State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas 
Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages (19-NOV-03,
GAO-04-139).							 
                                                                 
During the 1990s, the State Department lost more people than it  
hired. The resultant shortfalls in the number and skills of	 
Foreign Service officers have endangered U.S. diplomatic	 
readiness. Furthermore, recent studies, including several by GAO,
have questioned whether State's recruitment system identifies	 
people with the appropriate skills and whether State is assigning
officers with specialized skills, such as the ability to speak a 
difficult language, to positions where they can be utilized. GAO 
was asked to review State's processes for determining the number 
and skills of junior officers the department needs and to	 
determine whether it is hiring and assigning officers with the	 
general skills to carry out foreign policy overseas. GAO was also
asked to examine the challenges State still needs to address,	 
especially regarding officers' foreign language skills. 	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-139 					        
    ACCNO:   A08881						        
  TITLE:     State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies  
Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages	 
     DATE:   11/19/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Education or training				 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     Hiring policies					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Personnel recruiting				 
	     Labor force					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-139

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2003

STATE DEPARTMENT

  Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in
                            Hard-to-Learn Languages

                                       a

GAO-04-139

Highlights of GAO-04-139, a report to congressional requesters

During the 1990s, the State Department lost more people than it hired. The
resultant shortfalls in the number and skills of Foreign Service officers
have endangered U.S. diplomatic readiness. Furthermore, recent studies,
including several by GAO, have questioned whether State's recruitment
system identifies people with the appropriate skills and whether State is
assigning officers with specialized skills, such as the ability to speak a
difficult language, to positions where they can be utilized.

GAO was asked to review State's processes for determining the number and
skills of junior officers the department needs and to determine whether it
is hiring and assigning officers with the general skills to carry out
foreign policy overseas. GAO was also asked to examine the challenges
State still needs to address, especially regarding officers' foreign
language skills.

GAO is recommending that the Secretary of State collect and maintain data
on the effectiveness of the department's efforts to address continuing
gaps in officers with proficiency in certain hard-tolearn languages. State
generally agreed with our findings and observations, but did not
completely address our recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-139.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-4268
or [email protected].

November 2003

STATE DEPARTMENT

Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in
Hard-to-Learn Languages

State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify the number
of junior officers it needs to hire within the next 5 to 10 years. State
implemented key elements of workforce planning, including setting
strategic direction and goals, identifying gaps in its workforce, and
developing strategies to address these gaps. State's analysis showed that
it had a deficit of 386 positions, mainly at the mid level, and in 2001,
State launched a $197 million plan to address the gaps. State has met its
2002 to 2003 hiring targets for junior officers and is filling overseas
positions with junior officers with the general skills and competencies
required to do their job well. However, State officials said it will take
up to 10 years to hire and promote junior officers in sufficient numbers
to significantly decrease the shortage of midlevel officers.

While State is able to fill overseas positions with junior officers who
have the necessary general skills, the department continues to face
challenges filling the gaps in staff with proficiency in certain
hard-to-learn languages, such as Arabic and Chinese. State has implemented
a plan to target applicants who speak these difficult languages. However,
this plan does not include numeric goals, and State has collected limited
data to assess the effectiveness of its efforts. Other challenges include
new officers' public diplomacy skills and training in this area, increased
supervisory and on-the job requirements when State assigns junior officers
to positions above their experience level, and the impact of rotational
assignments on junior officers' performance and managers' time.

New Hires with Ability in Certain Languages as a Percentage of New Foreign
Service Officers

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
State Uses Critical Elements of Workforce Planning and Is Hiring

and Assigning Officers Overseas with the Necessary General

Skills Key Challenges Include Gaps in Certain Foreign Languages
Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation

1 2 4

6 13 25 25 25

  Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix II:	Comments from the Department of State 31 GAO Comments 39

Appendix III:	GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41 GAO Contacts 41
Acknowledgments 41

Tables Table 1: Number of Applicants Taking and Passing the Written and 
                  Oral Exams in Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003           5 
           Table 2: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/Deficits across   
                           Career Tracks as of March 2003                   9 
            Table 3: State Department Hiring Targets and Actual Hiring for 
                       Foreign Service Generalists, Fiscal Years 2002-2004 11 

          Figures Figure 1: Critical Elements of Workforce Planning 7

Figure 2: Number of New Hires with Working Proficiency in a Hard

Language and Number of New Hires with Less than

Working Proficiency in a Hard Language 17

Figure 3: New Hires with Hard Language Ability as a Percentage of New
Foreign Service Generalists 18 Figure 4: Assignment Information for New
Hires with Hard Language Ability in Fiscal Year 2001 20

Contents

Abbreviations

AFSERS Automated Foreign Service Examination and Registry System
BEX Board of Examiners
DRI Diplomatic Readiness Initiative
FSI Foreign Service Institute
GEMS Global Employment Management System
MRV machine-readable visa
STMS Student Training Management System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

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

November 19, 2003

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives

The Honorable Vic Snyder House of Representatives

In 2001 the Department of State launched a 3-year, $197.5 million
initiative to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right people to carry
out U.S. foreign policy. Under the initiative, State plans to hire more
than 600 new Foreign Service officers above attrition-the department's
largest expansion in years. The initiative was designed to address several
problems, including shortfalls in the number and skills of Foreign Service
officers at the mid level that the department said endanger U.S.
diplomatic readiness.1 During the 1990s, State lost more people than it
hired due to budget cuts. Furthermore, recent studies, including several
conducted by GAO,2 have questioned whether the State Department's
recruitment system identifies people with the appropriate skills and
whether the assignment process places officers with specialized skills,
such as the ability to speak a difficult language, in positions where they
can be utilized.

To determine whether the State Department is hiring the right people and
assigning them to jobs where they can fully use their skills, you asked us
to review State's system for recruiting and assigning new Foreign Service
officers. In this report we (1) discuss State's processes for determining
the number and skills of junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10
years and whether it is hiring and assigning officers with the general
skills to

1State defines diplomatic readiness as its "ability to get the right
people in the right place at the right time with the right skills to carry
out America's foreign policy."

2U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach
Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002); and U.S. General Accounting Office,
State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626 (Washington,
D.C.: June 18, 2002).

meet the needs of overseas posts3 and (2) examine the challenges State
still needs to address, especially regarding officers' foreign language
skills.

To conduct our review, we examined planning documents and information
related to State's processes for recruiting and assigning Foreign Service
officers. We met with officials from State's Office of Career Development
and Assignments; the Office of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment;
the Foreign Service Institute; and the Diplomatic Readiness Task Force. In
addition, we met with officials in all of State's regional bureaus and in
the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also conducted fieldwork in Mexico City
and Moscow and interviewed selected officials from five U.S. embassies in
Africa; this work included interviews with junior Foreign Service
officers. We chose Mexico City and Moscow for our fieldwork because of the
large number of junior officers assigned to those posts. We chose the
embassies in Africa to obtain the opinions of Foreign Service officers at
small and hard-to-fill posts. For further information on our scope and
methodology, see appendix I.

Results in Brief	State used critical elements of workforce planning to
identify the number of junior officers it needs to hire within the next 5
to 10 years and is hiring and assigning officers overseas with the general
skills, such as oral and written communication, to do the job. State
implemented key elements of workforce planning, including setting
strategic direction and goals, identifying gaps in its workforce, and
developing strategies to address these gaps. In determining the skills it
needs, State's 2001 analysis-which focused on five career tracks4-showed
that it needed 386 new positions, mainly at the mid level. State
determined it needed to hire and train about 623 new Foreign Service
officers above attrition through fiscal year 2004 to address the shortages
and have sufficient staff for other purposes, such as to allow employees
to seamlessly rotate in and out of positions abroad and to support
necessary training in languages and other areas. In 2001, State began
implementing a plan to address these shortfalls and has met its 2002 to
2003 targets for hiring junior officers in all five of its career tracks.

3This report covers Foreign Service generalists, who are officers hired
for broad-based skills to perform many types of jobs, rather than Foreign
Service specialists hired for a specific job.

4The five career tracks are management, consular, economic, political, and
public diplomacy.

However, based on its projected attrition and hiring, State anticipates
that it will take up to 10 years to hire and promote junior officers in
sufficient numbers to eliminate the shortage of mid-level officers in the
various career tracks. Nearly every official with whom GAO spoke said that
State was hiring and filling overseas positions with new Foreign Service
junior officers with the general skills and competencies5 required to do
their jobs well.

State continues to face challenges filling the gaps in staff with
proficiency in certain hard-to-learn languages,6 as well as challenges in
several other areas. State officials at headquarters and overseas have
stated that the department does not have enough Foreign Service officers
with hard language skills, which has adversely affected State operations.
State is currently seeking sufficient staff to support training in
languages as needed. In addition, it has implemented a plan to target
applicants for hiring who speak certain languages to increase the number
of hard language speakers. However, this plan does not include numeric
goals, and State has collected limited data to assess the effectiveness of
its efforts. Several overseas post officials and new officers at the U.S.
embassy in Moscow told us they were concerned that some junior officers
lack sufficient training in languages considered hard to learn, thus
hindering their ability to do their jobs effectively. State is now
increasing the amount of language training to junior officers studying
hard-to-learn languages. Other concerns regarding new Foreign Service
officers included their lack of public diplomacy experience and
insufficient training in this area, increased supervisory and on-the job
requirements when State assigns junior officers to positions above their
experience level, and rotational assignments that do not give participants
enough time to learn their jobs and thus burden managers. To address some
of these concerns, State has extended the length of public diplomacy
training and is reviewing the practice of rotational assignments.

5By general skills and competencies we mean the 13 job dimensions, such as
written and oral communication, information integration and analysis,
initiative, and leadership that State has identified as important for
Foreign Service officers to do their jobs.

6The State Department pays incentives to encourage people to pursue the
difficult languages that are used in posts that tend to have hard-to-fill
positions. All of the "incentive" languages fall into one of two
categories that State refers to as "hard and superhard" languages. Among
those incentive languages we looked at were Mandarin Chinese, Arabic,
Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Cantonese Chinese. This report refers to
those languages as "hard" languages.

This report recommends that the Secretary of State collect and maintain
data on the effectiveness of State's efforts to address language gaps.
State should use these data to, among other things, report on filling such
gaps through its outreach efforts to recruit more junior officers with
hard language skills and its pilot programs to increase their training in
these languages. State should also explore additional opportunities to
maximize assignment of junior officers with skills in these languages to
overseas posts where they can use these languages. In commenting on a
draft of this report, the State Department generally agreed with the
report's findings and observations and said that it is already addressing
the first part of our recommendation. However, we do not believe that
State is addressing this issue, because the data that State collects do
not show the number of individuals it hires as a direct result of its
outreach efforts. State did not completely address the second part of our
recommendation, but stated that our approach, which focused on six
specific languages, was too narrow. We disagree with State's assessment.
We focused on the six languages because of their strategic importance and
findings from previous GAO reports that found that lack of staff with
skills in some of these languages has hindered diplomatic readiness.

Background	The State Department advances U.S. national interests through
diplomatic relations with 163 countries at 263 posts worldwide. About
5,900 Foreign Service generalists stationed overseas and at State
headquarters perform much of this work. To become a Foreign Service
officer, an individual must be an American citizen between 20 and 59 years
old on the date of the written examination; pass a written and oral
examination; be able to obtain security and medical clearances; and be
available for worldwide assignment, including in Washington, D.C.

State recruits and hires candidates by administering a written and oral
exam to individuals interested in becoming Foreign Service officers. The
general skills identified by the department and the exams, which test for
those skills, were validated during a 1997 to 1998 job analysis conducted
by State employees and outside contractors. According to State officials
and consultants, the results of the analysis should be valid for 10 years.
In addition, State has updated the exam to reflect changing needs. For
example, it added a section on management skills to the Foreign Service
written exam to identify more candidates with knowledge useful in this
career track. Moreover, the Board of Examiners reviews the exam annually,
as required by the Foreign Service Act.

The written exam tests for knowledge of 36 topics such as world historical
events, geography, basic economic principles and statistics, and basic
management principles. Applicants registering for the written exam can
self-declare foreign languages spoken and must select a career track or
cone. There are five from which to choose: management, consular, economic,
political, and public diplomacy. The oral exam assesses a candidate for 13
general skills or competencies: written communication, oral communication,
information integration and analysis, planning and organizing, judgment,
resourcefulness, initiative and leadership, working with others,
experience and motivation, composure, objectivity and integrity, cultural
adaptability, and quantitative analysis. State does not test for language
proficiency as a requirement for employment. Table 1 shows the number of
applicants taking and passing the written and oral exams in fiscal years
2001 through 2003.

Table 1: Number of Applicants Taking and Passing the Written and Oral
Exams in Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003

                      Number of                                  
                 applicants who       Number who       Number of   Number who 
                   took written passed written    applicants who  passed oral 
          Year             exam             exam took oral exam          exam 
          2001           12,912            3,871           1,668          727 
          2002           31,442            9,258           6,295        1,547 
          2003           20,342            3,274            N.A.         N.A. 

Source: Department of State.

After a candidate passes both the written and oral exams, he or she is
placed on a register of eligible hires and will remain there for up to 18
months or until being placed in an initial training, or A-100, class,
according to State officials. There are five separate registers, one for
each career track or cone, which rank candidates according to their scores
on the oral assessment. To increase the chances that candidates on the
register who have language skills are hired, a passing score on an
optional telephonic assessment of a candidate's foreign language skills
will add points to the individual's final score. Each register has a
minimum cutoff point, which dictates an immediate conditional offer of
employment to those candidates who receive that score on their oral exam.
The cutoff points for receiving an immediate conditional offer vary
according to each register. Registers with more candidates interested in
serving in that career track have higher cutoff points.

Each A-100 class consists of between 45 and 90 junior Foreign Service
officers who will be assigned as entry-level Foreign Service personnel in
overseas or domestic posts. During training, junior officers are required
to bid on a list of available jobs from which State's Entry Level Division
will assign them to an overseas post. The officers receive language and
jobspecific training after they receive their assignments.

  State Uses Critical Elements of Workforce Planning and Is Hiring and Assigning
  Officers Overseas with the Necessary General Skills

State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify Foreign
Service officer staffing and skill gaps within the next 5 to 10 years. The
department determined that it needed to hire 623 new Foreign Service
generalists above attrition hiring; to accomplish this, in 2001 it
developed a 3-year hiring plan. The department has met its hiring targets
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and is ready to implement 2004 hiring
pending congressional funding. However, officials we interviewed projected
that it would take up to 10 years to hire and promote enough junior
officers to eliminate the shortfalls at the mid level. Almost all
officials we interviewed said State has hired and was in the process of
filling overseas positions with very talented and capable junior officers
with the general skills and competencies required to do their jobs well.

State Used Critical State used critical elements of workforce planning,
which include (1) Elements of Workforce setting strategic direction, (2)
analyzing the workforce to determine if Planning staffing and skill gaps
exist, (3) developing workforce strategies to fill the

gaps, and (4) evaluating the strategies and making needed revisions to
ensure that strategies work as intended. Involving various staff (from top
to bottom) is important across all the critical elements. (See fig. 1.)

               Figure 1: Critical Elements of Workforce Planning

State Has Set Strategic Direction 	Before developing a workforce plan, an
agency first needs to set strategic direction and program goals. State has
done this by implementing a strategic plan, which contains 12 strategic
goals and 44 performance goals. Overseas posts participate in the planning
process by developing mission program plans that link their resource
(including staffing) requests to the strategic goals. The overseas posts
submit their plans to the regional bureaus in Washington, D.C. After
review and prioritization, the regional bureaus incorporate elements from
the mission plans into bureau performance plans, based on policy
priorities and initiatives that are relevant to the strategic and
performance goals. State has developed an overseas staffing model, which
it uses to determine staffing requirements and allocate personnel
resources worldwide. The model is linked to State's strategic goals
through the mission program planning process.

State Has Analyzed Its Workforce to Identify Gaps

In 2001, State analyzed its workforce to identify staffing and skill gaps
in the Foreign Service. State's overseas staffing model served as the
basis for the analysis, which is a key component of workforce planning.
The staffing model, which State updates biennially, measures Foreign
Service staffing needs overseas by the five career tracks or "cones." The
model places posts into categories by size and the post's primary function
and determines how many positions the post needs for each career track
based on certain workload factors. For example, the model determines the
number of administrative positions a post requires based on the number of
Americans at the post and such factors as the level of service provided to
each U.S. government agency at the post, the number of housing units, and
the number of visitors.

To identify its Foreign Service staffing needs, State compared the number
of officers it had in each career track with the total number of positions
to be filled, including new overseas positions required according to post
workload categories projected by the staffing model. State used these
analyses in determining total staffing needs. State's analysis considered
the level of experience needed for the officers by grade level.7

In 2001, State determined that it needed 623 new Foreign Service
generalists to eliminate its mid-level Foreign Service staffing and skills
shortfall. This number includes the 386 overseas positions identified by
the overseas staffing model, as well as additional staff needed to manage
crises; permit employees to step out of assignment rotation to receive
training, including language training; allow employees to seamlessly
rotate in and out of positions abroad; allow State to meet domestic
responsibilities and fully staff the required details to other U.S.
government agencies and offices; and provide employees with training in
languages, leadership and management, and tradecraft, such as consular
duties. This deficit affected all grade levels, with the majority at the
mid level, according to State officials.

As of March 2003, State had a combined mid-level deficit of 353 officers
in all career tracks. The deficits also included domestic positions, such
as desk officers, that Foreign Service officers occupy when they are
assigned

7The Foreign Service career system has six levels. An officer may be hired
at FS 06, FS 05, or FS 04 depending on his or her level of work
experience, and progress through FS 01. The Senior Foreign Service
includes Minister Counselor (MC) and Counselor (OC). There is also the
rank of Career Minister above the ranks listed in the Senior Foreign
Service.

to headquarters. The largest deficit for these positions is in the public
diplomacy career track, due mainly to deficits inherited from the U.S.
Information Agency, which was folded into the State Department in 1999.

Table 2 shows the staffing deficits and surpluses for Foreign Service
generalists by career track.

Table 2: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/Deficits across Career
Tracks as of March 2003

                                                     Public           Total Surplus/deficit 
Grade  Management     Consular Economic Political diplomacy surplus/deficit  by grade level 
Level                                                                       
Senior     MC     -14        3        7    31           -14              13 
Level                                                                       
           OC     -7         3        7    33           -12              24 
           01     -10       34       25    75          -112              12              49 

Mid Level 02 0 27 -2 39 -161 -97

03 -41 -97 -63 -26 -29 -256 -353

                  Junior Level 04a 147 -395b 85 53 70 -40 -40

Total 75 -425 59 205 -258 -344

Source: Department of State.

aFS 05 and FS 06 are training positions that are not counted against the
deficit.

bThis number is not a true deficit because junior officers in all career
tracks perform consular work.

State Developed and Is In 2001, the Secretary of State launched the
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative

Implementing Workforce (DRI), a $197.5 million plan to address the
staffing and skills deficits to

Strategies to Fill the Gaps	ensure diplomatic readiness. This initiative
calls for hiring an additional 1,158 employees over attrition, including
623 Foreign Service generalists, between fiscal years 2002 and 2004.8 This
hiring is in addition to the 852 staff needed to fill gaps created by
attrition. State's plans call for the agency to continue hiring at least
200 officers above attrition through fiscal year 2005. To accomplish the
increased hiring under the DRI, State is implementing an aggressive
recruitment program that incorporates its traditional recruitment at
campuses and job fairs with new methods, such as an interactive Web site.
State's recruitment program is focused on addressing shortages in specific
career tracks. For example, State is targeting business schools and other
appropriate professional associations to recruit applicants with
management skills.

8The DRI does not include additional consular positions.

State Has Some Mechanisms for Evaluating Its Plan

Employee Involvement in Workforce Planning Varies

State officials described a few ways in which they evaluate and revise the
agency's planning process. For example, Human Resources personnel said
they frequently adjust the staffing model to ensure that its different
components, such as the promotion, retirement, and attrition sections,
accurately reflect the trends occurring in the Foreign Service. State also
monitors its intake plans. A recruitment committee meets biweekly to
review and adjust State's recruitment and training plans. As a result of
these reviews, the committee may move hiring from one career track to
another or increase training resources to accommodate the workload. The
officials said State also conducts quarterly reviews of bureau staffing to
take into account changing priorities.

Involving employees at all levels and stakeholders in the workforce
planning process is important to encourage support for and understanding
of its outcomes. State's workforce planning process involves managers at
all levels. For example, all 37 bureaus as well as all overseas posts
provide input. Managers at all levels help determine staffing needs in
parts of the organization for mission program plans and bureau performance
plans that are then factored into the overall plans. Managers at all
levels assist in data gathering as well as assessing and validating the
overseas staffing model. Senior management, including the Deputy Secretary
and the Undersecretary for Management, reviews all bureau performance
plans at formal annual hearings. Budget and human resources analysts also
review the bureau performance plans. Further, employees at varying levels
serve on committees, such as the recruitment committee, involved in
workforce planning. Other nonmanagement employees participate in State's
workforce planning efforts, according to Bureau of Human Resources
officials. For example, they said officers at all levels participated in
the analysis done to validate Foreign Service skill needs, and junior and
midlevel officers at the overseas posts provide data that are used to
develop the mission program plans.

State Has Met Its Hiring State has met its hiring targets for fiscal years
2002 and 2003. (See table 3.)

    Targets but Gaps in Mid-Level Officers Will Take up to 10 Years to Fill

Table 3: State Department Hiring Targets and Actual Hiring for Foreign
Service Generalists, Fiscal Years 2002-2004

                                             Total actual              
                                                 hiring for    2004    
                   Fiscal year  2002   2003    both years    (planned)  Total 
          Diplomatic Readiness                                         
                    Initiative    205    209            414        209    623 
            Attrition and MRV-                                         
                 funded hiring    262    259            521        331    852 
           Total hiring target    467    468            935        540  1,475 
                 Actual hiring    467    468            935    N.A.      N.A. 

Source: Department of State.

State has eliminated staffing deficits at the entry level in all five of
its career tracks, according to officials in State's Office of Recruitment
Examination and Employment. They said there is a sufficient number of
candidates on the list of eligible hires to fill all junior officer
positions coming vacant for fiscal year 2004.

Since 2002 State has hired at over twice the level of attrition. It plans
to hire an additional 209 new Foreign Service generalists9 in fiscal year
2004 to provide a training "float" and to ensure that additional officers
are available for crisis management. According to State, it must sustain
the personnel "float" to ensure that training can continue at the
appropriate levels. Most of these positions are new junior officers, who
are hired at the entry level for their career tracks. State's plan is to
eventually promote the junior officers to the mid level in sufficient
numbers to eliminate the current deficit of 353 mid-level officers.

State anticipates that the mid-level gap will be eliminated within the
next 9 to 10 years, based on its attrition and hiring and provided it
receives all DRI allocations through fiscal year 2004. Several officers
said elimination of the mid-level gap depended on State's ability to
promote the junior officers. For example, they said that if State
continues to hire large numbers of junior officers, eventually there would
be a surplus of officers eligible for promotion. If all of these officers
were not promoted quickly, they might leave the Foreign Service. In
addition, a few officials stated that elimination

9State generally does not hire Foreign Service generalists at the mid
level because such hiring has not been effective, according to State
officials.

of the mid-level gap depended on State's ability to continue hiring junior
officers at the current rate. They feared a "feast or famine" situation in
which increased hiring would be followed by years of no hiring. State
officials believe that, due to the current deficit at the mid level, it
will be able to provide adequate promotion opportunities to satisfy the
career expectations of recently hired junior officers as it eliminates the
mid-level deficit. They also believe that to avoid the feast or famine
situation it will be necessary to protect the personnel float so that
additional officers continue to be available in a crisis.

    State Has Hired and Assigned Foreign Service Officers with the General
    Skills and Competencies to Do the Job

Almost all officials we interviewed said State identified and hired very
talented and capable junior officers with the general skills and
competencies, such as written and oral communication, required to do their
jobs well, noting that the examination process was identifying junior
officers with the needed skills. Junior officers said the oral exam
effectively measured the necessary general skills that they use on their
jobs. Many said the group exercise administered during the oral assessment
was a potent tool for assessing a candidate's ability to lead and work
with others. The current version of the oral assessment allows testtakers
to present relevant information about previous work experience and skills
that examiners would consider important. Junior officers we interviewed
who had taken the oral exam twice-first when it did not allow candidates
to present information about their background and skills and a second time
when it did-said the latter version of the exam was an improvement in the
oral assessment. Opinions about the effectiveness of the written exam to
measure the same aptitude were mixed. Junior officers said the section of
the written exam that focused on biographical, or personal, data did not
identify skills needed to perform effectively. However, some junior
officers said the written exam worked effectively as a knowledge screen
for candidates to ensure that those hired had the broad intellectual
skills needed for the job.

State is filling overseas positions with new officers who have the general
skills that State requires, according to headquarters and overseas
officials with whom we spoke. Officials said that overall, the assignment
process was accomplishing its goals and that State was assigning junior
officers with the appropriate skills and eliminating junior officer
vacancies. Several overseas U.S. officials in Mexico City and Moscow cited
interpersonal skills as particularly important and stated that the junior
officers assigned to their posts had those skills. For example, one
official said the number of junior officers entering the Foreign Service
with excellent interpersonal

skills had increased dramatically in the past 3 or 4 years. An official at
a small hardship post in Africa stated that flexibility and the ability to
handle a variety of tasks were critical skills and that State carefully
selected the junior officers assigned to his post. Several officers in
Mexico City and Moscow commented on State's success at filling positions
in general and noted that there were no vacant positions in their
sections.

Junior Officers Are Pleased with Junior officers generally spoke favorably
about how State assigned them to

Assignment Process	their posts. They said they were pleased with the
process because it allowed them to choose their top 25 jobs from an
available list, and several junior officers told us they were assigned to
one of their top locations. Some junior officers stated that although
State did not necessarily take their previous work experience into account
when assigning them to a post, they sometimes had opportunities to use
their experience once they arrived overseas. For example, several junior
officers said their legal backgrounds helped them perform their consular
duties. Another junior officer commented that his past Army leadership and
experience with the press directly related to his public diplomacy
position.

The career development officers who assign junior officers to overseas
posts stated that they are familiar with junior officers' background and
work experience and may consider them when they make assignments. However,
they explained that the ultimate purpose of the assignment process to meet
the needs of the Foreign Service and to prepare junior officers for
tenure. To be tenured, the officers have to reach required levels of
proficiency in foreign languages and demonstrate core competencies that
indicate their ability to have a successful career in the Foreign Service.
Thus, these criteria guide junior officers' assignments.

  Key Challenges Include Gaps in Certain Foreign Languages

State still faces challenges in recruiting, hiring, assigning, and
training officers who are proficient in hard-to-learn languages. State
officials at headquarters and overseas have stated that the department
does not have enough Foreign Service officers with hard language skills.
Three recent GAO reports also cited language skill gaps that adversely
affected department operations.10 State has acknowledged that it needs
more staff with skills in certain hard languages and, in addition to its
efforts to ensure

10See GAO-02-375, GAO-02-626, and U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S.
Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant
Challenges, GAO-03-951 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003).

adequate training in foreign languages, has begun an effort to recruit
officers with hard language skills. However, State does not have data that
link its outreach efforts to the number of people hired with skills in
hard languages. In addition to the language issue, State officials and
some junior officers expressed other concerns, including the junior
officers' public diplomacy skills, supervision, and on-the-job training
requirements, as well as issues related to rotational positions.

    State Has Skill Gaps in Certain Hard Languages

Overseas post officials and several new officers told us that some junior
officers who are assigned to hard language posts lack sufficient training
in these languages. For example, in 2002, junior officers in Moscow sent a
cable to State stating that they had not received sufficient language
training to do their jobs effectively, which was weakening the post's
diplomatic readiness. The junior officers, as well as most senior
officials at this post, said that many of the junior officers have
difficulty participating in highlevel political meetings-which
significantly impedes the political section's work-and interviewing visa
applicants because they lack language proficiency. The latter is of
particular concern as the department moves toward heavier reliance on
interviewing applicants as a basis for determining whether they will
receive a visa. While State classified the junior officer positions as
requiring level-2 proficiency in speaking, post management and junior
officers said they need a level-3 proficiency to perform their jobs
effectively.11

Our past work has also shown gaps in the numbers of officers with
proficiency in certain hard languages. In September 2003, we reported that
about 21 percent of the public diplomacy officers posted overseas in
language designated positions have not attained the level of language
speaking proficiency required for their positions, hampering their ability
to engage with foreign publics.12 In January 2002 we reported that State
had not filled all of its positions requiring foreign language skills, and
we noted that lack of staff with foreign language skills had weakened the
fight against international terrorism and resulted in less effective
representation

11While additional time and resources are needed to move an officer to the
third level of proficiency, U.S. government research has shown that a
level-3 speaker is up to four times as productive as a speaker at level 2.
See GAO-02-375.

12GAO-03-951.

of U.S. interest overseas.13 We cited similar shortages during our review
of staffing at certain hard-to-fill posts.14 We reported that some new
junior officers did not meet the minimum language proficiency requirements
of the positions to which they were assigned in several countries of
strategic importance to the United States, including China, Saudi Arabia,
and Ukraine.

    State's Effort to Address Critical Languages Lacks Numerical Targets, Data
    on Effectiveness

State has acknowledged that it has gaps in the number of officers
proficient in certain hard languages, but its workforce planning does not
identify the number of officers to hire with those skills.15 The
department has further acknowledged that languages are integral to its
work and important to its mission. However, because its officers are
required to do much more than use a foreign language, State's philosophy
is to hire officers with a wide range of skills it believes are predictors
of success in the Foreign Service. It does not hire for skills that it can
train for, such as languages. For example, State officials have told us
that it is easier to train a person with good diplomatic skills to speak a
language than it is to teach a linguist to be a good diplomat. Therefore,
State officials do not believe the solution to the language skill gap is
recruiting aimed only at filling this gap. According to State, increased
staffing under the DRI will solve the problem. Nevertheless, the
department has implemented efforts to identify candidates for the Foreign
Service with hard language skills.

State has begun an effort to recruit more speakers of difficult languages.
Since the DRI in 2001, the department has extended its outreach efforts by
targeting professional associations, such as the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages and the Modern Language Association, and
specific universities and colleges that produce graduates with ability in
hard languages. While State does track the language skills of its new
hires, it has not established numerical targets for the number of
individuals with hard language ability it aims to hire. Nor could it
provide current or historical data showing the number of individuals it
hired as a direct result of targeted outreach efforts at these
professional associations and schools.

13GAO-02-375.

14GAO-02-626.

15State does identify foreign language training needs each year and uses
the results to determine language training capacity required as well as
the size of the training float needed to attain it.

While State has not set targets, our analysis of data from State's Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) on the number of junior officers who took a
language proficiency test after they were hired indicates that the number
of Foreign Service officers with ability in hard languages has increased
since 2001, with State hiring 51 Foreign Service generalists with these
skills16 in fiscal year 2001, 74 in 2002, and 115 in 2003. While these
figures include new hires with a broad range of hard language skills, a
subset of these hires speaks hard languages at a more advanced skill
level. New hires in this subgroup have speaking skills ranging from a
minimum level of 2, or what State refers to as "limited working
proficiency," to a level of 5-equivalent to skills a native speaker would
possess.17 The number of these officers has also increased from fiscal
year 2001 to 2003. State hired 31, 43, and 78 Foreign Service generalists
who spoke languages at a level of working proficiency or higher from 2001
through 2003, respectively. (See fig. 2.)

16In our analysis of new hires with hard language ability, we included
those officers who, at a minimum, possessed rudimentary skills in speaking
or reading difficult languages, those who spoke or read at the level of a
native speaker, and all those who fell somewhere in between these two
categories.

17We used level 2 and above because that is the target of the department's
re-invigorated outreach efforts for officers with foreign language skills,
according to a State official.

2: Number ofFi New Hires w anithg Work 18ing Pru ofic diency in a Hardre
Language Number of New Hires with Less than Working Proficiency in a Hard
Language

State could not provide data to demonstrate how many junior officers with
hard language skills were hired as a result of targeted recruitment. Thus
it is unclear whether the increase is the result of expanded outreach or a
steep increase in hiring of junior officers. According to our analysis,
the number of new Foreign Service generalists with hard language ability
as a percentage of the total population of new hires has fluctuated since
2001 when it was 22 percent, compared with 16 percent and 25 percent in
2002 and 2003, respectively. (See fig. 3.)

18Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Cantonese
Chinese.

Figure 3: New Hires with Hard Language Ability as a Percentage of New
Foreign Service Generalists

Telephonic Assessment of In addition to outreach efforts, State uses a
telephonic assessment-the

Candidates with Language Skills 	Board of Examiners (BEX) test-to provide
candidates with foreign language skills a competitive advantage in the
hiring process, according to State officials. Candidates who have passed
the written and oral exams can take the telephone test in their language
of choice. If they pass, they are assigned additional points to their oral
assessment score. The purpose of this tool is to raise the candidates'
oral assessment scores sufficiently for them to receive an immediate offer
of employment.

However, our analysis of 102 individuals who passed the telephonic
assessment in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Russian in fiscal year
2003 shows that, as of October 2003, only 32 received and accepted offers
from the Foreign Service and were placed in A-100 training. Twenty-seven
individuals are awaiting security or medical clearances; 6 are no longer
junior officer candidates because they failed their security or medical
clearances, withdrew their applications, or their candidate eligibility

expired; and 37 remain on the Foreign Service register. The 37 individuals
in the latter category scored well enough to pass the oral assessment;
however, the additional points they received from passing the BEX
assessment were not sufficient for them to receive a job offer.19
Moreover, the State Department does not provide any additional points for
BEX testees with hard languages versus other languages. However, State
officials said the department is revising this system.

    Junior Officers with Hard Language Skills Are Not Always Placed to Use Them

Although State is trying to increase the number of officers with hard
language skills, it does not necessarily assign new hires to posts where
they can use those skills during their first two tours.20 We analyzed the
assignment of 31 new officers with hard language ability21 to determine if
during their first two tours they were assigned to a post where they could
use their language skills. According to our analysis, 45 percent of new
hires with hard language ability were deployed to a post where they could
use their language skills during their first two tours. For the 55 percent
of junior officers who did not use their hard language skills during their
first two tours, 20 percent were assigned to a post where they could use
other foreign language skills they had acquired and 35 percent were
assigned to posts that required foreign language training. (See fig. 4.)

19Placement on the list of eligible hires for the Foreign Service register
does not mean that a job offer will be made. Candidates may wait on the
register until their eligibility expires or they may be called to serve
before it expires, depending on the Service's needs.

20A tour generally lasts 2 years.

21This analysis includes all those officers who, at a minimum, possessed
at least rudimentary skills in speaking or writing difficult languages,
indicated by a score of 1 from FSI.

Figure 4: Assignment Information for New Hires with Hard Language Ability
in Fiscal Year 2001

Note: As of November 2003, State could provide first and second tour
information for only 31 of the 51 officers with hard language ability
hired in fiscal year 2001. State has not yet assigned the remaining 20
officers to their second tours.

It is even less likely that officers will be assigned to hard language
posts during their first tour. Our analysis of first tour officers with
hard language ability shows that 24 percent of these officers were
immediately deployed in fiscal year 2001 to posts where they could use
those skills and 32 percent in fiscal year 2002 and 28 percent in fiscal
year 2003. The vast majority of the new hires were immediately deployed to
posts where other foreign languages were spoken or to English-speaking
posts.

The ability to speak a difficult language is one of many factors
influencing a junior officer's assignment to an overseas post. As a
practical matter, there may not be openings at particular hard-language
posts at the same time junior officers are being assigned to their first
and second tours. The requirements for tenure, which include a variety of
regions and jobs for junior officers to prepare them for careers as
Foreign Service generalists, are also a major consideration. The emphasis
on career development and achieving tenure sometimes limits the
department's ability to train and deploy a sufficient number of officers
with the needed training in hard languages to do their jobs, according to
several headquarters officials. For example, officials in one of State's
geographic bureaus stated that some hard languages require a level-2
speaking proficiency, for which officers

may get from 24 to 26 weeks of language training. However, if junior
officers spend a longer period of time in training, they could be at a
disadvantage for tenure at the first year of eligibility because they
would have a narrower range of on-the-job experiences on which tenure
decisions are based. Security requirements are also a consideration when
assigning junior officers overseas. According to State officials, junior
officers with hard language skills are sometimes precluded from serving at
a post where they can use their hard language skills for diplomatic
security reasons, such as having an immediate family member or close ties
with individuals in a country. In fiscal year 2003, 8 percent, or 38 of
the 468 new Foreign Service generalists State hired, were precluded from
serving at hard language posts for security reasons. However, because of
Privacy Act restrictions and some unavailable data, State could only
provide partial information about the foreign language skills of these new
hires. As a result, we are unable to determine how many of these
preclusions were also hard-language speakers.

Our analysis was limited to an officer's first two tours. State officials
noted that when a new hire possesses strong language skills already, the
employee and department may consciously use the first two tours to develop
additional skills rather than existing ones. Skills brought into the
Foreign Service are likely to be used later in a career if not
immediately, according to the State officials.

    Pilot Programs Under Way to Increase Training

State has been exploring options to provide additional training in hard
languages for officers. State officials said their efforts to provide more
language training while officers are in Washington at the FSI are affected
by a tax regulation that limits the time officers can spend in temporary
duty status to one year before they have to pay federal taxes on their per
diem. To alleviate this situation, State is developing pilot programs to
provide some officers with additional training in hard languages by
sending them to training overseas. In one such pilot, an officer would
spend a year studying Arabic at the FSI field school in Tunis prior to
being sent to an Arabicspeaking post, according to an official of the
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Under another pilot, junior officers
assigned to Moscow are taking an immersion course in Russia following
their initial language training in Washington.

    Some Officials Say On-the-Job Training in Public Diplomacy Is Insufficient

In addition to the hard-language issues, some overseas officials expressed
concern about the lack of on-the-job training opportunities for junior
public diplomacy officers, citing overseas training as the single most
important factor in building these officers' skills and positioning them
to succeed in public diplomacy. The FSI's training did not include grant
writing, program management, and basic supervisory skills, they said, and
was not a viable substitute for overseas training. Moreover, about 58
percent of the officers responding to a GAO survey reported that the
amount of time available for public diplomacy training was inadequate.22
Furthermore, State's Inspector General reported that public affairs
officers in Africa were often first-tour or entry-level officers with no
prior public diplomacy experience and as such, their mistakes in dealing
with the media have embarrassed the post.23 First-tour officers have also
displayed poor judgment by not seeking advice from experienced local
staff, the IG said. FSI has revised its public diplomacy training to
address some of these issues. As of September 2003, public diplomacy
officers are receiving from 9 to 19 weeks of training (depending upon the
duties of their assignment) before they are sent to a post. Previously
they received 3 weeks of training. State officials said the success of
this effort depends on State's ability to hire sufficient staff for a
training float that would allow officers time to take the training.

    Placement in Positions Traditionally Held by Mid-Level Officers Yields Mixed
    Results

Benefits Cited at Smaller Posts, Hardship Posts

Several post officials said State's practice of filling positions
traditionally held by mid-level officers with junior officers and
assigning inexperienced junior officers to small posts where they would
have increased responsibilities worked well. However, others expressed
concern because junior officers in these positions require increased
supervision and on-thejob training.

State has assigned a number of junior officers-new DRI hires-to positions
formerly held by mid-level officers to fill unmet needs at that level. For
fiscal years 2002 to 2003, 96 mid-level positions were downgraded to
junior-level positions after consultations with posts, regional bureaus,
and the Bureau of Human Resources. Career development officers explained
that such positions have been restructured so that with more

22GAO-03-951.

23U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Inspections, Report of Inspection: Bureau of African Affairs, Report No.
ISP-I-02-52 (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).

supervision and revised portfolios, junior officers should be able to do
the work. Smaller posts often have very few American staff, and junior
officers are frequently responsible for work in more than one career
track. For example, a junior officer with whom we spoke at a small post in
Africa was responsible for the political and economic sections and served
as backup for the consular section.

According to some officials, junior officers assigned to some smaller
posts have been very qualified and have helped alleviate the burden of
staffing at hardship posts. Several officials with whom we spoke at three
embassies reported positive experiences with junior officers in positions
that required more responsibility. Moreover, junior officers serving at
smaller hardship posts can gain a multitude of Foreign Service experiences
not available to other officers.

Assignments Require More Some post officials, however, noted that such
assignments require more

Supervision, On-the-Job Training	supervision and on-the-job training.
Supervision is a particular issue at smaller posts where there may be few
or no mid-level officers. According to several overseas officials, this
situation creates a burden for the seniorlevel officers who have to mentor
and provide on-the-job training as well as serve as backup for other jobs
at the mission and manage the mission. For example, an official at one
small African post said a mid-level supervisor would normally be
responsible for training a junior officer to write cables. Because there
are no mid-level officers to provide the training, more senior officials
must provide it, leaving them less time to manage the embassy.

One overseas embassy official told us a junior officer was having
difficulty serving in a mid-level position at a small constituent post
where the officer had very little training and supervision. Officials
explained that while the position had been designated as a junior officer
position, it still required an individual with significant related
experience. Unfortunately, the junior officer assigned to this position
did not have the requisite work experience or knowledge. Another official
said that placing junior officers in positions formerly held by mid-level
officers was not achieving the same results as hiring people with directly
related management experience. Furthermore, State's Inspector General
reported that assigning inexperienced junior officers to mid-level
consular positions in African posts with high levels of visa fraud was a
serious problem. A Bureau of Human Resources official stated that this
problem should ease as positions are filled under the DRI. In the
meantime, according to State officials, the bureau tries to fill vacancies
in mid-level consular positions with at least a second-tour officer.

    Rotational Positions Have Value for Officers but Do Not Always Serve Posts'
    Needs

State established "rotational" positions that allow some junior officers
to serve one year in one career track and another year in a different
career track-for example, consular and public diplomacy. Several officials
in Mexico City and Moscow said that the rotations were working well at
their embassy and the length of the rotations was adequate for the junior
officers to learn their jobs. Some officials said rotational assignments
could benefit junior officers and the Foreign Service by increasing
officers' knowledge of how an overseas post operates. One official noted
that working in different sections of the embassy becomes harder as an
officer is promoted, so it is extremely important to have this experience
at the junior level.

Other officials, however, said that rotational assignments were not
serving the posts' needs. For example, one official stated that a year is
not enough time for a person to learn the tasks of the job in the consular
section and, as a result, local national employees carry much of the
responsibility in the section. An overseas official stated that a 1-year
consular rotation might not allow the junior officer to get the same
breadth of experience as junior officers who spend 2 years in the consular
section. In addition, State's Inspector General reported that many
consular supervisors said junior officers are not assigned to consular
work long enough to acquire the skills to adjudicate visas under new
performance requirements to improve U.S. border security.24

Rotational positions also increase managers' training responsibilities. As
one post official described it, managers have to "start from scratch" each
time the position turns over. Some officials said the rotational program
was hindering productivity in the Foreign Service because junior officers
rotate soon after they master their current position. These issues led the
Inspector General to recommend discontinuing the practice of assigning
junior officers to 1-year rotational positions in consular sections. The
Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Bureau of Human Resources have decided
to continue the rotational program, according to a Bureau of Human
Resources official. The official stated that the bureau continues to
believe the program is beneficial and said that there are safeguards in
place to address the Inspector General's concerns. For example, the
official stated that the two bureaus have reviewed all of the consular
positions and

24U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Review of
Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Policy and Procedures, Report No. ISP-I-03-26
(Washington, D.C.: December 2002).

have identified those that should not be filled as part of a rotation by
firsttour junior officers.

Conclusions	Critical gaps in the number and skills of Foreign Service
staff endangered State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. The
department has addressed the numeric shortfall through its Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative, which has been successful in expanding the candidate
pool for Foreign Service positions. State has been able to hire junior
officers with the general skills it requires and to fill overseas
positions. However, State continues to face gaps in personnel who are
proficient in speaking languages considered hard to learn. To address
these gaps, State has undertaken outreach efforts to attract speakers with
proficiency in certain hard languages, extended the time junior officers
spend in training, established pilot programs to develop a cadre of
speakers of hard languages, and assigned many junior officers with skills
in hard languages to countries where they can use those skills. However,
it is not clear to what extent these efforts will help eliminate the gaps,
and State has little data to demonstrate their success. Furthermore,
State's process of assigning junior officers, with its emphasis on
achieving tenure, may hinder the department's ability to take advantage of
the hard language skills that some of its officers have.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

This report recommends that the Secretary of State collect and maintain
data on the effectiveness of State's efforts to address language gaps.
State should use these data to, among other things, report on filling such
gaps through its outreach efforts to recruit more junior officers with
hard language skills and its pilot programs to increase training in
hard-to-learn languages for junior officers. State should also explore
additional opportunities to maximize assignment of junior officers who
have skills in these languages to overseas posts where they can use these
languages.

Agency Comments and 	The State Department provided written comments on a
draft of this report. These comments and our response are reprinted in
appendix II. State also

Our Evaluation	provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
into the report as appropriate.

The State Department generally agreed with the report's findings and
observations, but did not completely address our recommendations. State

commented that it is already addressing our recommendation that it
maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers of hard-to-learn
languages. State said that the department collects and maintains extensive
data to monitor its recruitment efforts. However, State has not used the
data to determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing the number
of hardlanguage speakers are effective or have helped decrease the gap in
certain languages. State further said that it is confident that its
overall hiring plan will address the language gaps over the next several
years, but the plan does not provide specific milestones for achieving
this goal. We believe State needs to more specifically link its efforts to
its hard language needs. We have modified our recommendation to make this
clearer.

State did not completely address the second part of our recommendation,
but stated that our approach, which focused on six specific languages, was
too narrow. We disagree with State's assessment. We focused on the six
languages because of their strategic importance and findings from previous
GAO reports that lack of staff with skills in some of these languages has
hindered diplomatic readiness. In its comments, State also overstated a
number of our findings, observations, and conclusions.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
State. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.

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 III.

Jess T. Ford
Director, International Affairs and Trade

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

To report on State's processes for determining the number and skills of
junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10 years, we examined
workforce planning documents and data, including the overseas staffing
model.1 We also interviewed officials from State's Resource Planning and
Compensation Division and Office of Resource Management and Organizational
Analysis, Bureau of Human Resources. We reviewed and analyzed data from
the Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis on projected
promotions and hiring for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 and the current
deficit and surplus of Foreign Service generalists according to the five
career tracks and grade levels. We also interviewed officials from all six
of State's regional bureaus, the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI), and the U.S. embassies in Mexico City and Moscow.
We selected these embassies because they contained the largest number of
junior officers. During our fieldwork, we conducted interviews with senior
level, mid-level, and junior officers.

To determine whether State is hiring and assigning officers with the
general skills to meet the needs of overseas posts, we reviewed
information related to State's recruiting program, including Diplomatic
Readiness recruitment goals and hiring data from 2001 through 2003 and
projected hiring through 2007. We interviewed officials from the Office of
Recruitment, Examination, and Employment; the Office of Career
Development; the Diplomatic Readiness Task Force; all six of State's
regional bureaus; and the Bureau of Consular Affairs. In addition, we
interviewed one of the consultants who helped perform State's 1997 job
analysis--a comprehensive revalidation of the skills tested by the Foreign
Service written and oral exams. We also reviewed the raw data in the form
of survey responses by Foreign Service generalists about the skills that
are most critical to their work, but we did not evaluate the validity of
State's analysis. We interviewed officials, including junior officers, at
the U.S. embassies in Mexico City and Moscow and supplemented our
fieldwork with telephone interviews of Foreign Service officers at U.S.
embassies in Angola, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, and South
Africa. We selected the first four countries to obtain the perspective of
officers at small or hard-to-fill posts. We selected South Africa at the
recommendation of a Bureau of Human Resources official. We also conducted
in-person interviews with junior officers at headquarters.

1We did not assess the validity of the staffing model.

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

To examine the challenges State still needs to address, especially
regarding officers with hard-to-learn language skills, we solicited data
from three different State Department databases. We interviewed State
officials who were authorities on each of the three databases and
determined that the data obtained were reliable in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

o 	To determine the number of officers with hard language ability hired in
2001, 2002, and 2003, we developed the "New Hires Database." To create
this database we used information drawn from FSI's Student Training
Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau of Human Resources'
Global Employment Management System (GEMS) database. The New Hires
Database contains information on the number of junior officers with hard
language ability hired in 2001, 2002, and 2003. It includes their levels
of proficiency-as rated by the FSI's School of Language Studies-in those
hard languages, additional foreign languages spoken and their
corresponding FSI rating of proficiency, A100 class information, and
first-and in some cases second-tour assignment information. In our
analysis of new hires with hard language ability, we included those
officers who, at a minimum, possessed at least rudimentary skills in
speaking or reading difficult languages, indicated by a score of 1 from
FSI on these two dimensions (the FSI scale ranges from a score of 0 to a
score of 5, with 5 indicating proficiency at the level of a native
speaker). To determine the number of new hires with working proficiency,
we considered only those officers with a level 2 or higher proficiency in
both speaking and reading and writing. To determine the percentage of new
hires with hard language ability in the population of new hires in fiscal
years 2001 through 2003, we took the number of officers with hard language
ability from the New Hires Database in fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and
divided that number by the total number of Foreign Service generalists
hired during those years.

o 	To report the status of candidacy for individuals who had taken and
passed the Board of Examiners Telephonic Assessment (BEX) test in fiscal
year 2003, we developed the BEX Database. Categories in the table include:
number assigned to A-100, pending clearance; name on foreign service
register; no longer a junior officer candidate; and total number of BEX
Passers. To create this database we used information from the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) School of Language Study's Student Training
Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau of Human Resources'
Global Employment Management System (GEMS) and Automated Foreign Service
Examination and Registry System

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

(AFSERS) database. The BEX Database contains individuals who passed the
Foreign Service's telephonic assessment in hard-to-learn languages and,
where applicable, their A-100 assignment information, and proficiency
scores according to FSI in hard languages as well as additional languages
they bring to the service. Names of individuals in the BEX Database for
whom there was no A-100 information were resubmitted to the State
Department to obtain their alternate outcomes. These individuals and their
alternate outcomes were subsequently recorded on a separate spreadsheet.
The alternate outcomes of these individuals were primarily derived from
the AFSERS database and the following categories: expiration of
eligibility dates, withdrawals, terminations, status on the Foreign
Service Register, status of medical and security clearances, and
employment start dates.

To examine assignment location for new hires with hard language ability in
fiscal year 2001, we used the New Hires Database to create three distinct
categories of junior officers for whom we had information on two tours:
(1) posted where hard language skills could be used, (2) posted where
other foreign language skills were used, and (3) posted where other
foreign language skills had to be acquired. To calculate the percentage of
junior officers in each of the three categories, we divided the category
total by the number of new hires with hard language ability for whom
information was available about two tours. The total number for each
category was defined as the number of those officers being sent to hard
language posts who had at least basic speaking and writing skills in that
language for the first category. For the second category, we used the
number of officers with hard language skills assigned to a post where they
could use other foreign language skills they brought to the service, and
for the third category we used the number of officers assigned to posts
during both their first and second tours where they did not have the
relevant foreign language skills.

o 	We also used the New Hires Database to determine the number of junior
officers with hard language ability assigned to hard language posts during
their first tour for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. For each fiscal year,
we divided the number of officers hired in that fiscal year and assigned
to hard language posts during their first tour by the total number of
officers hired in that fiscal year.

In addition, we met with officials from all six of State's regional
bureaus and the Bureau of Consular Affairs; officials and junior officers
at the U.S. embassies in Moscow and Mexico City, as well as junior
officers at headquarters; and officials from the Office of Recruitment,
Examination,

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology

and Employment, the Office of Career Development, and the Diplomatic
Readiness Task Force. We reviewed State Department recruitment data from
the Diplomatic Readiness Task Force on efforts to recruit Foreign Service
officers with hard language skills from the following targeted language
schools: Brigham Young University, Columbia University-- Columbia College,
Cornell University, Harvard University, Indiana University--Bloomington,
Middlebury College, Ohio State University, University of California Los
Angeles, University of Chicago, University of Michigan--Ann Arbor,
University of Washington, University of Wisconsin-- Madison, and Yale
University. These data showed the number of individuals from each of these
universities who had passed the Foreign Service written exam, but did not
indicate whether these individuals possessed any hard language skills or
if they were in fact even hired by the State Department.

We conducted our work from December 2002 through August 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                  Appendix II

                     Comments from the Department of State

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

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 1.

                                 See comment 2.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 3.

                                 See comment 4.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 5.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 6.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 7.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 8.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

                                 See comment 9.

                                  Appendix II
                     Comments from the Department of State

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter dated
November 11, 2003.

  GAO Comments 1.

2.

3.

4.

State overstated our conclusions. The department wrote that "GAO found
that [State's] process is conducted using a skills assessment that is
valid, a robust workforce planning process that determines hiring needs, a
dynamic recruiting program that targets needed skills, [and] an
examination process that accurately evaluates competency in those
skills..." While we described State's workforce planning and staffing
processes, we did not validate its staffing model or its skills
assessment. Furthermore, we did not describe the workforce planning
process as "robust" and the recruiting program as "dynamic." We reported
that State used elements of workforce planning to determine its Foreign
Service staffing needs, junior officers stated that the exam tested for
the skills they used on the job, and State officials believed the
department was hiring and assigning junior officers overseas with the
skills they needed to do the job.

While we reported on State's processes for recruiting, hiring, and
assigning new staff, we did not conclude that these processes are the best
way to meet mission requirements. There may be other ways to accomplish
State's mission, but an evaluation of alternatives was beyond the scope of
this report.

We did not conclude that the department is successfully meeting its
staffing needs through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative. We concluded
that State had met its hiring targets for Foreign Service generalists in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Also, State officials told us that it would
take 9 to 10 years to eliminate its mid-level staffing gap. We did not
assess whether this gap could be closed more quickly.

State mischaracterized what we wrote and thus did not address the second
part of our recommendation. State further commented that our approach,
which focused on six specific languages, was too narrow and implied that
we believe increasing the number of speakers of selected languages will
address diplomatic readiness needs. We focused on the six languages
because of their strategic importance and findings from previous GAO
reports that lack of staff proficient in these languages hinders
diplomatic readiness. Moreover, senior officials at the U.S. embassy in
Russia told us that some junior officers lacked sufficient Russian skills
to effectively do their jobs.

Appendix II
Comments from the Department of State

5.	We are not suggesting that State supplant training as its main avenue
for achieving its language goals as State's comments infer. However, we
believe that State should explore as many avenues as possible to eliminate
its gaps in officers with proficiency in hard-to-learn languages.

6.	The intent of our analysis of the assignment of junior officers with
preexisting hard language skills was to show the extent to which those
officers were assigned to posts where they could use those skills. We had
no basis to conclude that the results were positive as State commented.
State also commented that we did not review officers' assignments beyond
their first two tours. We did not go beyond the first two tours because
the scope of our review was the recruitment and assignment of junior
officers. However, we have incorporated the department's statements that
many skills officers bring to the Foreign Service will be used throughout
their careers, not just in the first two tours.

7. State wrote that the department is making considerable progress in
recruiting for language skills, along with all required skills. However,
as we have previously noted, State has not set numerical targets for the
number of individuals with hard language ability it aims to hire.
Moreover, the department does not maintain data to demonstrate how many
junior officers with hard language skills were hired as a direct result of
its outreach efforts.

8.	State commented that we understated the contribution that rotational
assignments make toward accomplishing mission goals. We disagree. The
report provides several examples of the benefits of the rotations.
However, a number of officials raised the issue of increased supervisory
requirements as a concern.

9.	State commented that it is already addressing the first part of our
recommendation that it maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers of
hard-to-learn languages. As we noted in the report, State has not used the
data to determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing the number
of hard-language speakers are effective or have helped decrease the gap in
certain languages.

Appendix III

                     GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts	Cheryl Goodman, (202) 512-6571 La Verne Tharpes, (202)
512-5961

Acknowledgments	In addition to the persons named above, Kaya Taylor, Julia
Roberts, Martin de Alteriis, Monica Wolford, and Janey Cohen made key
contributions to this report.

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

  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
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 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

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

To Report Fraud, 	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

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 Service Requested
*** End of document. ***