    United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive
    Assessments Needed to Measure Impact (13-FEB-04, GAO-04-339).

    The U.N. Secretary General launched two reform agendas, in 1997
    and 2002, to address the U.N.'s core management challenges--poor
    leadership of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices
    and programs, and the lack of accountability for staff
    performance. In 2000, GAO reported that the Secretary General had
    reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure, but that
    the reforms were not yet complete. As the largest financial
    contributor to the United Nations, the United States has a strong
    interest in the completion of these reforms. GAO was asked to
    assess the (1) overall status of the 1997 and 2002 reforms, (2)
    implementation of reforms in four key areas, and (3) potential
    challenges to reform.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-339
        ACCNO:   A09256
      TITLE:     United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive
    Assessments Needed to Measure Impact
         DATE:   02/13/2004
      SUBJECT:   Budgeting
    	     Financial management
    	     Information disclosure
    	     International organizations
    	     Performance measures
    	     Personnel management
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Human resources utilization
    	     Human capital
    	     Human rights

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-04-339

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Requesters

    February 2004

    UNITED NATIONS

      Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure Impact

    GAO-04-339

    Highlights of GAO-04-339, a report to congressional requesters

    The U.N. Secretary General launched two reform agendas, in 1997 and 2002,
    to address the U.N.'s core management challenges-poor leadership of the
    Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs, and the lack
    of accountability for staff performance. In 2000, GAO reported that the
    Secretary General had reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and
    structure, but that the reforms were not yet complete. As the largest
    financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States has a
    strong interest in the completion of these reforms.

    GAO was asked to assess the (1) overall status of the 1997 and 2002
    reforms, (2) implementation of reforms in four key areas, and (3)
    potential challenges to reform.

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the Permanent
    Representative of the United States to the United Nations work with other
    member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1) report regularly
    on the status and impact of reforms; (2) identify short-and long-term
    goals and establish target end dates for remaining reforms; and (3)
    conduct assessments of the resulting resource implications.

    We received comments from the Department of State and the United Nations,
    both of which generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendations.

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-339.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    the link above. For more information, contact Joseph Christoff at (202)
    512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov.

    February 2004

    UNITED NATIONS

    Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure Impact

    As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997
    agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda were in
    place. In general, reforms under the Secretary General's authority were
    progressing more quickly than those requiring member states' approval.
    Since 1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms to provide more
    unified leadership and coordination across departments and offices.
    However, the Secretariat has implemented other reforms, such as developing
    a written plan or establishing a new office, that are only the first step
    in achieving the Secretary General's overall goals.

    Reforms in four key areas of U.N. operations are in various stages. First,
    the Secretariat has taken positive steps to strengthen its human capital
    management, but reforms in this area are ongoing and additional challenges
    remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to adopt results-oriented budgeting,
    but its monitoring and evaluation system does not measure program impact.
    Third, although the Secretariat reorganized its public information
    department, reforms of library management and publications are not fully
    in place. Fourth, the Secretariat's human rights office implemented the
    majority of its management reforms but does not have the authority to
    implement reforms outside the Secretariat.

    U.N. reform faces several challenges. For example, the Secretariat does
    not conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of U.N.
    reforms. In addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated priorities,
    interim goals, and target dates for overall completion. Other challenges
    include resistance to change from program managers and possible resource
    constraints.

    Status of Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years,

    but Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms Reforms in Four Key
    Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing,

    but Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear Various Factors May Impede Full
    Implementation of U.N. Reforms Conclusion Recommendations for Executive
    Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

                                           1

                                          2 5

                                           8

    12 33 35 36 36

    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Appendix II Status of U.N. Reforms

    Appendix III Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix IV Comments from the United Nations

      Tables

    Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status 39 Table 2: 1997
    Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the Status of Their
    Implementation 43 Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the
    Secretary General and the Status of Their Implementation 46 Table 4: 2002
    Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation 50

      Figures

    Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the

    Present 7 Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms 9 Figure 3: Breakdown
    of 1997 Reforms 10

    Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform 14 Figure 5: Summary of
    Selected Performance Indicators for

    Deploying Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations,

    2002-2003 and 2004-2005 21 Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N.
    Plans and Budgets 24 Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends 30
    Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program 31

    Abbreviations

    DPI Department of Public Information
    ECOSOC Economic and Social Council
    IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
    JIU Joint Inspection Unit
    OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
    OHRM Office of Human Resources Management
    OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services
    OPPBA Office of Program Planning, Budget, and Accounts
    UNCTAD U.N. Conference on Trade and Development
    UNDP U.N. Development Program
    UNFPA U.N. Population Fund
    UNICEF U.N. Children's Fund

    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.

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    February 13, 2004

    The Honorable Richard G. Lugar
    Chairman
    Committee on Foreign Relations
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Michael Enzi
    United States Senate

    The United Nations' regular budget for the 2004-2005 biennium exceeds
    $3 billion for the first time. U.N. officials, including the Secretary
    General,
    have stated that additional funding will be needed to upgrade U.N.
    security
    worldwide and expand current programs in Iraq. In light of these
    increasing demands, the Secretary General and member states have called
    on the Secretariat to better define priorities and eliminate outdated
    activities. These calls have also highlighted the need for more
    accountable
    leadership and improvements in key management practices. In 1997, the
    Secretary General launched a major reform initiative to restructure U.N.
    leadership and operations, develop a results-oriented human capital
    system, and introduce a performance-based programming and budgeting
    process. In May 2000,1 we reported that, while the Secretary General had
    substantially reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure, he
    had
    not yet completed reforms in human capital management and planning
    and budgeting. To encourage the full implementation of the 1997 reforms
    and highlight reforms in public information activities and the human
    rights
    program, the Secretary General launched a second round of reforms in
    September 2002.

    As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations,2 the United
    States has a strong interest in the completion of these reforms. In
    response

    1U.S. General Accounting Office, United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have
    Strengthened Operations, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Met,
    GAO/NSIAD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000).

    2The United States is assessed to pay 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular
    budget. The United States also is assessed 27 percent of the U.N.
    peacekeeping budget, and makes voluntary contributions to the United
    Nations and its specialized agencies that are primarily for humanitarian
    and development programs and activities. Overall, the United States
    contributed more than $3 billion to the U.N. system in 2002.

      Results in Brief

    to your request, we assessed (1) the overall status of the U.N. reforms
    proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the Secretariat's
    efforts to implement specific reforms in four key areas:3 human capital
    management, performance-oriented budgeting,4 public information
    activities, and the human rights program; and (3) overall challenges
    facing the implementation of U.N. reforms.

    To address these issues, we reviewed the Secretary General's 1997 and 2002
    reform plans and interviewed senior officials from several Secretariat
    departments in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. We met with
    officials from the Offices of the Deputy Secretary General, the Acting
    High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Departments of Management and
    Public Information, and the Office of Internal Oversight Services. In
    addition, we reviewed reports and bulletins of the Secretariat, relevant
    U.N. resolutions, and related budget documents. During the course of our
    review, we discussed the status of U.N. reforms with officials from the
    Department of State in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Geneva (see app. I
    for more information on our scope and methodology).

    The Secretary General launched two major reform initiatives, in 1997 and
    2002, to address the U.N.'s core management challenges-poor leadership of
    the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs, and the
    lack of accountability for staff performance. The 1997 reform plan
    consisted of initiatives that the Secretary General could implement on his
    own authority and those that required the approval of member states. As of
    December 2003, we found that, overall, 60 percent of the 88 reform
    initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda were in place. Of the 1997 reforms,
    the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of the reforms under his
    authority, while 44 percent of the reforms requiring member state approval
    are in place. In addition, we found that 38 percent of the 66 reform
    initiatives in the 2002 reform agenda-which did not differentiate between

    3We did not examine U.N. peacekeeping reform in detail other than to
    assess the status of specific reforms in the 1997 and 2002 agendas (see
    app. II). In September 2003, GAO reported on some U.N. peacekeeping
    reforms, including performance-oriented planning and programming. See U.S.
    General Accounting Office, U.N. Peacekeeping: Transition Strategies for
    Post-Conflict Countries Lacked Results-Oriented Measures of Progress,
    GAO-03-1071 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003).

    4Performance-oriented budgeting is the process by which budgeted
    activities are linked to expected results, programs are monitored and
    evaluated regularly, and resources are shifted to meet new priorities.

    the Secretary General's and member states' authority-are in place. Since
    1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms to provide more unified
    leadership and coordination across departments, programs, and offices. The
    Secretariat has also implemented other reforms, such as developing a
    written plan or establishing a new office, that are only the first steps
    in achieving the Secretary General's goals. However, it is the completion
    of additional efforts, such as providing staff and financial resources,
    and creating performance goals, that will contribute to building an
    effective department or office.

    The United Nations is in various stages of implementing reforms in four
    key areas-human capital management, performance-oriented budgeting, public
    information activities, and the human rights program.

    o  	Both U.N. officials and external observers have identified
    long-standing weaknesses in the Secretariat's personnel-or human capital-
    management, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire
    staff, and the need to hold managers and staff more directly accountable
    for their performance. In response to these concerns, the Secretariat
    developed a reform strategy that included a new recruiting and placement
    system, which decentralized hiring authority and, according to U.N.
    sources, significantly reduced the average time to hire staff. The
    Secretary General also introduced new accountability mechanisms, including
    annual performance agreements for senior managers and a new staff
    performance appraisal system. Further steps are needed, however, to
    implement other human capital reforms. For example, U.N. officials cited
    the need to develop a system to efficiently screen the increased number of
    applications received through the online hiring system.

    o  	The United Nations recognized that it lacked a system to evaluate the
    effectiveness of its activities and eliminate programs that were obsolete
    and did not address immediate priorities. In response, it began to adopt
    performance-oriented budgeting in December 2000. A performanceoriented
    budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget that
    reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted activities
    to performance expectations; (2) a system to regularly monitor and
    evaluate the impact of programs; and (3) procedures to shift resources to
    meet program objectives. The United Nations has the first key element in
    place but does not systematically monitor and evaluate program performance
    to determine the relevance of programs so that it can eliminate obsolete
    programs and move resources to priority programs. However, the Secretariat
    is implementing a strategy to strengthen program monitoring and
    evaluation. The General Assembly also adopted an initiative to strengthen
    the role of one of its oversight committees

    responsible for program monitoring and evaluation, but the General
    Assembly does not evaluate the Secretariat's program results to reallocate
    resources to new priorities.

    o  	Several internal and external management reviews concluded that the
    Secretariat should manage its public information activities-including the
    U.N.'s worldwide information offices, libraries, and publications-in a
    more efficient, cost-effective manner. The 2002 reform agenda called for
    the reorganization of the Department of Public Information, both at
    headquarters and in the field, to reduce duplicative activities, leverage
    cost-saving technology, and focus its staff on achieving and measuring
    results. These reforms are substantially in place. However, reforms to
    improve outdated library technology and streamline the Secretariat's
    duplicative publications are only partly in place. The success of the
    latter will depend on the willingness of Secretariat officials and the
    General Assembly to identify unneeded publications and discontinue
    duplicative mandated activities.

    o  	Based on internal management reviews, the Secretary General called for
    reforms of the Secretariat's human rights office to improve its financial,
    human capital, and program management. Although we found that these
    reforms are substantially in place, the Secretary General does not have
    the authority to implement other human rights reforms outside the
    Secretariat. For example, the Secretary General called for improvements to
    the quality of reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights by
    individuals and groups that monitor and report on human rights situations
    worldwide. In response, the Secretariat's human rights office requested
    and received funding for additional staff to assist these reporters.
    However, the Secretary General cannot implement other proposed
    improvements, such as setting selection criteria for the reporters or
    rating their performance in producing reports.

    We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's ability
    to meet the overall goals of the reforms. First, the Secretariat does not
    conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of
    reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat cannot determine if it
    is meeting the Secretary General's overall reform goals or identify areas
    where further improvements are needed. Second, the 2002 reform agenda did
    not differentiate between short- and long-term goals. Setting
    implementation goals and a timeline is a key practice for organizations

    engaged in change management initiatives.5 Third, some managers have
    resisted implementing certain reforms, but their support is critical for
    the institutionalization of reforms in the long term. Fourth, several U.N.
    officials we spoke with stated that reforms were delayed because
    additional resources were not made available for their implementation. The
    Secretary General stated that departments would need to implement reforms
    within existing resources because additional funding would not be
    available in the regular budget.

    This report makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and the
    Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to
    work with other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1)
    report regularly on the status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and
    other reforms that may follow; (2) differentiate between short- and
    longterm reform goals and establish expected time frames for completion of
    those reforms that are not in place; and (3) conduct assessments of the
    financial and personnel implications associated with the implementation of
    the reforms.

    We received written comments from the Department of State and the United
    Nations, which we have reprinted in appendixes III and IV. Both State and
    the United Nations generally agreed with our findings and recommendations
    and commented on ongoing reform efforts.

    Background 	The United Nations comprises (1) the Security Council, the
    General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other governing
    bodies of member states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for
    U.N. programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the
    Secretary General, which carries out a large part of the mandated work;
    and (3) the funds and programs, such as the U.N. Development Program,
    which are authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of
    work. Many funds and programs have their own governing bodies and budgets
    (mainly paid for by voluntary contributions from participating nations).
    The Secretary General's reform initiatives do not apply to specialized
    agencies-such as the World Health Organization and the Food and

    5U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation
    Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669
    (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

    Agricultural Organization-and programs that have their own governing
    bodies.

    Calls to reform the United Nations began soon after its creation in 1945.
    Despite cycles of reform, U.N. member states have had concerns about
    inefficient operations; problems of fragmentation, duplication, and poor
    coordination; and the proliferation of mandates. As one of the 191 member
    states, the United States played a significant role in promoting U.N.
    reform, calling for financial, administrative, and programmatic changes.
    The State Department and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations actively
    promoted these reforms such as establishing inspector general's offices,
    many of which have been implemented. The State Department continues to
    promote further reforms and reports on the status of major reform
    initiatives to the U.S. Congress (see fig. 1).

    In July 1997, the Secretary General proposed a broad reform program to
    transform the United Nations into an efficient organization focused on
    achieving results as it carried out its mandates. Although the Secretary
    General does not have direct authority over specialized agencies and many
    funds and programs, the reforms at the Secretariat were intended to serve
    as a model for U.N.-wide reforms. In May 2000, we reported that the
    Secretariat had substantially restructured its leadership and operations
    and partly implemented a performance-oriented human capital management
    system. However, performance-oriented programming and budgeting proposals
    had not yet been adopted.

    Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present

    In September 2002, the Secretary General released a second set of reform
    initiatives with 36 reform actions, some expanding on previous reform
    initiatives introduced in 1997 and others reflecting new priorities for
    the organization. The overall goal was to align U.N. activities with the
    priorities defined by the Millennium Declaration6 and the new security
    environment.

    6In 2000, the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration, which
    contains a set of priorities and specific time frames for meeting
    development goals. The Millennium Declaration and the Secretary General's
    Road Map toward implementation of the U.N. Millennium Declaration provide
    the overall priorities for all U.N. activities.

      Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, but Further
      Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms

    As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 1997 reforms and 38 percent of the
    2002 reforms were fully or substantially in place-or 51 percent overall
    (see app. II for the status of U.N. reforms). The Secretary General set a
    target date of 1999 for the implementation of reforms in the 1997 agenda,
    which consisted of initiatives that he could implement on his own
    authority and those that required member states' approval. Of these
    reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of those reforms
    under his authority, while 44 percent of reforms requiring member states'
    approval were in place. However, the outputs of many reforms, such as
    developing a written plan or establishing a new office, are only the first
    step in achieving the Secretary General's overall reform goals. Although
    many of these reforms are in place, departments and offices in the
    Secretariat are still institutionalizing these new plans to improve U.N.
    operations in the long term.

        Secretariat Is Implementing Reforms, but Those Requiring Member State
        Approval Take Longer to Implement

    Since our May 2000 report, the United Nations continued to implement
    reforms from the Secretary General's 1997 reform agenda and began to
    implement initiatives from the 2002 agenda (see fig. 2). We found that 60
    percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda were in place,
    compared with 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the 2002 agenda.
    Overall, 51 percent of reforms from the 1997 and 2002 agendas were in
    place. We identified a total of 154 reform initiatives from the 1997 and
    2002 reform agendas. This number differs from U.N. figures because many of
    the Secretary General's reform action items had several components that we
    identified and counted as separate initiatives. To determine the
    implementation status of these reforms, we interviewed senior U.N.
    officials and reviewed relevant reports, bulletins, and resolutions. We
    then rated the reforms as

    o  	in place or substantially so-that is, the reform had been approved and
    most key and minor elements were in place;

    o  	partly in place-that is, the reform had been approved, and some key
    elements, as well as some or most minor elements, were in place; or

    o  	not in place-that is, the reform had not been formally approved and
    minor elements could be in place, but no key elements were in place (see
    app. I for a more detailed description of our methodology).

    Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms

    The implementation of reforms under the Secretary General's authority
    advanced faster than those under the authority of the member states. We
    found that 70 percent of the 56 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform
    agenda under his authority are fully or substantially in place, compared
    with 44 percent of the 32 initiatives requiring member state approval (see
    fig. 3). The 2002 agenda did not differentiate between initiatives that
    the Secretary General could implement on his own authority and those that
    required member states' approval.

    Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms

    In particular, the Secretariat made the most progress on the 1997 reforms
    to

    o  	restructure U.N. operations to provide more unified leadership and
    coordination across departments, programs, and offices;

    o  	institute a new human capital management system that sets expectations
    and rates staff performance; and

    o  adopt results-based budgeting.

    However, the General Assembly did not adopt many reforms, such as those to

    o  further shorten the length and reduce the cost of its annual meetings;

    o  focus the assembly's yearly debates on a few priority areas; and

    o  institute time limits, or sunset provisions, for all new U.N. programs.

    Delays in acquiring member state approval are due, in part, to the longer
    time needed for the General Assembly to reach agreement. To pass
    resolutions in favor of most specific reforms, the General Assembly
    generally requires a majority vote from the 191 member states.7 Although
    the Secretary General acknowledged that these reforms would take longer to
    implement, he set the end of 1999 as the target date to complete the 1997
    reforms. However, we found that approximately 40 percent of these reforms
    are not fully in place.

        Secretariat Will Need to Take Additional Steps to Achieve the Secretary
        General's Overall Goals

    More than one-quarter of the Secretary General's completed reforms, such
    as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, only represent
    the first steps in achieving longer-term and more important goals. The
    Secretariat's departments and offices must then use these new plans and
    offices to improve U.N. operations for the long term. For example, the
    Secretary General directed the Secretariat to develop a plan to improve
    its information technology systems. We found that the Secretariat
    implemented a plan to upgrade software programs, enhance inter-office
    communication between headquarters and the field, and train staff in the
    use of these new systems. However, member states must continue to invest
    the necessary resources for the plan's implementation to ensure that the
    technology does not become obsolete and to have an impact on U.N.
    operations in the long term.

    In addition, the Secretary General created several new offices as part of
    his reform initiatives. These include a strategic planning office in the
    Secretariat, an office to coordinate emergency humanitarian relief
    programs, and an office in Vienna to manage the U.N.'s interrelated
    programs to combat crime, drugs, and terrorism. Although the establishment
    of any new office can be counted as a completed reform, it is only the
    first step toward impacting the effectiveness of U.N. operations and
    achieving the Secretary General's overall reform goals. GAO has previously
    reported that building an effective department that can meet overall
    objectives requires several components, including a staff, financial
    resources, and performance goals to measure progress toward objectives.8

    7Reforms to change the budgeting process require a two-thirds majority
    vote of member states.

    8U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program
    Risks: Department of Homeland Security, GAO-03-102 (Washington, D.C.:
    January 2003).

      Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, but Overall
      Impact Is Still Not Clear

    We found that the U.N. has implemented many reforms in four key areas: (1)
    human capital management, (2) performance-oriented budgeting, (3) public
    information activities, and (4) the human rights program. Although
    numerous key initiatives are in place, other tasks are not yet complete,
    such as strengthening the U.N.'s monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to
    measure program impact and issuing additional guidelines on the new
    worldwide staff rotation, or mobility, policy. Therefore, the impact of
    these reforms on the effectiveness of U.N. operations is unclear.

        Positive Steps Taken to Strengthen Human Capital Management, but
        Implementation of Reforms Is Ongoing and Additional Challenges Remain

    Secretariat's Reform Strategy Addresses Key Elements of Strategic Human
    Capital Management

    In response to human capital concerns raised by U.N. officials and outside
    observers, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire
    staff, the Secretariat developed a reform strategy to address the key
    elements of human capital management. The strategy included the
    implementation of a new recruitment and placement system that
    decentralized hiring authority and, according to U.N. officials,
    significantly reduced the average time to hire staff. Additional steps are
    needed, however, to fully implement reforms and address remaining
    challenges. For example, U.N. officials cited the need to develop a system
    to efficiently screen the increased number of applications received
    through the online hiring system.

    The Secretary General's reform strategy called for changes to the
    Secretariat's human capital management to create a results-oriented
    organizational culture supporting high performance, increased training,
    and more effective management. The United Nations' human capital
    management had long been criticized by U.N. officials and external
    observers for the extensive time required for recruiting and hiring, the
    need for increased accountability for performance, and limited development
    and promotion opportunities. In his 1997 plan, the Secretary General
    stated that human capital management has been characterized by
    labor-intensive day-to-day staff administration and cumbersome rules and
    processes. He further stated that these rules and processes were seen as
    impeding program delivery and not maximizing staff contributions. The
    reform initiatives also attempted to bring human capital policies up to
    date with changes that had taken place within the organization, such as
    the move from being primarily headquarters-based to having an increasingly
    large field presence.

    In 2000, the Secretariat expanded the reforms by developing a broader
    human capital reform strategy. GAO has developed a human capital model
    that highlights the steps that organizations can take in managing human
    capital strategically. This model encompasses four human capital

    cornerstones that, when taken together, embody an approach to human
    capital management that is fact-based and focused on program results and
    mission accomplishment. We found that the Secretariat's reform strategy
    includes actions in the areas of GAO's four cornerstones of strategic
    human capital management-leadership; strategic human capital planning;
    acquiring, developing, and retaining talent; and results-oriented
    organizational cultures (see fig. 4).9

    9U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital
    Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

                     Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform

    Leadership 	Leadership is defined as the demonstrated commitment of top
    leaders to continuously improve human capital management and support
    efforts to integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals.
    Soon after taking office, the Secretary General developed the 1997 reform
    plan for the Secretariat. He established a new leadership and management
    structure and began overhauling human capital policies to align the
    organization's human capital capacity with its mission and structure. The
    Secretary General also established core organizational values and
    competencies to develop a results-oriented culture and has used this model
    to improve

    Strategic Human Capital Planning

    recruitment, staff development, and performance management processes. The
    Secretary General's 2002 reform plan further emphasized the need for human
    capital improvements, including increased opportunities for staff mobility
    and expanded career prospects for support staff.

    The leadership cornerstone also emphasizes that human capital
    professionals have an expanded role, beyond paperwork processing, to
    become more integrated in the work of the organization. The Secretariat's
    Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has begun to take on
    additional responsibilities, including developing human capital policies,
    monitoring compliance with these policies, and providing guidance on human
    capital issues. In addition, OHRM has begun to provide more automated
    services to employees. For example, the office has streamlined human
    capital rules and procedures and has made the Human Resources Handbook and
    personnel forms available online. U.N. employees reported in a survey that
    the streamlining of rules and procedures was the most successful human
    capital reform implemented since 2000.

    To improve strategic human capital planning, the second cornerstone, the
    Secretariat is developing its workforce planning activities through
    analysis of the demographic characteristics of Secretariat staff, while
    departmental staffing goals are being integrated with the organization's
    broader human capital objectives. The Secretariat's departments and
    offices also are preparing action plans, which incorporate human capital
    goals and indicators. OHRM holds planning sessions with the head of each
    department to develop measurable targets for achieving human capital
    goals, including targets for hiring staff from unrepresented or
    underrepresented countries. OHRM monitors the implementation of these
    action plans through semiannual reviews of the departments' progress in
    meeting their goals.

    The Secretariat also is making increased use of information technology in
    implementing reforms. The electronic Human Resources Handbook, the online
    hiring system, and the electronic performance appraisal system are new
    technology tools that the Secretariat is using to manage human capital.
    Historically, the Secretariat had unique job profiles for most positions,
    but the new recruiting and placement system makes use of generic job
    descriptions in advertising job openings. U.N. officials stated that these
    generic job profiles have increased the accessibility and transparency of
    the application and hiring process and have facilitated staff's ability to
    move to positions in other departments or offices.

    Acquiring, Developing, and Retaining Talent

    Results-Oriented Organizational Cultures

    To acquire, develop, and retain talent, the third cornerstone, the
    Secretariat introduced a new recruitment and placement system in 2002 that
    entrusts program managers with the responsibility and accountability for
    hiring decisions. U.N. officials stated that the new hiring system has
    streamlined the hiring process, contributing to a significant reduction in
    the average time to hire an employee. In addition, an online tool allows
    individuals to submit their applications through the Internet. U.N.
    officials stated that this tool provides information on the status of
    applications and on management indicators, such as the gender balance and
    geographic distribution of applicants.

    The Secretariat also increased the emphasis on training and developing
    managers' skills. Although U.N. officials acknowledged that more resources
    are needed for training, the organization is providing mandatory people
    management training for supervisory staff. The Secretariat also has
    implemented a career development policy based on the newly developed core
    competencies for managers and staff. Under this policy, managers must
    demonstrate support for their staff's development and career progress.
    Finally, the Secretariat has implemented new initiatives to improve the
    work environment for staff. For example, employees now have more flexible
    work arrangements to address their personnel needs.

    The key to developing results-oriented organizational cultures, the fourth
    cornerstone, is to create a clear link between individual performance and
    organizational success.10 To do this, the Secretary General is holding
    senior managers accountable for accomplishing human capital goals through
    the use of annual performance agreements. On an annual basis, the
    Secretary General meets individually with department heads to discuss
    human capital priorities and goals for the upcoming year and to review
    indicators, such as the percentage of women in staff and management
    positions and the percentage of vacant positions. For these indicators,
    the managers' departments are measured against the Secretariat's overall
    average and their targets for the year. Program managers have been able to
    electronically track these and other indicators daily using a new tool
    developed by the Department of Management.

    10U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a
    Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational Success,
    GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

    Secretariat Faces Challenges in Its Efforts to Achieve Its Human Capital
    Reform Goals

    The Secretary General also implemented a new electronic performance
    appraisal system, introduced in 2002. Rather than having performance
    management take place once a year, the new system emphasizes regular
    conversations and feedback between staff and supervisors related to staff
    performance. Under the system, staff also are assessed against newly
    developed organizationwide competencies. Examples of the Secretariat's
    core staff competencies include communication, teamwork, commitment to
    continuous learning, and technological awareness. Managers also are
    assessed under additional competencies such as leadership, empowering
    others, and building trust. In addition, the new performance appraisal
    system links the individual's performance to departmental or team goals
    and provides mechanisms for dealing with poor performers. Staff that have
    not met performance expectations under the appraisal system may have their
    salary increases withheld or could face the termination of their
    employment contracts.

    The Secretariat has made progress in implementing its reform agenda, but
    it must address additional human capital challenges if it is to meet the
    Secretary General's overall reform goals. Key challenges include (1)
    delegating increased authority and accountability for personnel actions to
    managers, (2) implementing the organization's staff mobility policy, (3)
    developing a long-range workforce planning capacity, and (4) screening the
    significant increase in applications received through the new recruiting
    system. In addition, although the Secretariat has an overall reform
    strategy in place, this strategy does not include specific time frames to
    complete reform actions. Establishing time frames at the outset provides a
    baseline for assessing the Secretariat's progress in implementing reforms
    and achieving its overall human capital reform goals.

    First, U.N. officials we met with stated that OHRM has not gone far enough
    in delegating authority for personnel decisions to program managers, a
    component of the leadership cornerstone. For example, U.N. officials
    stated that offices and programs working on humanitarian or development
    assistance often needed to hire staff quickly during crisis situations
    around the world. However, according to these officials, U.N. rules and
    procedures have been a barrier to the hiring process. These officials
    pointed out that the delegated hiring authority is only for employees
    under regular budget positions11 on longer-term contracts. Field-based
    programs and offices often hire staff under short-term contracts. U.N.
    officials stated

    11Regular budget positions are those funded from the U.N. regular budget.

    that the authority to hire these staff has not been decentralized. In his
    2002 reform plan, the Secretary General also acknowledged the need to
    further delegate responsibilities to managers.

    Second, one of the Secretary General's major reform initiatives was the
    implementation of a staff mobility policy intended to facilitate the
    movement of staff within and between offices and duty stations. The policy
    establishes time limits of either 5 or 6 years for staff to occupy a
    position, depending on the staff's grade level. Although the human capital
    office is developing incentives for staff to move to hardship duty
    stations, U.N. officials have identified key challenges that may impede
    the successful implementation of the mobility policy when the requirements
    go into effect in 2007. U.N. staff, for example, are employed under
    different types of contracts, some of which place restrictions on the
    duration of employment and the type of work an employee can undertake.
    U.N. officials stated that the differences in employment contracts would
    make it difficult to move staff to certain positions or locations. Another
    barrier to staff mobility is spousal employment. Some countries place visa
    and work permit restrictions on hiring U.N. employees' spouses. The
    Secretary General has begun to negotiate with countries to ease the
    restrictions on the employment of U.N. spouses.

    A related challenge is the need for further improvements in strategic
    workforce planning, linked to strategic goals and objectives. Long-range
    workforce planning will enable the organization to remain aware of and be
    prepared for its current and future needs as an organization. The
    Secretary General has recognized the need for building this capacity,
    emphasizing the need for more systematic succession planning to account
    for the expected increase in retirement of U.N. staff. Ultimately, the
    success of an organization's workforce planning process can be judged by
    its results- how well it helps the agency attain its mission and strategic
    goals.12 We have reported that other countries' succession planning and
    management initiatives have addressed specific human capital challenges,
    such as retention and the identification of staff with critical skills.13

    12U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for
    Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.:
    December 2003).

    13U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Insights for U.S.
    Agencies from Other Countries' Succession Planning and Management
    Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003).

    Finally, U.N. officials stated that the Secretariat's new recruiting and
    placement system has made screening the increased number of incoming
    applications a challenge. These officials stated that the organization now
    receives an average of approximately 1,000 applications for each vacancy
    announcement, compared with a previous average of about 100 applications
    per opening. U.N. officials have recognized that it will be a challenge to
    develop an electronic mechanism to effectively and accurately screen the
    growing numbers of applications received.

        Performance-Oriented Budgeting Is Being Adopted, but Monitoring and
        Evaluation System Does Not Measure Program Impact and Results

    U.N. Budget Reflects New Results-Based Focus, but Some Performance
    Indicators Do Not Measure Results

    The United Nations has begun to adopt performance-oriented budgeting, but
    it lacks an adequate monitoring and evaluation system to measure program
    performance and results. GAO has reported that a performanceoriented
    budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget that
    reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted activities
    to performance expectations; (2) a monitoring and evaluation system; and
    (3) procedures for shifting resources to meet program objectives.14 In
    December 2000, the United Nations adopted a results-based structure for
    its budgets. We found that this format at the United Nations has resulted
    in clearer linkages between program activities and expected results, but
    some performance indicators lack clear measures to assess results. We also
    found that existing U.N. monitoring and evaluation activities do not
    systematically measure program performance and impact. Consequently, the
    Secretariat has developed and is implementing a strategy to improve
    performance monitoring and evaluation. In December 2003, the General
    Assembly also adopted an initiative to strengthen the role of one of its
    oversight committees responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs,
    but the General Assembly does not evaluate the Secretariat's program
    results to reallocate resources to new priorities.

    The Secretariat has implemented the first key element of the U.N.'s
    performance-oriented budgeting framework by adopting a budget that
    reflects a results-based budgeting format, which involves specifying
    program costs, objectives, expected results, and specific performance
    indicators to measure the results. GAO previously reported that linking

    14U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency Progress in
    Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial Statements, GAO-02-236
    (Washington, D.C.: January 2002); Program Evaluation: Studies Helped
    Agencies Measure or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204
    (Washington, D.C.: September 2000); Performance Budgeting: Opportunities
    and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).

    funding to specific performance goals is a critical first step in
    supporting the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable
    organization.15 Expected results and performance indicators are intended
    to allow the Secretariat to track the progress its programs make to meet
    objectives. By approving the budget, the General Assembly can hold the
    Secretariat accountable for meeting expected results.

    The Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts, which prepares and
    reviews the Secretariat's budget, issued guidelines and provided training
    sessions to assist program managers and other staff in preparing budget
    proposals in a results-based format. This office also created a Web site,
    which is updated regularly, to post information on best practices and
    lessons learned. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
    Questions16 noted an improvement in the clarity and detail of expected
    results and performance indicators between the 2002-2003 biennium budget,
    which was the first submitted in a results-based format, and the 2004-2005
    budget.17 Figure 5 compares the 2002-2003 performance indicators for the
    deployment of peacekeeping police units with those developed for the
    2004-2005 budget. For the first time, the 2004-2005 budget includes
    specific performance targets and baseline data for many performance
    indicators that can help measure performance over time and could allow
    program managers to compare actual achievements to expected results. For
    example, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations plans to use baseline
    data at the end of the budget period to determine whether it will be able
    to deploy police units for peacekeeping operations more quickly.

    15U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency Progress in
    Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial Statements, GAO-02-236
    (Washington, D.C.: January 2002).

    16The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reviews
    financial documents submitted by the Secretariat to the General Assembly.

    17See First Report on the Proposed Program Budget for the Biennium
    2004-2005, Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
    (New York: United Nations, Aug. 5, 2003).

    Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying Police
    Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005

    However, oversight committees18 also reported that some programs still
    lack clear and concise expected outcomes and performance indicators. For
    example, the Secretariat established an indicator to measure increased
    coordination among U.N. agencies and programs, the Bretton Woods
    institutions, and the World Trade Organization, and called for "closer
    collaboration" to improve the delivery of economic assistance and
    development projects. The associated performance target consists of the
    estimated number of meetings among these institutions, but does not
    describe what these meetings are to accomplish or how they will improve
    coordination. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
    Questions reported that it cannot determine the impact of these
    activities, which would cost close to $10 million in the 2004-2005 budget
    period. It

    18In this report, U.N. oversight committees refer to the Committee for
    Program and Coordination, which reviews the U.N.'s planning and budgeting
    documents and the work planned under each program, and the Advisory
    Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. These committees
    report to the Fifth Committee, which is the General Assembly committee
    responsible for financial oversight of the Secretariat.

    Secretariat's Monitoring and Evaluation Inadequate to Measure Program
    Impact, but Strategy Developed to Strengthen System

    recommended that indicators, such as "closer collaboration" or "full
    utilization of resources," should be replaced with more specific and
    concrete measurements. The vagueness of some of these indicators, however,
    stems from the fact that baseline information has not been collected or is
    missing due to inconsistent monitoring of program activities, according to
    officials from the Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts.

    The Secretariat does not systematically monitor and evaluate program
    impact or resultsthe second key element of performance-oriented
    budgeting. U.N. regulations require that programs should be regularly
    monitored and evaluated to determine their relevance, effectiveness, and
    impact in relation to their objectives.19 Program managers are responsible
    for monitoring and evaluating programs to assess their impact and to
    determine the extent to which changes are needed to meet expected results.
    However, in 2002, the Office of Internal Oversight Services20 (OIOS) found
    that program managers and department and office heads were not complying
    with U.N. regulations. For example, both OIOS and oversight committees
    reported in 2002 that nearly half of program managers were not regularly
    monitoring and evaluating program performance. In addition, program
    managers were not held directly accountable for meeting program objectives
    because U.N. regulations prevent linking program effectiveness and impact
    with program managers' performance. U.N. officials told us that a more
    mature program monitoring and evaluation system is needed before program
    managers can be held responsible for program performance.

    We found that there were a variety of problems related to the
    Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation of program results and impact.
    Most programs do not have comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plans
    and, in many cases, no systematic management review of evaluations. For
    example, department heads and program managers did not directly review the
    results of evaluation activities, consistent with U.N. guidance, in 13 out
    of 25 programs surveyed in 2001.21 OIOS reported that, overall, evaluation

    19See Regulations and Rules Governing Program Planning, the Program
    Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods of
    Evaluation (New York: United Nations, Apr. 19, 2000).

    20OIOS is the United Nations' audit and internal evaluation unit.

    21Statistics are current as of Jan. 1, 2004. OIOS will review the
    Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation activities for the 2002-2003
    biennium in 2004.

    General Assembly Lacks System to Evaluate Program Results to Shift
    Resources to New Priorities

    findings were not used to improve program performance. In some cases, such
    as with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, monitoring
    and evaluation responsibilities were assigned to low-level staff with
    minimal oversight from program managers. Further, adequate levels of staff
    time and other resources needed to conduct evaluations have never been
    assessed and programs were not regularly monitored and evaluated,
    according to the U.N.'s oversight office. For example, all U.N. programs
    supporting the economic and social development of Asia and the Pacific,
    which cost approximately $25 million for the biennium, were not evaluated
    in 2000 and 2001. Lastly, for the majority of programs, no resources have
    been specifically allocated for activities related to monitoring and
    evaluation.

    To address these weaknesses, the Secretary General tasked the Monitoring,
    Evaluation, and Consulting Division of OIOS to develop a strategy to
    systematically monitor and evaluate program results and to introduce
    information systems needed to implement results-based budgeting. The
    division began to implement its strategy in 2002 and expects to have a
    complete system by 2006. As part of its strategy, OIOS introduced an
    Internet-based system that allows program managers to prepare periodic
    assessments of program impact against stated objectives. Program managers
    are required to submit performance assessments after 12 and 18 months, and
    at the end of the budget period. OIOS officials stated that this would
    allow them to adjust the direction of their program to meet objectives
    before the end of the budget cycle. In addition, OIOS is updating its
    guidelines on monitoring and evaluation, which describe new data
    collection methods, such as online surveys, to monitor results and
    evaluation methods to report on results.

    We found that the final component of performance-oriented budgeting-
    procedures to review evaluation results, eliminate obsolete programs, and
    move resources to new priority programs-is not in place. The Advisory
    Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reported in 2003 that
    it did not receive systematic information from the Secretariat on program
    impact and effectiveness to determine whether a program was meeting its
    expected results. The Secretariat's strategy to improve program monitoring
    and evaluation is part of an effort to provide the General Assembly with
    better program assessments. However, in 2003, the Secretary General
    reported that the General Assembly's oversight system was ill-suited to
    review the Secretariat's evaluation results and to determine how best to
    distribute resources.

    In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General proposed redefining the
    roles of U.N. oversight committees to focus on reviewing program results.
    In December 2003, the General Assembly passed a resolution changing the
    role of the Committee for Program and Coordination, the first step toward
    shifting the focus of oversight responsibility to assessing program
    impact. The committee now focuses exclusively on reviewing activities
    planned to meet program objectives and no longer reviews budgeting
    information. Although several committees review the U.N.'s planning and
    budgeting documents for the next biennium period, these committees do not
    systematically review programs to assess the impact of previous activities
    and determine the appropriate level of funding (see fig. 6).

    Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets

    According to the Joint Inspection Unit,22 the planning and budgeting
    review process was duplicative and redundant. In addition, the costs of
    preparing and printing documents, servicing close to 300 meetings, and
    staff time for this review have exceeded $20 million a biennium, with
    little emphasis placed on evaluating program performance. To shift the
    focus to evaluating results, the General Assembly in December 2003
    required the Committee for Program and Coordination to submit a proposal
    on ways to

    22The Joint Inspection Unit is an investigative unit with broad authority
    to examine the efficiency of all U.N. organizations.

    improve its ability to monitor and evaluate program impact. The Secretary
    General recommended that the committee assess the results achieved at the
    end of the budget period and establish priorities to guide the allocation
    of resources. This would support performance-oriented budgeting, according
    to Joint Inspection Unit officials.

    In August 2003, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
    Questions concluded that the General Assembly could not eliminate programs
    and shift resources until it received evaluations that addressed program
    impact. Performance information is necessary for decisionmaking bodies to
    determine whether programs are meeting their stated objectives.23 Program
    performance reports provided to member states focused on outputs (such as
    the number of staff recruited, reports issued, meetings held, or computers
    purchased), instead of measuring program impact. To address this concern,
    OIOS changed the format of the performance report, which now requires
    program managers to link resources to program activities and to use
    performance indicators to measure program impact. The program performance
    report for the 20022003 biennium, which will be submitted by March 2004,
    will be the first prepared using the new format.

    In December 2003, the General Assembly approved the elimination of 912
    outputs in the 2004-2005 program budget based on the Secretariat's review
    of program activities and more than 50,000 outputs. In addition, as a
    result of this review, the General Assembly has shifted resources from
    these activities-deemed obsolete and inefficient by the Secretariat-to
    more immediate U.N. priorities. In 2003, the Advisory Committee on
    Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Committee for Program and
    Coordination recommended that program managers in the Secretariat continue
    to identify obsolete outputs in U.N. budgets in compliance with U.N.
    regulations. The committees also reported that many sections in the budget
    lacked justifications for continuing certain outputs.

        Majority of Reforms of U.N. Public Information Activities Still in Early
        Phases

    We found that the Secretariat had implemented some reforms related to U.N.
    public information activities, but most were still in the early phases.
    With a biennium budget of approximately $156 million, the Department of
    Public Information undertakes news coverage of U.N. events through radio,
    video, and the Internet in six official languages; manages the U.N.

    23U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and
    Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).

    Reorganization of Headquarters and Branch Offices Substantially in Place

    Web site; manages its overseas branch offices;24 and oversees the Dag
    Hammarskjold library and coordinates with depository libraries
    worldwide.25 Following a series of management reviews of U.N. public
    information activities, the Secretary General restructured the department
    to improve its ability to develop coherent, cost-effective communications
    strategies to promote the U.N.'s priorities. In addition, the Secretary
    General consolidated department branch offices in Western Europe into a
    regional branch office in Brussels, Belgium. However, we found that
    reforms of other public information activities are not yet in place. For
    example, reforms related to the Department of Public Information's program
    monitoring and evaluation and library management, as well as the
    Secretariat's publications oversight, are still in the early stages of
    implementation and have had a limited effect on the effectiveness of
    public information activities, according to U.N. officials.

    Since 1948, internal oversight bodies and external groups have conducted
    at least seven periodic management reviews of public information policies
    and activities. However, these reviews resulted in few changes to the
    Department of Public Information's operations. Member states continued to
    criticize the department, claiming that it did not adequately assess the
    impact of its activities. In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General
    highlighted that fact that the department suffered from fragmented
    programs because of too many mandates and missions.

    To better align the Department of Public Information's structure with its
    mandated activities, highlight priorities, and reduce fragmentation, the
    Secretary General reorganized the department into three divisions in
    November 2002: (1) the Outreach Division, which focuses on relationships
    with civil society, including outreach to educational institutions, and
    manages the Dag Hammarskjold Library in New York; (2) the News and Media
    Division, which aims to expand the United Nations' access to media
    organizations worldwide; and (3) the Strategic Communications Division,
    which develops the U.N's communications strategies in partnership with the
    Secretariat's departments and manages the network of overseas branch
    offices. Within this third division, the department created focal points
    that work across the Secretariat's departments in priority areas-

    24In this report, we refer to U.N. Information Centers as branch offices.

    25The department also maintains relationships and establishes partnerships
    with media groups and civil society groups, including nongovernmental
    organizations and educational institutions, and organizes special events
    and exhibits with other U.N. partners.

    Additional Reforms of Public Information Activities Are Partly in Place

    including development, peace and security, Africa, human rights,
    Palestine, and decolonization-to identify communications strategies and
    reduce duplicative programs. In its spring 2003 session, delegates to the
    Committee on Information26 commented that the department's new structure
    should help focus the department's activities and maximize the use of its
    resources.

    To improve the cost efficiency of the department's field operations, the
    Secretary General proposed changes to the structure of public information
    branch offices. Branch offices in developed countries-including the United
    States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union-accounted for 40 percent
    of all branch office expenditures, as of September 2002. Therefore, the
    Department of Public Information was devoting a large amount of funding to
    information activities in countries where available technology permitted
    greater online access to its services in the field. In 2003, internal
    auditors concluded that the department should evaluate these offices and
    consider options such as consolidation, regionalization, or closure. Based
    in part on these findings, the Secretary General created a regional branch
    office in Brussels in January 2004 and consolidated offices in nine
    European Union countries as part of his 2002 reform agenda.27 At its
    spring 2004 session, the Committee on Information will review a progress
    report on the implementation of the regionalization proposal to determine
    the feasibility of applying the initiative in other regions.

    The Secretariat has begun implementing additional reforms of other public
    information activities, but we found that these initiatives are only
    partly in place. The Secretary General stated that the department had
    historically devoted minimal attention to assessing the impact of its
    activities and that a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of its
    activities had never been conducted. Therefore, in 2003, the Department of
    Public Information and internal auditors began a 3-year joint process to
    evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the department's activities
    through an annual review process.28 As part of its efforts to promote
    monitoring and evaluation, the department provides ongoing training for
    staff in results-based

    26The General Assembly's oversight Committee on Information meets annually
    to examine the U.N.'s public information activities.

    27The offices in Athens, Bonn, Brussels, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London,
    Madrid, Paris, and Rome were consolidated.

    28The Department of Public Information will report the results from its
    first program impact review to the Committee on Information in 2004.

    management within existing resources-a challenge, according to public
    information officials. Although these activities are still under way, an
    official from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that the
    department had taken positive steps to implement reforms to improve its
    monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

    Reforms of U.N. libraries are also in the early phases. The United Nations
    has library collections in each of its headquarters offices and regional
    commissions, as well as libraries in many of the 62 branch offices and
    other depositories worldwide. The Secretary General reported in 2002 that
    the public information department needed to centralize library policy
    management and increase its use of technology in providing library
    services. In response, it established a steering committee in March 2003
    to oversee the implementation of reforms, such as increasing the use of
    online archival systems for library collections and expanding information
    sharing among libraries to reduce duplication. The department plans to
    report to the Committee on Information in 2004 on its progress in
    implementing these reforms.

    Lastly, the implementation of reforms of publications activities is still
    under way. The Secretary General directed all departments to identify
    outdated or duplicative publications from more than 1,200 produced
    annually. We reported in 2000 that a review of U.N. publications in the
    economic and social affairs area found considerable redundancy and
    overlap.29 Publications activities are also extremely costly. For example,
    the U.N. Chronicle-a publication for teachers and students of world
    affairs-produced by the public information department-costs more than $1
    million annually to publish. In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary
    General called for a review of the feasibility and cost of increasing
    online publications delivery, as opposed to printing certain publications.
    This review is not yet complete. To improve publications oversight, the
    relevant executive committees30 must approve all new publications proposed
    by the Secretariat pursuant to the 2002 reform plan. Overall, officials
    stated that the implementation of publications reform will depend on the
    willingness

    29GAO/NSIAD-00-150.

    30There are four executive committees-Peace and Security, Humanitarian
    Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs, and the Development Group-headed by
    Under Secretaries General, who oversee the activities of the Secretariat's
    departments and offices. For example, the Executive Committee on Peace and
    Security oversees the Department of Political Affairs. A representative of
    the High Commissioner for Human Rights serves on all four committees.

    of Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to identify unneeded
    publications and discontinue duplicative mandates. On a positive note, in
    December 2003, the General Assembly approved the Secretary General's
    2004-2005 budget proposal calling for the discontinuation of 192
    publications and reports.

        Reforms of the U.N. Human Rights Program Outside the Secretariat's Authority
        Are Incomplete

    Management of the U.N. Human Rights Program Is Complicated by Several
    Factors

    In recent years, management of the Secretariat's human rights office has
    been complicated by several factors, such as weak financial and program
    management and a heavy reliance on voluntary funding to administer core
    activities. In addition to technical assistance, training, publications,
    and human rights advocacy, the office provides support to other parts of
    the human rights program outside the Secretariat, such as the U.N.
    Commission on Human Rights. We found that the office has implemented
    reforms to address its management deficiencies. In addition, we found that
    the human rights office has implemented reforms to improve its support to
    the actors outside the Secretariat, including requesting funding for
    additional staff. However, the Secretary General only has authority over
    the management of the Secretariat's human rights office and cannot
    implement reforms across the entire U.N. human rights program, according
    to human rights officials.

    Several factors affect the management of the Office of the High
    Commissioner for Human Rights-the Secretariat's human rights office. For
    example, in 2002, OIOS concluded that the human rights office had poor
    financial controls and human capital management, as well as weak internal
    oversight procedures. According to a senior human rights official, for
    example, the office did not accurately track its unused voluntary funding
    in the past.31 According to the human rights office, this problem has been
    rectified and the office is tracking voluntary funding levels. In
    addition, the office relies heavily on voluntary funding to administer its
    core activities. Regular budget funding accounted for about 38 percent, or
    $24.2 million, of the office's activities in 2002, whereas voluntary
    contributions accounted for about 62 percent, or $40 million (see fig. 6
    for funding trends for the human rights office). Human rights officials
    stated that the heavy reliance on voluntary funding poses management

    31Donors, including governments, foundations, and private companies,
    provide voluntary contributions toward activities outlined in the human
    rights office's annual appeals. Ten major donors provided 81 percent of
    the office's total voluntary contributions in 2002.

    challenges, including the resulting uncertainty of funding for future
    projects and low morale among staff unsure about job security.

    Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends

    As shown in figure 8, the human rights office also provides
    administrative, technical, and substantive support to parts of the human
    rights program outside the Secretariat, including

    o  	the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is a functional commission
    of the Economic and Social Council that meets annually to discuss human
    rights issues and standards and governments' adherence to them;

    o  	independent reporters and working groups, appointed by the commission
    to examine, monitor, and publicly report on human rights situations in
    specific countries or territories or on major human rights themes-there

    are reporters who focus on the right to education and on the situation of
    human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;32 and

    o  	independent committees, established by international human rights
    treaties, comprising independent experts that monitor governments'
    compliance with treaty obligations.33

                          Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program

    Sources: GAO; and Nova Development (clip art).

    32The human rights reporters, or Special Rapporteurs, and working groups
    are known collectively as the Special Procedures of the Commission on
    Human Rights. In this report, we refer to them as human rights reporters
    and working groups.

    33There are seven committees or treaty-monitoring bodies. The committee
    members are elected by national governments that are party to the
    treaties. The human rights office provides support to all the committees
    except the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
    which receives support from the Division for the Advancement of Women in
    the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in New York.

    Secretary General Does Not Have Authority to Implement Reforms of Human
    Rights Activities outside Secretariat

    The workload generated by these independent groups affects the human
    rights office's management. For example, the office provides
    administrative support, such as report processing, to the monitoring
    committees and national governments to ensure compliance with treaty
    reporting requirements. As the number of signatories increases, the
    Secretariat's administrative burden increases. In addition, the Secretary
    General reported in 2002 that the more than 40 human rights reporters and
    working groups pose a management burden for the human rights office
    because they have grown in recent years in an ad hoc fashion and without
    clear rules for their responsibilities. The fragmentation and lack of
    clear working guidelines complicated the office's support to these
    individuals and groups in the preparation of reports to the commission. As
    an independent body, the Commission on Human Rights appoints new human
    rights reporters. However, OIOS reported that the General Assembly has not
    provided commensurate additional regular budget funding to the human
    rights office for their support. As a result, the office has increasingly
    resorted to using voluntary funding to recruit additional staff to fulfill
    its responsibilities to the commission and monitoring committees.

    The Secretary General's reform agendas called for the Secretariat's human
    rights office to develop a strategy to strengthen its financial and human
    capital management and internal oversight procedures, among other things.
    We found that the office has developed and is implementing this strategy.
    For example, it established both the senior-level Management Board and
    Project Review Committee, in 1997 and 1998, respectively, to monitor the
    planning, budgeting, and implementation of the office's programs and to
    identify outdated or nonpriority activities. The human rights office
    reported that it strengthened its program oversight and planning
    throughout 2003. Officials stated that the 2004 annual appeal, for
    example, presented a more strategic work plan than in prior years, which
    resulted in a 12 percent decline in voluntary funding requirements for the
    2004 annual appeal, from $62.5 million in 2003 to $54.8 million in 2004.
    In addition, the office established the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues
    in March 1999 to evaluate the office's use of temporary staff and staff
    funded with voluntary resources and ensure the equitable geographic
    distribution of staff from member states. It also restructured its three
    main branches to reduce duplicative activities and leverage its personnel
    and financial resources.

    We found that the human rights office has also implemented reforms that
    indirectly address areas of the U.N. human rights program outside the
    Secretary General's authority. For example, to help improve the quality of
    human rights reports, the office developed an induction kit for human

    rights reporters and working groups. The kit is updated regularly and used
    to brief new reporters on their rules and procedures. In addition, the
    office is working to keep them informed about the latest General Assembly
    resolutions that may affect reporting procedures, such as page limits and
    submission deadlines. In December 2003, the General Assembly also approved
    the Secretary General's request for funding in the 2004-2005 budget for
    additional staff to improve the office's ability to respond to increasing
    demands from the Commission on Human Rights and its human rights reporters
    and working groups.

    Nevertheless, the implementation of the Secretary General's proposals is
    incomplete because he does not have authority over human rights activities
    outside the Secretariat's human rights office. For example, because the
    majority of human rights reporters are selected by the chair of the
    Commission on Human Rights, the Secretariat's human rights office could
    only recommend that the commission consider developing criteria for their
    selection. Moreover, only the commission can determine standard entrance
    criteria for its reporters and working groups. Thus, any reform related to
    the human rights reporters is dependent upon the support of commission
    members. In addition, in his September 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary
    General stated that governments should be allowed to submit a single
    report to the monitoring committees summarizing their adherence to human
    rights treaty obligations. Given his lack of authority over the monitoring
    committees, the Secretary General requested that the human rights office
    consult with the committees on methods of streamlining the governments'
    various treaty-reporting requirements. The monitoring committees, however,
    resisted the concept of a single report, according to the human rights
    office. The proposal resulting from these consultations instead calls for
    an expanded core report containing standard information pertinent to all
    of the monitoring committees, with separate, more detailed reports going
    to individual committees.

    We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's ability
    to meet the overall reform goals: (1) the Secretariat does not conduct
    periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of reforms;
    (2) the Secretary General did not differentiate between short- and
    longterm goals in the 2002 reform plan; (3) resistance from managers and
    staff has slowed the implementation of reforms; and (4) potential
    financial and personnel resource implications are associated with some
    reforms.

    First, we found that the Secretariat does not conduct systematic,
    comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of the Secretary

      Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms

    General's reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat is not able
    to determine where further improvements are needed. In 1998 and 2003, the
    Secretary General issued reports on the status of the 1997 and 2002
    reforms, respectively. These reports, however, did not include a
    comprehensive impact assessment.34 We found that individual departments
    and offices within the Secretariat oversee specific reforms within their
    area of work; for example, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
    Rights oversees the implementation of reforms of the U.N. human rights
    program. However, the Deputy Secretary General, who is responsible for
    overseeing the overall reform process, has only one full-time professional
    staff member dedicated to this effort. The Steering Committee on Reform
    and Management-comprising department heads within the Secretariat and
    chaired by the Deputy Secretary General-also tracks key reform issues and
    policy implementation. However, the Deputy Secretary General's office
    neither systematically assesses departments' performance in implementing
    reforms nor holds managers directly accountable. Furthermore, OIOS only
    monitors and evaluates the impact of select reforms and is not responsible
    for overseeing the implementation of the overall reform agendas.

    Second, the Secretary General has not differentiated between short- and
    long-term goals in his 2002 reform plan, and he has not consistently
    established time frames or milestones for their completion. GAO has
    identified the setting of implementation goals and a timeline to build
    momentum and show progress as key practices for organizations undertaking
    change management initiatives. We found that a few reforms required
    departments and offices to conduct evaluations and report their findings
    to the Secretary General by a certain date, but many reforms did not
    specify time frames for completing these actions. For example, the
    Secretary General called for the Department of Public Information and OIOS
    to complete an evaluation of the impact and cost effectiveness of the
    department's activities within a three-year period (which started in
    2003). However, when the Secretary General called for a review of the
    feasibility and cost of increasing the Secretariat's delivery of online
    versus printed publications, he did not specify a deadline. Without
    prioritizing efforts and establishing deadlines, it is difficult to hold
    managers accountable for completing the reforms.

    34Officials from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that they
    were unsure if that office would issue additional status reports.

    Third, according to budget and human capital officials, some program
    managers and staff have resisted implementing certain reform initiatives.
    Human capital officials stated that program managers, for example, have
    raised concerns about the staff mobility policy because they fear losing
    expertise when staff rotate to new positions. In addition, OIOS reported
    that about half of program managers across the Secretariat have not
    complied with U.N. regulations to monitor and evaluate the performance of
    program activities. The Secretariat lacks clear rules and procedures for
    conducting regular monitoring and evaluation exercises, according to OIOS
    officials. Some managers also stated that they lacked resources to support
    this work and were concerned that these evaluation requirements would
    detract time and money from their regular work responsibilities.
    Consequently, the Secretariat is providing training to all departments to
    assist managers and staff in conducting self-monitoring and evaluation
    exercises to comply with performance-oriented budgeting and overcome
    resistance. Managers' support is critical for the institutionalization of
    reforms in the long term.

    Fourth, U.N. officials stated that they have encountered delays in
    implementing reforms due to a lack of available regular budget resources.
    For example, public information officials stated that their department did
    not have a specific budget for new monitoring and evaluation activities-a
    key aspect of public information reform. In addition, human capital
    officials stated that they developed the online recruiting and hiring
    system after receiving resources from another department in the
    Secretariat. The Secretary General stated that departments would need to
    implement reforms within existing resources because additional funding
    would not be available in the regular budget. He also stated that program
    managers should streamline operations and eliminate obsolete activities to
    make resources available to implement reforms. According to U.N.
    officials, the Secretariat did not complete a comprehensive assessment of
    the personnel and budgetary implications during the development of his
    2002 reform agenda. Rather, departments have conducted resource
    assessments for individual reforms on a case-by-case basis as a part of
    the budget process.

    Conclusion 	In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary General proposed sweeping
    reforms of the United Nations in response to recurring calls to improve
    its efficiency and effectiveness in spending member states' contributions.
    Many reforms have been completed since our 2000 report, including key
    measures to improve human capital management, focus the United Nations on
    resultsbased management, and strengthen the management of the human rights
    program. However, the United Nations faces many challenges to

    completing reforms, including potential resource constraints. Moreover,
    the Office of the Deputy Secretary General does not periodically and
    comprehensively assess the impact of reforms on the effectiveness of U.N.
    operations. Given that the Secretary General does not provide regular,
    comprehensive reports on the overall status and impact of reforms, it is
    difficult to hold staff accountable for implementing these reforms and
    their impact is unclear. In addition, the 2002 reform agenda did not
    specify short- and long-term goals or establish expected time frames for
    their completion-practices that increase the transparency and
    accountability of the reform process. Adopting key practices in
    management, oversight, and accountability for reforms, such as systematic
    monitoring and evaluation, could facilitate the achievement of the
    Secretary General's overall reform goals. As the U.N.'s largest financial
    contributor and a proponent of reform, the United States would also
    benefit from the adoption of these practices.

    Recommendations for 	To promote full implementation and accountability of
    the Secretary General's overall reform actions, we recommend that the
    Secretary of

      Executive Action

    o

    o

    o

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
    Nations work with other member states to encourage the Secretary General
    to

    report regularly through an existing U.N. reporting mechanism on the
    status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and other reforms that may
    follow;

    differentiate between short- and long-term reform goals and establish time
    frames for completion for those reforms that are not in place; and

    conduct assessments of the financial and personnel implications needed to
    implement the reforms.

    The Department of State and the United Nations provided written comments
    on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV). State agreed with our
    recommendations, stating that it will continue to encourage the full
    implementation of all reform initiatives at the United Nations. In
    particular, State noted several efforts it is pursuing through the General
    Assembly, including further reforms related to human capital management
    and the Department of Public Information, among others. Moreover, State
    agreed with our conclusion that many reforms from the 1997 and 2002
    agendas are first steps in achieving the Secretary General's overall
    reform

    goals. State also said that the report provides a comprehensive analysis
    of the status of U.N. reforms and the challenges affecting their
    implementation. State noted that our report did not contain an in-depth
    analysis of reforms of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations-a point
    that we acknowledge in our scope and methodology (see app. I). In
    addition, State provided technical comments on our draft report, which
    were incorporated into the text, where appropriate.

    The United Nations also provided written comments on a draft of this
    report. Although we did not make recommendations directly to the United
    Nations, it generally agreed with the report's findings. In particular,
    the United Nations acknowledged that the implementation of certain reforms
    is proceeding more slowly than others. The United Nations also provided
    observations regarding its efforts to implement its ambitious reform
    agenda. In addition, the United Nations provided technical comments, which
    were incorporated into the text where appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of
    Congress. We are also providing copies of this report to the Secretary of
    State, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
    Nations, and the United Nations. We will also make copies available to
    others upon request. In addition, this report will be 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
    at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov, or Phyllis Anderson at (202) 512
    7364 or andersonp@gao.gov. In addition to the persons named above,
    Jeremy Latimer, Leland Cogliani, Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Kathryn
    Hartsburg, and Monica Wolford made key contributions to this report.

    Joseph A. Christoff
    Director, International Affairs and Trade

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
    Relations and Committee member Michael Enzi, we examined the status of
    U.N. reform activities to follow up on GAO's 2000 report.1 Specifically,
    we assessed (1) the overall status of U.N. reforms proposed in 1997 and
    2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the Secretariat's efforts to implement
    reforms in four key areas: human capital management, performanceoriented
    budgeting, public information activities, and the human rights program;
    and (3) the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. reforms.

    We focused our work on the Secretary General's 1997 and 2002 reform
    agendas. These reforms applied to the Secretariat and member state
    governing bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and Social
    Council, and the Security Council. We did not include U.N. specialized
    agencies or funds and programs in our review. We did, however, meet with
    officials and collect information from the International Labour
    Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the
    World Health Organization to discuss their progress and challenges in
    implementing management reforms similar to those that the Secretary
    General is undertaking.

    Overall, we identified 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda and
    66 in the 2002 agenda, for a total of 154 reform initiatives. This number
    differs from U.N. figures because many of the Secretary General's reform
    action items had several components that we identified and counted as
    separate initiatives. For example, one of the Secretary General's action
    items called for improving the information technology systems of the
    United Nations, which involved upgrading the U.N.'s Web site; modernizing
    internal systems that produce, store and disseminate documents; and
    adopting an information technology strategy for New York headquarters and
    field offices. We counted each one of those actions as separate
    initiatives, while the Secretariat grouped them into one action item.

    To determine the overall status of the reforms, we developed a methodology
    to code them as (1) substantially or completely in place, (2) partly in
    place, or (3) not in place (see table 1 for our definitions). We discussed
    our methodology with U.N. officials, and they agreed to its utility for
    assessing the status of U.N. reforms.

    1GAO/NSIAD-00-150.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

                 Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status

    Rating Scale

    Substantially or completely in place 	The reform has been approved. Most
    key and minor elements are in place.

    Partly in place	The reform has been approved. Some key elements, as well
    as some or most minor elements, are in place.

    Not in place 	The reform has not been formally approved. Minor elements
    may be in place, but no key elements are in place.

    We defined a key element as one that is critical or central to the reform.
    We considered that reforms could not be implemented or institutionalized
    without these key elements (e.g., staff or budget). All other elements
    were considered as minor. We considered a reform to be in place if it had
    moved from the planning stage to implementation. Implementation should
    have been well under way, though it may not have been completed and the
    reform may not have been institutionalized. For reforms with more than one
    key element, we considered the following factors to determine whether some
    or most key elements were in place: (1) the number of elements, (2) the
    relative importance of the elements, (3) the relative difficulty of
    implementation, and (4) the degree of implementation of each of the
    elements.

    To assess the status of the reforms, we reviewed the Secretary General's
    1997 and 2002 reform plans and obtained and reviewed official reports of
    the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS),
    budget documents, General Assembly resolutions, Secretary General
    bulletins, Web sites, and statements from U.N. officials. We interviewed
    senior officials from U.N. departments in New York City and Geneva.
    Specifically, we met with the Deputy Secretary General and her staff, and
    officials from the Department of Management, the Office of Human Resources
    Management (OHRM), the Office of Program Planning, Budget, and Accounts
    (OPPBA), the Department of Public Information (DPI), and the Acting High
    Commissioner for Human Rights. We also met with officials from OIOS and
    the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). During the course of our review, we also
    discussed the status of U.N. reforms with U.S. Department of State
    officials in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Geneva.

    We selected reforms in the areas of human capital management, the
    performance-oriented budgeting system, public information activities, and

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    the human rights program to assess in more detail. In our discussions with
    U.N. and U.S. officials, and in our review of U.N. documents, we
    determined that these were key areas of the Secretary General's 1997 and
    2002 reform plans. A detailed assessment of the reforms for peacekeeping
    and improving the coordination among U.N. departments and offices and
    between the U.N. and civil society was beyond the scope of this review.

    To assess the status of human capital management reforms, we compared the
    Secretariat's human capital reform strategy with criteria from GAO's model
    of strategic human capital management.2 This model provides a framework
    for examining an organization's human capital practices and is based upon
    the actions that are characteristic of high-performing organizations. To
    collect information on the Secretariat's progress in implementing its
    reform strategy, we reviewed internal and public human resources documents
    detailing the new recruitment and hiring system, the performance appraisal
    system, human resources action plans, and a survey of U.N. staff views on
    human capital reforms. We discussed human capital management reforms with
    OHRM officials who are planning and implementing the office's reform
    initiatives. We also met with the chief personnel officer for the U.N.
    Geneva Office, as well as personnel officers at the Office for the High
    Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees,
    and the Internal Labour Organization, to discuss the status and problems
    of human capital reforms in their organizations. We did not evaluate the
    effectiveness of implemented human capital reforms.

    To assess the implementation of budgeting and monitoring and evaluation
    reforms, we analyzed the last three U.N. biennium budget documents
    (2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005) to determine changes in the budget's
    format after the adoption of a results-based budgeting format. We also
    examined budget-related documents prepared by the Committee for Program
    and Coordination and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
    Budgetary Questions. In addition, we examined Secretariat documents on
    program monitoring and evaluation activities to determine the U.N.'s
    ability to report on and assess program results and impact, as well as
    strategies the Secretariat developed to strengthen the monitoring and
    evaluation system. We discussed performance-oriented budgeting reforms
    with OPPBA, JIU, and OIOS officials from the Monitoring, Evaluation, and
    Consulting Division. We also met with budget officers at the International

    2GAO-02-373SP.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Labour Organization and the World Health Organization to discuss the
    status and lessons learned from implementing performance-oriented
    budgeting at their organizations.

    To determine the status of reforms of U.N. public information activities,
    including DPI's reorganization, the restructuring of the department's
    branch offices, library management, and publications, we reviewed reports
    from OIOS, the General Assembly's Committee on Information, and the
    Secretary General. We also spoke with DPI officials, including the Under
    Secretary General, the department's senior managers, and senior library
    officials in New York. In addition, we interviewed officials from DPI's
    branch office and U.N. library in Geneva to determine the extent to which
    operations in the field have been affected by these reforms.

    To determine the status of efforts to reform the U.N. human rights
    program, we reviewed official reports from the Office of the High
    Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)- including annual appeals and
    reports-detailing the steps the office is taking to implement these
    reforms. We also reviewed internal audit reports and external reviews by
    independent contractors highlighting the key management challenges facing
    OHCHR and its efforts to improve in these areas. In addition, we
    interviewed human rights officials in Secretariat offices in Geneva and
    New York. To assess the Secretariat's efforts to improve the management of
    the human rights program, we spoke with the Acting High Commissioner for
    Human Rights and senior management officials responsible for implementing
    the Secretary General's reforms. To determine the status of reforms
    related to the monitoring committees and human rights reporters and
    working groups, we analyzed relevant Secretary General, General Assembly,
    and Commission on Human Rights reports, resolutions, and other official
    documentation, and we spoke with OHCHR officials. We did not review the
    work or membership of the Commission on Human Rights or the performance of
    individual human rights reporters.

    To determine the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. reforms, we
    reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General Assembly,
    OIOS, and JIU. We also reviewed reports from outside observers of the U.N.
    system, including nongovernmental organizations and members of academia.
    In addition, we spoke with U.N. officials in New York and Geneva. These
    included officials from the Office of the Deputy Secretary General, the
    Department of Management, OHRM, OPPBA, DPI, OHCHR, OIOS, and JIU. We also
    spoke with U.S. officials in Washington, New York, and Geneva.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    We conducted our work from June 2003 through January 2004, in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

      Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the Status of
    Their Implementation Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place
                   or substantially so New leadership and management

                    Establish the post of Deputy Secretary General X

                        Working methods of the General Assembly

    Increase the public's interest in and effectiveness of the
    General Assembly by deciding, 2 years in advance, the
    subject for a special high-level session of meetings on an
    important issue or theme X

    Organize General Assembly meetings in the same fashion as U.N. conferences
    X

    Identify an annual thematic focus for the work of each of the main
    committees X

    Organize the agenda around the eight priority areas of the
    medium-term plan X

    Issue recommendations to member states in the form of
    resolutions, while requests for reports by the Secretary
    General and other procedural work would be in the form of
    simple decisions X

    Limit the General Assembly's annual sessions from
    extending beyond November X

                            Peace, security, and disarmament

    Member states establish the practice of providing
    information to the Secretary General to strengthen his
    efforts to deter conflicts X

    General Assembly and Security Council consider measures
    to enhance the rapid reaction capacity of the United Nations X

    When establishing a peacekeeping operation, urge the
    Security Council to prescribe a time frame for the
    conclusion of a status-of-forces agreement with the host
    government; pending the conclusion of such an agreement,
    the model status-of-forces agreement would apply X

    Review the work of the Disarmament Commission and the
    First Committee to update and streamline their work X

                              Economic and social affairs

    The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) considers
    holding its various sessions at different, preestablished
    periods during the year and extending the duration of the
    sessions to provide effective policy guidance to the different
    programs and funds X

    Replace the Committee for Development Planning with X

    panels of experts set up by ECOSOC

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so

    Extend the time allotted to discuss development work in
    informal discussions between ECOSOC and heads of U.N.
    funds and programs and establish a trust fund to encourage
    participation of officials from the least developed countries X

    Establish the Commission on Sustainable Development,
    consolidating the Committee on New and Renewable
    Sources of Energy and Energy for Development and the
    Committee on Natural Resources X

    Make the Commission on Science and Technology for
    Development a subsidiary body of the U.N. Conference on
    Trade and Development's (UNCTAD) Trade and
    Development Board X

    Consolidate the functions of the Commission on Crime
    Prevention and Criminal Justice and the Commission on
    Narcotic Drugs into a single commission, and the
    International Narcotics Control Board would report to this
    new commission X

    Maintain the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on
    International Standards of Accounting and Reporting as an
    expert body reporting through the UNCTAD Commission on
    Investment, Technology and Related Financial Issues X

    Review the work of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts in
    International Tax Matters after it finishes its mandated
    activities X

    The Committee on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights
    should report to ECOSOC through the Commission on
    Human Rights X

    ECOSOC should review the regional commissions to
    determine core competencies and the most appropriate
    division of labor for standard-setting and technical
    cooperation activities X

                                Development cooperation

    Convene joint meetings of the U.N. Development Program
    (UNDP), U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and U.N.
    Children's Fund (UNICEF) executive boards to discuss
    issues and matters of common concern X

    Establish a new system to finance U.N. funds and programs consisting of
    voluntary contributions and negotiated pledges paid in multiyear tranches
    X

                   Environment, habitat, and sustainable development

    Discontinue the High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable
    Development X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so
                                  Humanitarian affairs

    Designate the Emergency Relief Coordinator to oversee
    U.N. humanitarian assistance and transfer natural disaster
    mitigation activities to UNDP X

    Establish a humanitarian affairs segment of ECOSOC X

                              Enhancing support capacities

    Establish a revolving credit fund with up to $1 billion from
    voluntary contributions X

    Retain any unspent balances under the regular budget X

    Review the mandate, membership, and procedures of the
    International Civil Service Commission X

    Approve the Secretariat's Code of Conduct X

    Establish an account funded from savings in administration
    and other overhead costs X

    Adopt performance-oriented budgeting X

                       Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and the
      Status of Their Implementation Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in
            place In place or substantially so New leadership and management

    Establish a senior management group to set and direct
    unified Secretariat strategies X

                         Establish a strategic planning unit X

                            Peace, security, and disarmament

    Develop a plan to end the use of gratis personnel in the
    Secretariat X

    Make the Special Representative of the Secretary General
    the ranking U.N. country official X

    Make the Department of Political Affairs the focal point for
    postconflict peace building and the Executive Committee
    on Peace and Security responsible for the design and
    implementation of peace-building initiatives X

    Create a Department for Disarmament and Arms
    Regulation X

                              Economic and social affairs

    Establish a secretariat, or staff office, for the Department of Economic
    and Social Affairs to better support the Economic and Social Council X

    Review activities shared by the Department of Economic
    and Social Affairs and UNCTAD in the macroeconomic
    area to increase cooperation and reduce duplication X

    Establish the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention,
    comprising the Center for International Crime Prevention
    and the U.N. International Drug Control Program, in
    Vienna, to consolidate crime, drug, and terrorism issues
    into a single office X

                                Development cooperation

    Establish the U.N. Development Group; the Development
    Group Executive Committee will be composed of UNDP,
    UNICEF, and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) X

    The Development Group Executive Committee will develop
    counterpart arrangements at the country level X

          Create a development assistance framework for developing
            countries to coordinate efforts at the country level         X
         Establish resident coordinators to coordinate activities of
              different funds and programs at the country level                 X
             Implement common premises, or "U.N. Houses," at the
                                country level                            X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

                Status Environment, habitat, and sustainable development

                    Reform actions              Not in Partly in      In place or
                                                place    place   substantially so
    Issue a proposal detailing ways to have
                   more predictable
        and consistent financial contributions
                  from member states
              to meet development goals                                 X
         Establish an Office for Development
                Financing to seek new
    and additional resources for development                         X
                       programs

    Develop plans to strengthen the U.N. Environment
    Program and the U.N. Center for Human Settlements X

                                  Humanitarian affairs

    Establish an Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator to
    replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs X

    Designate an Emergency Lead Coordinator to lead and
    coordinate all U.N. action on complex emergencies X

    Transfer responsibility for disaster prevention and
    preparedness to UNDP and for demining activities to the
    Department of Peacekeeping Operations X

    Strengthen the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
    on humanitarian affairs and establish an IASC Steering
    Committee to coordinate its activities X

    IASC will work to improve the consolidated appeal process
    for U.N. humanitarian affairs agencies X

    Give the Emergency Relief Coordinator authority to
    designate a lead agency to coordinate complex
    emergencies X

    Human rights

    Establish an Office of the High Commissioner for Human
    Rights (OHCHR) X

    Integrate human rights' concerns into the broad range of
    U.N. activities, including development operations and
    humanitarian affairs, and assign a representative from the
    High Commissioner's office to participate in executive
    committee meetings X

    OHCHR will issue recommendations to increase the
    coordination of human rights technical assistance activities
    provided to member states X

    Increase the representation of the High Commissioner's
    office at headquarters in New York X

    OHCHR will review human rights programs across the U.N.
    and recommend ways to simplify their work and improve
    their efficiency X

    Restructure OHCHR to provide better substantive and
    technical support to U.N. legislative bodies and monitoring
    committees. X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so
                 Partnerships with civil society and the private sector

    Meet with members of civil society to strengthen
    partnerships and enlist their support X

    Designate a nongovernmental organization liaison officer
    for all U.N. departments and offices; facilitate cooperation
    between the U.N., member states, and civil society; and
    add training programs for U.N. staff that involve
    cooperation with civil society X

    Establish a business liaison service to provide information
    to business groups on U.N. activities and on investment
    opportunities X

    Increase participation of business groups in U.N. decision
    making activities X

                        Human resource and financial management

    Encourage movement of personnel across functions,
    departments, and duty stations X

    Create a simplified, flexible, and cost-effective system of
    recruitment and placement X

    Establish accountability standards for program managers to
    improve the efficiency of program delivery X

    Strengthen the performance appraisal system to reward
    high-performing staff and provide accountability for
    performance X

    Improve channels of communication between staff and
    management X

    Give managers greater flexibility in making permanent and
    fixed-term staff hiring decisions X

    Establish a one-time training and redeployment program for
    staff affected by the reform process X

    Establish an informal group of independent advisers to
    comment on senior-level appointments X

    Issue specific savings targets for departments and offices
    to reduce administrative and other overhead costs X

    Review management practices to implement program
    activities more efficiently, improve services to member
    states, and reach targets set to reduce overhead costs X

    Delegate maximum authority to line managers in the areas
    of human resources and financial management X

    Streamline administrative rules and procedures X

    Simplify human resources and financial management
    policies, rules, and processes X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

                       Status Modernizing information technology

                    Reform actions              Not in Partly in      In place or
                                                place    place   substantially so
        Consolidate headquarters' procurement
                     services by
           expanding the use of electronic
                   procurement and
        organizationwide competitive contracts                          X
        Develop a unified management structure
                      to provide
              information technology and
                  telecommunications
           infrastructure and services on a                X
                 cost-effective basis
         Establish one or more common service
                  facilities at U.N.                                    X
        headquarters in New York, Geneva, and
                        Vienna

    Upgrade the U.N.'s Web site, home page, and other
    electronic postings X

    Modernize internal systems that produce, store, and
    disseminate documents X

    Enhance the use of the Intranet to facilitate internal
    communication and administrative simplification and
    streamlining X

    Adopt an information technology strategy for New York
    headquarters and field offices X

    Introduce methods to share information across agencies
    and identify lead agencies that would establish issue X
    management networks

                U.N. university, research institutes, and related bodies

    Improve coordination between the United Nations
    University and other U.N. research institutes X

    Coordinate activities of the United Nations Staff College
    and other U.N. research institutes when preparing courses
    for U.N. civil servants X

                       Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation Status Reform
    actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so Strengthening
                                      human rights

    Strengthen human rights-related actions at the country
    level X

    Develop recommendations to streamline reporting
    procedures to the treaty monitoring bodies by September
    2003 X

    Review human rights special procedures to find ways to
    enhance their effectiveness and report to the Secretary
    General by 2003 X

    Develop a plan to strengthen the management of the Office
    of the High Commissioner for Human Rights X

                              Enhancing public information

    Establish a Division of Strategic Communications in the X
    Department of Public Information (DPI) to disseminate and
    evaluate U.N. messages around the world

    Establish an Outreach Division in DPI to group together
    services for delegations, civil society, and the general
    public X

    Strengthen DPI's News and Media Division X

    Transfer DPI's Cartographic Section to the Department of
    Peacekeeping Operations X

    Conduct an evaluation of the impact and cost-effectiveness
    of all of DPI's activities X

    Centralize U.N. information activities around regional hubs,
    starting with the creation of a Western European hub X

    The Dag Hammarskjold Library will set policy and
    coordinate the work of all U.N. libraries X

    Develop a plan to integrate the library services of various
    U.N. locations X

    Develop and implement a plan to improve electronic
    access to U.N. collections, move from paper-based to
    electronic-based files, and provide training to depository
    librarians X

    Executive Committees will organize publications to reduce
    their number and improve their coherence and focus X

    Reestablish the Publications Board, which will establish
    standards and quality controls for publications X

    Review the feasibility and cost of online publications
    delivery X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so

    Discontinue publication of The Repertory of Practice of
    United Nations Organs X

                                  Streamlining reports

                 Consolidate duplicative reports on related subjects X

    Publish clearer and more focused reports with specific
    recommendations X

                            Adhere to mandated page limits X

    Encourage the General Assembly to establish a system to
    review the relevancy of existing reporting requirements X

                           Managing conferences and meetings

    Strengthen the planning and management of General
    Assembly meetings and documentation X

                           Coordinating U.N. field activities

    Develop a plan to strengthen field coordination in
    developing countries X

    Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and staff responsibilities

    Prepare a document clarifying roles and responsibilities in
    the area of technical cooperation X

    Propose the addition of an Assistant Secretary General
    position in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs X

    Establish a policy planning unit in the Department of
    Economic and Social Affairs X

    Transfer resources allocated to the Office of the Special
    Coordinator for Africa and the Least Developed Countries
    to the Advisor for Special Assignments in Africa, who would
    coordinate the preparation of Africa-related reports X

    Promoting partnerships with civil society and the private sector

           Establish a panel to review the relationship between the
             U.N. and civil society and offer recommendations for
                          improving their interaction                           X
        Establish a Partnerships Office to integrate the activities of
           the Global Compact Office and U.N. Fund for International
                                 Partnerships                             X

    Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and evaluation system

    Link the program budget to Millennium Declaration X

    Submit a shorter, more strategic medium-term plan, X covering 2 years
    rather than 4, and submitted closer to the time of implementation

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so

    Submit a budget outline with the medium-term plan X

    Prepare a shorter, more strategic budget X

    Give program managers greater flexibility to reallocate
    resources among programs and between program and
    personnel activities X

    Strengthen the program monitoring and evaluation system X

    Assign responsibility for reviewing U.N. budgeting
    information to the Fifth Committee instead of both the Fifth
    Committee and the Committee for Program and Evaluation X

    Streamline and shorten peacekeeping budgets X

    Consolidate and reduce the number of trust funds X

    Harmonize the rules and requirements for trust fund
    management and reporting X

    Revise the system used to account for administrative and
    other overhead support costs X

    Streamline procedures for accessing trust fund monies X

                                Human capital management

    Review contractual arrangements and benefits offered to
    Secretariat staff in field locations to make them comparable
    to those of the U.N. funds and programs X

    Review mobility arrangements between the Secretariat and
    the U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies X

    Create longer-term contractual arrangements for staff in
    field missions X

    Identify special recruitment and reward incentives for duty
    stations with high vacancy rates X

    Review arrangements between the Secretariat and the
    U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies to assist
    spouses of U.N. staff applying for posts in field locations X

    Explore possibilities to renegotiate host country
    agreements to allow U.N. spouses to work in those
    countries X

    Lift restrictions on the numbers of general service staff
    eligible for promotion to the professional category X

    Review general service functions, responsibilities, and
    competencies X

    Improve general service induction and career planning
    systems X

    Provide more opportunities and incentives for staff mobility
    across functions, offices, and services in the field and
    peacekeeping missions X

                          Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms

    Status Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so

    Refer to all employees of the Secretariat as international
    civil servants X

    Introduce flexible working arrangements in Secretariat
    departments and offices X

    Increase opportunities of part-time employment for
    Secretariat staff X

    Improve planning for replacing departing staff members X

    Develop more targeted recruitment systems X

    Enhance existing departure packages to include career
    placement assistance and transition arrangements X

    Recommend a significant increase in resources allocated
    to training in the 2004-2005 biennium budget X

    Review flexibility given to program managers to manage
    resources X

    Redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Department of
    Management and those of the executive offices to increase
    delegation of authority X

    Provide more and better training for managers across the
    U.N. X

    Implement fully the U.N.'s policy on HIV/AIDS X

    Review the current system of internal justice to improve the
    system's efficiency, and to allow staff fair and due process X

    Encourage the International Civil Service Commission to
    submit its proposals for a more competitive pay and
    benefits system X

    Encourage an independent review of the operations and
    functions of the International Civil Service Commission X

                                    Managing reform

    Assign responsibility for overseeing the implementation of
    reforms to the Deputy Secretary General X

                       Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

                  Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

                  Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

                  Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations

    Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations

      GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    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.

    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

    Contact:

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

      Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

    Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

    Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***