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 [email protected].
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 resultsthe 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 [email protected], or Phyllis Anderson at (202) 512
7364 or [email protected]. 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: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***