United Nations: Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S.	 
Representation (27-JUL-01, GAO-01-839). 			 
								 
The United Nations (U.N.) and its affiliated entities face the	 
dual challenge of attracting and retaining staff who meet the	 
highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity while 
maintaining the international character of the organizations by  
ensuring equitable geographic balance in the workforce. 	 
Nevertheless, U.N. organizations have made slow progress in	 
addressing U.S. concerns about underrepresentation, and except	 
for the U.N. secretariat in New York, the organizations with	 
representation targets that GAO studied have not achieved	 
equitable employment of Americans since 1992. Although the U.N.  
organizations are ultimately responsible for achieving fair	 
geographic balance among its member countries, the State	 
Department, in coordination with other U.S. agencies, plays a	 
role in ensuring that the United States is equitably represented.
U.N. organizations have not fully developed long-range workforce 
planning strategies, and neither State nor the U.N. agencies have
formal recruiting and hiring action plans to improve U.S.	 
representation in the U.N. system. Without these measures, the	 
United States' ability to even maintain the number of Americans  
employed in the United Nations could be hampered.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-839 					        
    ACCNO:   A01481						        
  TITLE:     United Nations: Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S.
             Representation                                                   
     DATE:   07/27/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Employment 					 
	     International organizations			 
	     Personnel recruiting				 
	     Personnel management				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-839
     
A

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2001 UNITED NATIONS Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

GAO- 01- 839

Letter 7 Results in Brief 8 Background 11 Americans Are Not Equitably

Represented in the U. N. System 13 U. N. Organizations Lack Long- Range

Workforce Planning Strategies 20 State?s Efforts Do Not Reflect Equitable U.
S. Representation

As a High Priority 28 Other Major Contributors Actively Promote U. N.
Employment for Their Citizens 36

Conclusions 37 Recommendations 38 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38
Scope and Methodology 39

Appendixes Appendix I: Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine
Representation Status of Member Countries 42

Appendix II: U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation 47 Appendix
III: Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U. N.

Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO 69 Appendix IV: Staffing Trends for Selected
Other Countries in Specific U. N. Organizations 74

Appendix V: Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and
Their Efforts to Promote U. N. Employment for Their Citizens 88 Appendix VI:
Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May

Affect Recruiting Americans for U. N. Organizations 93 Appendix VII: U. N.
Salary Scales 98 Appendix VIII: Methodology 101 Appendix IX: Comments From
the U. S. Department of State 106 Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments 109

Tables Table 1: United Nations, Subsidiary Bodies, Specialized Agencies, and
International Atomic Energy Agency - U. S. Staff

Relative to Total U. N. Staff and Total U. N. Professional Staff (2000) 12

Table 2: U. N. Grade Scale and Approximate U. S. Government Equivalent 12
Table 3: Overall Representation of Americans Compared With U. N.

Organizations? Geographic Targets (2000) 18 Table 4: U. S. Representation in
Senior and Policymaking Levels,

3- Year Average (1998- 2000) 20 Table 5: Number of Junior Professional
Officers by Organization

(2000- 2001) 25 Table 6: Number of External Appointments for Geographic

Positions and the Percentages of Applicants Hired From Underrepresented,
Equitably Represented, and Overrepresented Countries for Selected
Organizations (1998- 2000) 27 Table 7: Factors Used by the U. N. Secretariat
in Calculating

Geographic Targets 42 Table 8: FAO Position- Weighting System 43 Table 9: U.
N. Secretariat - Representation in Senior and

Policymaking Levels and Financial Assessments for Selected Major
Contributors (1998- 2000) 50 Table 10: FAO - Representation in Senior and
Policymaking

Levels and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-
2000) 54 Table 11: ILO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels

and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998- 2000) 57
Table 12: WHO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels

and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998- 2000) 60
Table 13: U. N. Secretariat - Top Five Overrepresented Countries

(1998- 2000) 70 Table 14: U. N. Secretariat - Number of Overrepresented
Countries (1998- 2000) 70

Table 15: FAO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 71 Table 16:
FAO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 71 Table 17: ILO -
Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 72 Table 18: ILO - Number of
Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 72 Table 19: WHO - Top Five
Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 73 Table 20: WHO - Number of
Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) 73 Table 21: Representation Status of
Japan (2000) 88 Table 22: Representation Status of Germany (2000) 88 Table
23: Representation Status of France (2000) 90 Table 24: Representation
Status of the United Kingdom (2000) 91

Table 25: Representation Status of Canada (2000) 92 Table 26: Salary Scales
for U. N. Professional and Senior Employees

(Effective Mar. 1, 2001) 98 Figures Figure 1: U. N. Organizations? Targets
for Equitable U. S.

Representation and Factors Used to Determine These Targets (2000) 16 Figure
2: State Department?s Support Services for U. N.

Employment 30 Figure 3: ILO Formula for Determining a Country?s Geographic

Target 45 Figure 4: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000)

Compared With the Secretariat?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 48
Figure 5: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000)

Compared With the Secretariat?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 49
Figure 6: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000)

Compared With FAO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 52 Figure 7:
Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000)

Compared With FAO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 53 Figure 8:
Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000)

Compared With ILO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 55 Figure 9:
Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1995- 2000) Compared With ILO?s U.
S. Geographic Representation

Target 56 Figure 10: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000)

Compared With WHO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target 58 Figure 11:
Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared With WHO?s U.
S. Geographic Representation

Target 59 Figure 12: Trends in U. S. Contributions and Percentage of
American Professional Staff at UNDP (1992- 2000) 61

Figure 13: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1995- 2000) Compared
With UNDP?s U. S. Contribution 62 Figure 14: Trends in U. S. Contributions
and Informal Targets for

Americans and Percentage of U. S. Professional Staff at UNHCR (1992- 2000)
64

Figure 15: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared
With U. S. Contributions and UNHCR?s Informal Geographic Target for the
United States 65 Figure 16: Trends in U. S. Contributions and Informal
Targets for

Americans and Percentage of U. S. Professional Staff at WFP (1996- 2000) 67
Figure 17: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1996- 2000)

Compared With U. S. Contributions and WFP?s Informal Geographic Target for
the United States 68 Figure 18: Trends in Japanese Representation in U. N.
Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With Japanese Contributions and Representation Targets 76
Figure 19: Trends in German Representation in U. N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With German Contributions and Representation Targets 78
Figure 20: Trends in French Representation in U. N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With French Contributions and Representation Targets 80
Figure 21: Trends in British Representation in U. N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With British Contributions and Representation Targets 82
Figure 22: Trends in Canadian Representation in U. N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With Canadian Contributions and Representation Targets 84
Figure 23: Trends in Combined European Union (EU) Representation in

U. N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With EU Member Countries? Combined
Contributions 86

Abbreviations

ADG Assistant Director- General ASG Assistant Secretary- General DDG Deputy
Director- General EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
HHS Department of Health and Human Services ICSC International Civil Service
Commission ILO International Labor Organization UG Ungraded UNDP United
Nations Development Program UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees USG Under Secretary- General WFP World Food Program WHO World
Health Organization

Lett er

July 27, 2001 The Honorable Jesse Helms Ranking Minority Member, Committee
on Foreign Relations United States Senate

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East
and South Asia, Committee on International Relations House of
Representatives

The employment of Americans in international organizations, particularly at
senior and policymaking levels, is a high priority for the United States,
according to the U. S. Department of State. State believes that placing
qualified Americans in these key positions allows U. S. citizens to become
?goodwill ambassadors? for U. S. interests and values; brings the
organizations a U. S. perspective on global needs; and provides
international entities with management, administrative, and technical
skills. While State plays a central role in promoting U. S. representation
in the United Nations and other international organizations, it acts in
collaboration with other federal agencies that have a direct interest in
these

international entities. To employ the nationals of U. N. member states in an
equitable manner, several U. N. organizations have established employment
targets for geographical representation. In 1991, the Congress enacted
legislation 1 requiring the Secretary of State to report annually on whether
U. N. entities with geographic targets 2 were meeting these targets. The
Congress has continued to be concerned about the number of Americans
employed by U. N. organizations, particularly in senior- level and
policymaking positions,

1 22 U. S. C. 276c- 4. 2 Geographic employment targets, which are
established for each member state, are calculated using a combination of
factors, such as population and contribution to the United Nations.

because the United States is the largest contributor to most of these
organizations. To address these concerns, you asked us to study whether U.
N. organizations have increased the employment of Americans and,
specifically, to (1) analyze the overall levels of U. S. representation and
Americans in senior and policymaking positions at U. N. organizations, (2)
assess U. N. organizations? efforts to employ nationals of countries that
are underrepresented or close to becoming underrepresented, (3) examine

State?s and other U. S. agencies? efforts and resources devoted to assisting
the United Nations in meeting their employment targets for Americans, and
(4) identify representation levels of selected U. N. member countries and
describe their approaches and resources directed toward employing their
nationals in the U. N. system. (See apps. I - V.) You also asked us to
identify factors related to the difficulty that organizations may have
experienced in hiring more Americans. (See app. VI.)

This report analyzes data for the period of 1992 through 2000 3 that were
obtained from seven U. N. organizations: the U. N. Secretariat (Secretariat)
and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in New York; the
International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Health Organization (WHO),
and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva; and
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World

Food Program (WFP) in Rome. We did not test the accuracy of the data
provided by these organizations. These bodies represent about 60 percent of
the professional, senior, and policymaking staff in the U. N. system and

have about 80 percent of the positions in the U. N. system that are subject
to geographic targets. Results in Brief Since 1992, some U. N. organizations
in our study have made gains in the

number of Americans employed, but most of the organizations we reviewed
continue to fall short of their own targets. Moreover, compared with
relative financial contributions, American representation in seniorlevel and
policymaking positions is below several major contributors in a number of U.
N. organizations. Of the six U. N. organizations in our study with either
formal or informal geographic targets, only the Secretariat employed
Americans in sufficient numbers to consistently satisfy its goal

3 WFP provided aggregate employment figures for the period of 1996 through
2000; UNDP data covered 1995 through 2000.

for equitable representation of Americans from 1992 through 2000. 4 In
addition, of the four organizations we analyzed that had formal geographical
targets, only the Secretariat employed Americans in senior and policymaking
positions at levels commensurate with those of selected major contributors
relative to their contribution levels.

Several U. N. organizations have various human resources management
initiatives under way, but none of them has developed a long- range
workforce planning strategy or a formal recruiting and hiring action plan
for achieving equitable geographical representation within a specified time
frame. According to U. N. officials, merit is the overriding criterion used
for appointing staff, but U. N. organizations? policies require that
priority consideration be given to qualified applicants from unrepresented
and

underrepresented countries. Nevertheless, recent hiring data show that new
hires from equitably represented or overrepresented countries outnumber
those from unrepresented and underrepresented countries. The State
Department- which has the lead role for the United States in recruiting
Americans for work at U. N. organizations- has identified the participation
of Americans on U. N. staff as a ?high priority.? However, State?s efforts
to recruit qualified Americans for positions at U. N. organizations do not
reflect this stated priority. State has a two- person office that, among
other duties, provides employment assistance to Americans, and, in selected
cases, high- ranking U. S. officials discuss American candidates for top-
level positions with U. N. officials. Despite the

minimal progress in improving U. S. representation in U. N. organizations,
State has reduced many of its recruitment efforts without assessing how
these reductions will affect recruitment. For example, it has reduced
activities to support hiring for professional positions, which is the
pipeline

for the more senior- level positions. While State?s policies call for
obtaining an ?equitable? share of high- level positions for Americans, and
much of its recruitment efforts are aimed toward this goal, it has not
developed guidelines that define ?equitable? nor does it have a mechanism
for assessing progress in this area. Moreover, State does not have
recruiting and hiring strategies or action plans in place to support U. N.
employment of Americans. In addition, while the promotion of Americans for
U. N.

4 The U. N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO have formal geographic targets,
while UNHCR and WFP have informal geographical representation targets. UNDP
does not have geographical representation targets for member states.
However, representation of Americans at UNDP is close to the percentage of
U. S. contributions; thus, it appears that the United States is equitably
represented at UNDP.

employment is a collaborative effort between the State Department and other
federal agencies, there has been little interagency coordination in this
area.

In contrast to State?s U. N. recruiting efforts, several other U. N.
members- both those adequately represented, such as Canada, and those who
are generally underrepresented, such as Germany- focus their recruiting

efforts on all levels of U. N. positions and use a variety of strategies to
maintain or improve their countries? representation. For example, Germany
has a high- level working group of top officials from several ministries
that meets regularly to discuss key positions and German participation in
various international organizations, and its federal employment agency
provides assistance to candidates for professional

positions. To help increase the level of American employment, we are
recommending that the Secretary of State (1) develop, with other U. S.
government agencies, a comprehensive U. S. strategy that specifies
performance goals

and time frames for achieving equitable representation of Americans in the
U. N. system and includes efforts to foster interagency coordination; (2)
work with U. N. organizations to develop plans and strategies for achieving
equitable geographic representation within specified time frames; (3)
develop guidelines that define State?s goal of obtaining an equitable share

of senior- level and policymaking positions for U. S. citizens and use these
guidelines to assess whether the United States is equitably represented in
high- level positions in U. N. organizations; and (4) provide copies of
State?s annual report to the Congress on U. N. progress to the heads of U.
N.

organizations for appropriate attention and action. The Department of State,
in commenting on a draft of this report, generally agreed with our analysis
and three of our four recommendations. Although State said that placement of
Americans in senior- level and policymaking positions is a high priority for
the Department, State has not clearly defined targets for placing Americans
in these positions and it disagreed with our recommendation that it should
develop such guidelines for obtaining an

equitable share of senior- level and policymaking positions at U. N.
organizations. State said it should apply the guidelines already being used
by the organizations for equitable employment representation at all levels.
We believe that because of the importance of senior- level and policymaking

positions and the relatively low representation of Americans in them at
several organizations, additional emphasis in this area of recruitment is
warranted. We further believe that without guidelines defining equitable

share, State lacks a mechanism for assessing progress toward achieving its
top recruitment priority.

Background The United Nations comprises six core bodies: the General
Assembly, the U. N. Secretariat, the Security Council, the Economic and
Social Council,

the Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice. In
addition, the U. N. system has 12 funds and programs and 14 specialized
agencies. Article 101 of the U. N. Charter calls for staff to be recruited
on the basis of ?the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and
integrity? as well as from ?as wide a geographical basis as possible.? Thus,
to employ the

nationals of U. N. members in an equitable manner, the Secretariat and
several associated U. N. organizations have quantitative formulas that
establish targets for equitable geographical representation. 5

Geographic representation targets do not apply to all staff positions in the
organizations that have established them. These organizations set aside a
certain number of positions that are subject to geographic representation
from among the professional and high- level positions. 6 There also are some
professional positions that are typically exempt from being counted
geographically, including linguist and peacekeeper positions and positions

of 1 year or less in duration. For example, in 2000, the U. N. Secretariat
had a total of 14, 312 staff- 5,854 of whom were in professional positions.
Of those professional positions, 2,389 were subject to geographic
representation. Table 1 provides information for 2000 on the total number of
staff in the U. N. system compared with the total number of American staff.

5 These formulas are explained in the ?Organizations Vary on Geographic
Representation Targets? section of this report. 6 Professional and high-
level positions comprise less than half of the total positions within the U.
N. system.

Table 1: United Nations, Subsidiary Bodies, Specialized Agencies, and
International Atomic Energy Agency - U. S. Staff Relative to Total U. N.
Staff and Total U. N. Professional Staff (2000) Tot al Tot al U. N. Total/
Percentage

professional Total/ Percentage

staff U. S. staff staff professional U. S. staff

56, 289 4,036 / 7.2% 21, 941 2,076 / 9.5% Source: State Department.

U. N. organizations use a standard pay scale known as the U. N. Common
System base salary scale to compensate their staff. (See app. VII for the
salary scales for U. N. staff in professional, senior- level, and
policymaking positions.) However, each U. N. organization has its own
personnel policies, procedures, and staff rules. Table 2 shows the U. N.
grade scale

and the approximate U. S. government equivalent as determined by the
International Civil Service Commission.

Table 2: U. N. Grade Scale and Approximate U. S. Government Equivalent

U. N. g radeP1 P2P3 P4P5 D1/ D2 U. S. grade GS- 9 GS11/ GS12/ GS13/ GS- 15
Senior Executive Service 12 13 14 Note: There are no established
equivalencies for policymaking positions (equivalent to the Assistant
Secretary- General and the Under Secretary- General).

Source: International Civil Service Commission.

The State Department is the U. S. agency primarily responsible for leading
U. S. efforts toward achieving equitable U. S. representation in employment
in U. N. organizations. In doing so, State works in cooperation with at
least 17 federal agencies 7 that have interests in specific U. N.
organizations. 8 A 1970 executive order assigns the U. S. Secretary of State
responsibility for

7 These include, among others, the U. S. Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Justice, Labor,
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

8 For instance, the U. S. Department of Agriculture has a direct interest in
the international food and agricultural agencies in Rome while the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor have a
direct interest in WHO and ILO in Geneva, respectively.

leading and coordinating the federal government?s efforts to increase and
improve U. S. participation in international organizations through transfers
and details of federal employees. 9 The order further calls for each agency

in the executive branch to cooperate ?to the maximum extent feasible? to
promote details and transfers through measures such as (1) notifying
wellqualified agency employees of vacancies in international organizations
and (2) providing international organizations with detailed assessments of
the qualifications of employees being considered for specific positions. In
addition, under the 1991 U. S. law, 10 the Secretary of State is required to

report to the Congress on whether each international organization with a
geographic distribution formula is making ?good faith efforts? to increase
U. S. staff as well as meeting its own geographic targets. State?s Bureau of
International Organization Affairs is responsible for implementing these
requirements. While State is responsible for promoting and seeking to

increase U. S. representation in the U. N. organizations, the U. N. entities
themselves are ultimately responsible for achieving equitable
representation.

Americans Are Not Since 1992, some of the U. N. organizations in our study
have made gains in

Equitably employing Americans, but most of the organizations we reviewed
continue

to fall short of their own targets for employing U. S. citizens. Moreover,
Represented in the compared with relative financial contributions, American
representation in U. N. System senior- level and policymaking positions 11
is below several major contributors in a number of U. N. organizations. Of
the six U. N.

organizations in our study with geographic employment targets, only the U.
N. Secretariat employed Americans in sufficient numbers to consistently
satisfy its goal of equitable representation of Americans from the period of
1992 to 2000. These targets and the methodology for calculating them are

different for each U. N. organization and are based on factors such as the
level of the country?s U. N. contribution and population. UNDP does not have
geographical representation targets for member states; however,
representation of Americans at UNDP is close to the percentage of U. S.
contributions, and thus it appears that the United States is equitably

9 E. O. 11552 (1970). 10 22 U. S. C. 276c- 4. 11 In this report, senior-
level posts are D1 and D2 positions and policymaking positions are
equivalent to the Assistant Secretary- General and Under Secretary- General
levels.

represented at UNDP. Although several U. N. organizations have established
overall geographical representation targets, none of the U. N. organizations
has developed numerical targets for senior- level and policymaking positions
among the nationals of its member states. Furthermore, of the four
organizations in our analysis with formal targets for overall geographic
representation, only the Secretariat employed Americans in senior- level and
policymaking positions at levels commensurate with those of selected major
contributors relative to their contribution level.

Organizations Vary on The charters and governing documents of most
organizations in the U. N.

Geographic Representation system articulate the principle of equity, which
requires that due regard be

Targets given to the importance of employing staff members from as wide a
geographical basis as possible, and many U. N. organizations have developed
formal or informal targets to achieve this objective. In the

Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO, where members pay regular assessments and
may make additional voluntary contributions, a formal target or range is
established to calculate geographic targets for employing the nationals of
each member state. These targets are expressed in terms of a range of
positions to provide organizations with some flexibility in meeting these
targets, but the midpoint of the range is generally viewed as the ideal
level

of representation. A member country is regarded as ?underrepresented? when
it falls below the minimum range and ?overrepresented? when it exceeds the
maximum range. The remaining three organizations in our study- UNDP, UNHCR,
and WFP- generally follow the principle of equitable geographic
representation but have not adopted formal targets that are based on
nationality because their funding comes from voluntary contributions rather
than annual assessments. However, UNHCR and WFP have

established informal targets 12 for representation of Americans since the
United States is the largest contributor to both organizations. UNDP
officials, on the other hand, said that while the program does not have
targets for individual countries, it seeks to achieve a ?reasonable

12 These targets have not been adopted by UNHCR?s and WFP?s governing
bodies. However, a ?Framework for Cooperation? between UNHCR and the U. S.
Department of State approved on January 19, 2001, states that UNHCR will
strive to achieve the goal concerning the percentage of U. S. national
staffing- now targeted to at least 13 percent of all professional positions-
and will report on its effort during biannual consultations with State.

geographic balance? of international staff between donors and program
countries as well as ?equity within contribution levels.?

The organizations in our analysis with formal geographic targets for
individual countries have similar approaches to determining which positions
are subject to these targets. For example, these organizations

exclude general service positions (e. g., clerical positions), appointments
of less than a year, and language- related positions (such as translators
and interpreters). In addition, all organizations except WHO disregard

positions that are financed from voluntary contributions in the formula for
calculating equitable geographic distribution targets. Unlike the
Secretariat and the specialized agencies, UNHCR and WFP do not set aside
positions subject to geographic distribution and apply their informal
targets to all professional positions. Figure 1 provides a summary of the

targets for equitable U. S. representation established by the U. N.
organizations that we covered in our study, expressed both in numerical and
in percentage terms. The figure also lists the factors used by these

organizations to determine their geographical representation targets.

Figure 1: U. N. Organizations? Targets for Equitable U. S. Representation
and Factors Used to Determine These Targets (2000)

a For the U. N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies, the percentage
relates to the total number of positions subject to geographic distribution.
For the funds and programs, the percentage relates to the total number of
professional positions. b GAO estimate.

c Department of State estimate. d FAO uses a position- weighting system in
which points are attributed to a position?s grade level, with a country?s
target expressed as a number of points rather than a number of positions.
Source: GAO and State Department analysis based on U. N. organizations?
data.

Member contributions, 13 population size, 14 and membership status 15 are
three factors that are used to determine equitable representation targets
for U. N. organizations? member states. However, not all of these factors
are used by each of the organizations in our analysis. For example, ILO uses
the contribution and membership factors to calculate its geographic targets,
while FAO uses only the contribution factor. FAO also differs from the other
organizations in that the level of position that a country?s citizens

hold, in addition to the number of positions, is considered in determining
that country?s representation status. FAO operates on the principle that a
position low on the hierarchical scale ought not to count as much as one at
the top of the scale. Thus, FAO uses a position- weighting system in which

points are attributed to a position?s grade level, with a country?s quota
expressed as a number of points, not positions. Appendix I provides more
detailed information on the different methods used by the Secretariat and

the three specialized agencies to calculate their formal targets for the
equitable representation of member countries.

Overall, Americans Are Not Although some of the U. N. organizations have
made gains toward Equitably Represented

employing Americans, most of the U. N. organizations in our study continue
to fall short of their own targets for employing Americans. Almost a decade
after the Congress first required the State Department to report on American
representation in the U. N. system, the United States was equitably
represented in only one of the six U. N. organizations in our study with
either formal or informal targets- the U. N. Secretariat. Americans were
underrepresented in the three specialized agencies- FAO, ILO, and WHO- and
in two of the U. N. funds and programs- UNHCR and WFP. 13 Member state
contributions are the common factor used by U. N. organizations to

determine targets or ranges because the level of budgetary contribution is
an inherent factor in a state?s membership in the organization. It is
estimated that roughly two- thirds of the money spent by international
organizations goes to pay staff members? salaries, according to a U. N.
Joint Inspection Unit study. 14 Population size is used to ensure that
member states are represented in keeping with their respective demographic
profiles and range of cultural diversity. 15 Membership status refers to the
right of each member state to a number of positions. For

example, in the U. N. Secretariat, a minimum of about 1 to 14 positions are
assigned to each member state. This provision is especially important for
countries with a relatively small population and small U. N. assessment,
which could get only one position if a minimum number of positions were not
set.

While UNDP does not have a target for U. S. representation, the level of
Americans in UNDP is close to the percentage level of U. S. contributions.
The summary in table 3 provides the overall representation status of
Americans in the U. N. organizations in our study for 2000. Appendix II
provides more detailed information on the trends in U. S. representation for
each of the organizations in our study since 1992.

Table 3: Overall Representation of Americans Compared With U. N.
Organizations? Geographic Targets (2000)

Percentage of total U. S. assessed

geographic Percentage of

or voluntary positions

geographic U. N. contribution

targeted for positions filled

Geographic organization

percentage Americans

by Americans target met?

U. N. 25% 12 - 16% 12. 5% c Yes

Secretariat a b FAO 25 18. 75 - 25 12. 5 d No ILO b 25 15 - 20 13. 2 No WHO
a 25 12 -16 10.5 No UNDP 11 No target 12. 4 - UNHCR 35 13 9. 7 No WFP 47 20
10. 3 No a The U. N. Secretariat and WHO use a base number rather than the
number of filled positions to calculate geographic targets for equitable
representation. Therefore, the percentages for the

Secretariat and WHO that are presented in this table are based on these
organizations? base numbers and not their filled numbers of positions. b The
Secretariat, ILO, and WHO use geographic targets for member states?
equitable representation

that are expressed as numbers rather than percentages. For purposes of
consistency, we converted these numbers and the numbers of U. S. staff to
percentages. The numbered U. S. geographic targets for these countries are
presented in table 1. c The Secretariat reports each year?s staffing data as
of June 30, rather than December 31, of the

calendar year. The figure in this table is the percentage of U. S. staff as
of June 30, 2000. d FAO uses a position- weighting system to assess the
representation status of member countries. Therefore, the U. S.
representation percentage shown here is the percentage using FAO?s weighting

system rather than the actual percentage of staff. Source: GAO analysis
based on U. N. organizations? data. Representation in SeniorLevel

We compared the relative financial contributions of the United States and
and Policymaking

the representation levels of Americans in senior and policymaking Positions
positions with those of four major contributors in the four U. N.

organizations with geographic targets. 16 We found that only the U. N.
Secretariat employed Americans in senior- level and policymaking positions
at levels commensurate with the average of selected major contributors
relative to their contribution level. 17 (See table 4.) While some U. N.
organizations have created overall targets for equitable representation of

member countries, they do not set quantitative targets for distributing
positions by grade level- including senior- level and policymaking
positions- among member states. Both U. S. and U. N. officials indicated
that determining equitable distribution among member states for these high-
level 18 positions can be very subjective. There are no standard recruitment
procedures for these positions nor is there a formal policy for rotating
policymaking positions among member states. Traditionally, these
policymaking appointments are made by the Secretary- General or the
respective U. N. agency heads. The U. N. General Assembly in several
resolutions has emphasized that ?no post shall be considered the exclusive

preserve of any member state or group of states.? 19 The summary in table 4
shows the 3- year average (1998- 2000) for the U. S. assessment to the four
U. N. organizations and the representation of Americans in senior- level and
policymaking positions, and a calculated comparative representation level if
U. S. representation in senior- level and policymaking positions were
proportionate to the average for major contributors given their level of
contributions. 20 In table 4, we multiplied the four- country average
representation by the U. S. assessment to derive a hypothetical comparative
representation level, under the assumption that U. S. representation in
senior- level and policymaking positions was proportionate to the average of
these four major contributors. (This analysis is not meant to suggest
criteria or a methodology for determining

16 We did not include in this analysis the three funds and programs, UNHCR,
UNDP, and WFP, that receive voluntary contributions from donor countries,
which tend to fluctuate, and have not established formal geographic targets
for these donors. 17 The organizations in our analysis include the
Secretariat, ILO, FAO, and WHO, and the selected major contributors are
Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. 18 In this report, high-
level posts refer to senior- level (D1- D2) positions and policymaking
positions (equivalent to Assistant Secretary- General and Under Secretary-
General). 19 For example, see the resolution adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly A/ RES/ 53/ 221 (Apr. 23, 1999).

20 See appendix VIII for a description of the methodology used to compute
the comparative representation level.

equitable representation in these positions. It is for comparison purposes
only, to show U. S. representation in senior and policymaking positions
relative to the average of four major contributors.) For example, if the
United States, given its 25- percent assessment at FAO, were to have
representation proportionate to the 0.76 average ratio for the four selected
countries, then its representation would be 19. 1 percent. For details on
the average ratio of the four contributors for each U. N. organization,
refer to appendix II. As shown in table 4, only the U. N. Secretariat
employs Americans in senior- level and policymaking positions commensurate
to the average representation levels for the four major U. N. contributors
we included in this study.

Table 4: U. S. Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels, 3- Year
Average (1998- 2000) Percentage of high- level

positions if U. S. Percentage of highlevel representation were

U. N. Percentage of U. S. positions

commensurate to selected organization assessment

filled by Americans major contributors

U. N. Secretariat 25% 13.6% 13. 4% FAO 25 9. 4 19. 1 ILO 25 9. 7 25. 8 WHO
25 8. 0 11. 0 Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

While acknowledging that U. S. representation may appear to be less than
ideal, several U. S. officials told us that U. S. influence in certain
organizations is not lacking given its voice and leadership in the governing
bodies and the size of U. S. contributions. Nonetheless, these officials
recognize the importance of placing highly qualified Americans in highlevel

positions, particularly in areas considered critical to U. S. interests. U.
N. Organizations While several U. N. organizations in our study are
undertaking various Lack Long- Range

human resource management initiatives, none of them has a long- range
workforce planning strategy nor a formal recruiting and hiring action plan
Workforce Planning

for achieving equitable representation within a specified time frame.
Strategies

However, several U. N. organizations did tailor some approaches to address
underrepresentation of member countries, such as targeting entry- level

programs to nationals from underrepresented countries. U. N. officials and
documents emphasized that the most important criterion for appointing staff
is merit in order to ensure the highest standards of efficiency and
competence- with due consideration to recruiting staff from as wide a
geographical basis as possible. But in selecting staff, nationality is
weighed against other competing factors because U. N. officials are also
asked to give priority consideration to gender. Although some organizations
have specific guidelines that provide a preference for hiring qualified
nationals from unrepresented and underrepresented countries, our analysis of
actual hiring statistics shows that several U. N. agencies hired more
nationals from equitably represented and overrepresented countries than
those from

unrepresented and underrepresented countries. Various Human Resource

As part of U. N.- wide reform, several U. N. organizations have a number of
Management

human resource management initiatives under way- including measures
Initiatives Are Under Way

that begin to address some workforce planning issues, hold managers
accountable for staff selection decisions, and provide placement and
promotion opportunities for staff that are merit- based- and give due regard
to geographical representation and gender balance considerations. 21 For
example, in 1997, the U. N. Secretary- General proposed a reform

program that included, as one of its core elements, developing a
performance- based human capital system. In May 2000, we testified that the
United Nations had made some progress in such areas as implementing

a merit- based appraisal system, although overall reform objectives had not
yet been achieved. 22 According to human resources directors with whom we
met, addressing these broad human capital issues- including competitive
compensation packages, aging of the workforce, spousal employment, and work-
life balance- could in the long run help to attract and retain Americans for
U. N. employment in greater numbers. (For a discussion of some of these
human capital issues and related factors that may affect recruiting
Americans for U. N. organizations, see app. VI.)

21 The U. N. agencies that provided information about their human resource
management initiatives are the Secretariat, FAO, and UNHCR. 22 United
Nations: Reforms Are Progressing, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been
Achieved (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 169, May 10, 2000).

Recruiting and Hiring Although some human resource management initiatives
are under way, Efforts Are Not Linked to

U. N. organizations have not yet developed long- range workforce planning
Long- Range Workforce strategies to guide recruitment and hiring efforts,
nor have U. N. Planning

organizations formulated specific action plans and time frames for achieving
equitable representation for underrepresented countries, including in some
cases the United States. A hallmark of high- performing organizations is
that human resource policies, procedures, and programs should be directly
linked to achieving organizational objectives. 23 Specifically, it is
important that such organizations have a formal recruiting and hiring action
plan targeted to fill short- and long- term human capital needs identified
through workforce planning efforts.

The U. N. organizations we examined had not systematically collected
essential human capital data that could help identify factors contributing
to difficulties in achieving equitable representation. For example, we asked

U. N. officials about exit interviews of and feedback from American staff
leaving the U. N. system as well as reasons why Americans had declined
offers of U. N. employment. However, we were told that these organizations
do not collect such information, which could help tailor appropriate
strategies for recruiting and retaining Americans. The

Secretariat and WFP recently have begun collecting this information but have
not yet reported their findings.

Some Recruitment Each U. N. organization has its own processes and
procedures for

Programs for Entry- Level recruiting, assessing, and selecting candidates
for employment, and many Positions

of their efforts focus on entry- level recruitment. In addition, these
entrylevel Target Underrepresented recruiting programs- including the U. N.
Secretariat?s national competitive recruitment examinations and the other U.
N. entities? young Member Countries

professional programs- specifically target underrepresented member
countries. Another program for junior professional officers is funded by
donor countries and used as a recruitment strategy, but this program does

not focus specifically on nationals from underrepresented member states. 23
Human Capital: A Self- Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders (GAO/ OCG-
00- 14G, September 2000).

Recent U. N. National To address concerns that the United States was nearing

Competitive Recruitment underrepresentation in the Secretariat due to
anticipated retirements, the

Examination national competitive recruitment exam, which is a prerequisite
for P1 and

Was Not Widely Promoted P2 positions, was held in New York in February 2001.
However, the State Department and the U. S. mission to the United Nations in
New York did not

widely publicize this examination. Only 40 American applicants took the
examination- according to U. N. officials, this turnout was disappointingly
low compared with the last examination in 1992 when 333 American applicants
took the test in 3 major U. S. cities. Twenty- one of these applicants from
the 1992 examination were eventually employed. A U. N. official told us that
the U. N. Secretariat relies on the member states to publicize the exam,
which, with the exception of the February exam, is

usually conducted in capital cities. According to the U. N. official, it was
not feasible to conduct the most recent exam at more U. S. sites because of
resource constraints. Notice of the 2001 examination was posted on the U. N.
Web site and advertised in an August 2000 issue of The Economist and in two
September 2000 issues of the International Career Employment

Weekly, which is a publication offering free advertising that was used by
the State Department. According to a U. S. mission officer in New York,
another examination will be scheduled for the United States in early 2002.

Programs Offer Opportunities Over the past few years, several U. N.
organizations have developed entrylevel

for Young Professionals programs and have used these programs to hire
citizens from

underrepresented countries. In 2000, WFP initiated a New Graduates Program
to give young graduates an opportunity to join the U. N. system. Exclusively
targeted at underrepresented countries, 3 of the 10 graduates selected in
2000 were from the United States. Similarly, ILO launched a Young
Professionals Career Entrance Program in January 2001 to identify and hire
young, highly qualified persons with the potential to become

future managers within the organization. Although these positions are open
to nationals of all member states, the program offers a vehicle for hiring
citizens from underrepresented countries, who we were told were given
preference. Three of the 10 positions filled earlier this year went to
Americans. In addition, in March 2001, the first 20 recruits started
training

under UNDP?s Leadership Development Program, which, UNDP officials told us,
takes demographic balance as well as technical competence into account in
screening applicants. With assistance from their liaison offices

in Washington, D. C., these organizations have organized some recruitment
missions on U. S. college and university campuses. ILO, in particular, made
a concerted effort to recruit new graduates, conducting five recruiting

missions during the past year to visit several American colleges and

universities, including Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cornell, Tufts, Columbia, and Stanford, among others. For many years, U. N.
organizations have operated junior professional officers programs 24 that
were funded by donor countries for training young professionals who serve,
usually for 2 or 3 years, in various areas. Countries that sponsor these
junior professional officers pay their full costs, which range from $70, 000
to $150,000 per year depending on an

officer?s grade level, duty station, and marital status. At the end of their
terms, these officers are often recruited as regular international staff,
and donor countries have used the program as a way to promote their
nationals for entry- level positions, although officers who complete the
program are

not guaranteed U. N. employment. As shown in table 5, the U. S. government
sponsors a small number of junior professional officers. Since 1984, State?s
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration has sponsored 49 junior
officers at UNHCR at an average cost of $110,000 per officer

annually. In supporting the junior professional officers program at UNHCR,
State seeks to assist U. N. organizations in implementing programs of
priority interest to the United States while increasing the pool of American
candidates for recruitment in U. N. organizations. According to State
officials, about half of the junior officers that State has sponsored

have been hired by UNHCR. Of the current American employees at UNHCR, 17 are
former U. S. junior professional officers. Over the years, the U. S.
Department of Agriculture has also supported a limited number of junior
professional officers in the Rome- based international food and agricultural
agencies at an average cost of $90,000 to $100,000 per year. 25

24 Comparable programs in selected agencies may be called differently- for
example, the Associate Professional Officers program at FAO and the
Associate Experts program at ILO. 25 Since 1987, the U. S. Department of
Agriculture has funded 17 Associate Professional Officers- sponsoring 1 or 2
officers each year- and has jointly funded 2 other officers along with the
U. S. Agency for International Development.

Table 5: Number of Junior Professional Officers by Organization (2000- 2001)
Number of

Number of Total number of

American junior participating

Organization junior officers officers

donors

U. N. Secretariat 130 0 16 FAO 146 2 19 ILO 87 0 16 WHO 38 0 9 UNDP 340 a 0
19 UNHCR 80 7 18 WFP 77 1 15 a Includes 100 officers administered by UNDP on
behalf of 3 other U. N. funds and programs.

Source: U. N. organizations listed above. Merit Is the Overriding While U.
N. officials and documents emphasize that the most important Criterion;

criterion for filling positions is merit, U. N. organizations? policies
generally Nationality Is Weighed call for giving additional consideration to
hiring qualified nationals from

Against Other Competing unrepresented or underrepresented member states. A
resolution on human

resources management adopted by the General Assembly in 1999 requests
Factors the Secretary- General to ensure that ?among equally qualified
candidates, preference is given to candidates from underrepresented member
states.? 26 Nevertheless, U. N. organizations generally weigh nationality
against other competing factors in appointing staff in accordance with
policies that aim

to achieve gender balance and to recruit from qualified staff already within
the U. N. system. Following the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, the
U. N. General Assembly requested a 50/ 50 gender balance by the year 2000, a
target date the United Nations now says will not be met until 2012.
(Specific gender balance goals adopted by various U. N. entities are
discussed in app. VI.) Although the principle of merit as the overriding
criterion is clearly established, the priority placed on secondary factors,
such as nationality and gender, is not as clear. For instance, while the

Secretariat?s hierarchy places nationality second and gender third, ILO
gives nationality and gender equal consideration, while FAO has no
established hierarchy after merit. A 1998 report of the International Civil

26 U. N. General Assembly Resolution A/ RES/ 53/ 221 (Apr. 23, 1999).

Service Commission acknowledged that, in some cases, U. N. organizations
have to balance the priorities of gender and geography. 27

Table 6 shows that several U. N. agencies in our study continue to hire more
nationals from equitably represented and overrepresented countries than from
unrepresented and underrepresented countries. Although U. N. organizations
?encourage? hiring managers to recruit candidates from unrepresented and
underrepresented countries, they do not generally restrict eligibility of
candidates on the basis of nationality. A major variation is ILO?s practice-
that is, competitions are usually open only to nationals of unrepresented
and underrepresented countries, which are listed in each vacancy
announcement. Even so, according to an ILO

official, when it is difficult to find suitable candidates from one of the
unrepresented or underrepresented countries, applications from nationals of
equitably represented or overrepresented countries may be considered.

In the case of WHO, its executive board adopted a resolution in 1997 to
maintain a recruitment target of 60 percent for nationals from unrepresented
and underrepresented countries and those that are considered equitably
represented but fall below the midpoint of the range while limiting
recruitment from overrepresented countries to 20 percent of all new
appointments. Nonetheless, WHO officials told us that the

organization does not restrict eligibility of applicants on the basis of
nationality. 27 Gender Balance in the United Nations Common System,
International Civil Service Commission (December 1998).

Table 6: Number of External Appointments for Geographic Positions and the
Percentages of Applicants Hired From Underrepresented, Equitably
Represented, and Overrepresented Countries for Selected Organizations (1998-
2000)

Percentage Percentage

hired from Percentage

Number of hired from

equitably hired from

external underrepresented

represented overrepresented

Organization appointments

countries countries

countries

U. N. 368 24% 72% 3% Secretariat a FAO 255 30 44 26

ILO 134 26 39 35 WHO b -- -- -- -- a The period covered for U. N.
Secretariat data was July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2000. b WHO did not provide
data on external appointments broken out for positions subject to geographic
distribution. Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Although human resources directors indicated that they give priority
consideration to hiring qualified nationals from unrepresented and
underrepresented countries, our analysis of the statistics they provided
showed that the number of nationals hired from overrepresented countries
remains relatively high. As of 2000, FAO had 85 overrepresented countries,
up from 72 in 1998; ILO had 45 overrepresented countries, down from 49 in
1998; and WHO had 22 overrepresented countries, compared with 12 in

1998. For a list of the top five countries whose nationals are most
overrepresented at these U. N. entities, see appendix III. We asked human
resources directors whether U. N. organizations face a shortage of qualified
American applicants interested in U. N. employment. On the basis of the data
they provided, in general this does not appear to be the case. For instance,
at the U. N. Secretariat, nearly 30, 000 applications were received for 649
positions that were announced in 2000. Of those applications, more than
2,000 were Americans- of whom 410 were listed among the best qualified
candidates. Six Americans were eventually hired. FAO reported receiving 11,
670 applications for 130 vacancy

announcements for professional positions it issued in 2000. More than 8,000
of the applications had been evaluated as of March 2001, of which 1,279 were
deemed qualified- 115 of them Americans. Of these, seven Americans were
hired. However, FAO officials noted, recent statistics show that while the
number of applications from Americans steadily

increased between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant decline in 2000.
FAO has not yet conducted a study examining the reasons for this decline. 28

State?s Efforts Do Not The State Department has written policies stating
that equitable Reflect Equitable U. S.

representation of Americans employed by U. N. organizations is a ?high
priority? and has mechanisms in place to support American employment in
Representation As a these bodies. Nevertheless, State?s level of effort in
achieving this objective

High Priority does not reflect the stated priority. Despite only minimal
progress in improving representation of Americans in the U. N. system, State
has reduced resources aimed at recruitment of qualified professionals and
has

curtailed other related activities without assessing how these reductions
will affect recruitment. State?s reduction in resources resulted in its
scaling back activities to support recruitment for professional positions-
the pipeline for senior- level positions. Although State?s policies seek an
equitable share of high- level positions for Americans, and much of the
Department?s recruitment efforts are aimed toward this goal, State has not

developed guidelines that define ?equitable? or a mechanism for assessing
progress in this area. Moreover, State also has not developed recruiting and
hiring strategies or action plans to support U. N. employment of Americans.
In addition, while State and other U. S. government officials with whom we
spoke view promotion of Americans for U. N. employment as a collaborative
effort between the State Department and other federal agencies, there has
been little interagency coordination in this area. Efforts

by other U. S. government agencies- such as providing federal employees with
opportunities for international assignment- are not systematically organized
or coordinated with State to provide assurances that the United States
employs the best strategies to place Americans in the U. N. system. Written
Policies Identify

In a July 1999 cable to the U. S. missions to U. N. agencies, the State U.
S. Representation as High

Department articulated the U. S. government?s goal to achieve equitable
Priority representation of Americans in all international organizations,
stating that participation of Americans on the staffs of these organizations
is a ?high

priority.? The cable established specific guidelines for supporting
individuals and promoting the hiring of American citizens for senior- level

28 Although a study has not yet been conducted, FAO officials suggested that
the decline in American applicants may be due to the reduction in the post
adjustment allowance to zero in 2000, which they think may have the effect
of reducing FAO?s salary competitiveness in the U. S. labor market.

and professional positions. This issue was again addressed in the October
2000 Government Performance and Results Act performance plan for State?s
Bureau of International Organization Affairs. The plan states that the
Bureau will seek to increase the number/ percentage of Americans employed in
international organizations, especially those in which the United States is
underrepresented, including FAO, ILO, UNHCR, WFP, and

WHO. Measures Are in Place to

The State Department has a variety of mechanisms in place to carry out its
Support U. N. Employment objectives of recruiting Americans for positions in
the U. N. system. The primary mechanism is the Bureau of International
Organization Affairs? U. N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit,
which helps qualified

candidates from both the private and public sectors find employment in the
U. N. system. In addition, high- ranking U. S. officials (such as the
Secretary of State, ambassadors, and assistant secretaries) and U. N.
officials have discussed American candidates for key U. N. positions and U.
S. underrepresentation. The U. N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit
relies on wide- ranging as well as targeted distribution of employment
information as the primary vehicle for increasing recruitment. Figure 2
lists the main activities that the unit conducts to promote Americans for
positions in the U. N. system.

Figure 2: State Department?s Support Services for U. N. Employment

Source: State Department.

Lists of Key Senior- Level Once a year, State?s U. N. Employment Information
and Assistance Unit, in and Policymaking Positions Are

collaboration with other federal agencies and the U. S. missions, compiles
Not Widely Known lists of key senior- level and policymaking U. N. positions
targeted for recruitment. However, several State and other U. S. officials
whose duties include recruiting American citizens for U. N. employment told
us that they were not aware that such lists existed. Initiated in 1998, the
lists identify

positions by three rankings: (1) top priority for recruitment because they
are critical to U. S. interests, (2) important because the functions of the
position could impact U. S. interests, and (3) less significant. The lists
include, where applicable, the expiration date of the incumbent?s position
so that U. S. agencies can be notified when positions are expected to become
vacant in order to find the most qualified candidates.

U. S. Missions Maintain Liaison U. S. missions to U. N. agencies, such as
those we visited in Geneva, Rome,

With U. N. Agencies, and New York, have a designated officer as the focal
point for U. N.

Provide Additional Support personnel and other management issues. These
mission officials are the

U. S. representatives on the ground with day- to- day contact with U. N.
officials. According to these designated mission officers, they spend about
10 percent of their time on U. N. employment matters, including responding

to inquiries and requests for support from American citizens applying for U.
N. employment. They also help identify positions that are vacant or are
expected to become vacant, which could be of particular interest to the
United States.

Although State?s guidelines urge U. S. missions to maintain active
communications with U. S. citizens employed by international organizations,
American citizens at every U. N. agency we visited expressed a desire to
have more interaction with State staff at the U. S. missions in New York,
Geneva, and Rome. Without compromising their status as international civil
servants, 29 American employees believe that they can

provide U. S. officials with information and insights on substantive policy
and management issues of interest to the United States. For instance, in
Geneva, American employees at ILO cited a meeting held last year with a
visiting high- level official from the U. S. Department of Labor that
provided a forum for exchanging views on policy matters and issues of common
concern, such as U. S. government and American employees? views on various
management reforms. Many of the American employees in the U. N. agencies we
visited also expressed uncertainty about the type of support they can expect
from the U. S. mission.

29 Article 100 of the U. N. Charter directs staff not to ?seek or receive
instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the
Organization [and to] refrain from any action which might reflect on their
position as international officials responsible only to

the Organization.?

Resources Were Reduced Even though Americans remain underrepresented in many
U. N.

and Activities Were organizations, State has reduced its level of effort
overall to recruit Curtailed Without Assessing Americans in the U. N. system
without analyzing and assessing the potential Impact

impact these curtailed and/ or reduced functions could have had on
recruitment. These changes included, among other things, (1) decreasing the
number of staff resources assigned to carry out recruitment efforts, which
required State to focus resources to support primarily senior- level and
policymaking positions rather than all positions; (2) reducing the

frequency of scheduled visits with U. N. human resources directors; and (3)
not updating an electronic roster from which candidates are recommended to
U. N. organizations for employment.

Decline in Staff Resources In 1992, the State Department had five
professionals assigned to the U. N. Employment Information and Assistance
Unit, which is the unit responsible for recruitment and monitoring of
American employment in numerous international organizations. Since then,
State has reduced the number of staff assigned to this unit. In 1993, staff
were reduced to four professionals, and 2 years later staff were further
reduced to three

professionals. Since 2000, two staff have been carrying out the functions
assigned to the unit. 30 State?s Recruiting Efforts

In 1995, State ended its practice of supporting Americans for U. N. Focus on
Senior- Level Positions

employment at professional levels and instead focused on senior- level and
policymaking positions, which include D1 and above positions. While State?s
policies call for obtaining an equitable share of high- level positions for
Americans, and much of its recruitment efforts are aimed toward this goal,
the Department has not developed guidelines that define ?equitable? nor does
it have a mechanism for assessing progress in this area. The redirection of
State?s efforts to focus only on high- level positions may have

the effect of reducing the pipeline of Americans in the lower ranks who
could advance to high- level positions through internal promotions, which
our analysis showed was the primary source for senior- level positions at U.
N. organizations. For example, at WFP, out of 37 senior positions filled

from 1998 to 2000, 31 (83 percent) were internal promotions, while only 6
were recruited externally. Seven of the internal promotions and two of the
external hires were Americans. This demonstrates the importance of
maintaining an adequate ?pipeline? of qualified entry- and mid- level 30 The
unit was established as the Office of International Recruitment and was
subsequently renamed the U. N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit.

Americans to be considered for senior positions. Agriculture officials said
that a long- term 10- to 15- year strategy aimed at entry- level recruitment
to create a pool of qualified American candidates within the international
organizations may be necessary in order to improve representation levels.

State?s Liaison With U. N. With support from the U. S. missions, the U. N.
Employment Information Agencies on Workforce Matters

and Assistance Unit is State?s primary liaison with the human resources Has
Declined

offices of the different U. N. organizations. But due to funding
constraints, the director of the unit had not met with the human resources
directors of U. N. organizations in the last 3 years. 31 Human resources
directors at the U. N. agencies told us that a planning session once a year
with a U. S. government representative would be very useful, especially with
the large number of retirements expected in the next several years. Several
human

resources directors told us that due to the age profiles of their staffs,
they need to formulate and implement plans to address this and other
workforce planning issues. For example, the U. N. Secretariat projects that
up to onefourth of the 400 staff retiring each year for the next 5 years are
in positions subject to geographic distribution. Moreover, the number of
Americans who left the Secretariat from 1997 to 2000 exceeded the number of
Americans hired, resulting in a net loss of 50 American staff over the last
4

years. In its strategic framework for 2000 to 2015, FAO projected a staff
turnover of 70 percent in the next 15 years. In light of this expected
turnover, FAO?s medium- term plan for 2002 to 2007 called for effective
workforce planning and recruitment efforts to ensure that skills and
competencies of staff who are retiring are not lost. Roster of Qualified
American The U. N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit has maintained
a Candidates Is Not Being Updated

roster of highly qualified American citizens who wish to be considered for
senior positions but, according to State officials, updating the roster was
put on hold earlier this year due to resource constraints. More than 2,000
names were on the roster before 1995 when State fielded candidates for both
professional and senior- level positions. In 1991, when the roster was
actively used, State submitted approximately 600 applications for 293

professional positions throughout the United Nations. However, in 1995 State
decided to stop maintaining a central roster of candidates for most
professional or technical positions and to stop screening, nominating, and

offering support to American candidates for these positions. About 300 names
for senior positions are currently registered on the roster. Over the 31
Travel meetings with human resources directors in Rome and Geneva were
conducted in June 2001, after the completion of our study.

past 3 years, State has used the roster to submit slates of 3 or 4
candidates for about 40 senior positions. State Lacks Recruiting Strategy
The State Department has no recruiting strategy or action plan to guide its
and Action Plan

efforts to support Americans for employment in the United Nations and
against which to measure its performance. The Bureau of International
Organization Affairs? performance plan includes the employment of

American citizens in U. N. organizations as an important objective, but this
objective is not included in State?s overall annual performance report
prepared in response to the Government Performance and Results Act. The act
requires agencies to pursue performance- based management, including
strategic planning and goal- setting, that is results- oriented and

measures performance. State does report annually to the Congress on efforts
by international organizations to improve U. S. representation levels, but
the report is limited to actions taken by the U. N. organizations and does
not include the Department?s own efforts. The annual report includes
information on those agencies that have established geographic

distribution formulas, as well as a few other organizations that are of
particular interest to the United States due to the size of U. S.
contributions and level of representation. State does not officially provide
the report to the heads of U. N. agencies to press those organizations with
persistent U. S. underrepresentation to respond with appropriate targeted
strategies to improve levels of U. S. representation. A State official told
us that while some State and U. S. mission officials use the Department?s
annual report to

the Congress in discussions with U. N. agencies about underrepresentation,
this practice does not occur consistently.

Interagency Coordination Is Although State officials acknowledge that
promoting U. S. representation at Largely Ad Hoc

U. N. and other international organizations must be a collaborative effort
between State and other federal agencies, coordination of U. S.
governmentwide efforts over the last several years has largely been done on
an informal, ad hoc basis. In a special report to State?s Bureau of
International Organization Affairs in August 1992, State?s Office of
Inspector General found a lack of understanding among U. S. agencies on

what they can do to help with the recruitment effort. Accordingly, the
Inspector General recommended that the Bureau develop memorandums of
understanding between State and other U. S. government agencies to
facilitate better cooperation, support, and effectiveness in recruitment. In
its November 1994 response to the Inspector General?s recommendations, the
Bureau stated that this was an excellent recommendation and began to work
with the various federal agencies to develop memorandums of

understanding with at least 13 of them. The memorandums were to have been
completed by the end of 1994. However, when we asked State officials about
them, they could not provide evidence that any memorandums were in place. We
found that U. S. governmentwide efforts to recruit and place Americans in
specific areas within the U. N. system that are of particular importance to
U. S. interests are done primarily on an ad hoc, case- by- case basis, such
as when a key post critical to the United States needs to be filled. It
appears that formal mechanisms to organize and coordinate U. S. government

activities in the past have not worked without consistent high- level
management attention and support. For instance, an Inter- agency Contact
Group of working- level agency staff has not been active for many years.
Instead, various U. S. government agencies, particularly those that deal
regularly with international organizations, have staff assigned to serve as
the liaison for international recruitment activities. These include, among
others, staff from the Foreign Agricultural Service within Agriculture; the
Bureau of International Labor Affairs within Labor; and the Office of
International and Refugee Health within the U. S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS). However, related activities within each of the U. S.
agencies are often decentralized to several offices and units that work with
international organizations on specific areas. Furthermore, staff assigned
as liaisons typically have other duties and responsibilities, and they told
us that they are unable to devote the attention necessary to address U. N.

employment matters in a comprehensive, systematic way because of resource
constraints and other limitations within their own departments. Nonetheless,
on a specific area- in this case, food and agricultural issues- Agriculture
has recently taken the initiative to reconstitute an informal, interagency
international recruitment network, primarily for informationsharing purposes
and to help identify qualified candidates for key vacancies.

U. S. Agencies Can Do More to Executive Order 11552 of August 24, 1970,
calls on executive branch Promote Details and Transfers of agencies to
assist in and encourage details and transfers of federal Federal Employees

employees to international organizations to the maximum extent possible and
with due regard to the agencies? manpower requirements. According to U. S.
agency officials, placing federal employees on details and transfers

to international organizations can be an effective way to provide
significant input on policy and technical issues of interest to the United
States. In fiscal year 2000, 17 federal agencies had 165 employees on detail
or transferred to the United Nations and other international organizations,
according to State Department records. Of this total, the agencies with the

largest number of federal employees assigned to international organizations
were: HHS, 59 employees; the State Department, 20; the Departments of
Transportation and the Treasury, 18 each; Agriculture, 15;

the Department of Energy, 6; and Labor, 4. An official from HHS attributed
that Department?s level of participation to the fact that the agency
considers its contributions to international organizations an integral part
of the Department?s mission to combat diseases such as polio and Acquired

Immune Deficiency Syndrome. According to this official, public health
specialists in HHS vigorously vie for opportunities to gain international
work experience, which they view to be not only meaningful and important but
also career- building. However, several Americans we interviewed,
particularly those from other federal agencies, suggested that executive
agencies can do more to promote opportunities and provide incentives for

work in international organizations and to help employees apply for these
jobs.

Other Major In 2000, the representation levels of other major contributors
to the United

Contributors Actively Nations varied in the four organizations in our study
that had formal geographic targets- the Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO. The
five

Promote U. N. countries for which we identified representation levels were
Canada,

Employment for Their France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Japan,
which is the

Citizens second largest contributor to the United Nations, was significantly

underrepresented in each of the four organizations. Germany, the third
largest contributor, was underrepresented in three organizations and
equitably represented in one organization. Canada, France, and the United
Kingdom were either equitably represented or overrepresented in the four
organizations. For more information on the representation trends for these
selected countries, see appendix IV.

Japan and Germany, which have higher representation targets because of their
higher contributions, devote more resources toward achieving equitable
representation than France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, which are within
equitable levels or are overrepresented. For example, Germany has
established formal mechanisms, including a high- level Office of the
Coordinator for International Personnel, to organize and coordinate efforts
to place its nationals in key positions within the U. N. system and

other international organizations. Japan- which has historically been
significantly underrepresented- has full- time staff at its mission in
Geneva dedicated to promoting U. N. employment of Japanese nationals. The
United States, like Japan and Germany, is generally underrepresented but is
not as active as these two countries in promoting its citizens for U. N.

employment. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, the United
States has higher representation targets to fill than Japan or Germany, but
it takes a less active approach in assisting its citizens to gain U. N.

employment. Ultimately, responsibility for hiring decisions and achieving
equitable representation rests with U. N. officials. However, it does not
appear that given the slow progress in improving U. S. representation over
nearly 10 years, U. S. representation levels will significantly improve

without changes in the United Nations? and United States? actions. For a
more detailed presentation of selected member states? efforts to promote U.
N. employment for their nationals, see appendix V.

Conclusions The United Nations and its affiliated entities face the dual
challenge of attracting and retaining staff who meet the highest standards
of efficiency, competence, and integrity while maintaining the international
character of the organizations by ensuring equitable geographic balance in
the

workforce. Nevertheless, U. N. organizations have made slow progress in
addressing U. S. concerns about underrepresentation, and except for the U.
N. Secretariat in New York, the organizations with representation targets
that we studied have not achieved equitable employment of Americans since
1992. Although the U. N. organizations are ultimately responsible for
achieving fair geographic balance among its member countries, the State

Department, in coordination with other U. S. agencies, plays a role in
ensuring that the United States is equitably represented. U. N.
organizations have not fully developed long- range workforce planning
strategies, and neither State nor the U. N. agencies have formal recruiting
and hiring action plans to improve U. S. representation in the U. N. system.
Without these measures, the United States? ability to even maintain the
number of Americans employed in the United Nations could be hampered.
Regular

planning sessions with human resources directors could help State identify
areas in which to focus its recruitment of American candidates and ensure
that U. S. levels of representation do not decline as a result of American
retirements without corresponding increases in new hires. High- level State
Department attention and intervention is needed to elevate the importance of
this matter to the United States and to reemphasize the seriousness of this
concern to State, U. S., and U. N. officials. Finally, sustained efforts and

actions by State to facilitate employment of Americans for professionallevel
positions, as well as senior- level and policymaking positions, will be
required to ensure progress toward the goal of equitable U. S.

representation.

Recommendations Because equitable representation of Americans employed at
the U. N. organizations has been determined to be important to U. S.
interests, we recommend that the Secretary of State:

 develop, with other U. S. government agencies, a comprehensive U. S.
strategy for achieving equitable representation of Americans in U. N.
employment that includes efforts to improve interagency coordination and
specifies performance goals, time frames, and resource requirements, and
incorporate these goals and progress achieving them into State?s Annual
Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report, respectively;

 work with human resources directors of U. N. organizations in which
Americans are underrepresented or are close to being underrepresented,
particularly in light of anticipated retirements in the next several years,
to help ensure that long- range workforce planning efforts include measures
targeted to achieve equitable U. S. representation within a specified time
frame;

 develop guidelines that define State?s goal of securing an equitable share
of senior- level and policymaking posts, and use these guidelines to assess
whether the United States is equitably represented in highranking positions
in U. N. organizations; and  provide heads of U. N. agencies, for their
appropriate attention and

action, with copies of State?s annual report to the Congress on efforts by
the United Nations and other international organizations to employ
Americans.

Agency Comments and In commenting on a draft of this report, State generally
agreed with our Our Evaluation

findings and conclusions, and agreed with most of our recommendations.
However, State disagreed that it should develop guidelines that define its
goal for obtaining an equitable share of high- level positions for Americans

and use these guidelines to help assess whether the United States is
equitably represented. State said it should not develop separate guidelines
for defining its goal of obtaining an equitable share of Americans in
seniorlevel and policymaking positions but rather that it should focus on
equitable representation at all levels. While we agree that State should be
concerned about achieving equitable employment for Americans at all levels
in U. N. organizations, we believe it is important to emphasize achieving an
equitable share of senior- level and policymaking positions.

We further believe that without guidelines defining equitable share, State
lacks a mechanism for assessing whether its top recruitment priority-

equitable representation of Americans in high- level positions- is being
achieved.

In addition, the Department of State?s Bureau of International Organization
Affairs and officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human
Services, and Labor who deal with international recruitment provided
technical comments on this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. U.
N. human resources offices also reviewed a draft of this report for
technical accuracy. (State?s written comments, along with our evaluation of
them, are in app. IX.)

Scope and To analyze trends in the overall representation levels of
Americans and Methodology

nationals of other selected countries and Americans in senior- level and
policymaking U. N. positions, we performed various statistical analyses of
personnel data provided by the State Department and the U. N. entities that
fully cooperated with our review- the U. N. Secretariat and UNDP in New

York; ILO, UNHCR, and WHO in Geneva; and FAO and WFP in Rome. These
organizations represent about 60 percent of the professional staff in the U.
N. system and have about 80 percent of the positions in the U. N. system
that are subject to geographic distribution. We did not independently verify
the accuracy of the data provided to us. In some cases, the data in the
State Department?s annual report to the Congress were not the same as data
that the U. N. organizations provided to us. (For a detailed discussion of
the statistical methods we used, see app. VIII.)

To assess U. N. efforts to employ nationals of countries that are
underrepresented or close to becoming underrepresented, we reviewed various
U. N. documents and met with the human resources directors at the
headquarters of the U. N. entities we reviewed. In addition, we met with
officials from the U. N. Joint Inspection Unit, the International Civil
Service

Commission, the Administrative Committee on Coordination, the U. N. Office
of Internal Oversight Services, and the U. N. Board of Auditors. We also met
with representatives of the Washington, D. C., liaison offices of

FAO, ILO, UNHCR, WFP, and WHO. To examine State?s and other U. S. agencies?
efforts and resources devoted to assisting the United Nations in achieving
equitable U. S. representation, we met with State Department officials from
the Bureau of International Organization Affairs and the U. S. missions in
New York, Geneva, and Rome. We also spoke with officials from the U. S.
Departments of Agriculture,

Labor, and Health and Human Services who deal with international
recruitment. To describe other member countries? activities to assist
employing their nationals in the U. N. system, we met with representatives
of the British, Canadian, French, German, and Japanese missions to the
United Nations in New York, Geneva, and Rome.

In addition, we met with several American citizens employed in each of the
U. N. organizations in our study to obtain their views about U. N. and U. S.
efforts to recruit Americans.

We conducted our review from December 2000 to June 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, Senate

Committee on Appropriations; the Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on
International Relations; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the
Middle East and Asia, House Committee on International Relations; and the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. We are also sending copies of
this report to the Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State. Copies will
be made available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512- 4128. Other GAO
contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix X.

Harold J. Johnson Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendi xes Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine Representation
Status of Member

Appendi x I

Countries This appendix provides information on the methods that the U. N.
Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Labor
Organization (ILO), and World Health Organization (WHO) used to calculate
equitable representation targets for member countries and thus

determine the representation status of each organization?s member countries.
The other organizations in our study- the United Nations Development Program
(UNDP), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and World
Food Program (WFP)- do not calculate or use equitable representation ranges
to determine a country?s representation status.

U. N. Secretariat The Secretariat takes into consideration three factors-
assessed contribution, membership, and population- in calculating the
equitable representation targets for member countries. In determining the
number of

positions attributed to each of these factors, the Secretariat uses a base
number as the total number of positions, rather than the actual number of
filled positions. In 2000, the base number used was 2,600, while the number
of filled positions subject to geographic distribution was 2,389. Table 7
shows the weight assigned to each of the three factors and the number of
positions assigned to each factor when multiplied by the base number. Table
7: Factors Used by the U. N. Secretariat in Calculating Geographic Targets

Percentage of (=) Number of

positions applied positions assigned

Factors used to each factor (x) Base number

to each factor

Assessed 55% 2, 600 1,430

contribution Membership 40 2,600 1, 040 Population 5 2, 600 130 Source: U.
N. Secretariat.

For each member country:  The number of positions allocated for the
assessed contribution factor

(1, 430) is multiplied by the member country?s percentage assessment to the
Secretariat.  The number of positions allocated for the membership factor
(1, 040) is divided by the number of member states (189).

 The number of positions allocated for the population factor (130) is
divided by the world population and multiplied by the member country?s
population. For each country, the resulting numbers of positions attributed
to each factor are added together to produce the midpoint of that country?s
equitable representation range. The upper and lower limits of each range

are 15 percentage points above and below the midpoint, respectively, or a
minimum of 4. 8 positions from the midpoint. The minimum range for member
countries is 1 to 14.

In 2000, the midpoint for the United States was 369, and the upper and lower
limits of the U. S. range were 424 and 314, respectively. In 2000, there
were 325 Americans in positions subject to geographic representation. FAO
FAO determines each member country?s representation status using a system
that weighs the level of positions, rather than focusing on the

number of positions targeted for each country. In this system, point values
are assigned to grade levels, with the higher grades being worth more
points. This system, therefore, attempts to measure a country?s level of
influence rather than just the number of positions it holds. Table 8 shows
the point values that FAO assigns to each grade level.

Table 8: FAO Position- Weighting System

Grade P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1/ D2 DDG/ ADG a

Points 1 2 4 6 81015 a Deputy Director- General and Assistant Director-
General.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization.

A country?s representation status is determined by dividing the number of
points from the positions held by that country?s nationals by the total
number of points of all filled regular budget positions. 1 The resulting 1
FAO uses the number of filled positions, rather than a base number, in
determining the total number of points for the organization.

percentage then is compared with the country?s equitable representation
range, which is also expressed as a percentage.

In calculating the equitable representation targets for member countries,
FAO takes into consideration only one factor- contribution. The contribution
factor is used as follows:

 If a country contributes 10 percent or less of the budget, it is
considered equitably represented if its representation ranges from 25
percent below to 50 percent above its contribution percentage.  If a
country contributes between 10 percent and 20 percent of the

budget, it is considered equitably represented if its representation ranges
from 25 percent below to 25 percent above its contribution percentage.  If
a country contributes more than 20 percent of the budget, it is considered
equitably represented if its representation ranges from 25

percent below to 0 percent above its contribution percentage. In 2000, the
United States was in the third category, with a target representation range
of 18. 75 percent to 25 percent. The actual U. S. representation level was
12.5 percent.

ILO ILO takes two factors into consideration- contribution and membership-
in determining the equitable representation targets for member countries.

For the membership factor, ILO uses an equitable range of one to two
positions for countries that contribute 0.2 percent or less of the ILO
budget. In 2000, 142 of ILO?s member countries contributed 0. 2 percent or
less of the budget, and their total budget contribution was 4.03 percent.
The number of positions set aside for these minimum contribution countries

can vary from year to year, depending on the number of countries that fit
the criteria.

For countries that contribute more than 0.2 percent of the budget, equitable
geographic targets are determined by the contribution factor. For these
countries there is one further differentiation:

 In 2000, for countries that contributed between 0. 2 percent and 10
percent of the budget, a midpoint was calculated using the following
formula:

Figure 3: ILO Formula for Determining a Country?s Geographic Target

Source: International Labor Organization.

After the midpoint is calculated, the equitable range is obtained by adding
and subtracting 25 percent from the midpoint.

 The formula presented above is also used for countries that contribute 10
percent or more of the budget. However, the number that is calculated using
the formula becomes the maximum of the country?s range. The minimum of the
range is obtained by subtracting 25 percent from the maximum number.

Because the United States contributed 25 percent of the ILO budget in 2000,
its geographic range was calculated using the latter method. The equitable
range for the United States in 2000 was 101 to 135, and there were 87
American staff in geographically counted positions during that year. WHO
WHO?s method for determining member countries? representation status is

based on the system used by the U. N. Secretariat, although there are some
differences. As with the Secretariat, WHO uses three factors (contribution,
membership, and population), with 55 percent of the positions being tied to
the contribution factor, 40 percent tied to the membership factor, and 5

percent tied to the population factor. The midpoint for each country is
obtained by adding the number of positions attributed to each of these
factors. The minimum and maximum of the range are set by subtracting

and adding 15 percent to the midpoint. 2 Like the Secretariat, WHO also uses
a base number for the total number of positions subject to geographic
distribution rather than using the number of filled positions. In 2000, WHO
used a base number of 1,450, while there were 1,138 filled positions subject
to geographic distribution.

A major difference between the systems used by the Secretariat and WHO is
that WHO includes positions financed by extrabudgetary resources as
geographically counted positions. However, the contribution factor includes
only contributions made to the regular budget, not extrabudgetary

contributions. The number of positions assigned to each factor was as
follows:  580 positions were set aside for the membership factor (3. 02)
per country;  797. 5 positions were set aside for the contribution factor
(7. 975

positions for each 1 percent contributed); and  72. 5 positions were set
aside for the population factor (0. 012 positions

for each 1 million of population). The United States? equitable range was
174 to 237, and there were 152 American staff in positions subject to
geographic distribution. 2 WHO also stipulates that a country?s range must
be 0. 1778 of the total number of positions

more or less than the midpoint. In addition, the maximum of the range must
be 0.51852 percent of the total number of positions.

U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of

Appendi x II

Representation This appendix details the U. S. staffing situation at each of
the seven U. N. organizations we examined- the U. N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO,
WHO, UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP. U. N. Secretariat Representation of

The Secretariat, located in New York, has met its targets for employing
Americans Within the

Americans each year from 1992 to 2000, and Americans are represented in
Geographic Range senior- level and policymaking positions at a level
commensurate with the average of selected major contributors relative to
their contributions to the Secretariat. From 1992 through 1997, the number
of Americans in geographically targeted positions was near the midpoint of
the range, which the Secretariat describes as the desirable representation,
until about

3 years ago when the number of Americans declined to the minimum portion of
the range (see fig. 4). During this period, hiring rates did not compensate
for the number of separations of Americans in the Secretariat. From 1992
through 2000, the total number of geographically targeted positions in the
Secretariat decreased by more than 200 positions to about 2,400,
representing about an 8. 4 percent decline. The United States? assessed
contribution to the Secretariat from 1998 through 2000 averaged 25 percent
of total contributions. In 2001, the range for the United States was lowered
as a result of the decrease in the U. S. assessment to 22 percent. Because
of the lowered range, it is expected that in 2001 Americans will remain
represented in the lower portion of the geographic range.

Figure 4: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000) a Compared
With the Secretariat?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

a The U. S. equitable range for 2001 was included to show the reduction of
the range that resulted from the reduction in the U. S. assessment. Source:
GAO analysis of U. N. Secretariat data.

Americans are represented in senior- level and policymaking positions at a
level commensurate with the average for selected major contributors relative
to their contributions to the Secretariat. Combining the

percentages of Americans in policymaking (Assistant Secretary- General (ASG)
and Under Secretary- General (USG)) positions and senior- level (D1- D2)
positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997, and 2000 shows Americans
holding 11.5 percent, 14 percent, and 13.6 percent of these positions,

respectively. (Fig. 5 provides information, by grade category, on the
percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans. The period
covered is from 1992 to 2000, with each bar representing staffing grade
information as an average over a separate 3- year period between 1992 and
2000. The number in the 1998 to 2000 bar is the average annual number of
staff positions during 1998 to 2000 for each grade level.) For the period of

1998 to 2000, the United States had its highest representation at grade
levels equivalent to middle management positions (P4- P5 equivalencies).

Figure 5: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared With
the Secretariat?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of U. N. Secretariat data.

Table 9 shows the financial contributions and senior- level and policymaking
representation of the United States and four other selected countries with
regard to the Secretariat. This table also shows the ratio of

each country?s representation to its assessment, and the average ratio for
the four other selected countries. As shown in table 9, the U. S.
representation- to- assessment ratio is approximate to the average ratio for
the four selected countries.

Table 9: U. N. Secretariat - Representation in Senior and Policymaking
Levels and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-
2000)

Percentage of representation in

Ratio of high- level Assessment

high- level positions to

Country (percent) positions

assessments

United States 25. 0% 13.6% 0.55 Average for four

0.54 countries Japan 19. 5 2. 0 0. 10

Germany 9. 8 3. 7 0. 38 France 6. 5 4. 5 0. 69 United Kingdom 5. 1 4. 9 0.
97 Source: GAO analysis of U. N. Secretariat data.

FAO Some Gains Made, but

Although modest progress in employing Americans has been made in Americans
Are Still

recent years at FAO, headquartered in Rome, Americans continue to be
Significantly

significantly underrepresented overall and are represented in senior and
Underrepresented Overall

policymaking positions at levels that are below the average for four major
contributors, given their contribution to FAO. (Fig. 6 provides information
on the trends in overall U. S. representation compared with FAO?s geographic
representation range for the United States.) Since 1992, FAO has increased
its staff by 42 to 992, which is equivalent to an annual average

growth rate of 0.5 percent compared with an annual average growth rate of
4.5 percent for the United States. During this period, the number of
Americans in geographically targeted positions increased by 38 to 126.
Because FAO uses a position- weighting system to calculate each member
country?s representation percentage, the equitable ranges were derived using
this weighting system. The United States? assessed contribution to

FAO from 1998 through 2000 averaged 25 percent of total contributions.
Although the minimum range for the United States decreased in 2001 as a
result in the decrease in the U. S. assessment, 1 the United States is still
expected to remain significantly below the minimum range. In contrast to the
high level of underrepresentation of Americans, about 80 countries were
overrepresented in FAO over the last 3 years. (Refer to app. III for a

list of the top five overrepresented countries.) 1 FAO adopted the United
Nations? changes to its assessment rates for member countries, which took
effect on January 1, 2001.

Figure 6: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000) a Compared
With FAO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

a The U. S. equitable range for 2001 was included to show the reduction of
the range that resulted from the reduction in the U. S. assessment. Source:
GAO analysis of FAO data.

Americans are represented in senior and policymaking positions at levels
that are below the average of four major contributors, given their
contribution to FAO. (Fig. 7 provides information, by grade category, on the
percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans. 2 The number
in the 1998 through 2000 bar is the average annual number of staff positions
during 1998 through 2000 for each grade level.) Combining the

percentages of Americans in policymaking positions- the Assistant Director-
General (ADG) and the Deputy Director- General (DDG)- and

2 The period covered in figure 6 is from 1992 to 2000, with each bar
representing staffing grade information as an average over a separate 3-
year period between 1992 and 2000.

senior- level positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997, and 2000 shows
that Americans held 11.1 percent, 9. 5 percent, and 9.4 percent of these
positions, respectively.

Figure 7: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared With
FAO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.

Table 10 shows the financial contributions and senior- level and
policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected
countries with regard to FAO. This table also shows the ratio of each

country?s representation to its assessment and the average ratio for the
four other selected countries. As shown in table 10, the U. S.
representation- toassessment ratio is below the average ratio for the four
selected countries.

Table 10: FAO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and
Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998- 2000)

Percentage of representation in

Ratio of high- level Assessment

high- level positions to

Country (percent) positions

assessments

United States 25. 0% 9. 4% 0. 38 Average for four

0.76 countries Japan 19. 2 2. 8 0.14

Germany 9. 8 5. 2 0.53 France 6. 7 9. 9 1.48 United Kingdom 5. 3 4. 8 0.90
Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.

ILO Overall Progress Made, but

Progress toward achieving equitable representation of Americans has been
Senior- Level and

made at ILO, located in Geneva, where the United States has been
Policymaking Positions underrepresented during the period under review, 1992
to 2000.

Have Declined Nonetheless, U. S. representation in high- ranking positions
has declined.

Americans continue to be underrepresented overall and are represented in
senior- level and policymaking positions at levels that are below the
average of four major contributors given their contribution. (Fig. 8
provides information on the trends in overall U. S. representation from 1992
to 2000, compared with ILO?s geographic representation range for the United
States.) Overall, since 1992, geographic positions in ILO have increased by
5 to 659. With the average annual growth rate for the United States (about 3
percent) exceeding the ILO?s (about -0.3 percent), 3 the number of Americans
in geographic positions has increased and accordingly brought

the United States closer to its minimum geographic range in 2000. By
contrast with historical U. S. underrepresentation, 45 member states are
overrepresented. (Refer to app. III for a list of the top five
overrepresented countries.) The United States? assessed contribution to ILO
from 1998 to

3 Annual average growth rates are calculated using ordinary least square
regressions.

2000 averaged 25 percent of total contributions. Beginning in January 2002,
the geographic representation range for the United States is expected to be
lowered, from 101 through 135 to 89 through 119 positions, as a result of
the decrease in the U. S. assessment to 22 percent effective in the next
biennium.

Figure 8: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000) Compared With
ILO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

U. S. representation in senior levels (D1- D2) has declined and U. S.
representation in senior- level and policymaking positions (ADG- DDG) is
below that of the average of four major contributors given their
contribution. (Fig. 9 provides information, by grade category, on the
percentages of the total number of positions held by Americans. The period
covered is from 1995 to 2000, with each bar representing staffing grade
information as an average over a 3- year period.) Combining the

percentages of Americans in policymaking positions and senior- level
positions for the periods ending 1997 and 2000 shows Americans holding 12. 1
percent and 9. 7 percent of these positions, respectively.

Figure 9: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1995- 2000) Compared With
ILO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

Table 11 shows the financial contributions and senior- level and
policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected
countries with regard to ILO. This table also shows the ratio of each

country?s representation to its assessment and the average ratio for the
four other selected countries. As shown in this table, the U. S.
representation- toassessment ratio is below the average ratio for the four
selected countries.

Table 11: ILO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and
Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998- 2000)

Percentage of representation in

Ratio of high- level Assessment

high- level positions to

Country (percent) positions

assessments

United States 25. 0% 9.7% 0.39 Average for four

1.03 countries Japan 18. 5 4. 7 0. 26

Germany 9. 4 8. 4 0. 89 France 6. 4 10. 0 1. 57 United Kingdom 5. 1 7. 2 1.
42 Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

WHO Americans Remain

WHO, based in Geneva, continues to have Americans represented below
Underrepresented; TopLevel the equitable geographic targets for the United
States, which has been Positions Have

underrepresented there since 1993. In addition, there has been a decline in
Declined

policymaking positions, and combined U. S. representation in senior- level
and policymaking positions is below the average of the four major
contributors, given their contributions. (Fig. 10 provides information on

the trends in overall U. S. representation levels from 1992 to 2000 compared
with WHO?s geographic representation range for the United States.) In 1992,
U. S. representation was at the minimum level of the equitable range.
However, since that time, there have been declines in the level of U. S.
representation; in 2000, the United States was underrepresented. In contrast
to U. S. underrepresentation at WHO, 22 countries were overrepresented in
2000. (Refer to app. III for a list of the top five

overrepresented countries.) By and large, from 1992 to 2000, the total
number of geographic positions decreased by 174, or 13 percent, to 1,138,
for WHO, and similarly the number of geographic positions filled by
Americans declined by 14 percent. In 2001, the U. S. assessment decreased
from 25 percent to 22 percent, and accordingly, the geographic target for
the United States will be reduced for 2002.

Figure 10: Trends in Overall U. S. Representation (1992- 2000) Compared With
WHO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

There has been a decrease in U. S. representation at the top policymaking
positions (Ungraded (UG) is equivalent to the ASG and USG positions) and U.
S. representation in senior- level and policymaking positions is below the
average for four of WHO?s major contributors, given their contribution
level. (Fig. 11 provides information, by grade category, on trends in U. S.
representation by grade, compared with WHO?s U. S. geographic representation
target. The time period covered is from 1992 through 2000, with each bar
representing staffing grade information as an average over a 3- year
period.) While the percentage of Americans in D1 to D2 positions has been
relatively constant from 1992 through 2000, there has been a significant
decline in the percentage of Americans in policymaking

positions. The most recent year that an American held a top- ranking
position in WHO was in 1998. Combining the percentages of Americans in
policymaking and senior- level positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997,

and 2000 shows Americans holding 8.1 percent, 8.0 percent, and 8.0 percent
of these positions, respectively.

Figure 11: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared
With WHO?s U. S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

Table 12 shows the financial contributions and senior- level and
policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected
countries with regard to WHO. This table also shows the ratio of each

country?s representation to its assessment, and the average ratio for the
four selected countries. As shown in table 12, the U. S. representation-
toassessment ratio is below the average ratio of the four selected
countries.

Table 12: WHO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and
Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998- 2000)

Percentage of representation in

Ratio of high- level Assessment

high- level positions to

Country (percent) positions

assessments

United States 25. 0% 8. 0% 0. 32 Average for four

0.44 countries Japan 18. 6 1. 9 0.10

Germany 9. 5 3. 3 0.35 France 6. 5 3. 4 0.53 United Kingdom 5. 1 4. 0 0.78
Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

UNDP Americans Appear to Be The United States appears to be equitably
represented at UNDP. Because Equitably Represented UNDP, headquartered in
New York, does not have a geographic Overall

representation target for the United States, we did not have an established
criterion with which to assess U. S. representation there. However, when
comparing U. S. representation with U. S. contributions to UNDP, from 1995
to 2000, the U. S. representation percentage at UNDP was higher than the U.
S. contribution percentage for most of these years. As shown in figure 12,
from 1995 to 2000, the percentage of Americans in professional positions
remained relatively constant, declining slightly. Over the broader 9- year
period, the U. S. contribution to UNDP varied, ranging from a high of 14
percent of the budget in 1993 to a low of 6 percent in 1996.

Figure 12: Trends in U. S. Contributions and Percentage of American
Professional Staff at UNDP (1992- 2000)

Source: GAO analysis of UNDP data.

Figure 13 provides information, by grade category, on the percentage of the
total number of positions held by Americans and presents this information as
a 3- year average. The percentage of Americans in senior- level positions
(D1- D2) and lower level professional positions (P1- P3) remained close to
14 percent throughout the period we covered.

Figure 13: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1995- 2000) Compared
With UNDP?s U. S. Contribution

Source: GAO analysis of UNDP data.

Although an American held the top position at UNDP from 1993 through 1999,
beginning in 2000, no Americans were represented in policymaking positions
(equivalent to ASG and USG). Combining the percentages of Americans in
policymaking and senior- level positions for the periods ending 1997 and
2000 shows Americans holding 13. 9 percent and 14.2 percent of these
positions, respectively.

UNHCR Americans Continue to Be Overall, Americans have been underrepresented
at UNHCR. Moreover, Underrepresented

little progress has been made in hiring Americans. Because voluntary
contributions by member states provide the funding for UNHCR, it does not
have formal targets for achieving equitable geographic representation of the
nationals of its member states. However, since 1995, UNHCR has had an
informal target of 13 percent of its international professional positions
for the United States, from which it received about one- third of its
resources over the last 3 years. (Refer to fig. 14 for the trend in the
level of representation of Americans.) Despite the existence of this
informal target,

UNHCR has not come close to meeting it, and, for almost a decade, the
percentage of Americans employed by UNHCR compared with the total of its
international professional positions has not improved. During 1992 through
2000, UNHCR staffing levels have grown by 380 to 1,159, an annual growth
rate of 4.1 percent. The annual average growth rate for the United States
has been virtually the same at 4.3 percent.

Figure 14: Trends in U. S. Contributions and Informal Targets for Americans
and Percentage of U. S. Professional Staff at UNHCR (1992- 2000)

Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.

For the period 1993 to 1998, not one American was at the policymaking level,
although subsequently, an American was hired for one of these three high-
ranking positions at UNHCR. (Refer to fig. 15, which provides information,
by grade category, for the percentage of the total number of positions held
by Americans and presents this information as a 3- year average.) Combining
the percentages of Americans in policymaking

positions (High Commissioner, Deputy High Commissioner, and Assistant High
Commissioner) and senior- level positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997,
and 2000 shows Americans holding 10. 6 percent, 10. 8 percent, and 9.2
percent of these positions, respectively.

Figure 15: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1992- 2000) Compared
With U. S. Contributions and UNHCR?s Informal Geographic Target for the
United States Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.

WFP American Representation Is

Americans have been underrepresented at WFP, located in Rome, but gains
Below Informal Target have been made in hiring more Americans in senior-
level and policymaking

positions. Because voluntary contributions by member states provide the
funding for WFP, it does not have formal targets for achieving equitable
geographic representation of its member states. However, in 1997, WFP
established informal targets for donor countries in order to address an
imbalance in the representation levels between donor countries and program
countries. Accordingly, WFP set an informal target of 20 percent of its
international professional positions for the United States from which

it received almost one- half of its resources over the last 3 years. 4
Despite establishing an informal target in 1997, the percentage of Americans
employed as international professional staff has not improved. (Refer to
fig. 16, which presents data on U. S. contributions, percentage of

Americans, and the informal target for the United States.) From 1996 through
2000, annual employment growth rates for WFP and the United States were 10.5
percent and 5.5 percent, respectively, with the size of WFP?s international
staff increasing by 255 positions to 831.

4 U. S. contributions to WFP in 2000 included food totaling $796 million. In
addition, under its full cost recovery system, WFP requires each donor to
cover direct and indirect costs such as shipping and distribution. U. S.
contributions for WFP?s costs come from various sources, including the U. S.
Agency for International Development, the U. S. Department of Agriculture,
and the U. S. Department of State.

Figure 16: Trends in U. S. Contributions and Informal Targets for Americans
and Percentage of U. S. Professional Staff at WFP (1996- 2000)

Source: GAO analysis of WFP data.

WFP has made progress in hiring Americans in senior- level (D1- D2)
positions since 1996. (Fig. 17 provides information, by grade category, on
the percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans.) 5
Combining the percentages of Americans in policymaking positions

(equivalent to ASG and USG) and senior- level positions for the periods
ending 1997 and 2000 shows Americans holding 14. 1 percent and 24.1 percent
of these positions, respectively. 5 The period covered is from 1996 to 2000,
with the first bar representing an average for 1996 and 1997 and the second
bar representing an average for the 3 years 1998 through 2000.

Figure 17: Trends in U. S. Representation by Grade (1996- 2000) Compared
With U. S. Contributions and WFP?s Informal Geographic Target for the United
States

Source: GAO analysis of WFP data

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the

Appendi x I II

U. N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO For each organization, the top five
overrepresented countries for 1998 to 2000 are listed on the basis of the
number of staff exceeding the maximum of the country?s equitable range. 1
The total numbers of overrepresented countries at each organization are also
listed for the years 1998 to 2000. (See tables 13- 20.)

The use of a base number, rather than actual employment figures, to
calculate target ranges may tend to reduce the number of countries that are
classified as underrepresented. The larger upper targets for the Secretariat
and WHO may partially explain why they have fewer overrepresented countries
than FAO and ILO (see app. VIII).

1 Because FAO uses percentages rather than numbers to present each country?s
range and representation status, the top five overrepresented countries at
FAO are calculated in terms of the percentage above the country?s maximum
percentage.

Table 13: U. N. Secretariat - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-
2000) Number of staff exceeding range Year/ Ranking Country Staff Equitable
range maximum

2000

1 Russia 119 19 - 29 90 2 Philippines 56 4 - 14 42 3 Chile 31 3 - 14 17 4
Thailand 27 5 - 14 13 5 Pakistan 20 5 - 14 6

1999

1 Russia 122 25 - 35 87 2 Philippines 61 4 - 14 47 3 Chile 32 3 - 14 18 4
Thailand 27 5 - 14 13 5 Ethiopia 21 2 - 14 7

1998

1 Russia 128 43 - 58 70 2 Philippines 66 4 - 14 52 3 Chile 29 3 - 14 15 4
Thailand 27 4 - 14 13 5 Ethiopia 23 2 - 14 9

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. data.

Table 14: U. N. Secretariat - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-
2000) Year Number of overrepresented countries

2000 14 1999 13 1998 13 Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. data.

Table 15: FAO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Staff
percentage Staff representation

exceeding range Year/ Ranking Country percentage a Equitable range a

maximum a 2000

1 Morocco 1.23 .03-. 06 1. 17 2 Senegal .781 0-. 01 .771 3 India 1. 216
.23-. 45 .766 4 Cameroon .721 .01-. 02 .701 5 Tunisia .721 .02-. 04 .681

1999

1 India 1. 451 .23-. 45 1.001 2 Morocco .978 .03-. 06 .918 3 Cameroon .886
.01-. 02 .866 4 Belgium 2.52 .84- 1.68 .84 5 Tunisia .825 .02-. 04 .785

1998

1 India 1.68 .25-. 5 1.18 2 Belgium 2.769 .81- 1.62 1. 149 3 Senegal .969
.01-. 02 .949 4 Tunisia .969 .02-. 05 .919 5 Cameroon .878 .01-. 02 .858

a In view of FAO?s position- weighting formula, the top five overrepresented
countries are expressed in terms of the percentage, rather than the number
of positions, above the country?s maximum equitable representation range.

Source: GAO analysis based on FAO data.

Table 16: FAO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Year Number
of overrepresented countries

2000 85 1999 82 1998 72 Source: GAO analysis based on FAO data.

Table 17: ILO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Number of
staff exceeding Year/ Ranking Country Staff Equitable range range maximum

2000 1 Russia 234- 716 2 India 11 1- 2 9 3 Australia 18 6- 10 8 4 Chile 81-
2 6 4 Malaysia 81- 2 6 1999 1 Russia 236- 914 2 India 10 1- 2 8 3
Netherlands 16 6- 10 6 3 Australia 15 6- 9 6 3 Chile 81- 26 1998 1 India 91-
27 2 Netherlands 16 6- 10 6 2 Australia 15 6- 9 6 3 Belgium 11 4- 6 5 3
Malaysia 71- 25 3 Ghana 7 1- 2 5

Source: GAO analysis based on ILO data.

Table 18: ILO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Year Number
of overrepresented countries

2000 45 1999 48 1998 49 Source: GAO analysis based on ILO data.

Table 19: WHO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Number of
staff exceeding range Year/ Ranking Country Staff Equitable range

maximum

2000 1 Canada 40 21 - 29 11 2 Russia 26 10 - 16 10 3 Netherlands 28 13 - 19
9 4 United Kingdom 58 37 - 51 7 4 Brazil 27 14 - 20 7 4 Philippines 15 1 - 8
7 4 Ghana 151 - 8 7 1999 1 Philippines 16 1 - 8 8 2 Canada 39 23 - 32 7 2
Brazil 28 15 - 21 7 3 Belgium 19 8 - 14 5 3 Ghana 13 1- 8 5 1998 1
Philippines 13 1 - 8 5 2 Canada 36 23 - 32 4 2 Brazil 25 15 - 21 4 2
Netherlands 23 13 -19 4 2 Ghana 121 - 8 4 2 Congo 121 - 8 4

Source: GAO analysis based on WHO data.

Table 20: WHO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998- 2000) Year Number
of overrepresented countries

2000 22 1999 14 1998 12 Source: GAO analysis based on WHO data.

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries

Appendi x V I in Specific U. N. Organizations Figures 17 to 22 provide
information on trends in staffing levels for selected countries at the seven
U. N. organizations we studied- the U. N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, WHO, UNDP,
UNHCR, and WFP. The selected countries are Japan, Germany, France, the
United Kingdom, and Canada, which are all major contributors. We also
present combined staffing data for the European Union countries. The figures
provide information on the trends in each country?s total staff compared
with its geographic target and contribution to the U. N. organization, as
well as the trends in that country?s representation at different grade
levels. The grade level groupings used in

the figures are P1 to P3 (entry- level and mid- level professionals,
equivalent to GS- 9 to GS- 13); P4 to P5 (mid- level professionals,
equivalent to GS- 13 to GS- 15); D1 to D2 (equivalent to Senior Executive
Service positions); and Assistant Secretary- General to Under Secretary-
General (ASG- USG)

(policymaking positions). 1 In the figures, grade level employment
percentages are presented as 3- year averages for the non- overlapping
periods 1992 to 1994, 1995 to 1997, and 1998 to 2000. 2 The numbers in the
1998 to 2000 bars are the 3- year average of the number of nationals
employed at the respective U. N. organization for the designated grade
levels. The line that represents a country?s financial assessment or
contribution percentage share is a 3- year average for 1998 to 2000. 3
Similarly, the target range is a 3- year average for 1998 to 2000.

1 FAO and ILO use the titles Assistant Director- General and Deputy
Director- General (ADGDDG), which are equivalent to the ASG- USG positions.
Staffing data provided by WHO labeled these positions as Ungraded (UG),
which are also equivalent to ASG- USG positions. 2 Only 5 years of grade
level data are available for WFP, 1996 to 2000. For this organization, the
black bar in the figures describing country representation is a 2- year
average, 1996 to 1997.

3 In figure 23, the contributions of the European Union member countries to
UNHCR and WFP include a contribution of the European Commission, which is
separate from the individual country?s contribution.

Figure 18: Trends in Japanese Representation in U. N. Organizations, by
Grade, Compared With Japanese Contributions and Representation Targets

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Figure 19: Trends in German Representation in U. N. Organizations, by Grade,
Compared With German Contributions and Representation Targets

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Figure 20: Trends in French Representation in U. N. Organizations, by Grade,
Compared With French Contributions and Representation Targets

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Figure 21: Trends in British Representation in U. N. Organizations, by
Grade, Compared With British Contributions and Representation Targets

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Figure 22: Trends in Canadian Representation in U. N. Organizations, by
Grade, Compared With Canadian Contributions and Representation Targets

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Source: GAO analysis based on U. N. organizations? data.

Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and Their Efforts
to Promote

Appendi x V

U. N. Employment for Their Citizens This appendix describes the overall
representation status of selected major contributors in the U. N.
Secretariat and the specialized agencies in our study 1 and discusses some
of the approaches they employ to support their citizens seeking U. N.
employment. In this study, we included Japan, which was admitted to the
United Nations in 1956; Germany, which became a member in 1973; and France,
the United Kingdom, and Canada, all original members of the United Nations.

Japan Japan is the second largest contributor to the U. N. secretariat and
the specialized agencies in our study but is significantly underrepresented
in each of these U. N. organizations. (See table 21.)

Table 21: Representation Status of Japan (2000) Equitable

Number of Representation U. N. organization Assessment range staff status

U. N. Secretariat 20.6% 257 - 348 106 Underrepresented FAO a 20. 7 15. 5%
20. 2. 21% Underrepresented

67% ILO 20. 3 82 - 109 32 Underrepresented WHO 20. 2 141- 191 38
Underrepresented a FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country?s
representation status.

Sources: U. N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

According to a Japanese mission representative, the government of Japan
seeks to achieve representation levels that reflect its financial
contributions to these organizations, which are about 20 percent, second
only to the United States. Japanese officials with whom we met noted that

although seriously underrepresented in U. N. organizations, Japan has made
slow progress in improving its representation. Within its foreign ministry
in Tokyo, Japan has a recruitment center for international organizations
with about a half dozen staff. In addition, in Geneva there is an officer in
the Japanese mission who works full time on personnel management issues,

including promoting the employment of Japanese citizens in U. N.
organizations. This officer and her counterparts in Japan?s missions in

1 We do not include the countries? representation status at UNDP, UNHCR, and
WFP since these funds and programs do not have formal geographic targets.

Rome and New York spend a substantial amount of their time prescreening
rï¿½sumï¿½s of Japanese citizens interested in U. N. employment, providing
interested parties with information and advice about employment in
international organizations, and following up with U. N. officials on behalf
of individual applicants. The Japanese government uses the junior

professional officers program systematically because it is viewed to be an
effective recruitment tool for entry- level positions. Japan sponsors about
50 to 60 junior professional officers annually for 2- to 3- year terms;
therefore, there are about 160 junior officers working in various U. N.

organizations at any given time. Germany Germany, which is the third largest
contributor in these organizations,

generally falls short of its representation targets in most of the U. N.
entities we reviewed. (See table 22.)

Table 22: Representation Status of Germany (2000) Equitable

Number Representation U. N. organization Assessment range of staff status

U. N. Secretariat 9. 9% 126 - 171 123 Underrepresented FAO a 9.9 7. 4% 14.
5. 9% Underrepresented

85% ILO 9. 7 39 - 65 40 Equitably represented WHO 9. 7 69 - 94 37
Underrepresented a FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country?s
representation status. Sources: U. N. Secretariat and the specialized
agencies listed above.

Concerned about its overall representation status in international
organizations, the German government addresses the issue on various levels,
starting with a high- level working group of top officials from several
ministries, which meets regularly at the Chancellor?s Office to discuss
German participation in international organizations. In light of continuing
concerns, Germany has in the past year established a new office within the
foreign ministry- the Office of the Coordinator for International Personnel-
to organize its recruitment efforts. The new office focuses its efforts on
junior and senior- level positions alike. The Coordinator for

International Personnel is ranked at the ambassador level. In addition,
Germany?s Federal Employment Agency has an office that deals with promoting
the employment of German citizens in international organizations, mostly for
professional and technical positions. The German government also provides
support for junior professional officers programs, annually funding anywhere
from 25 to 30 new officers, who serve for 2 to 3 years.

France As shown in table 23, France, the fourth largest contributor, is
equitably represented across all of the U. N. organizations we examined.

Table 23: Representation Status of France (2000) Equitable

Number of Representation U. N. organization Assessment range staff status

U. N. Secretariat 6. 6% 85 - 115 102 Equitably represented FAO a 6.6 4. 93%
- 9. 86% 7. 3% Equitably represented ILO 6. 5 26 - 43 41 Equitably
represented WHO 6. 4 46 - 64 7 Equitably represented a FAO uses a percentage
to assess a member country?s representation status. Sources: U. N.
Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

The French foreign ministry has an office in Paris that promotes employment
in international organizations. This office prescreens candidates and
forwards applicants? files to the French missions that have responsibility
for U. N. organizations. In some cases, Mission officials may support French
applicants by sending a letter in support of the candidate

to, or meeting in person with, the relevant U. N. hiring official. In
addition to funding about 40 junior professional officers per year, mostly
in field locations, the French government has also agreed to sponsor a
limited number of junior officers from developing countries.

United Kingdom As shown in table 24, the United Kingdom is generally well-
represented, falling within or exceeding its desirable levels of
representation in major

U. N. agencies.

Table 24: Representation Status of the United Kingdom (2000) Equitable

Number of Representation

U. N. organization Assessment range staff status

U. N. Secretariat 5. 1% 68- 92 90 Equitably represented FAO a 5.1 3. 84%
7.67% 7.7% Overrepresented

ILO 5. 0 20 - 34 27 Equitably represented

WHO 5. 0 37 - 51 58 Overrepresented a FAO uses a percentage to assess a
member country?s representation status.

Sources: U. N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

According to representatives of the British missions with whom we met,
geographic representation is not a particularly important concern to their
government, especially in light of U. K. representation levels. These
officials told us they are primarily concerned about efficient management of
the United Nations and a competent workforce and do not consider geographic
representation a key issue. For this reason, the United Kingdom generally
makes no special effort to promote the employment of its citizens.

Canada Canada, as shown in table 25, is generally well- represented in the
United Nations.

Table 25: Representation Status of Canada (2000) Equitable

Number of Representation U. N. organization Assessment range staff status

U. N. Secretariat 2. 7% 38 - 52 52 Equitably represented

FAO * 2.7 2. 06% - 4.12% 3.98% Equitably represented

ILO 2. 7 11- 18 16 Equitably represented

WHO 2. 7 21 - 29 40 Overrepresented a FAO uses a percentage to assess a
member country?s representation status.

Source: U. N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

The Public Service Commission of Canada is responsible for coordinating the
Canadian government?s efforts to identify professional Canadians for jobs in
international organizations. The Commission?s international programs office
works in concert with the Department of Foreign Affairs

and International Trade in targeting key positions considered attainable and
of strategic interest to Canada and identifying Canadian candidates for
them. According to Canadian mission representatives, the Director of
International Programs visits the human resources directors of U. N.
organizations about once a year to establish contacts, verify information,
and plan to search for suitable candidates. Although Canada provides only
limited support for junior professional officers programs, Canada?s
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has a Youth

International Internship Program that provides young people, ages 18 to 29,
with an opportunity for international work experience for a period of 6 to 8
months.

Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May Affect Recruiting Americans
for U. N.

Appendi x VI

Organizations Several U. N. organizations have recently developed human
resource management strategies to address a broad range of human capital
issues they face, some of which affect their efforts to achieve equitable
geographic balance. The following section discusses selected human capital
issues that provide insight into some factors that may affect recruiting
qualified Americans in greater numbers for U. N. employment.

Many of the American citizens with whom we met cited these among the
contributing factors to difficulties recruiting and retaining Americans in
the U. N. system.

Gender Balance Following the Fourth World Conference on Women in September
1995, the U. N. Secretary- General established a goal that the United
Nations will strive to achieve 50- percent representation of women in its
workforce by

2000. The United Nations has since determined that this target will not be
met until 2012. In accordance with this goal, some U. N. organizations have
similarly adopted policies to reach specific gender balance targets. For
example, in 1997, WHO established a target of 50- percent employment of
women on its staff. UNDP expects that by the end of this year, the gender

ratio for senior management positions at headquarters will be at least 4
women to 6 men, and that 38 percent of resident representative positions and
40 percent of the deputy resident representative positions will be occupied
by women. In its written personnel policies, UNHCR aims to

ensure that women constitute two- thirds of recruits until equal
representation of women is achieved. Several U. N. officials with whom we
met noted that the United States may have an advantage in recruiting
qualified women candidates. State officials acknowledged that, to the extent
possible, the State Department tries to make qualified American women aware
of U. N. vacancies and assists in forwarding their applications.

Compensation All of the U. N. entities we examined follow the U. N. Common
System of Salaries, Allowances, and Benefits established by the
International Civil Service Commission (ICSC). 1 Salaries and benefits are
based on the 1 Created by the General Assembly of the United Nations in
1974, the International Civil Service Commission is responsible for
regulating and coordinating the conditions of service of the United Nations
Common System, which applies to the U. N. Secretariat and its funds and
programs and specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
and a number of other international organizations.

application of the Noblemaire principle, which states that compensation be
set on the basis of the highest paid civil service- historically, the United
States. The Commission is currently undertaking a major review of the pay

and benefits system and is expected to propose recommendations to the
General Assembly in 2002. According to ICSC documents and Commission
officials with whom we met, the objective of the review is to devise a
compensation system, more flexible than the current one, that will, among
others, (1) enable U. N. organizations to attract and retain highly
qualified staff, including senior management personnel and professional and

technical staff that are in short supply, and (2) provide staff with career
progression opportunities. U. N. officials and many of the American citizens
with whom we met suggested that certain studies have shown that the United
States civil service may no longer be the highest paid civil service. A 1995
study of the

ICSC reported that the compensation package for the German civil service was
15.2 percent higher than the U. S. civil service- primarily because,
although U. S. salaries were generally higher, German compensation was
superior in terms of retirement and health insurance, leave, and other
benefits. However, ICSC officials told us that Germany?s standing has since
slipped due to significant budgetary obligations facing the government, and
the Commission will be scheduling the next Noblemaire study shortly.

Although noncompetitive compensation was a common concern among American
employees, there were other compensation issues raised by certain groups.
For example, Americans who were transferred or detailed to U. N. agencies
expressed concerns about pension and related benefits. They believed that
the U. S. government could be more supportive of those who accept a detail
or transfer to an international organization by allowing

them to continue as active members of the Thrift Savings Plan for U. S.
federal employees, thereby allowing them to continue making regular payments
and choosing their own investment options. American employees in New York
called for extending education grant benefits to U. S. professional staff at
U. N. headquarters and proposed several methods

to do so without costing the organization more money. 2 These employees
argued that the system- originally designed to provide equality for staff
serving at foreign duty stations away from their home countries- has

2 At a meeting of the Fifth Committee in October 1999, the U. S.
representative indicated that the United States did not favor extending the
education grant to staff living in their country or whose children lived in
their home country.

evolved into one that discriminates against professional staff at
headquarters by virtue of their nationality. Spousal Employment Because of
the rise in dual income families and dual career couples, employment
opportunities for spouses are an important factor in recruiting and
retaining staff, according to U. N. documents and many people with whom we
met. In the last several years, a number of organizations,

including ILO, UNDP, and WFP, have taken steps to address the issue of
spousal employment, including adopting policies and programs to facilitate
employment of spouses. This issue appeared to be of particular concern to
American citizens employed at FAO in Rome because, unlike the other U. N.
organizations we examined- including WFP, which also is in Rome- FAO still
prohibits spouses from employment within the organization. According to
American staff with whom we met, while the association of professional staff
at FAO favors spousal employment, the issue has been extremely contentious
because the union for the general services staff strongly opposes allowing
spousal employment. General service staff are

concerned that their positions, which include secretaries and file clerks,
would be taken by spouses. Thus, FAO management has not made the policy
changes for spousal employment that other U. N. organizations have.

Other Related Issues Language Skills To ensure the international character
of U. N. organizations, fluency in a

second U. N.- designated language is typically a requirement for employment.
Many view this requirement as an obstacle for Americans and certain other
nationals who are less likely than the French, Canadians, and others to be
multilingual. However, human resources directors told us that waivers may be
granted for candidates viewed to be best qualified in all areas except for
the second language requirement. American citizens employed in the United
Nations had mixed reactions regarding the need for a second language. Along
with some U. N. officials, many of the American citizens with whom we spoke
told us that English is the language

commonly used within agencies and that at certain locations, such as Geneva,
one can get by without fluency in a second language such as French. Although
the requirement for a second language may be waived, this practice is not
widely known; therefore, it is unclear how many

Americans interested in U. N. employment choose not to even apply because
they do not meet the requirement.

Organizational Culture and Many of the American citizens with whom we spoke
expressed the need to

Management Processes advance reforms that promote greater transparency and
accountability in the human resource management practices of U. N. agencies.
While citing

some progress in recent years, American staff characterized the
organizational culture within several of the agencies to be ?very
bureaucratic,? ?highly centralized,? and ?authoritarian.? According to these
staff, this organizational attitude can lead to a high level of frustration
among Americans, who are accustomed to greater organizational efficiency and
more participatory management styles.

A particular problem mentioned by some Americans we interviewed was the need
to expedite the lengthy recruitment and selection process, which can take as
long as 1 year. Recognizing this impediment, several human resources
directors told us they are taking steps to streamline the recruitment
process. For example, at FAO and WFP, officials claimed they cut the
recruitment time for professional positions by half in the last few years-
reducing it from 1 year to 6 months for FAO and from 8 to 10 months to 4 to
5 months for WFP.

Appendi x VII

U. N. Salary Scales Table 26 shows annual gross salaries and net msp
equivalents after applications of staff assessment:

Table 26: Salary Scales for U. N. Professional and Senior Employees
(Effective Mar. 1, 2001) Steps Grade I II III IV V VI VII

USG GROSS $167, 035 NET D 113, 762 NET S 102, 379 ASG GROSS 151, 840 NET D
104, 341 NET S 94, 484 D2 GROSS 124, 384 $127,132 $129,877 $132,623 $135,369
$138,115 NET D 87,318 89,022 90,724 92,426 94,129 95,831 NET S 80,218 81,645
83,072 84,498 85,925 87,352 D1 GROSS 109, 894 112,245 114, 598 116,944 119,
297 121,648 $124, 002 NET D 78,334 79,792 81,251 82,705 84,164 85,622 87,
081 NET S 72,407 73,687 74,967 76,245 77,525 78,796 80, 018 P5 GROSS 96,705
98,832 100, 961 103,089 105, 216 107,342 109, 471 NET D 70,157 71,476 72,796
74,115 75,434 76,752 78, 072 NET S 65,176 66,385 67,745 68,703 69,862 71,018
72, 177 P4 GROSS 79,780 81,733 83,680 85,627 87,579 89,527 91, 571 NET D
59,255 60,544 61,829 63,114 64,402 65,688 66, 974 NET S 55,180 56,364 57,543
58,722 59,902 61,080 62, 259 P3 GROSS 65,388 67,220 69,053 70,880 72,714
74,544 76, 373 NET D 49,756 50,965 52,175 53,381 54,591 55,799 57, 006 NET S
46,445 47,556 48,669 49,780 50,892 52,002 53, 113 P2 GROSS 53,129 54,632
56,132 57,633 59,135 60,692 62, 332 NET D 41,253 42,335 43,415 44,496 45,577
46,657 47, 739 NET S 38,694 39,675 40,653 41,633 42,611 43,592 44, 587 P1
GROSS 41,189 42,633 44,075 45,519 46,960 48,403 49, 847 NET D 32,656 33,696
34,734 35,774 36,811 37,850 38, 890 NET S 30,805 31,763 32,720 33,677 34,633
35,590 36, 584

VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV

$126,352 $128,702 88, 538 89, 995 81, 240 82, 460 111,598 113, 724 $115,853
$117, 982 $120, 106 $122, 234 79, 391 80, 709 82, 029 83, 349 84, 666 85,
985 73, 335 74, 493 75, 651 76, 809 77, 966 79, 101 93, 645 95, 723 97, 795
99, 869 101, 947 104, 019 $106, 095 $108, 171 68, 260 69, 548 70, 833 72,
119 73, 407 74, 692 75, 979 77, 266 63, 439 64, 617 65, 796 66, 949 68, 082
69, 210 70, 340 71, 470 78, 206 80, 038 81, 868 83, 700 85, 529 87, 361 89,
191 91, 089 58, 216 59, 425 60, 633 61, 842 63, 049 64, 258 65, 466 66, 675
54, 225 55, 335 56, 447 57, 555 58, 663 59, 770 60, 877 61, 985 63, 967 65,
606 67, 244 68, 879 70, 520 48, 818 49, 900 50, 981 52, 060 53, 143 45, 580
46, 577 47, 571 48, 564 49, 561 51, 290 52, 731 54, 174 39, 929 40, 966 42,
005 37, 493 38, 434 39, 375

Legend D = Applicable to staff with a dependent spouse or child. S =
Applicable to staff with no dependent spouse or child.

Note: U. N. employees do not receive the gross salary amounts shown in the
table. Their net renumeration is the appropriate net figure (with or without
dependents) plus or minus a post adjustment allowance that varies by grade
and also by duty station. Source: International Civil Service Commission.

Appendi x VI II

Methodology The methodology section describes the data used in our analysis
and highlights some of the methodological issues and approaches that we use.
It also includes a discussion of the use of a base number by some U. N.
organizations to calculate a country's representation target range and
possible implications.

Most U. N. organizations included in our study provided the annual total
number of geographic staff positions filled for the organization and for
selected countries for 1992 to 2000. 1 Annual financial country assessments
or contributions and the organization?s regular budget were also supplied.
Information was provided for the United States, Canada, Japan, and each of
the 15 member countries of the European Union. The four organizations that
have formal geographic equitable staff representation targets- the U. N.
Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO- provided these annual targets. Employment
data generally refer to the end of the calendar year, except for the
Secretariat, which was for June 30. Four organizations provided annual data
on the number of geographic staff employed by grade level for the
organization as a whole and for the selected nationalities for the 9- year

period. ILO and UNDP provided these data for 1995 to 2000 and WFP for 1996
to 2000. To facilitate comparisons across time and across countries,
financial assessments/ contributions, equitable representation targets, and
grade level staff are expressed as percentages. For example, the high and
low equitable representation target staff numbers for each country are
divided by the respective organization's total number of geographic staff
used in the calculation of these targets. For the Secretariat and WHO, this
is a

specified base number, which includes actual filled positions and vacancies.
For ILO, it is the number of filled positions. FAO provides its targets as a
position- weighted percentage. 2 In order to compare a country's actual
employment to the target range, the total number of national staff employed
is divided by the organization's total number that was used to

calculate the annual targets. For organizations that do not have formal
targets- UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP- the organization's total number of filled
international professional positions is used.

1 WFP provided aggregate employment figures for the period of 1996 to 2000;
UNDP data covered 1995 to 2000. 2 See appendix I for a description of the
methodology used to calculate equitable representation targets.

For the figures in appendixes II and IV, grade level employment percentages
are presented as 3- year averages for the non- overlapping periods of 1992
to 1994, 1995 to 1997, and 1998 to 2000. Only 5 years of grade level data
are available for WFP, 1996 to 2000. For this organization, the black bar in
the figures describing country representation is a 2- year average, 1996 to
1997. The numbers in the 1998 to 2000 bars are the 3- year average of the
number of nationals employed at the respective U. N.

organization for the designated grade levels during 1998 to 2000. The sum of
grade level employment numbers may not equal the total number due to
rounding. The line that represents a country?s financial assessment or
contribution percentage share is a 3- year average for 1998 to 2000.
Similarly, the target range is a 3- year average for 1998 to 2000.

To calculate the grade level representation percentage, a country?s grade
level employment is divided by the organization?s total employment for the
corresponding grade level. For the Secretariat and WHO, the organization?s

grade level employment number is scaled up by the ratio of base number
employment to actual total employment for each year. Thus, grade level
employment percentages are constructed in a comparable fashion to actual
total representation percentages and target range percentages.

We compared U. S. representation in senior- level and policymaking positions
with those of four major contributors- Japan, Germany, France, and the
United Kingdom. For the period of 1998 to 2000, we calculate the average
ratio of each country's percentage representation of these highlevel

positions to the country's annual average assessment at the four U. N.
organizations with formal geographic targets. The resulting number can be
interpreted as the country's percentage representation at senior- level and
policymaking positions per 1 percent of its assessment. For illustrative

purposes, consider table 10 in appendix II describing representation at
senior- level and policymaking positions at FAO. U. S. representation in
these high- level positions is 9.4 percent, and its average assessment is 25
percent. Dividing 9.4 by 25 results in 0.38 percent, the U. S.
representation of high- level positions per 1 percent of U. S. assessment.
In a similar fashion, 0. 14 percent is the Japanese representation per 1
percent of its assessment, and 1. 48 percent is the French representation
per 1 percent of its assessment. The average representation for the four
selected countries is 0.76 percent per 1- percent assessment.

In table 4, in the report we multiplied this four- country average
representation by the U. S. assessment to derive a hypothetical comparative
representation level, under the assumption that U. S. representation in

senior- level and policymaking positions was proportionate to the average of
these four major contributors. For example, if the United States, given its
25- percent assessment at FAO, were to have representation proportionate to
the 0. 76 average ratio for the four selected countries, then its
representation would be 19.1 percent.

To describe U. S. representation over time, both the actual number and
relative number of American staff in each organization are presented. For
example, see figures 4 and 5 in appendix II, which describe U. S.
representation at the U. N. Secretariat. A relative number, a ratio of the
number of total country staff employed expressed as a percentage of the

organization's total staff, allows the reader to examine the change in
country staff size over time while taking into consideration the change in
the total organization staff size. However, because of different means of
measuring an organization's total staff size, care should be taken when
interpreting this information.

For U. N. organizations that use a base number rather than the actual number
of filled staff positions, there may be a significant difference in national
representation trends and the trend of total national employment as a
percentage of total actual organization employment. In some situations, as
described below for WHO, one trend may be positive and the other negative.
For example, annual U. S. representation at WHO during 1998 to 2000 can be
interpreted as follows: As shown in figure 10 in appendix II, the gap
between U. S. employment and the lower target range, which is calculated
using a base number, is narrowing which indicates an improvement in U. S.
representation. During this period, U. S. employment grew at an annual rate
of 1.8 percent, 3 while the WHO employment base

number remained constant at 1,450. Thus, U. S. representation increased
relative to its target range. However, during this period total actual
employment at WHO grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent. Employment of non-
Americans increased at a faster rate than for Americans. The

percentage of Americans actually employed declined. However, based on 3
Annual average growth rates are calculated using ordinary least square
regressions of the logarithm of employment figures.

the representation methodology employed by WHO, U. S. representation is
shown as increasing. 4 The criteria to judge whether a country is
underrepresented, overrepresented, or equitably represented at an
organization are to compare the actual number of nationals employed to the
target range numbers. That is the approach used for organizations with
formal targets in the first of each U. N. organization?s figures for U. S.
representation in appendix II. The second figure for each organization in
appendix II and all of the figures in appendix IV use a percentage measure
to compare actual country employment with representation targets. Except for
FAO, which uses a position- weighted percentage to calculate target ranges
and actual representation, our percentage approach is not the official
method used by

the U. N. organizations. Our approach enables one to compare a country?s
total employment as well as grade level employment with representation
target ranges. The use of a base number rather than actual employment
figures to calculate target ranges tends to reduce the number of countries
that are classified as overrepresented. The base number includes actual
filled positions and vacancies. Since the annual base numbers for the
Secretariat

and WHO are greater than each organization?s respective actual number
employed, 5 the upper target figure is larger than would be derived if the
actual employment number were used in the target range formula. For example,
the Secretariat?s target range for the United States in 2000 is 424 to 314
when a base number employment figure of 2, 600 is used. If the actual
employment number of 2,389 were to have been used in the target range
formula, the target range would have been 390 to 289. In this case, the
United States still would have been equitably represented. However, if
actual employment numbers had been used in the target range formula, 4 The
U. N. Secretariat used a constant base number of 2, 600 when calculating
representation targets for 1998 to 2000. Although the numerical trend rate
of U. S. representation differs depending on whether it is measured against
the Secretariat's declining total actual employment rate (- 0. 8 percent) or
a constant base number, the overall trend of declining U. S. representation
remains. In contrast to the situation in WHO, this occurs because the
declining annual rate of U. S. employment (- 4.6 percent) exceeds either
measure of overall

Secretariat employment trend changes. 5 The base number used by WHO averaged
32 percent more than actual total employment during 1998 to 2000. In 1998,
the Secretariat lowered its base number from 2, 700 to 2,600. The base
number averaged 8 percent more than actual total employment during 1998 to

2000.

Canada and the United Kingdom would have been classified as overrepresented.
The larger, upper target may partially explain why the Secretariat and WHO
have fewer overrepresented countries than FAO or ILO (see apps. III and V).

Appendi x IX

Comments From the U. S. Department of State Note: GAO comments supplementing
those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

See comment 1. See comment 2.

GAO Comments The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's
letter dated July 19, 2001.

1. While State commented that it places a high priority on efforts to ensure
the United States is represented, at all levels, in U. N. organizations, we
found that its actions to achieve equitable representation do not reflect
this stated priority. For example, as

discussed in this report, State has reduced many of its recruitment efforts
without assessing how these reductions will affect recruitment and does not
have recruiting or action plans in place to support U. N. employment of
Americans.

2. State disagreed with our recommendation to develop guidelines that define
its goal for obtaining an equitable share of senior- level and policymaking
positions for Americans and use these guidelines to help assess whether the
United States is equitably represented. State said it should not develop
separate guidelines for defining its goal of obtaining

an equitable share of Americans in these high- level positions but rather
that it should focus on equitable representation at all levels. While we
agree that State should be concerned about achieving equitable employment
for Americans at all levels in U. N. organizations, we believe it is
important to emphasize achieving an equitable share of high- level
positions. We further believe that without guidelines defining equitable
share, State lacks a mechanism for assessing whether its top recruitment
priority- equitable representation of Americans in high- level positions- is
being achieved.

Appendi x X

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Phyllis Anderson (202)
512- 7364 Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Joy Labez,
Jeremy Latimer, Bruce

Kutnick, Janey Cohen, Mark Speight, Mary Moutsos, and Rick Barrett made key
contributions to this report.

(320013) Lett er

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Contents

Contents Page 2 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Contents Page 3 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Contents Page 4 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Contents Page 5 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 6 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 7 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 7 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help
Boost U. S. Representation

Page 8 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 9 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 10 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 11 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 12 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 13 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 14 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 15 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 16 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 17 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 18 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 19 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 20 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 21 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 22 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 23 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 24 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 25 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 26 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 27 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 28 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 29 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 30 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 31 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 32 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 33 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 34 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 35 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 36 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 37 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 38 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 39 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 40 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 41 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 42 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix I

Appendix I Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine Representation
Status of Member

Countries Page 43 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix I Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine Representation
Status of Member

Countries Page 44 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix I Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine Representation
Status of Member

Countries Page 45 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix I Methods Used by U. N. Organizations to Determine Representation
Status of Member

Countries Page 46 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 47 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 48 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 49 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 50 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 51 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 52 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 53 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 54 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 55 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 56 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 57 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 58 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 59 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 60 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 61 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 62 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 63 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 64 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 65 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 66 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 67 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix II U. S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation

Page 68 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 69 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix III

Appendix III Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U. N. Secretariat,
FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 70 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix III Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U. N. Secretariat,
FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 71 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix III Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U. N. Secretariat,
FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 72 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix III Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U. N. Secretariat,
FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 73 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 74 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 75 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 76 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 77 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 78 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 79 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 80 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 81 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 82 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 83 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 84 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 85 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 86 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IV Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in Specific U. N.
Organizations

Page 87 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 88 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix V

Appendix V Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and
Their Efforts to Promote U. N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 89 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix V Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and
Their Efforts to Promote U. N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 90 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix V Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and
Their Efforts to Promote U. N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 91 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix V Overall Representation Status of Selected Other Countries and
Their Efforts to Promote U. N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 92 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 93 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May Affect
Recruiting Americans for U. N. Organizations

Page 94 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VI Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May Affect
Recruiting Americans for U. N. Organizations

Page 95 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VI Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May Affect
Recruiting Americans for U. N. Organizations

Page 96 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 97 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 98 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VII

Appendix VII U. N. Salary Scales

Page 99 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VII U. N. Salary Scales

Page 100 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 101 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VIII

Appendix VIII Methodology

Page 102 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VIII Methodology

Page 103 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VIII Methodology

Page 104 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix VIII Methodology

Page 105 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 106 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IX

Appendix IX Comments From the U. S. Department of State

Page 107 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix IX Comments From the U. S. Department of State

Page 108 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Page 109 GAO- 01- 839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U. S.
Representation

Appendix X

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact one:  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm  e-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***