Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct	 
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls (31-JAN-02, GAO-02-375).	 
                                                                 
The changing security environment and the increasing		 
globalization of the U.S. economy have significantly increased	 
the need for federal employees with foreign language skills. GAO 
reviewed in detail the operations of the following four agencies:
the Army, the State Department, the Department of Commerce's	 
Foreign Commercial Service (FCS), and the Federal Bureau of	 
Investigation (FBI). These four agencies reported shortages of	 
translators and interpreters as well as diplomats and		 
intelligence specialists with critical foreign language skills.  
Agency officials said that these shortfalls have harmed agency	 
operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, 	 
intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts. The four 
agencies use various workforce strategies to meet their foreign  
language needs, including staff development, such as language	 
training and pay incentives; employee recruitment; contractors;  
or information technology, such as networked computers and	 
databases. One of the four agencies is trying to resolve its	 
foreign language shortages by focusing on human capital 	 
management and workforce planning, as suggested by GAO. The FBI  
has begun an action plan that links its foreign language program 
to the Bureau's strategic objectives and program goals. However, 
the Army, the State Department, and FCS's initiatives are not	 
part of a coordinated plan of action with regard to foreign	 
language recruitment, training, pay incentives, and workforce	 
restructuring.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-375 					        
    ACCNO:   A02724						        
  TITLE:     Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to      
Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls			 
     DATE:   01/31/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Federal employees					 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     Human resources utilization			 
	     Personnel recruiting				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Employee incentives				 
	     Education or training				 
	     Computer networks					 
	     FBI Foreign Language Program			 
	     National Security Education Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-02-375
     
United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2002

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls

                                      a

GAO-02-375

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Agencies Reported Varied Foreign Language Shortages
Agencies Use a Variety of Strategies to Meet Their Foreign Language

Needs Some Agencies Lack Workforce Planning as a Long-term Strategy for

Filling Language Needs Conclusions Recommendation for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 2 4 6

15

21 26 26 27

Appendixes

Appendix I:

Appendix II:

Appendix III:

Appendix IV:

Appendix V: Appendix VI:

Appendix VII: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance

Comments from the U.S. Army

GAO Comments

Comments from the Department of State

GAO Comments

Comments from the Foreign Commercial Service Comments from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation

GAO Comments

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Acknowledgments

                                     29

                                     31

                                   35 38

                                   39 44

                                     45

                                   46 49

50 50 50

Tables Table 1: Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Federal Foreign Language-Speaking Proficiency Levels 5
Shortfalls of Army Translators and Interpreters, by
Language, Fiscal Year 2001 7
Shortfalls of Army Cryptologic Linguists, by Language,
Fiscal Year 2001 9
Shortfalls of Army Human Intelligence Collectors, by
Language, Fiscal Year 2001 9
State Department Positions and Vacancies for Five
Hard-to-Learn Languages, July 2001 10

                                  Contents

Table 6: Shortfalls of FCS Officers, by Language, as of April

2001 11 Table 7: FBI Special Agent Linguists' Foreign Language-

Proficiency Levels,  Fiscal Year 2001 12  Figures Figure  1: Strategies That
Four U.S. Agencies Use to Address

Foreign Language Shortages and Shortfalls 15

Figure 2: OPM Workforce Planning Model 21

Figure 3: Steps in OPM's Workforce Planning Model 32

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense
FCS Foreign Commercial Service
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
LEILA Law Enforcement Interagency Linguist Access
NSA National Security Agency
NSEP National Security Education Program
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management

A

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

January 31, 2002

The Honorable Thad Cochran The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd United States
Senate

The Honorable James A. Leach The Honorable Sam Farr House of Representatives

In the wake of a changing security environment and the increasing
globalization of the U.S. economy, federal agencies' needs for personnel
with foreign language proficiency have grown significantly. Since the end of
the Cold War, the emergence of new nation states, the presence of a wider
range of security threats, and the signing of new trade agreements have
imposed greater demands on the foreign language capabilities of federal
agencies in areas such as intelligence gathering, counterterrorism efforts,
diplomatic affairs, and U.S. commercial operations overseas. At the same
time, many agencies have experienced reductions in their workforces, limited
hiring, and a growing number of employees who are eligible for retirement.
These conditions have contributed to gaps in foreign language skills that
agencies are beginning to address. In light of the September 2001 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent U.S. response,
agency efforts to address such gaps have taken on increased importance and
urgency.

As agreed with your offices, this report reviews the use of foreign language
skills at the U.S. Army, the Department of State, the Department of
Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).1 Specifically, we (1) examined the nature and impact of
reported foreign language shortages, (2) determined the strategies that
federal agencies use to address these specific shortages, and (3) assessed

1We issued a separate For Official Use Only report which included details on
National Security Agency/Central Security Service operations. See Foreign
Languages: Five Agencies Could Use Human Capital Strategy to Handle Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls (GAO-02-237, Jan. 31, 2002). We also issued a
classified report providing related staffing details on the National
Security Agency/Central Security Service and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's foreign language programs. See Foreign Languages: Staffing
Shortfalls and Related Information for the National Security Agency and
Federal Bureau of Investigation (GAO-C-02-258R, Jan. 31, 2002).

the efforts of agencies to implement an overall strategic workforce plan to
address current and projected shortages.

To answer these objectives, we initially reviewed the operations of 17
federal agencies and offices. We then selected 4 agencies for more detailed
review, as agreed with your offices. We selected these agencies to ensure
that we had a mix of both small and large programs and a broad
representation of program areas including national security, foreign
diplomacy, and U.S. economic interests. We then developed a data collection
instrument that we administered to all 4 agencies. The State Department
provided only partial information on foreign language shortages. We also
conducted interviews with key officials in these agencies and reviewed and
analyzed supporting documentation, data, and studies. For further
information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

Results in Brief The four federal agencies covered in our review reported
shortages of translators and interpreters as well as shortages of staff,
such as diplomats and intelligence specialists, with foreign language skills
that are critical to successful job performance. Agency officials stated
that these shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered
U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and
diplomatic efforts. Many shortages were in hard-to-learn languages from the
Middle East and Asia, although shortages varied greatly depending on the
agency, occupation, and language. Agency officials said that foreign
language shortages are, in part, caused by technology advances that allow
the collection of growing amounts of information and thus require greater
numbers of staff proficient in foreign languages; by rising language
proficiency requirements in the face of changing and more complex agency
missions; and by a competitive job market that has made attracting and
retaining staff more difficult. At the FBI, for example, shortages of
language-proficient staff have resulted in the accumulation of thousands of
hours of audiotapes and pages of written material that have not been
reviewed or translated. The FBI says this situation has hindered its
prosecution of criminal cases and limited its ability to identify, arrest,
and convict violent gang members. Diplomatic and intelligence officials have
stated that lack of staff with foreign language skills has weakened the
fight against international terrorism and drug trafficking and resulted in
less effective representation of U.S. interests overseas.

The agencies we reviewed reported using a range of workforce strategies in
an attempt to fill their specific foreign language needs. These strategies
included staff development efforts such as language training and pay
incentives, human capital management efforts such as recruiting employees
with foreign language skills or hiring contractors, or taking advantage of
information technology such as networked computers and contractor databases
to optimize the use of existing foreign language resources. In general,
agencies used contractors to meet their additional translation and
interpretation needs, while staff training was one of the most widely used
options for filling language-skill needs in other areas. While these
assorted efforts have had some success, the agencies' current strategies
have not fully met the need for some foreign language skills.

One of the four agencies we reviewed has reported undertaking efforts to
resolve its foreign language shortages by focusing on human capital
management and workforce planning, as suggested in Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and GAO guidance.2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
instituted an action plan that links its foreign language program to the
Bureau's strategic objectives and program goals. This action plan attempts
to define the strategies, performance measures, responsible parties, and
resources the Bureau needs to address current and projected foreign language
shortages. In contrast, the other three agencies have yet to pursue overall
strategic planning in this area. The Army, the State Department, and the
Foreign Commercial Service's (FCS) initiatives are not part of a coordinated
plan of action with regard to foreign language recruitment, training, pay
incentives, and workforce restructuring.

In this report, we are recommending that the Army, the State Department, and
the Foreign Commercial Service develop a comprehensive strategic approach to
human capital management and workforce planning in order to better address
current and projected shortages in staff with foreign language skills. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Army agreed with our
recommendation but objected to a perceived requirement that Office of
Personnel Management and GAO guidance must serve as the models for
developing a strategic approach to human capital management. To address the
Army's concern, we revised our recommendation to clarify that it focused on
the core human capital and workforce planning

2See Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders
(GAO/OGC-00-14G, Sept. 2000) and Strategic Human Resources Management:
Aligning with the Mission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Sept. 1999).

principles promoted by OPM and GAO. The State Department provided a list of
activities that it believes are responsive to our recommendation. The
Foreign Commercial Service agreed with the recommendation.

Background Although more than 70 federal agencies have foreign language
needs, some of the largest programs are concentrated in the Army, the State
Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Office of Personnel and Management records indicate that the
government employs just under a thousand translators and interpreters in the
job series reserved for this group. The government also employs tens of
thousands of individuals who use foreign language skills in positions such
as cryptologic linguists,3 human intelligence collectors,4 FBI special
agents and legal attachï¿½s, State Department Foreign Service officers, and
Department of Commerce Foreign Commercial Service officers.5 For the four
agencies we reviewed, a total of nearly twenty thousand staff are employed
in positions that require some foreign language proficiency.

Federal agencies use the foreign language proficiency scale established by
the federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an individual's language
skills. The scale has six levels from 0 to 5?with 5 being the most
proficient?to assess an individual's ability to speak, read, listen, and
write in another language. Proficiency requirements vary by agency and
position but tend to congregate at the second and third levels of the scale.
Table 1 shows the language skill requirements for each proficiency level.

3Cryptologic linguists specialize in intercepting and interpreting
intelligence information collected electronically. Cryptologic linguists
from the military services help collect signal intelligence data.

4These employees work with individuals rather than interpret information
intercepted electronically or by other means.

5OPM does not maintain comprehensive records on the number of federal
employees serving in positions requiring foreign language skills.

Table 1: Federal Foreign Language-Speaking Proficiency Levels

Proficiency level Language capability requirements

0-None No practical capability in the language.

1 - Elementary Sufficient capability to satisfy basic survival needs and
minimum courtesy and travel requirements.

2 -Limited working Sufficient capability to meet routine social demands and
limited job requirements. Can deal with concrete topics in past, present,
and future tense.

3 - General professional Able to use the language with sufficient ability to
participate in most formal and informal discussions on practical, social,
and professional topics. Can conceptualize and hypothesize.

4 - Advanced professional Able to use the language fluently and accurately
on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Has range of
language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, and counseling.

5 - Functionally native Able to use the language at a functional level
equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated native speaker.

Note: When proficiency substantially exceeds one base skill level yet does
not fully meet the criteria for the next base level, a plus sign (+)
designation may be added.

Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents.

The difference between the second and the third proficiency levels--the
ability to interact effectively with native speakers--is significant in
terms of training costs and productivity. For example, the Department of
Defense (DOD) expects that more than 1 year of language training is required
to bring a new speaker of a hard-to-learn language such as Arabic up to the
second level. Moving to the third level of proficiency generally requires
practical field experience. The benefits of reaching this higher level of
proficiency, however, can be substantial. U.S. government research has shown
that a level-3 speaker is up to four times as productive as a speaker at
level 2.

Agencies Reported Varied Foreign Language Shortages

Officials in the four agencies we reviewed--the U.S. Army, the Department of
State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI-have reported varied
types and degrees of foreign language shortages, depending on the agency,
job position, and language. They noted shortages of translators and
interpreters and people with skills in specific languages, as well as a
shortfall in proficiency level among people who use foreign language skills
in their jobs. The Army's greatest foreign language needs were for
translators and interpreters, cryptologic linguists, and human intelligence
collectors. The State Department has not filled all of its positions
requiring foreign language skills. Further, the State Department does not
have reliable aggregate data on whether Foreign Service officers currently
serving in positions requiring foreign language ability have the appropriate
language skills for their position. As for the Foreign Commercial Service,
although it has relatively few positions that require foreign language
proficiency, it had significant shortfalls in personnel with skills in six
critical languages.6 While the FBI does not have a set number of positions
for its special agent linguists, these agents must have some level of
foreign language proficiency they can use in conducting investigations. When
identified by language, FBI staffing and proficiency data are classified.

Foreign language shortages can, in part, be traced to technology advances
that allow the collection of growing amounts of information, rising
proficiency requirements attributable to greater involvement in global
activities, and an increasingly competitive job market that makes attracting
and retaining qualified staff more difficult. Agency officials noted that
these shortages have hindered prosecution of fraud cases and efforts to
identify, arrest, and convict violent gang members; resulted in less
effective representation of U.S. interests abroad; and resulted in less
timely interpretation and translation of intercepted materials possibly
related to terrorism or national security threats.

6The FCS manages a relatively small operation compared with the other
organizations we reviewed. The FCS is charged with the promotion of goods
and services from the United States and the protection of U.S. business
interests abroad. This work is carried out by foreign commercial officers
stationed at 160 overseas posts located in commercial centers throughout the
world.

Agencies Reported Shortages of Translators and Interpreters

Most of the agencies we reviewed experienced shortages in both translators
and interpreters, with the Army reporting some of the most acute shortages.
The State Department reported shortages but used large numbers of contract
translators and interpreters; the Foreign Commercial Service used contract
translators and interpreters when needed; and the FBI supplemented its staff
of full-time translators and interpreters with numerous contract linguists.

* The Army provided data only on translator and interpreter positions for
six languages it considers critical: Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese,
Persian-Farsi, Russian, and Spanish (we excluded Spanish from our analysis,
because the Army has a surplus of Spanish language translators and
interpreters). As shown in table 2, the Army had authorization for 329
translator and interpreter positions for these five languages in fiscal year
2001 but filled only 183 of them, leaving a shortfall of 146 (44 percent).

Table  2:  Shortfalls of  Army  Translators and  Interpreters, by  Language,
Fiscal Year 2001

Source: Army
response to GAO
data collection
instrument.

The Army
supplemented its
translator and
interpreter
staff with
contractors to
meet
intermittent and ongoing work needs. For example, the Army has had more than
1,000 contract linguists serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past few
years.

* The State Department had 50 authorized translator and interpreter
positions for fiscal year 2001, of which 37 were filled, creating a 26
percent shortfall. However, it had more than 1,800 translators and
interpreters who could be called upon as needed.

* FCS does not have established translator and interpreter positions and
therefore relies on locally hired employees and its commercial officers for
these tasks. If these individuals are unavailable, FCS will use contractors
for translation and interpretation services.

* The FBI had 415 authorized translator and interpreter positions in fiscal
year 2001, 360 of which were filled-a 13 percent shortfall. The FBI also had
a contract workforce of 463 translators and interpreters, who it reported
were provided with part-to full-time employment. For fiscal year 2003, the
FBI has requested 96 full-time translators and interpreters in addition to
the 415 authorized translator and interpreter positions.

Agencies Reported Shortages of Staff with Foreign Language Skills

The Army

For the four agencies we reviewed, foreign language skills also fell short
in several other areas. These included Army cryptologic linguists and human
intelligence collectors, State Department Foreign Service officers, Commerce
Department Foreign Commercial Service officers, and FBI special agent
linguists. Individuals who fill these positions have different skills from
translators and interpreters in that they may require a lower level of
proficiency in a foreign language to do their job successfully. For example,
a State Department Foreign Service officer working abroad may need such
skills at the second or third level of proficiency to interact with local
authorities, collect information, and converse socially, while translators
and interpreters generally need to be at least at the third level or higher.

For fiscal year 2002, the Army has designated approximately 15,000 positions
as requiring language proficiency. These positions span approximately 62
languages and cover active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel. The
Army has two language proficiency standards: memorized proficiency for
Special Forces personnel and basic linguist skills for other Army positions
requiring foreign language skills.

In fiscal year 2001, the Army had a shortfall of cryptologic linguists in
two of the six foreign languages it viewed as most critical-Korean and
Mandarin Chinese. Overall, there were 142 unfilled positions, which amounted
to a 25 percent shortfall in cryptologic linguists in these two languages.
Table 3 provides data on these shortfalls, by language.

Table 3: Shortfalls of Army Cryptologic Linguists, by Language, Fiscal Year
2001

Source: U.S.
Army response to
GAO data
collection
instrument.

The Army also
had a shortfall
of human intelligence collectors in five of the six foreign languages it
viewed as most critical in this area-Arabic, Russian, Spanish, Korean, and
Mandarin Chinese.7 Overall, there were 108 unfilled positions, which
amounted to a 13 percent shortfall in these five languages. The greatest
number of unfilled human intelligence collector positions was in Arabic, but
the largest percentage shortfall was in Mandarin Chinese. Table 4 provides
data on these shortfalls, by language.

Table  4: Shortfalls  of  Army Human  Intelligence Collectors,  by Language,
Fiscal Year 2001

  Source: U.S.
Army response to
    GAO data
   collection
  instrument.

The State
Department As of
July 2001, the
State Department
had 2,581
positions, or 29
percent of all Foreign Service positions, designated as requiring some level
of foreign language proficiency. These positions spanned 64 languages. The
department acknowledged that it continues to have a shortfall of Foreign

7There was no shortfall in Persian-Farsi speakers.

Service officers who meet the language requirements for their positions. The
reported figures regarding these shortfalls varied considerably, however,
from a high of 50 percent who did not meet the requirements to a low of 16
percent. These figures appeared in two State Department reports-one in
January 2001 and the other in March 2001. When asked to explain these
discrepancies, State Department officials noted that some of its personnel
databases have coding errors. The officials said that they hoped to have
accurate information on staff meeting the foreign language proficiency
requirements for these positions shortly. In commenting on a draft of this
report, the State Department indicated that it is now preparing reports to
the Congress using the language capabilities of staff assigned in the
current year. According to the State Department, it is relying on a hand
count by the responsible office using primary records to prepare these
reports.

State Department officials noted that all the foreign languages used at U.S.
embassies are considered critical. However, certain languages are deemed
harder to learn or fill. For example, the department pays incentives to
encourage people to pursue the five languages that require the longest
amount of time to learn (nearly 2 years)-Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Japanese,
Korean, and Cantonese Chinese. Vacancies in these positions in July 2001 are
listed in table 5.

Table  5: State Department  Positions and  Vacancies for Five  Hard-to-Learn
Languages, July 2001

                                  Language

                                    Number of language-designated positions

Number of vacant positions

Percent of positions vacant

  Source: State
Department data.

Foreign
Commercial
Service Overall,
at the FCS,
there were 155
overseas positions for permanent staff that required proficiency in a total
of 23 foreign languages. As seen in table

6, the FCS had significant shortfalls in staff that required foreign
language proficiency in 6 hard-to-fill languages-55 percent as of April
2001. In these 6 languages-Mandarin Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Indonesian,
Korean, and Turkish-unfilled positions ranged from 33 percent (for Korean
and Turkish speakers) to 71 percent (for Russian speakers). FCS management
noted that in determining an employee's assignment, it focused on business
acumen first and the willingness of an employee to learn a language second.

Table 6: Shortfalls of FCS Officers, by Language, as of April 2001

Note: Because of
the small size
of the FCS, some
of the
percentages are
calculated on a
small number of
positions.
Figures for FCS
in the table
refer only to 6
hard-to-fill
languages. The
comparable shortfall for the 23 languages used by FCS personnel is 45
percent.

Source: FCS response to GAO data collection instrument.

In commenting on this report, the FCS said that 27 of the 39 positions
listed in table 6 as unfilled were staffed by individuals whose foreign
language abilities were below the required levels. The FCS reported that 7
of the 27 individuals in the "unfilled positions" had valid test scores in
Mandarin Chinese when they were assigned, but these scores expired while
they were abroad. The FCS plans to retest the individuals when they are in
the United States for home leave or reassignment (tested foreign language
proficiency is generally valid for 5 years). The other 12 positions remained
vacant.

The FBI In fiscal year 2001, the FBI had 1,792 special agents with foreign
language skills in more than 40 languages. The FBI refers to these agents as
"special agent linguists." They interview suspects and develop informants,8
sometimes performing these duties in a foreign language. The Bureau does not
set a staffing goal for special agents with foreign language skills,
however, making it impossible to calculate shortfall figures. As seen in
table 7, close to half of the Bureau's special agents with foreign language
skills have attained a "general professional level" (level 3) or higher
degree of foreign language proficiency. FBI officials said many of the
special agents listed as having no foreign language proficiency are
currently receiving language training.

Table 7:  FBI Special Agent Linguists'  Foreign Language-Proficiency Levels,
Fiscal Year 2001

   Source: FBI
 response to GAO
 data collection
  instrument.

Several Factors
Have Contributed
to Changing
Agency Needs

The Army and the
FBI face a
dramatic
increase in the
volume of intelligence data available for analysis because of technological
advances in data collection. Where past intelligence data-gathering focused
on capturing line-of-sight radio communications or FBI wiretaps, information
can now be collected from other sources such as fiber-optic cables, cell
phones, and the Internet. For example, the head of the FBI's Language
Services Section stated that new technology is expected to increase the
volume of foreign language work by as much as 30 percent each year. She
added that the volume of foreign language material generated from

8Included in this group are special agent linguists serving as legal
attachï¿½s at 44 embassies outside the United States.

computers and other types of technology has outstripped the Bureau's ability
to find and hire the qualified linguists needed to review and interpret the
information.

Agency officials we spoke with also stated that the number of languages
required and the proficiency levels have both increased as the agencies have
pursued more complex and diverse missions within the context of evolving
operating environments. The Army, for example, used to focus on long-term
threats from a few countries about which much was known but now must respond
to conflicts in less well-known areas on relatively short notice. FBI
officials stated that the Bureau increasingly focuses on international
matters such as terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, and money
laundering. U.S. intelligence missions have also increased in scope and
complexity as the number and diversity of threats to U.S. security have
risen.

In addition, agency officials stated that a competitive job market makes
attracting and retaining qualified staff more difficult. The Army pointed
out that retaining qualified cryptologic linguists is a problem, because
these individuals have attractive educational options such as college and
private-sector opportunities, where their language skills are in demand.
Because of the high turnover in cryptologic linguists (fewer than 50 percent
stay beyond their initial 4 to 6 year tour), the military services must
continue to focus on basic language training.

Impact of Language Shortages on Agency Operations

Agency officials stated that foreign language shortages have adversely
affected agency operations and compromised U.S. military, law enforcement,
intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.9 Although it is
sometimes difficult to link knowledge of a foreign language to a specific
negative outcome or event, some agency officials were able to provide
examples of the impact that language shortages had on agency operations.

* In terms of hindering prosecution of fraudulent activity, FBI officials
noted that the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami, Florida, in charge of

9See The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in National Security and the
Federal Government, Hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14 and 19, 2000).

health care fraud investigations recently advised the Bureau that his office
will decline to prosecute health care fraud cases unless timely translations
of monitored Spanish conversations are turned over to the Office of the U.S.
Attorney. The Miami metropolitan area has the largest ongoing health care
fraud investigation in the country, with Medicare and Medicaid losses to the
U.S. government estimated by the FBI to be in excess of $3 billion.

* In terms of identifying, arresting, and convicting violent gang members,
the FBI's Los Angeles office cited a critical need for Spanish language
specialists and language monitors to work on these cases. According to the
Bureau, the ability to target violent gang members will save lives in Los
Angeles but is contingent on the availability of linguists to work these
investigations.

* In terms of less effective representation of U.S. interests abroad, the
deputy director of State's National Foreign Affairs Training Center
testified in September 2000 that foreign language proficiency shortfalls
have contributed to a lack of diplomatic readiness.10 This problem results
in less effective representation and advocacy of U.S. interests abroad; a
loss of U.S. exports, investments, and jobs; and a weakening of the fight
against international terrorism and drug trafficking.

* In terms of potential gaps in U.S. efforts to thwart terrorism, the FBI
has raised concern over the thousands of hours of audiotapes and pages of
written material that have not been reviewed or translated because of a lack
of qualified linguists. Likewise, a senior Central Intelligence Agency
official speaking for the wider intelligence community said that thousands
of technical papers that provide details on foreign research and development
in scientific and technical areas currently go untranslated, because
intelligence agencies lack the personnel to interpret the material.11 The
Army noted that linguist shortfalls affect its readiness to conduct current
and anticipated military and other missions. As an example, the Army said
that it does not have the

10Statement by the deputy director, National Foreign Affairs Training
Center, Department of State, before the Senate Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2000).

11Statement by the vice chairman, National Intelligence Council, before the
Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services (Sept. 14, 2000).

linguistic  capacity to  support two  concurrent major  theaters of  war, as
planners require.

Agencies Use a Variety of Strategies to Meet Their Foreign Language Needs

The agencies we reviewed pursue three general strategies to meet their
foreign language needs. First, agencies focus on staff development by
training staff in foreign languages, providing pay incentives for
individuals using those skills, and ensuring an attractive career path for
linguists or language-proficient employees. Second, agencies make use of
external resources. This can include contracting staff as needed; recruiting
native or U.S.-trained language speakers; or drawing on the expertise of
other agency staff, reservists, or retirees. Third, several agencies have
begun to use technology to leverage limited staff resources, including
developing databases of contract linguists, employing language translation
software, and performing machine screening of collected data. Figure 1
provides an overview of these categories and related strategies.

Figure 1: Strategies That Four U.S. Agencies Use to Address Foreign Language
Shortages and Shortfalls

Note: NA = not applicable, since the FCS does not hire staff linguists.

aState's  Office of Language Services  recruits and hires skilled linguists;
however,  foreign language  skills  are not  required to  apply  for Foreign
Service positions.

bAt the FCS, hard-to-fill language-designated positions are sometimes filled
by individuals  who are recruited and  hired as noncareer limited appointees
who have needed language skills.

Source: GAO analysis.

Language Training All four agencies we reviewed used foreign language
training as a key strategy to meet their foreign language needs. Training
costs represented a significant program expense at those four agencies. For
example, according to an Army contractor, the Army spends approximately
$27,000 over a year-long period to train one cryptologic linguist to the
target proficiency of level 2 in a more difficult language such as Chinese
or Korean. The Army spent approximately $27.3 million on foreign language
training through the Defense Language Institute's training facilities in
fiscal year 2001, according to a senior program analyst at the Institute.
According to the State Department's director for human resources policy
coordination, the department spent $23.1 million in fiscal year 2000 on
language training through the Foreign Service Institute. Additional language
training is available to State employees serving overseas through the
department's post language program. In fiscal year 2000, the FCS sent staff
to State's Foreign Service Institute and used local contract schools, at an
estimated annual cost of just under $500,000. In fiscal year 2001, the FBI
utilized the Foreign Service Institute and contract services, at a total
estimated cost of $1.4 million. For some positions, foreign language skills
were viewed as making an important contribution to job performance but were
not mandatory for hiring purposes. Once employees were hired, however,
agencies were willing to devote substantial resources to developing employee
language skills.

Pay Incentives All four agencies also used pay incentives to motivate staff
to gain expertise in hard-to-learn languages or to maintain their language
skills at a designated minimum level. According to an analyst with the
Army's Foreign Language Proponency Office, the Army provides a monthly
stipend of $50 to $300 to employees who are studying certain languages for
language-designated positions. In fiscal year 2001, the Army spent an
estimated $6.5 million on these incentives. State and the FCS have a policy
to offer payment incentives of between 5 and 15 percent, depending on the
level of proficiency in hard-to-learn languages, while the individual is
assigned to a post where the language is used. State's Office of Language
Services also pays retention bonuses to a few staff members. State
Department officials noted that they have not yet evaluated whether the new
incentive system to study hard-to-learn languages, which sent its first
group of participants to overseas posts last summer, has helped to close
skill gaps for certain target languages. The State Department and the FCS's
total fiscal year 2000 budgets devoted to pay incentives came to
approximately $5.3 million. As for the FBI, it provides an incentive of 5
percent of base salary to selected

special agent linguists who have a working level proficiency in a language
and use that language on the job a majority of the time. In fiscal year
2001, pay incentives for the FBI totaled $721,000.

Attractive Career Path Establishing an attractive career path for linguists
was also a key strategy for some of the agencies we reviewed. However, the
Army has historically experienced a low rate of retention among its
language-capable staff in key positions. According to an analyst in the
Army's Foreign Language Proponency Office, data on Army staff retention
showed that in fiscal year 2001 more than 45 percent of cryptologic
linguists left the service after completing their initial tour of duty, with
up to 2 years spent in basic, foreign language, and intelligence training.
The Army recognizes this is a key personnel issue and is conducting a
"cradle-to-grave" review of cryptologic linguists' attrition rates.
Translators and interpreters working in the State Department's Office of
Language Services and the FBI have a career path that allows them to rise to
positions above the GS-12 level.

Contract Staff All the agencies we reviewed utilized contract translators
and interpreters to meet some of their workforce needs. The Army Language
Master Plan issued in January 2000 identified the use of contractors as a
key future strategy for meeting the foreign language needs associated with
small-scale conflicts. The Army concluded that its training resources do not
permit preparing military staff for a wide variety of unknown and
hard-to-forecast small-scale conflicts. With limited resources, the Army
prefers to concentrate on major theater-of-war scenarios and a restricted
number of small-scale conflict scenarios. The plan noted that the balance of
the Army's small-scale conflict needs could be met with contract translators
and interpreters. As for the State Department, it had a list of 1,800
contract translators and interpreters to fill intermittent assignments. In
fiscal year 2000, State spending on those individuals came to $13 million.
While the FCS relied primarily on its locally hired employees and its
commercial officers for translation and interpretation services, the agency
occasionally used contractors to supply these services. The FBI had a cadre
of 463 contract translators and interpreters who generally worked an average
of

16  hours per  week. In fiscal  year 2001,  FBI costs for  those individuals
totaled $15 million.12

Recruitment of Native Language Speakers

One of the four agencies we reviewed has a targeted recruitment program
aimed at native language speakers. The Army has developed a native speaker
recruitment program and has dedicated 10 recruiters to this effort. The Army
is increasing its focus on this particular strategy, citing the significant
cost savings associated with hiring native language speakers as compared
with providing 23 to 64 weeks of language training at the Defense Language
Institute's Foreign Language Center. The State Department, the FCS, and the
FBI do not have recruitment programs targeted at native language speakers.
The State Department does not target native speakers, because it does not
believe that language proficiency is the primary criterion for selecting
Foreign Service officers. According to FBI and State Department officials,
conducting background investigations on native speakers can be particularly
difficult, because many of these individuals have lived abroad, in some
cases for years.

Recruitment of Language-capable Employees

All of the agencies we reviewed recruited and hired language-capable
employees. All four agencies provided additional hiring "points" to job
candidates with target language skills, and some had extensive outreach
programs. The Army provided enlistment bonuses to job candidates with
demonstrated proficiency in target languages. The State Department's Office
of Language Services recruited and hired proficient translators and
interpreters after they had demonstrated their abilities as contract
employees. The State Department has also recruited individuals for Foreign
Service officer positions at university language departments and at meetings
of foreign language associations. In addition, the department's Fascell
Fellowship Program offers 2-year assignments to a few individuals proficient
in languages of the former Soviet Union and China. Some of these individuals
apply for the Foreign Service at the end of their fellowship assignments.
The FCS has used its noncareer limited appointment authority to hire
commercial officers with foreign language skills for hard-to-fill positions.
These posts comprise approximately 7 to 8 percent of FCS officer positions
located overseas. In addition, in the early 1990s after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, FCS hired Foreign Commercial

12Army contracting costs were not readily available.

Service officers who were proficient in the languages of former Soviet Union
countries. The FBI has placed a special emphasis on hiring special agents
with target language skills. The Bureau has a website dedicated to
recruitment, an active outreach program to academic institutions, and a new
language intern program under development. The Bureau's Foreign Language
Program office conducts its own recruitment efforts for both language
specialists and contract translators and interpreters.

The National Security Education Program (NSEP), which is authorized by the
National Security Education Act of 1991, provides federal support for
advanced language training.13 According to the NSEP's director, the program
obligated approximately $3 million in fiscal year 2001 in support of 215
scholarships. The director also said that NSEP is the only government
program that links U.S. national security interests with the development of
foreign area and language skills. Each year, NSEP surveys federal agencies
to identify critical-need languages and distributes college scholarships in
line with these needs. Scholarship recipients agree to a term of federal
service in national security affairs agencies in return for these funds.

Other Agency Staff, Reservists, and Retirees

Agencies also use other agency staff, reservists, and part-time appointees
to meet their foreign language needs. The Army's foreign language program
includes National Guard and Army Reserve language personnel. For example,
the 300th Military Intelligence Brigade (Utah National Guard) has several
hundred linguists available for temporary duty. The FBI makes use of other
agency staff on a temporary basis to fill low-demand language needs. For
example, the FBI has a memorandum of agreement with the Defense Intelligence
Agency for such services. The Bureau also has a memorandum of understanding
with the Army to advertise the availability of temporary-duty translator and
interpreter positions in the FBI.

Technology Technology represents another major strategy that agencies use to
address and manage their foreign language shortfalls. For example, the Army
has developed a new technology for collecting field intelligence that could
potentially reduce its need for cryptologic linguists. According to Army
officials, this technology will eventually allow signals intercepted on the

1350 U.S.C., sections 1901--1910.

battlefield to be sent to a central location for translation,
interpretation, and analysis, alleviating the need to have staff with
foreign language skills placed in a conflict situation. The Army and the FBI
also use machine "gisting" (reviewing intelligence documents to determine if
they contain target key words or phrases) to better manage their workloads
and target the information that trained linguists need to review in depth.
In addition, both the private and the public sectors are exploring advances
in machine translation of spoken and written communications. Numerous
demonstration projects are under way, and early results show some promise
for this type of technology. However, language experts noted that machine
translation software will never be able to replace a human translator's
ability to interpret fine nuances, cultural references, and the use of slang
terms or idioms. Finally, State's Office of Language Services and the
Foreign Service Institute use an automated translation system for
translation of technical terms and consistent translation of stock phrases
in diplomatic and legal documents to help human translators work more
efficiently.

Other forms of technology, such as networked computer operations, will
increasingly allow translation work to be routed to linguists regardless of
their location. The FBI, for example, has established eight field
translation centers to provide flexibility in assigning priority translation
work throughout the FBI. The FBI is also maintaining a database, the Law
Enforcement Interagency Linguist Access (LEILA) database, that is an attempt
to share information on more than 1,000 contract linguists distributed among
Department of Justice agencies. LEILA will list all available language
contractors by specialty, language skill level, and security clearance. The
FBI received $100,000 in end-of-year reallocated funds to develop LEILA for
use across all Department of Justice agencies. Future plans call for LEILA
to be extended to the entire intelligence community. This move would
supplement other efforts to better coordinate limited foreign language
resources across agency lines. For example, the Senate Committee on
Intelligence has proposed expanding U.S. translating capabilities by
establishing a National Virtual Translation Center to help bring together
permanent agency staff and contractors. The committee expects that such a
center would link secure locations maintained by the intelligence community
throughout the country and would apply digital technology to network, store,
retrieve, and catalogue audio and textual information. Foreign intelligence
could then be collected

in  one  location, translated  in  a  second location,  and  provided to  an
intelligence analyst in a third location.14

Some Agencies Lack Workforce Planning as a Long-term Strategy for Filling
Language Needs

Despite the variety of actions taken by the agencies we reviewed, gaps in
foreign language skills exist. To help fill such gaps, some agencies have
begun to adopt a strategic approach to human capital management and
workforce planning that reflects the elements in OPM's 1999 Workforce
Planning Model, as outlined in figure 2. The model's five steps, which are
further defined in appendix II, provide a general framework to understand
workforce planning. Although our data collection instrument asked how
agencies are implementing these steps, it became clear in reviewing the
documentation provided that the first step-setting a strategic direction- is
a process that is handled differently at each agency. Therefore, we focused
our review primarily on steps 2 through 5 in the model.

             Figure 2: OPM Workforce Planning Model and revise

                           Implement action plan

Develop an action plan

Source: OPM's Workforce Planning Model
(http://www.opm.gov/workforceplanning/wfpmodel.htm).

14Senate Report No. 107-63, at 11.

Applying OPM's model to the agencies we examined, we found that the FBI has
most closely followed the model. In contrast, the Army, the State
Department, and the FCS have not yet implemented the full workforce planning
model. The latter agencies have focused their efforts on identifying the
gaps in foreign language needs but have not developed an overall strategy,
including implementation and monitoring plans.

In addition to the OPM model, GAO, the president, and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) also have issued policy statements and guidance
reinforcing the importance of sound human capital management and workforce
planning. GAO's guidance emphasizes the use of a self-assessment checklist
for better aligning human capital with strategic planning and core business
practices.15 OMB's guidance stresses that agencies should seek to address
shortages of skills by conducting thorough workforce analyses.16 Agencies
have also been encouraged to identify additional authorities or
flexibilities they might need to remove current obstacles and barriers to
effective workforce management (for additional information on human capital
management and workforce planning guidance, see app. II).

The FBI Has Implemented a Strategic Approach

The FBI has instituted a strategic workforce plan (step 1) and made efforts
to implement the five steps in the OPM model. The Bureau's fiscal year
2001-2004 strategic plan cites the critical need for foreign languages to
support specific FBI missions. The Bureau's Foreign Language Program plan
determines supply, demand, and discrepancies, along with specific goals and
objectives (steps 2 and 3). This supports an action plan that includes
performance measures and priority actions (step 3) regarding foreign
language hiring, training, and related technology (step 4). We found that
this program plan was supported by detailed reports from field offices that
documented the Bureau's foreign language needs. These reports were reviewed
along with workload statistics from the FBI's regional offices (step 5).

Despite the FBI's strategic planning and follow-up efforts, its requested
Foreign Language Program budget enhancements have not always been considered
a high priority within the Department of Justice. For example,

15See  Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for  Agency Leaders. 16OMB
Bulletin No. 01-07, issued May 8, 2001.

in fiscal year 2000, these enhancements ranked 45 out of a list of 120
budget increase requests within the Bureau. The comparable rankings for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were 32 out of 112 and 42 out of 114 budget
increase requests, respectively. For fiscal year 2003, the Bureau is
changing its budget prioritization process, and the Foreign Language Program
has risen to number 3 out of 42 ranked priorities.

           Army Has Yet to Implement Strategic Language Planning

With regard to the OPM model, the Army has limited its efforts to developing
a plan partially outlining a strategic direction and identifying its
available supply and demand for staff with foreign language skills
(addressing only steps 1 and 2 of the OPM model). With regard to the Army's
strategic planning, in January 2000 it issued phase one of the Army Language
Master Plan, which provided an assessment of the composition, location, and
proficiency level of Army staff with language capabilities. In February
2000, the Army Audit Agency issued a report that commented on phase one of
the Army's Language Master Plan.17 The report recommended that the Army
develop an overall strategic plan that identifies foreign language program
goals, objectives, and performance measures. In response, the Army noted
that it would update the Language Master Plan to include the elements of a
strategic plan.

17Army Foreign Language Program Requirements, Audit Report: AA00-32
(Washington, D.C.: Army Audit Agency, Feb. 2000).

In theory, the Army had an opportunity to update its phase one plan or phase
two of the plan that was released for comment on July 12, 2001,18 but it did
not do so. According to our analysis, both the phase one and phase two plans
were never updated to incorporate an action plan (step 3) or devise any
follow-on activities (steps 4 and 5). In responding to our data collection
instrument, the Army acknowledged that the Language Master Plan does not
include specific goals and performance expectations linked to its human
capital strategies. 19

State and FCS Workforce Planning Efforts Have Just Begun

Workforce planning as it relates to addressing foreign language skills has
yet to be fully developed at the State Department and the FCS. The State
Department has not yet prepared a separate strategic plan for developing
foreign language skills or a related action plan designed to correct
proficiency shortfalls that date back at least to the mid-1970s (step 1).
State Department officials' response to our survey noted that language is
such an integral part of the department's operations that a separate
planning effort for foreign language skills is not needed.

18Among the initiatives the Army lists in phase two is a "cradle-to-grave"
review of its cryptologic linguists to seek ways to reduce high attrition
rates. This complex effort involves a number of recruitment, training, and
career development initiatives. Other initiatives concern the use of new
technology such as a field intelligence collection system, which could
reduce the need for 900 cryptologic linguist positions.

19In addition to the Army's planning efforts, there are two ongoing
Department of Defense strategic human resource initiatives that may
influence the Army's planning efforts. One effort aims to develop a
comprehensive human resources plan for the entire Department of Defense. A
second effort focuses on an eight-part strategic plan for utilizing the
department's foreign language resources.

The American Foreign Service Association recently prepared a study of
workforce planning at the State Department. The Association noted in
recommendations to the Congress that despite the availability of language
training at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, there are
institutional barriers that prevent State Department staff from receiving
the training they need. The Association wrote that State Department managers
often did not allow adequate time for training when assigning staff to
positions requiring language skills. Managers often had to choose between
accepting not-fully-proficient personnel immediately or suffering long gaps
while waiting for staff to complete their training. The Association urged
the Congress to require State to prepare a needs-based workforce plan with a
4-year projection. State's authorization act for fiscal years 2000 and
200120 then directed the State Department to submit such a workforce plan,
describing its projected personnel needs by grade and by skill category.

The State Department's workforce plan focused primarily on hiring and
promotion requirements and on the additional personnel needed to allow for
training opportunities for staff. The plan cited a need for 46 additional
positions, at a cost of $4.8 million, but it did not identify how specific
foreign language proficiency needs could be met by adding these positions
(partially addressing step 3). State officials said that a funding request
for these and other positions was included in the department's fiscal year
2002 and that the Congress has fully funded this portion of the budget.21
State officials noted that their workforce planning effort is a first step
toward the development of a fully integrated workforce planning system.

Despite the lack of a foreign language strategic plan, the State Department
addresses step 2 in the workforce planning model through its annual survey
of ambassadors regarding foreign language needs at their posts on a
position-by-position basis. This results in a list of positions identified
as requiring foreign language skills by position, e.g., a political officer
at the U.S. embassy in Moscow with a specific level of expertise in Russian.

Similarly, the FCS has not developed a workforce plan that addresses how it
will meet its foreign language needs. FCS management has convened a task
force to begin assessing its organizational needs, including its need for

20Public Law 106-113, section 326, 113 stat. 1501A-437.

21 See House Report  (Conference) 107-278,  at 145, accompanying  Public Law
107-77, 115 Stat. 783.

language-proficient staff. In the FCS's response to our data collection
instrument, these early efforts were identified as being in an "embryonic"
state of development. FCS officials noted that their workforce plan will
ultimately be incorporated into the workforce plan of the Department of
Commerce. However, every 3 years the FCS surveys its senior officers
regarding a post's foreign language needs (step 2 of the workforce planning
model).

Conclusions Personnel with foreign language skills are needed in a range of
federal agency programs and missions. In light of the attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, the importance of foreign language skills
will increase as the United States expands its efforts to counter terrorist
activities. The federal agencies we reviewed face shortages of translators
and interpreters, as well as staff with other foreign language skills. These
shortages strain agency operations that depend in part on language-skilled
employees to meet increasingly complex missions. Agencies have pursued
strategies such as training, targeted recruitment efforts, and contracting
to fill documented skill gaps. However, these strategies have not been
completely effective in closing those gaps. As a result, some agencies have
begun to take a more strategic and results-oriented approach to managing
their workforce needs.

The OPM's five-step model for conducting human capital management and
workforce planning provides one method for managing agency workforce needs.
The FBI has developed and is implementing an action plan in keeping with the
OPM's 1999 workforce planning model to help fill their shortages. While the
Army has developed detailed assessments of its needs for staff with foreign
language skills, these planning efforts fall short of the strategic planning
approach called for by the OPM's model. The State Department and FCS have
just begun their workforce planning efforts and have yet to develop
strategic plans of action. Without a specific strategic direction and a
related action plan that effectively implements the strategies these
agencies intend to use to correct shortages in foreign language skills, it
will be difficult for the agencies to fill current and projected shortages.

    Recommendation for To improve the overall management of foreign language
                                                            resources and to
  better address current and projected shortages in foreign language skills,
 Executive Action we recommend that the secretary of the army, the secretary
                                                              of state, and

the director general of the FCS adopt a strategic, results-oriented approach
to human capital management and workforce planning. This approach should
include setting a strategic direction, assessing agency gaps in foreign
language skills, developing a corrective plan of action, and monitoring the
implementation and success of this action plan.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Army, the
Department of State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI. These
comments and GAO's responses to specific points are reprinted in appendixes
III through VI, respectively. All four agencies agreed with our overall
findings. The Army said it agreed with our recommendation but objected to a
perceived requirement that OPM and GAO guidance must serve as the models for
developing a strategic approach to human capital management. It based this
objection on the fact that there are differences among DOD and non-DOD
foreign language requirements, and that agencies should be given the
latitude to use an approach that best meets their particular needs. The
State Department expressed similar concerns and provided a list of
activities and initiatives that it believes are responsive to our
recommendation. The Foreign Commercial Service agreed with our
recommendation.

To address the Army and State's concern, we revised our recommendation to
clarify that it focused on the core human capital and workforce planning
principles promoted by the OPM and the GAO. These principles should serve as
the basis for the more detailed human capital efforts agencies design to
address their unique needs.

While the State Department's actions should offer some benefits, they do not
fully address each of the core principles contained in our report
recommendation. The State Department has partially addressed one of these
principles by documenting its foreign language skills needs on an annual
basis. However, as discussed in our report, the department has had
difficulties in generating a consistent measure of its actual language
shortfalls because of inadequate departmentwide data on the number of
positions filled with qualified language staff. With regard to the other
core principles, the State Department still needs to set a strategic
direction for its foreign language needs, develop an action plan for
correcting foreign language shortfalls, and institute a monitoring process
to assess action plan implementation and performance.

All four agencies provided  technical or administrative comments that, where
appropriate, have been incorporated throughout the report.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its content
earlier,
we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue
date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to congressional
committees with responsibilities for foreign affairs issues, the secretary
of
state, the director general of the Foreign Commercial Service, members of
the House-Senate International Education Study Group, and interested
congressional committees. Copies will be made available to others on
request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-8979. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are
listed in appendix VII.

Joseph A. Christoff
Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I

                     Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

At the request of Senators Thad Cochran and Christopher J. Dodd and
Representatives James A. Leach and Sam Farr (members of the House-Senate
International Education Study Group), we reviewed the use of foreign
language skills at four federal agencies: the U.S. Army, the Department of
State, the Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial Service (FCS), and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).22 Specifically, we (1) examined
the nature and impact of reported foreign language shortages, (2) determined
the strategies that agencies use to address these specific shortages, and
(3) assessed the efforts of agencies to implement an overall strategic
workforce plan to address current and projected shortages.

To understand the nature and impact of reported foreign language shortages
in the federal government, we first met with officials from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of
Justice, the FBI, the Department of State, the FCS, the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Immigration Service, the U.S. Customs Bureau,
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Peace Corps. We also met with officials from the National Foreign
Language Center to discuss broad policy issues and met with Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) officials to obtain information on its central
personnel data file and data collected on government translators,
interpreters, and foreign language--required positions. We also requested a
briefing from the Central Intelligence Agency to learn more about its
central coordinating role for foreign language issues in the intelligence
community. The Central Intelligence Agency declined to meet with GAO.

Based on our review of these agencies' programs, we selected the U.S. Army,
the State Department, the FCS, and the FBI for further review. We selected
these programs on the basis of the size of their programs and the diversity
of their missions. To determine the nature and extent of reported foreign
language shortages at these agencies, we met with officials from each
agency, reviewed and analyzed agency workforce planning

22We issued a separate For Official Use Only report which included details
on National Security Agency/Central Security Service operations. We also
issued a separate classified report which provides staffing details on the
National Security Agency/Central Security Service and the FBI's foreign
language programs.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

documents, and developed a data collection instrument that we asked agency
staff to complete. The State Department provided only partial information on
foreign language shortages in their responses.

To determine the strategies that the four agencies use to address the
foreign language shortages, we met with officials from each agency, reviewed
agency documents related to foreign language programs, and analyzed
responses to the questions on these strategies that were posed in our data
collection instrument.

To assess the efforts at the four agencies to develop and implement
strategic workforce plans to address current and projected foreign language
shortages, we reviewed applicable workforce planning documents and guidance
issued by the OPM, the GAO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the
National Academy of Public Administration, and the American Foreign Service
Association. We also analyzed responses to questions on agency workforce
planning that were included in our data collection instrument. In addition,
we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed available agency workforce planning
documents.

We did our work primarily in the Washington, D.C., area. We also visited the
Defense Language Institute, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and the
Language Line Services in Monterey, California, to observe the Army's
language training program, the Department of Defense's human resource data
collection service, and the commercial linguistic services that can be used
by U.S. government agencies. We also met with officials to discuss Army
intelligence activities at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

We performed our work from November 2000 through October 2001, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance

The Office of Personnel Management, GAO, and the Office of Management and
Budget have developed guidance for managing human capital and planning
workforce strategy. This appendix discusses each agency's guidance.

OPM Guidance OPM plays an important role in promoting effective human
capital management and workforce planning across the federal government. OPM
notes that the strategic planning requirements of the 1993 Government
Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62) provides a framework for agencies
to integrate their human capital planning into their broader strategic and
program planning efforts.23

OPM has developed a Workforce Planning Model (illustrated in our main
report) to help the agency manage its human capital resources more
strategically. The executive branch has identified this model as a key tool
to help agencies meet the president's and OMB's human capital management
initiatives. The model is organized into five key steps and a number of
related substeps, as noted in figure 3.

23See OPM's  Strategic Human Resources Management: Aligning with the Mission
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Sept. 1999).

Appendix II
Human Capital Management and Workforce
Planning Guidance

             Figure 3: Steps in OPM's Workforce Planning Model

Source: OPM's Workforce Planning Model
(http://www.opm.gov/workforceplanning/wfpmodel.htm).

                                 Appendix II
                   Human Capital Management and Workforce
                              Planning Guidance

OPM has also developed a Human Resource Innovators' Tool Kit and a related
guide, in part to alert agency planners to the range of personnel
flexibilities and authorities they already have at their disposal to help
manage human capital challenges such as current and projected skill gaps.24
OPM and GAO have encouraged agencies to consider all available flexibilities
and authorities in pursuing creative solutions to long-standing problems.

GAO Guidance To help focus attention on the importance of human capital
management and workforce planning, we recently added strategic human capital
management to the list of federal programs and operations we identified as
"high risk."25 We have developed a human capital self-assessment checklist
based on work with leading private-and public-sector organizations.26 The
checklist covers a suggested five-part framework that includes strategic
planning, organizational alignment, leadership, talent, and establishment of
a performance culture. The checklist was designed to help agency leaders
review their human capital programs and to provide a means for agency
leaders to put the spotlight on improving the alignment of human capital
management with strategic planning and core business practices.

OMB Guidance OMB, consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2002
Management Agenda,27 has issued guidance28 to agencies on governmentwide
human capital management and workforce planning. The president's agenda
includes the strategic management of employees as one of five key
governmentwide initiatives. To begin the process of implementing this
initiative, OMB requested that federal agencies develop preliminary
workforce analyses by June 29, 2001. These analyses are intended, among

24See Human Resource Innovators' Tool Kit and Human Resources Flexibilities
and Authorities in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, 2001).

25High-Risk Series: An Update (GAO-01-263, Jan. 2001).

26Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders
(GAO/OGC-00-14G, Sept. 2000).

27The President's Management Agenda (Fiscal Year 2002) (Washington, D.C.:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget).

28OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, issued May 8, 2001.

Appendix II
Human Capital Management and Workforce
Planning Guidance

other things, to document their current employment patterns, expected
retirement trends, and actions they plan to take to correct anticipated
skills surpluses and needs over the next 5 years. Significantly, OMB's
guidance also calls for agency observations on barriers (statutory,
administrative, physical, or cultural) that prevent or hinder agency reform
and management efforts. The executive branch has signaled a willingness to
work with federal agencies and the Congress to address such barriers.

OMB has further instructed agencies that as part of their fiscal year 2003
budget submission and annual performance plan, they should develop a 5-year
workforce restructuring plan designed to streamline and better align their
workforce to serve agency missions, goals, and objectives more effectively.
OMB guidance notes that the restructuring plan should include specific
organizational changes, potential cost savings, human resources management
tools and flexibilities needed to implement the plan, specific actions to be
taken and associated timetables, and agency plans for monitoring progress.

Appendix III

                         Comments from the U.S. Army

                                      -

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Appendix III
Comments from the U.S. Army

Appendix III
Comments from the U.S. Army

                               See comment 2.

                                Appendix III
                         Comments from the U.S. Army

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Defense's letter dated
January 17, 2002. (Note: DOD's response included an addendum with
Unclassified/For Official Use Only comments that are not reprinted in this
report. However, these additional comments are addressed in this report,
where appropriate.)

GAO Comments 1. We did not modify our report because we do not believe these
operational distinctions affect our report findings, conclusions, or
recommendation.

2. We revised our recommendation to clarify that it focuses on the core
planning principles promoted by OPM and GAO rather than the detailed
implementation steps recommended by each agency. These principles should
serve as the basis for the detailed human capital programs that agencies
design to meet their unique needs.

                                Appendix IV

                    Comments from the Department of State

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of State

                               See comment 1.

                               See comment 2.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of State

                               See comment 3.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of State

                                 Appendix IV
                    Comments from the Department of State

The following  are GAO's comments on the  Department of State's letter dated
December 18, 2001.

GAO Comments 1.

2.

3.

The State Department's response notes that such data are available in
primary records. However, information in this format is of little use to
internal management and congressional decisionmakers unless it can be
systematically analyzed, summarized, and presented.

The State Department lists a disparate assortment of activities- targeted
outreach of foreign language speakers and translators, a "generalist"
approach to staff development, annual surveys of post language needs-as
examples of how they have addressed many of the elements of workforce
planning. While the State Department's actions should offer some benefits,
they do not represent a strategic approach to workforce planning. Our report
recommendation is designed to help focus attention on the key elements
embodied in such an approach. The State Department has partially addressed
one of these elements by documenting its foreign language skills needs on an
annual basis. However, as discussed in our report, the department has been
unable to generate a consistent measure of its actual foreign language
shortfalls because of inadequate departmentwide data. With regard to the
other key elements, State still needs to set a strategic direction for its
foreign language needs, develop an action plan for correcting foreign
language shortfalls, and institute a monitoring process to assess action
plan implementation and performance.

To address State's concern that our report prescribes a rigid approach to
workforce planning, we revised our recommendation to clarify that it focuses
on the core planning principles promoted by OPM and GAO. These principles
should serve as the basis for the detailed human capital programs that
agencies design to meet their unique needs.

Appendix V

Comments from the Foreign Commercial Service

Appendix VI

Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Note: GAO comments

`

supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Appendix VI
Comments from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation

Appendix VI
Comments from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation

                                 Appendix VI
                     Comments from the Federal Bureau of
                                Investigation

The following  are GAO's  comments on the Federal  Bureau of Investigation's
letter dated December 11, 2001.

GAO Comments 1.  We requested that the Central Intelligence Agency provide a
briefing on this important report. However, they declined to meet with us.

Appendix VII

                    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                 GAO Contact Phillip Herr, (202) 512-8509.

Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate,
Joseph Brown, Maria Oliver, Richard Seldin, and Rona Mendelsohn made key
contributions to this report.

GAO's Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO E-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
"Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th  Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)Distribution
Center Washington, D.C. 20013

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,Waste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected], orFederal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
(automated answering system).

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, D.C. 20548

                             Presorted Standard
                             Postage & Fees Paid
                                     GAO
                               Permit No. GI00

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

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested
*** End of document. ***