mid-level: 13.5%;
Entry level: 9.5%;
All grades: 12%.
Year: 2008;
Policy making and senior level: 11.6%;
Mid-level: 12.5%;
Entry level: 9.8%;
All grades: 11.6%.
Year: 2009;
Policy making and senior level: 11.1%;
Mid-level: 12%;
Entry level: 9.7%;
All grades: 11.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of IAEA data.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: U.S. Representation in UNHCR Total Professional Positions by
Grade Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of agency grade-level total:
U.S. informal target, 13%.
Year: 2006;
Policy making and senior level: 12.8%;
Mid-level: 9.6%;
Entry level: 6.6%;
All grades: 8.2%.
Year: 2007;
Policy making and senior level: 11.1%;
Mid-level: 9.1%;
Entry level: 6.5%;
All grades: 8%.
Year: 2008;
Policy making and senior level: 11.2%;
Mid-level: 9.2%;
Entry level: 6.2%;
All grades: 7.8%.
Year: 2009;
Policy making and senior level: 8.2%;
Mid-level: 9.3%;
Entry level: 5.8%;
All grades: 7.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Use of Extrabudgetary Resources to Fund Nongeographic
Professional Staff:
Table 13 shows that extrabudgetary resources are funding a growing
percentage of nongeographic positions in the four organizations that
distinguish between geographic and nongeographic positions. In
addition, at the Secretariat and WHO, an increasing percentage of
extrabudgetary resources are also being used to fund geographic
positions.
Table 13: Percentage of Geographic and Nongeographic Professional
Staff Funded from Extrabudgetary Funds, for each UN Organization, 2006-
2009:
2006:
Secretariat: Geographic: 15%;
Secretariat: Nongeographic: 79%;
WHO: Geographic: 37%;
WHO: Nongeographic: 47%;
FAO: Geographic: 0%;
FAO: Nongeographic: 73%;
IAEA: Geographic: 0%;
IAEA: Nongeographic: 34%;
UNHCR: Geographic: NA;
UNHCR: All professionals: 95%.
2007:
Secretariat: Geographic: 17%;
Secretariat: Nongeographic: 80%;
WHO: Geographic: 44%;
WHO: Nongeographic: 48%;
FAO: Geographic: 0%;
FAO: Nongeographic: 71%;
IAEA: Geographic: 0%;
IAEA: Nongeographic: 35%;
UNHCR: Geographic: NA;
UNHCR: All professionals: 95%.
2008:
Secretariat: Geographic: 18%;
Secretariat: Nongeographic: 81%;
WHO: Geographic: 49%;
WHO: Nongeographic: 7%;
FAO: Geographic: 0%;
FAO: Nongeographic: 77%;
IAEA: Geographic: 0%;
IAEA: Nongeographic: 34%;
UNHCR: Geographic: NA;
UNHCR: All professionals: 95%.
2009:
Secretariat: Geographic: 19%;
Secretariat: Nongeographic: 81%;
WHO: Geographic: 63%;
WHO: Nongeographic: 67%;
FAO: Geographic: 0%;
FAO: Nongeographic: 78%;
IAEA: Geographic: 0%;
IAEA: Nongeographic: 36%;
UNHCR: Geographic: NA;
UNHCR: All professionals: 95%.
Sources: GAO analysis of UN Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR
data.
Note: Nongeographic professional positions also include temporary
positions, of varying duration. For WHO, in 2008, nearly all
professionals funded from "other" budgetary sources were geographic.
Hence a small percentage of nongeographic professionals were funded
from "other" budget.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the State Department:
United States Department of State
Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
September 17, 2010:
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,
"U.S. Employment In The United Nations: State Department Needs to
Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase
U.S. Representation," GAO Job Code 320735.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Lynette Podolsky, Sr. Staffing Management Officer, Bureau of
International Organization Affairs (202) 647-6396.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Barbara Retzfaff:
cc: GAO ” Tom Melito:
IO ” Esther Brimmer:
State/OIG ” Evelyn Klemstine:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
U.S. Employment in the United Nations: State Department Needs to
Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase
U.S. Representation (GAO-10-1028, GAO Code: 320735).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
U.S. Employment in the United Nations, State Department Needs to
Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase
U.S. Representation. The Department of State places a high priority on
increasing the representation of U.S. nationals, at all levels, on the
staffs of the United Nations and other international organizations.
This is the third GAO review concerning issues relevant to this
subject since 2001, inclusive.
We appreciate that GAO has highlighted some of the Department of
State's efforts to improve the representation of U.S. nationals in
international organizations and to comply with recommendations made by
GAO in its 2006 report. We note that many of the challenges in
increasing the employment of U.S. nationals in international
organizations that were found in 2006 continue to exist, and GAO
correctly points out that many of these are beyond U.S. control.
This report contains three recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(1) To provide more complete information on the level of U.S.
representation at UN organizations, it recommends that the Secretary
include data on U.S. representation in all professional positions, in
State's annual report to Congress on this subject. (2) To improve U.S.
efforts to increase the employment of Americans at UN organizations,
the report recommends that the Secretary develop a means to evaluate
the effectiveness of State's efforts to increase U.S. representation.
This evaluation should include an assessment of State's ongoing
efforts for sending UN vacancy announcements to interested job
candidates. (3) The report suggests implementing a pilot program to
fund Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) at UN organizations where the
U.S. currently does not have JPOs.
Regarding GAO's first recommendation, we envision that the challenges
we often experience in obtaining data on positions subject to
geographic distribution from the various organizations will be even
more acute for nongeographic positions. We are not certain of the
usefulness of such data in that nongeographic positions are often
funded from extrabudgetary sources and can reflect conditions or
requirements placed by the donor regarding the programs to which they
are attached. Nevertheless, we find the recommendation acceptable and
plan to seek additional summary information on nongeographic positions
to include in our annual report to Congress on U.S. representation in
UN agencies. Regarding the second recommendation, the Department
concurs. We currently are developing a new web-based tool to enhance
outreach to American citizens on opportunities in the UN system and to
provide the Department with improved data on aspects of that outreach.
We expect this will be one of our key tools on which to base decisions
on priorities and direction for some of our approaches. Lastly, we
agree with the third recommendation, and in conjunction with the
Department's and President's budget process, we will consider funding
for JPOs at UN organizations where there are no American JPOs. As with
all funding issues, this will be considered in conjunction with other
funding priorities.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant
Director; Rachel Girshick; Victoria Lin; and Roberta G. (RG) Steinman
made key contributions to this report. The team benefited from the
expert advice and assistance of Debbie Chung, Joyce Evans, Joel
Grossman, and Grace Lui.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] UN Charter art. 101, para. 3.
[2] Positions exempted from being counted geographically include
linguist and peacekeeping positions, positions funded by special
funds, short-term positions, staff tied to specific projects, gratis
personnel, and consultants. Gratis personnel include Junior
Professional Officers (JPO) and Cost-Free Experts (CFE) whose salaries
are funded by member states.
[3] 22 U.S.C. § 276c-4. Although not required for its annual reports
to Congress, State also reports on UN organizations it deems to be of
high interest to the United States.
[4] GAO, United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S.
Employment at UN Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-988] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006). We also previously reported on this issue in 2001, having
reviewed a different set of UN organizations. See GAO, United Nations:
Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-839] (Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2001).
[5] The United Nations was founded in 1945, and the Secretariat,
headed by the Secretary-General carries out the day-to-day work of the
organization. According to the UN Charter, the four purposes of the
organization are to maintain international peace and security; develop
friendly relations among nations; cooperate in solving international
problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and be a center
for harmonizing the acts of nations.
[6] IAEA was established in 1957, and works with its member states and
other partners to promote safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear
technologies. IAEA's mission focuses on safety and security, science
and technology, and safeguards and verification.
[7] FAO was established in 1945 with a mandate to raise levels of
nutrition and standards of living, to improve agricultural
productivity, and to better the condition of rural populations. FAO is
the lead agency in the UN system for agriculture, forestry, fisheries
and rural development.
[8] UNHCR was established in 1950 with the mandate of leading and
coordinating international efforts to protect refugees and resolve
refugee problems. The organization's central purpose is to safeguard
the rights and well-being of refugees.
[9] WHO was created in 1948 and is the directing and coordinating
authority for health within the UN system. WHO is responsible for
providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health
research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-
based policy options providing technical support to countries, and
monitoring and assessing health trends.
[10] Formal and informal targets vary by UN organizations. Details are
discussed later in this report.
[11] According to a 2007 UN Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report on
voluntary funding of UN organizations, UN organizations' funding
resources are generally classified in two categories: (1) assessed
contributions from member states, i.e., regular budget resources and
(2) voluntary contributions, generally referred to as extrabudgetary
resources. Extrabudgetary resources can be used for the core purposes
fundamental for the existence of an organization in which case they
are provided without condition, or used for noncore purposes in which
case they are generally earmarked by the donor for specific purposes.
[12] UN Charter art. 101, para. 3.
[13] The United States contributed approximately 25 percent of UNHCR's
annual budget in 2008.
[14] For the purpose of this report, GAO has defined professional
positions at these UN organizations to include geographic and
nongeographic positions. Nongeographic professional positions are
regular professional positions without geographic status.
Nongeographic positions include staff on both longer-and shorter-term
contracts of varying duration. Four of the five UN organizations
provided separate data for staff on these shorter-term appointments of
varying duration, as follows: Assignments of Limited Duration at the
Secretariat (contracts of 1 year or more) and FAO (contracts of less
than 1 year); Fixed-Term Appointments at UNHCR (contracts of less than
1 year); and the following positions at IAEA--Fixed-Term Temporary
Assistance (FTA--1 year), Fixed-term Extra Budgetary (FTEs--1 year),
Monthly Short Term (MST--2 months to 2 years), and CFE--1 to 3 years).
WHO, however, was unable to separate out comparable limited duration
appointments, and instead combined the short-term appointments with
the data on regular professional positions. JPOs are not included in
this part of the analysis.
[15] This ranking analysis excludes U.S. professional staff in shorter-
term appointments of varying duration as described in the preceding
footnote.
[16] Exec. Order No. 11,552, 35 Fed. Reg. 13,569 (Aug. 24, 1970).
[17] In raising questions about the reliability of its data, WHO
advised us to use earlier data from WHO's Human Resources Annual
Report, dated April 2010, which showed the United States as equitably
represented in 2009. We instead use the more recent data WHO provided
us in July 2010. We had numerous communications with WHO data
officials and went through multiple steps to establish the accuracy,
consistency, and completeness of the data we report. For further
discussion of this issue, see appendix I.
[18] The United States was near the low end of the minimum target
range at the Secretariat and became underrepresented in 2009.
Americans went from being overrepresented at WHO in 2006 to being
equitably represented in 2007 and 2008, toward the middle of WHO's
target range, and became underrepresented in 2009 as a result of the
increase in WHO's geographic target for Americans. At FAO, the United
States was near the low end of the minimum target in 2006 and became
underrepresented beginning in 2007. At both IAEA and UNHCR, the United
States was underrepresented throughout the entire period.
[19] IAEA moved many of its temporary staff into geographic positions
in 2010. The number of temporary staff was 264 in 2009; in January 1,
2010, that number was reduced to 152. This contributed to an increase
in geographic staff from 757 in 2009 to 869 in 2010.
[20] Except at UNHCR, where professional positions grew by about 1
percent and fixed-term positions declined by nearly 8 percent.
[21] WHO was unable to provide a breakout of temporary positions.
[22] UN Secretariat officials indicated that with the recent reform to
contractual arrangements, the application and use of ALD contracts is
being phased out.
[23] The JIU is the external oversight body of the UN mandated to
conduct evaluations, inspections, and investigations system-wide.
Joint Inspection Unit, United Nations, Voluntary Contributions in
United Nations System Organizations: Impact on Program Delivery and
Resource Mobilization Strategies (JIU/REP/2007/1) (Geneva: 2007).
[24] Policymaking positions include the Under-Secretary-General and
Assistant-Secretary-General at the Secretariat and UNHCR, the UG, or
'Ungraded' staff at WHO, and the Deputy Director-General and Assistant
Director-General at FAO and IAEA. Senior-level positions are Director
positions designated as follows: Secretariat (D2/L7, D1/L6); WHO (D2,
D1, P6); and FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR (D2, D1).
[25] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-839] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-988].
[26] Brookhaven National Laboratory, White Paper: Obstacles to
Recruiting U.S. Citizens for IAEA Safeguards Positions. Prepared by
the International Safeguards Project Office, April 2005, updated April
2010.
[27] The ICSC is an independent expert body established by the UN
General Assembly. Its mandate is to regulate and coordinate the
conditions of service of staff in the UN common system, while
promoting and maintaining high standards in the international civil
service.
[28] Entry to midcareer positions in the UN system are at the P1 to P5
level using the UN grade scale.
[29] The Secretariat and UNHCR have different definitions of who
qualifies as an external or internal candidate. Internal candidates at
the Secretariat are staff who were recruited after a competitive
examination or after the advice of a Secretariat review body. UNHCR
gives internal status to international professional staff, JPOs,
international UN Volunteers, and National Professional Officers who
meet certain eligibility requirements such as length of service.
[30] For the purposes of this report, we use the term JPO to also
include AEs and APOs. Upon completion of the programs, these young
professionals are not guaranteed employment at the UN organization and
must apply for positions through the regular process. However, UN
officials stated that the JPO experience provides applicants an
advantage over their competitors.
[31] According to a 2008 JIU report, costs per JPO range between
$90,000 and $195,000 per JPO per year, depending on duty station. U.S.
officials informed us that JPO costs include salaries and benefits.
[32] Joint Inspection Unit, United Nations, Junior Professional
Officer/Associate Expert/Associate Professional Officer Programmes in
United Nations System Organizations (JIU/REP/2008/2) (Geneva: 2008).
[33] Specifically, we gathered information from 8 Americans employed
at the Secretariat, 19 at IAEA, 11 at FAO, 14 at WHO, and 11 at UNHCR.
[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 "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
