Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls	 
Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps (04-AUG-06, 	 
GAO-06-894).							 
                                                                 
GAO has reported in recent years on a number of human capital	 
issues that have hampered the Department of State's ability to	 
carry out U.S. foreign policy priorities and objectives,	 
particularly at posts central to the war on terror. In 2002,	 
State implemented the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) to	 
address shortfalls in the number and skills of State employees.  
This report discusses State's progress in (1) addressing staffing
shortfalls since the implementation of DRI and (2) filling gaps  
in the language proficiency of foreign service officers and other
staff. To accomplish these objectives, GAO analyzed staffing and 
language data and met with State officials.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-894 					        
    ACCNO:   A58041						        
  TITLE:     Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language       
Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps		 
     DATE:   08/04/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Civil service jobs 				 
	     Diplomats						 
	     Employee incentives				 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employees						 
	     Foreign languages					 
	     International relations				 
	     Labor shortages					 
	     Performance appraisal				 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Dept. of State Diplomatic Readiness		 
	     Initiative 					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-894

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
          * State's Foreign Language Requirements
     * State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls; but
          * State Has Made Progress in Decreasing Staffing Shortages but
          * Effectiveness of Hardship Incentives Has Not Been Measured
          * Staffing Gaps for Key Mid-Level Positions Persist; Positions
               * Staffing Gaps at the Mid-Level Persist
               * Mid-Level and Other Staffing Gaps Exacerbated by Low Bidding
               * Many Mid-Level Positions Are Staffed by Junior Officers
               * Family Issues and Locality Pay Discourage Bidding at Hardshi
          * State Reluctant to Use Directed Assignments
     * State Has Made Progress in Increasing Its Foreign Language C
          * State Has Increased the Number of Language-Designated Positi
          * State Continues to Have Shortages of Staff Proficient in For
               * Some Staff Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their P
               * Some Question the Adequacy of the Language Proficiency Requi
               * State's Assignment and Promotion System May Hinder Efforts t
               * Lack of Foreign Language Capability May Adversely Effect Sta
               * State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Efforts
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendations for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * GAO Comments
     * GAO Contact
     * Staff Acknowledgment
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

Report to the Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2006

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to
Address Gaps

GAO-06-894

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls; but Critical Gaps
Remain at Hardship Posts 11
State Has Made Progress in Increasing Its Foreign Language Capabilities,
but Significant Language Gaps Remain 23
Conclusions 33
Recommendations for Executive Action 34
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 37
Appendix II Department of State Staffing 41
Appendix III Foreign Language Proficiency at Language- Designated
Positions 42
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of State 48
GAO Comments 58
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Tables

Table 1: DRI Hiring Goals for Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2004 5
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts 9
Table 3: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/(Deficit) across Career
Tracks as of December 31, 2005 14
Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements 25
Table 5: Percentage of Staff Filling Chinese and Arabic
Language-Designated Positions Who Do Not Meet Proficiency Requirements, by
Type of Position 27
Table 6: State Department Worldwide Staffing by Position Type as of
September 30, 2005 41
Table 7: Location, Number of Language-Designated Positions, and Percent of
Staff Filling the Positions Who Do Not Meet the Speaking and Reading
Language Requirements 42

Figures

Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs 7
Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category 10
Figure 3: Average Number of Bids by Hardship Differential for Grades 2, 3,
and 4 16
Figure 4: Average Bids per Career Track by Hardship Differential for 2005
18
Figure 5: Percentage of Staff Who Meet Requirements for World, Hard, and
Superhard Languages as of October 2005 26

Abbreviations

DRI Diplomatic Readiness Initiative FSO Foreign Service Officer HR/CDA
Office of Career Development and Assignments SND Service Need Differential
FSI Foreign Service Institute GEMS Global Employee Management System

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

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 4, 2006

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

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In recent years we have reported on a number of human capital issues that
have hampered the Department of State's (State) ability to carry out the
President's foreign policy priorities and objectives, particularly at
posts central to the United States' war on terror. For example, we
reported that State's permanent positions were understaffed and that the
impact of staffing shortfalls was felt most at hardship posts,1 including
posts in Africa and the Middle East and others of strategic importance to
the United States, such as China and Russia. In particular, we found that
State's assignment system did not effectively meet the staffing needs of
hardship posts and that State had difficulty filling positions there,
particularly at the mid-levels. Where such staffing gaps existed, new or
untenured officers worked well above their grade levels. We also reported
that State had shortages in staff with critical foreign language skills,
making it more difficult to combat international terrorism and resulting
in less effective representation of U.S. interests overseas. To address
shortfalls in the number and skills of foreign service officers (FSO),
State implemented the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI), beginning in
2002, to hire, train, and deploy additional staff.

This report discusses State's progress in (1) addressing staffing
shortfalls since the implementation of DRI, and (2) filling gaps in the
language proficiency of FSOs and other staff.

To assess State's progress in eliminating staffing gaps, we examined
documentation on State's recruitment efforts, and analyzed staffing,
vacancy, and assignment data. To assess State's progress in filling gaps
in the language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, we analyzed language
proficiency data for specific posts, specialties, and grades. We also
compared the language proficiency of staff in language-designated
positions with the requirements for the positions. We met with officials
at State's Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Foreign
Service Institute, and six regional bureaus. To observe post staffing and
language proficiency firsthand, we conducted fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos,
Nigeria; Sana'a, Yemen; and Beijing, China. We selected the posts in (1)
Nigeria because of the low number of staff applying for each position; (2)
in Sana'a because of the low number of staff applying for each position,
because it requires staff proficient in Arabic, which is a difficult to
learn language, and because of Yemen's importance to the war on terrorism;
and (3) in Beijing because it requires staff proficient in Chinese, which
is also a difficult language to learn, and because of its strategic
importance to the United States. We performed our work from August 2005 to
May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides more information on our scope and
methodology.

1State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S. government
provides differential pay incentives-an additional 5 to 35 percent of base
salary, depending on the severity or difficulty of the conditions-to
encourage employees to bid on assignments to these posts and to compensate
them for the hardships they encounter.

                                Results in Brief

State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since
implementing DRI; however, the initiative did not fully meet its goals,
and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at critical posts. DRI was
intended to hire enough additional staff to respond to emerging crises and
to allow staff time for critical job training. From 2002 to 2004, DRI
enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition. However,
according to State officials, most of this increase was absorbed by the
demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus the desired crises
and training reserve was not achieved. Additionally, in an effort to
address staffing shortfalls at historically hard to fill hardship posts,
many of which are of significant strategic importance to the United
States, State implemented various incentives, including offering extra pay
to officers who serve an additional year at these posts and allowing
employees to negotiate shorter tours of duty. More recently, State changed
its promotion requirements to include service in a hardship post as a
prerequisite for promotion to the senior foreign service. However, State
has not evaluated the effectiveness of the incentives and hardship posts
in Africa and the Middle East-including those in countries important to
the war on terror, as well as those in other countries of strategic
interest-and continues to have difficulty attracting qualified applicants
at the mid-level. Currently, mid-level positions at many posts are staffed
by junior officers who lack experience and have minimal guidance. For
example, at the time of our review, the mid-level consular manager
positions in Shenyang and Chengdu, China-two locations with high incidence
of visa fraud-were held by first tour junior officers. We observed similar
shortages and employees above their grades in consular sections in China
when we reported on staffing of hardship posts in 2002.2 This experience
gap at critical posts can severely compromise the department's diplomatic
readiness and its ability to carry out its foreign policy objectives and
execute critical post-level duties. We found that inexperienced officers
are not as well-equipped to handle crises as more seasoned officers, and
having inexperienced officers in key positions forces senior staff to
devote more time to overseeing operational matters and less to advancing
U.S. international interests. State does not assign its limited number of
mid-level employees to particular posts because of risk and priorities;
but rather, it generally assigns them to posts for which they have
expressed an interest. State has recently launched a new initiative to
reallocate positions from Europe and Washington, D.C., to critical
emerging areas such as Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. However,
without directing employees, when necessary, to high priority assignments,
it is unclear whether the reallocation of positions alone will ensure that
they are filled.

State has made progress in increasing its foreign language capabilities,
but significant language gaps remain. State has increased the number of
worldwide positions requiring language proficiency by 27 percent since
2001. In addition, State has enhanced recruitment efforts to target
individuals proficient in certain languages. However, State has not
evaluated the effectiveness of these efforts, as we previously
recommended.3 For example, during the time of our review, State had not
systematically analyzed available data to demonstrate whether the
percentage of new hires with foreign language skills has increased since
2003. State continues to have difficulties filling language-designated
positions with language proficient staff. Almost 30 percent of the staff
filling language-designated positions worldwide as of October 2005 did not
meet the language proficiency requirements. The percentage was much higher
at certain critical posts-for example, 59 percent in Cairo, Egypt; and 60
percent in Sana'a, Yemen. Moreover, some officers who did meet the
proficiency requirements questioned whether the requirements are adequate.
For example, embassy officials in Yemen and China stated that the speaking
and reading proficiency levels designated for their positions were not
high enough and that staff in these positions were not sufficiently fluent
to effectively perform their jobs. Additionally, several factors-including
the short length of some tours and the limitations on consecutive tours at
the same post-may hinder FSOs' ability to enhance and maintain their
language skills over time, as well as State's ability to take advantage of
those skills and the investment it makes in training. There is also a
perception among some officers that State's current assignment and
promotion systems discourage officers from specializing in any particular
region, making the officers reluctant to apply to posts where they could
utilize their language skills more frequently. State has not conducted the
type of assessment that would prioritize the resources it devotes to
specific languages based on risk and strategic interest in particular
regions or countries. Nonetheless, gaps in language proficiency can
adversely affect State's diplomatic readiness and its ability to execute
critical duties. For example, officials at one high visa fraud post stated
that consular officers sometimes adjudicate visas without fully
understanding everything the applicants tell them during the visa
interview. Moreover, officers at some posts, including those in countries
important to the war on terror, cannot communicate effectively with
foreign audiences, hampering their ability to cultivate personal
relationships and explain U.S. foreign policy.

2GAO, State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment
System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626
(Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2002).

3GAO, State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas
Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages, GAO-04-139 ,
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003) and GAO, Foreign Languages: Human
Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls,
GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as the
language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, this report recommends that
the Secretary of State (1) consider using directed assignments, as
necessary, using a risk-based approach, to fill critical positions with
fully qualified officers who have the skills and experience necessary to
effectively manage and supervise essential mission functions at hardship
posts; (2) systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its incentive
programs for hardship post assignments, establishing specific indicators
of progress and adjusting the use of the incentives based on this
analysis; (3) consider an assignment system that allows for longer tours,
consecutive assignments in certain countries, and more regional
specialization in certain areas, in order to hone officers' skills in
certain superhard languages and better leverage the investment State makes
in language training; (4) systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its
efforts to improve the language proficiency of its FSOs and specialists,
establishing specific indicators of progress in filling language gaps and
adjusting its efforts accordingly; and (5) conduct a risk assessment of
critical language needs in regions and countries of strategic importance,
make realistic projections of the staff time and related training float
necessary to adequately train personnel to meet those needs, and target
its limited resources for language training, as needed, to fill these
critical gaps.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of State generally
concurred with the report's observations, conclusions, and recommendations
and described several initiatives that it believes address the
recommendations.

                                   Background

The Department of State is the lead agency in formulating and implementing
U.S. foreign policy. The department represents the United States in about
172 countries, operating approximately 266 embassies, consulates, and
other posts. During several years in the 1990s, State lost more staff than
it hired, and the resultant shortfalls of staff and skills endangered
diplomatic readiness. To address these shortfalls, in 2002, State
implemented DRI, a $197 million effort designed to address a range of
goals. In particular, the goals of DRI were to hire 1,1584 new foreign and
civil service employees over a 3-year period, support training
opportunities for staff, enhance the department's ability to respond to
crises and emerging priorities overseas and at critical domestic
locations, improve State's hiring processes to recruit personnel from more
diverse experiences and cultural backgrounds, and fill critical skill
gaps. Table 1 shows DRI hiring goals for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal
2004.

Table 1: DRI Hiring Goals for Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2004

                                                           Total FY 2002-2004 
Skill group                FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004                   goals 
Foreign service generalist     204     206     138                     548 
Foreign service specialist      81     103     102                     286 
Total foreign service          285     309     240                     834 
Civil service                   75      90      70                     235 
Total                          360     399     310                   1,069 

Source: Department of State.

As of October 2005, State had about 19,000 American employees, including
FSOs, also called generalists; foreign service specialists; and civil
servants. FSO generalists help formulate and implement the foreign policy
of the United States and are grouped into five career tracks: management,
consular, economic, political, and public diplomacy. Foreign service
specialists provide support services at overseas posts worldwide or in
Washington, D.C., and are grouped into seven major categories:
administration, construction engineering, information technology,
international information and English language programs, medical and
health, office management, and security. Civil service employees support
the foreign policy mission from offices in Washington, D.C., and across
the United States.

4State received funding for 1,069 employees.

About 65 percent of Foreign Service employees serve overseas. State's
policy is that foreign service employees are to be available for service
worldwide. The process of assigning Foreign Service staff to their
positions begins when the staff receive a list of upcoming vacancies for
which they may compete. Staff then submit a list of positions for which
they want to be considered, or "bids," and consult with their career
development officer. The process varies, depending on an officer's grade
and functional specialty. Figure 1 describes this process.

Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs

aThe Director General is the official who heads State's Bureau of Human
Resources.

About 64 percent of full-time FSOs serving overseas are assigned to
hardship posts. State defines hardship posts as those locations where the
U.S. government provides differential pay incentives-an additional 5 to 35
percent of base pay, depending on the severity or difficult of the
conditions-to encourage employees to bid on assignments at these posts and
to compensate them for the hardships they encounter there. A hardship
differential is established for a location only when that location
involves extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical
hardship, or notably unhealthful conditions affecting the majority of
employees officially stationed or detailed there. Living costs are not
considered in differential determination.5 Among the conditions that State
considers in determining hardship pay are poor medical facilities,
substandard schools for children, severe climate, high crime, political
instability, physical isolation, and lack of spousal employment
opportunities. Some hardship posts have greater difficulty in attracting
qualified bidders than others. In response to severe staffing shortages at
such posts, State established the Service Need Differential (SND) Program,
which began with the 2001 summer assignments cycle. Under this program, an
employee who accepts a 3-year assignment at a post designated for SND is
eligible to receive an additional hardship differential over and above
existing hardship differentials, equal to 15 percent of the employee's
base salary. However, chiefs of mission, principal officers, and deputy
chiefs of mission are not eligible to receive SND regardless of the length
of their tours. Entry-level employees on 2-year tours directed by the
Office of Career Development and Assignments (HR/CDA) are also ineligible
for SND. State's geographic bureaus initially identified the posts
designated to offer SND in 2001 and may add or remove posts once per year.
The program included 38 posts the first year. Table 2 lists the fiscal
year 2006 SND posts.

5State pays an additional 15 percent to 35 percent of salary for danger
pay. The danger pay allowance is designed to provide additional
compensation above basic compensation to all U.S. government civilian
employees, including chiefs of mission, for service in foreign areas where
there exist conditions-such as civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism,
or war-that threaten physical harm or imminent danger to employees. These
conditions do not include acts characterized chiefly as economic crime.

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts

Geographic regions
               East Asia and the        Europe and    Near   South Western    
Africa      Pacific                  Eurasia       East   Asia  Hemisphere 
Overseas posts
Abuja       Chengdu                  Almaty        Sana'a Dhaka Georgetown 
Asmara      Guangzhou                Ashgabat                   Paramaribo 
Bamako      Port Moresby             Astana                     Port au    
                                                                   Prince     
Bangui      Shenyang                 Baku                       
Brazzaville Ulaanbaatar              Bishkek                    
Conakry                              Chisinau                   
Cotonou                              Dushanbe                   
Djibouti                             Kiev                       
Freetown                             Minsk                      
Kigali                               Tashkent                   
Kinshasa                             Tbilisi                    
Lagos                                Tirana                     
Luanda                               Vladivostok                
N'Djamena                            Yekaterinburg              
Niamey                               Yerevan                    
Nouakchott                                                      
Ouagadougou                                                     
Yaounde                                                         

Source: Department of State.

In addition, in 2002, State established a working group to examine
incentives to encourage bidding on hardship posts. The working group
evaluated over 80 suggestions and ideas, such as requiring hardship
service for promotion to the senior foreign service and allowing employees
to negotiate shorter tours of duty. State implemented about 25 of the
suggestions.

State's Foreign Language Requirements

As of October 2005, State had 3,267 positions-43 percent of all foreign
service positions overseas-designated as requiring some level of foreign
language proficiency. These positions span about 69 languages. State
places the required languages into three categories based on the amount of
time it takes to learn them.

           o  Category I languages are world languages, such as Spanish and
           French, which relate closely to English. Fifty-five percent of the
           language-designated positions require proficiency in a world
           language.
           o  Category II languages, such as Albanian or Urdu, are languages
           with significant linguistic or cultural differences from English.
           State refers to such languages as "hard" languages. Twenty-nine
           percent of the language-designated positions require proficiency
           in a hard language.
           o  Category III, the "superhard" languages, include Arabic and
           Chinese, and are exceptionally difficult for native English
           speakers to learn. Sixteen percent of the language-designated
           positions require proficiency in a superhard language. Figure 2
           shows the percentage of language-designated positions by category.

           Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category

           Note: Other languages include German, Indonesian, Malay, Swahili,
           and Tetum, which take longer to learn than category I languages,
           but less time than category II languages.

           State's philosophy is to hire officers with a wide range of skills
           that it believes are predictors of success in the foreign service.
           It does not hire exclusively for skills that State can train, such
           as foreign languages. As a result, State's primary approach to
           meeting its language requirements is through language training,
           primarily through classes provided at its training arm, the
           Foreign Service Institute (FSI). FSI's School of Language Studies
           offers training in more than 60 languages. FSI also provides
           full-time advance training in superhard languages at FSI field
           schools and programs overseas. In addition, overseas posts offer
           part-time language training through post language programs funded
           by the regional bureaus and their posts. Although State's main
           emphasis is on enhancing its foreign language capability through
           training, it does have special mechanisms to recruit personnel
           with foreign language skills. For example, applicants who pass the
           oral assessment can raise their ranking by passing a language test
           in any foreign language used by State. Additional credit is given
           to candidates who pass a test in languages that State has deemed
           as critical needs languages, including Arabic; Chinese; Korean;
           Russian; Turkic languages (Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkish,
           Turkmen, and Uzbek); Indic languages (Urdu, Hindi, Nepali,
           Bengali, Punjabi); and Iranian languages (Farsi/Persian, Tajiki,
           Pashto). Officers hired under this initiative must serve in a post
           that requires the language for which they were recruited, for
           their first or second tour.

           State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls; but
           Critical Gaps Remain at Hardship Posts

 			  Although DRI brought in a large number of new FSOs, it made
           minimal impact in addressing the staffing gaps at hardship posts,
           largely because of new staffing demands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
           The department has implemented new incentives to address the
           chronic mid-level shortfalls at hardship posts; however, since
           implementing these incentives, State has not yet evaluated their
           effectiveness. In our review, we found that mid-level staffing
           gaps persist; bids for mid-level positions at hardship posts have
           not increased significantly since we reported in 2002; and
           positions normally held by mid-level officers are typically
           staffed by junior officers, sometimes on their first assignment,
           with few mid-level officers to provide supervision or guidance.
           Recently, State launched the Global Repositioning Initiative,
           which will move positions from places like Europe and Washington
           D.C., to critical posts in areas such as Africa and the Middle
           East. However, it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of
           this initiative, and State's reluctance to direct its employees to
           serve in locations where they have not bid on, means that these
           redirected positions may remain vacant.

           State Has Made Progress in Decreasing Staffing Shortages but Has Not
           Fully Met Its Goals

           Since 2002, under its DRI, State has increased its number of
           permanent positions and available staff worldwide for both the
           foreign and civil service, but these increases were largely offset
           by urgent staffing demands at critical posts in countries such as
           Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2002, State had more than 500 unstaffed
           foreign service positions; in 2005, there were fewer than 200 such
           openings. However, the deficit in civil service staffing has
           increased. In 2002, State had over 800 unfilled civil service
           positions; in 2005, there were over 1,700 such positions. State
           hired most of its new staff through DRI, bringing in more than
           1,000 new employees above attrition, thus achieving its numerical
           hiring goals. These employees were hired primarily to allow staff
           time for critical job training-also referred to as a "training
           float"-to staff overseas posts, and to be available to respond to
           new emerging priorities. However, according to State's Human
           Resources officials, DRI's goals became quickly outdated as new
           pressures resulted from staffing demands for Iraq and Afghanistan.
           For example, the department has currently levied what it calls an
           "Iraq tax" on all its bureaus in order to support its operations
           in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past 2 years, bureaus have had to
           give up a total of 280 mid-level generalist and specialist
           positions for Iraq, and it is anticipated that another such tax
           will be imposed for 2007.

           Effectiveness of Hardship Incentives Has Not Been Measured

           Beginning in 2001, in an effort to address the growing number of
           mid-level vacancies at hardship posts, State created a series of
           incentives-including extra pay and negotiated tour lengths-to
           attract mid-level employees to hardship posts around the world.
           For example, the SND Program offers employees an extra 15 percent
           pay for an additional year of service at the most difficult to
           staff posts. While State has information on the number of officers
           actually enrolled in the program, it was not able to provide data
           on the number of eligible officers who did not. State's Director
           General and officials from its HR/CDA said that State has not
           completed any formal evaluations of the incentives; instead,
           officials from the HR/CDA meet informally to discuss how well the
           incentives are working. Without formal evaluations, the department
           has not been able to systematically measure whether the extra
           hardship pay incentive has had a significant impact on staffing at
           hardship posts. Senior officials with whom we spoke in Washington,
           D.C., and FSOs at hardship posts had mixed views on whether the
           SND program has been effective. Some officers stated that the pay
           differential was indeed a factor in their decision to bid on the
           post. However, several former ambassadors and the Executive
           Director of the Bureau of African Affairs said they believe the
           program has not attracted additional bidders to African posts.
           These officials stated that the incentive has had limited impact
           at posts that were already offering a 25 percent pay differential
           because the additional incentive is offset by the harsh conditions
           at such posts.

           While it may be too early too assess the effectiveness of more
           recently implemented initiatives, such as negotiated tour lengths,
           former and current ambassadors with whom we spoke stated that this
           initiative may not benefit posts. In particular, they noted that
           although negotiating a shorter tour length might initially attract
           bidders to hardship posts, such frequent rotations negatively
           affect a post's ability to carry out the United States' foreign
           policy goals. For example, according to State, the average length
           of tours at posts in the Muslim world is about 22 percent shorter
           than those elsewhere. Noting the prevalence of 1-year tours in the
           Muslim world,6 a senior official at State said that officers with
           shorter tours tend to produce less effective work than those with
           longer ones.

           In addition to incentives, State has implemented a new career
           development program-the Generalist Career Development Program-that
           stipulates service at a hardship post as a requirement for
           consideration of promotion to the senior foreign service. The new
           requirements include a mandatory tour at a 15 percent differential
           or greater hardship post. Officials from HR/CDA stated that it was
           too early to tell whether this new requirement for promotion to
           the senior foreign service will be effective in attracting
           mid-level officers to hardship posts.

           Staffing Gaps for Key Mid-Level Positions Persist; Positions Filled
			  by Junior Officers in Stretch Positions

           State's largest staffing gaps continue to be at mid-level. These
           and other gaps are exacerbated by continued low bidding for
           positions at hardship posts. Furthermore, many mid-level vacancies
           are filled by junior officers. Staff have cited family issues and
           the lack of locality pay comparable with what they would receive
           in Washington, D.C., as being among the key disincentives to
           bidding for hardship positions.

           Staffing Gaps at the Mid-Level Persist

           As of December 2005, State had a combined deficit of 154
           officers,7 with the largest staffing deficits continuing to affect
           mid-level positions across all career tracks. Table 3 shows
           staffing surpluses and deficits by career track for foreign
           service generalists as of December 31, 2005.

State Has Made Progress Addressing Staffing Shortfalls; but Critical Gaps Remain
                               at Hardship Posts

State Has Made Progress in Decreasing Staffing Shortages but Has Not Fully Met
Its Goals

Effectiveness of Hardship Incentives Has Not Been Measured

Staffing Gaps for Key Mid-Level Positions Persist; Positions Filled by Junior
Officers in Stretch Positions

  Staffing Gaps at the Mid-Level Persist

6According to State, the Muslim world is comprised of 58 countries and
territories with significant Muslim populations, many of which are members
of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. These countries have a
combined population of 1.5 billion people and are located in Africa, Asia,
and Europe.

7The total deficit decreases to 82 when junior grade levels 05 and 06
positions are included. We did not include them in this calculation
because we were told that these grades were training positions that are
not counted against the deficit.

Table 3: Foreign Service Generalists' Surplus/(Deficit) across Career
Tracks as of December 31, 2005

Grade                                               Public Surplus/Deficit           Total 
level     Management Consular Economic Political diplomacy  by grade level Surplus/Deficit 
Senior MC       (10)       10        0        21       (8)                              13 
level                                                                      
       OC       (16)      (3)       18        29      (20)                               8 
                                                                        21 
Mid     1       (19)       34       32        71      (93)                              25 
level                                                                      
        2       (58)       31       17        36     (186)                           (160) 
        3         16    (143)     (26)      (56)        28                           (181) 
                                                                     (316) 
Junior  4        232    (580)      124       166       199             141             141 
level                                                                      
Total          145.0  (651.0)    165.0     267.0      (80)                         (154.0) 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

Note: Senior foreign service grades include minister counselor (MC) and
counselor (OC).

In 2003, State officials told us that it would take about 9 to 10 years to
eliminate the mid-level gap.8 Officials whom we met with more recently
said it would take several years for DRI hiring to begin addressing the
mid-level staffing shortages because the earliest DRI hires are just now
being promoted to the mid-level. On average, it takes approximately 4.3
years for a junior officer to receive a promotion to the mid-level.
According to State's comments on this report, the department expects to
eliminate mid-level deficits by 2010.

  Mid-Level and Other Staffing Gaps Exacerbated by Low Bidding for Positions at
  Hardship Posts

Although bidding for hardship posts with the smallest pay differentials
has increased slightly since we last reported on this issue in 2002,9 it
remained about the same for posts with the highest differentials, such as
those with 20 and 25 percent. Figure 3 shows the average number of bids on
FS-02, FS-03, and tenured FS-04 mid-level positions at overseas posts by
differential rate for the 2005 summer assignments cycle. Overall, posts in
Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia continue to receive the lowest
number of bids, averaging about 4 or 5 bids per position, while posts in
Europe and the Western Hemisphere receive the highest bids, averaging 15
and 17, respectively. For example, in 2005, posts in Bujumbura, Burundi;
Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Calcutta, India;
received, on average, between zero and two bids per mid-level officer
position. In addition, we found that in the 2005 assignments cycle, 104
mid-level positions had no bidders at all, including 67 positions in
Africa and the Middle East.

8 GAO-04-139 .

9 GAO-02-626 .

Figure 3: Average Number of Bids by Hardship Differential for Grades 2, 3,
and 4

Note: The line in the graph shows the median of the average number of bids
for each differential rate. Also, only selected posts are named.

Consular positions in the posts with the highest hardship differential (25
percent) continued to receive some of the lowest number of bids in 2005.
As shown in figure 4, consular positions at 25 percent differential posts
received, on average, only 2.5 bids per position compared with 18 for
nonhardship posts. Low numbers of bids at hardship posts have resulted in
positions remaining vacant for long periods of time. For example, a senior
consular position in Lagos, Nigeria, has been vacant since July 2001, and
a consular chief position in Shenyang was vacant from December 2003 until
August 2004. Such gaps negatively impact a post's ability to carry out its
mission.

Figure 4: Average Bids per Career Track by Hardship Differential for 2005

In 2005 consular and public diplomacy positions were the hardest to fill,
with 91 percent of the vacancies in these two tracks at the mid-level.
Although the department has seen an increase in spending on U.S. public
diplomacy programs, several embassy officials stated that they do not have
the capacity to effectively utilize increased funds. Moreover, these
staffing gaps also limit the amount of training public diplomacy officers
receive, because many officers are sent to fill a position quickly and
never benefit from full training, ultimately limiting the success of their
public diplomacy outreach efforts. Further, due to staffing shortages in
consular sections around the world, there are fewer staff to implement the
new interview requirements and screening procedures for visas, resulting
in extensive wait times for applicants for visa interviews at consular
posts overseas. From November 2004 through May 2005, there were 63 posts
reporting wait times of 30 or more days on a given month, signaling a
significant resource problem for State.

  Many Mid-Level Positions Are Staffed by Junior Officers

In order to fill vacancies, primarily at hardship posts, State sometimes
allows stretch assignments, which enable staff to bid for a position at
either a higher grade than their current grade level (called an
"upstretch") or a lower grade (a "downstretch"). Often, upstretch
assignments are offered as a reward and career-enhancing opportunity for
staff who have demonstrated outstanding performance, and many officers
successfully fulfill the duties requested of the higher grade level.10
However, a 2004 report by State's Inspector General11 found that in many
African posts, for example, there were significant deficiencies in the
ability, training, and experience of FSOs serving in upstretch
assignments.

At posts we visited in early 2006, we found staffing conditions similar to
those we reported on in 2002, when we found experience gaps and other
staffing shortfalls at hardship posts.12 For example, in 2002, we reported
that, in the 10-officer consular section in Lagos, only the consul had
more than one tour of consular experience. In addition, we reported that
the office had many unfilled mid-level positions, many of which were at
the time being staffed by first-tour junior officers and civil service
employees who had never served overseas. In our most recent visit, we
found that the consulate in Lagos was staffed by a mix of officers,
including numerous junior officers in stretch positions.

Moreover, many officers in stretch positions at hardship posts continue to
lack the managerial experience or supervisory guidance needed to
effectively perform their job-duties. Junior officers in consular sections
at hardship posts consistently reported that they lack management
guidance. In addition, junior officers in stretch assignments at the
various posts we visited stated that, without mid-level officers to guide
them, many times they can only turn to senior management, including the
ambassador, for assistance. According to a 2004 State Inspector General
report, more time is spent by senior staff, including ambassadors, on
operational matters, and less time is devoted to overall planning, policy,
and coordination than should be the case.13 Many junior officers also
stated that, although they were filling stretch positions at the
mid-level, they were not allowed to receive management training from State
due to their lower grade status. According to one officer, she requested
management training to help her manage staff in accordance with her role
as acting chief of a key section of the embassy, but was denied the
opportunity because, despite her current assignment, she was not a tenured
mid-level officer.

10According to State the rationale for stretch assignments (upstretches
and downstretches) is both system- and employee-driven. Upstretches can be
career enhancing, or accommodate family needs or staffing gaps.
Downstretches may happen to accommodate family needs or be the end result
after an employee is promoted when in an at-grade position.

11Strengthening Leadership and Staffing at African Hardship Posts, U.S.
Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Memorandum Report
ISP-I-04-54, July 2004.

12 GAO-02-626 .

Senior management at posts we visited shared some of these concerns. A
former Deputy Chief of Mission in Nigeria stated that it is extremely
difficult for junior officers to work in stretch assignments when there
are few mid-level officers to guide them. Ambassadors at these posts also
stated that, although many junior officers entering the foreign service
are highly qualified, they did not have sufficient training to handle some
of the high stress situations they encounter and often end up making
mistakes. For example, according to the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria-the
third largest mission in Africa with nearly 800 employees-the embassy
presently had only three senior officers at the time of our visit, and
public affairs were handled entirely by first tour junior officers. Also,
according to U.S. officials in Beijing, the mid-level consular manager
positions in Shenyang and Chengdu, China-two locations with high incidence
of visa fraud-were held by first tour junior officers at the time of our
visit. We observed similar shortages and employees staffed above their
grades in consular sections in Africa and China when we reported on
staffing of hardship posts in 2002. Consular chiefs in Beijing raised
concerns about the lack of management guidance and supervision available
to junior officers due to the lack of mid-level officers at constituent
posts in China. One consular chief stated that the lack of adequate
supervision at constituent posts requires that he or his deputy frequently
travel to the posts outside of Beijing to provide guidance to the junior
officers. Another was concerned that her caseload limited the amount of
guidance she was able to give to her constituent posts.

Other areas, such as regional security, are also compromised as a result
of mid-level vacancies. Security officers at one hardship post told us
that, without mid-level staff, they sometimes lack the resources to
adequately perform basic duties, such as accompanying the ambassador on
diplomatic travel or, as was the case during a recent visit by the First
Lady, providing adequate personnel to accompany her staff. Former
ambassadors with whom we spoke expressed serious concerns about the
department's diplomatic readiness and conveyed their belief that a post's
ability to carry out critical duties is significantly compromised when the
proper staffing levels, and particularly well-trained officers, are not in
place.

13ISP-I-04-54.

  Family Issues and Locality Pay Discourage Bidding at Hardship Posts

Many of the overseas staff we whom we met cited family
considerations-child-related and spousal employment concerns, in
particular-as the greatest obstacle to attracting mid-level officers to
hardship posts. The spouses and other household members of FSOs who
responded to a State internet survey14 listed spousal employment as the
primary reason why officers do not bid for hardship posts. In many
hardship posts, it is extremely difficult for spouses to find employment,
particularly in China and most of South Asia, where bilateral work
agreements are not in place. State officials told us that the department
has recently initiated new programs to mitigate this problem, such as
providing fellowships for spouses to continue their professional
development, offering online courses or entrepreneurial workshops to
encourage small business development, or training spouses to find
employment in the local economy. The department plans to expand these
programs in the future with a particular emphasis on spouses in hardship
locations.

The survey respondents also listed child-related issues as a major factor
in the officers not bidding for positions. A particular concern is that
many hardship posts do not have appropriate schooling for American
children, thus limiting options for employees with families. In Sana'a,
Yemen, for example, post positions are only available to staff with
children under age 5 or over 21 due to a lack of schools. This has been an
outstanding concern for the Sana'a post, and post officials told us that
post management is heavily engaged in trying to find a solution to the
problem. In addition, the number of unaccompanied posts15 has increased in
recent years, making it difficult for employees with families to bid on
them. As of April 2006, there were 21 unaccompanied and limited
accompanied posts and more than 700 positions at such posts. Moreover,
State officials said that this number will probably increase due to
increasing security concerns around the world.

14State conducted an internet survey of foreign service spouses and
members of household from January 30 to February 21, 2006. The survey has
a 35 percent response rate (3,258 responses) and thus cannot be
generalized.

15Unaccompanied posts are posts where family members may not accompany an
officer. Limited accompanied posts are posts that are restricted to adult
dependents and minors less than 5 years of age.

Lastly, officers and State personnel we interviewed both, at hardship
posts and in Washington, D.C., consistently cited the lack of locality
pay16 as a deterrent to bidding at hardship positions. In 2002, we
reported that the differences in the statutes governing domestic locality
pay and differential pay for overseas service had created a gap in
compensation penalizing overseas employees.17 This gap grows every year,
as domestic locality pay rates increase, creating an ever-increasing
financial disincentive for overseas employees to bid on hardship posts.
After accounting for domestic locality pay for Washington, D.C., a 25
percent hardship post differential is eroded to approximately 8 percent.
As estimated in our 2002 report, differential pay incentives for the 15
percent differential hardship posts are now less than the locality pay for
Washington, D.C., which is currently 17 percent and can be expected to
soon surpass the 20 percent differential hardship posts. Currently, there
is legislation pending in Congress to alleviate the locality pay disparity
by providing FSOs stationed outside the United States with locality-based
pay equal to that of Washington, D.C.18 However, there has been no final
action in Congress regarding this legislation since 2005.

State Reluctant to Use Directed Assignments

Despite chronic staffing shortages at hardship posts, especially at the
mid-level, State is reluctant to use its authority to direct assignments
based on risk and priorities at particular posts; rather, it assigns
employees to posts for which they have expressed interest. According to
State officials, State has rarely directed FSOs to serve in locations for
which they have not bid on a position, including hardship posts or
locations of strategic importance to the United States, due to concerns of
an increase in poor morale or lower productivity. With continuing
budgetary limitations, it will be increasingly difficult for the
department to increase financial incentives for hardship posts; moreover,
given the lack of an increase in bidders, the effectiveness of such
incentives is questionable. State's Global Repositioning Initiative,
announced in January 2006, will move positions from Washington and Europe
to critical posts in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. However,
there is no guarantee that these positions will be filled because bidding
will continue to be on a voluntary basis. Throughout the past decade, some
State officials have urged the department to employ a more aggressive
strategy to ensure that employees serve where their skills are needed
most. Additionally, despite concerns of an increase in low morale, several
officials whom we spoke with at hardship posts believe that in order to
effectively address these persistent staffing gaps, State needs to direct
assignments more often, particularly to hard-to-fill posts.

16Locality pay is a salary comparability benefit to attract workers in the
continental United States to the federal government versus the private
sector. Currently locality pay for Washington, D.C., is 17 percent.

17 GAO-02-626 .

18Section 305, H.R. 2601 (109th Cong., 1st Sess.), "Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007."

  State Has Made Progress in Increasing Its Foreign Language Capabilities, but
                        Significant Language Gaps Remain

State has made several efforts in recent years to enhance its foreign
language capabilities, in particular by increasing the number of its
language-designated positions and its efforts to recruit and hire staff
with foreign language skills, as well as by creating additional language
requirements and incentives for staff. However, significant foreign
language gaps remain, and State has not assessed the effectiveness of its
efforts to increase its language capabilities.

State Has Increased the Number of Language-Designated Positions and Made Efforts
to Enhance Foreign Language Capabilities

State has made several efforts to improve its foreign language
capabilities, including creating additional language-designated positions
and enhancing recruiting efforts. State has increased the number of
language-designated positions by 27 percent. In 2001, there were 2,581 (29
percent) of all foreign service positions that required some level of
foreign language proficiency. As of October 2005, there were 3,267
positions (43 percent) that required some level of foreign language
proficiency. These positions span about 69 languages. State has also
enhanced its efforts to recruit and hire FSOs with language skills. For
example, State's Office of Recruitment has targeted its recruiting
outreach efforts to universities with strong language programs and
conferences of language professionals, as well as associations and
professional organizations, such as the Arab American Institute, that have
members already fluent in critical needs languages. In addition, State
offers bonus points on the foreign service exam to candidates who
demonstrate proficiency in critical needs languages. State then requires
these officers to serve in positions that will employ their language
skills during their first or second assignment. As of April, 2006, almost
80 percent of entry level officers who received additional exam points for
their critical language skills were assigned to locations that could
utilize their language within their first or second tour.

State has also implemented career development criteria, effective January
1, 2005, that require, among other things, foreign language proficiency as
a prerequisite for consideration for promotion. Specifically, in order to
become eligible for promotion to the senior foreign service, generalists
must demonstrate the ability to read and write a foreign language at a
general professional level. State's career development criteria for some
specialists also contain language proficiency requirements. In addition to
these requirements, State has developed financial incentives for officers
with certain proficiency levels in critical languages. Moreover, State has
enhanced its overseas language programs through various initiatives,
including expanded use of overseas language schools and post language
programs, as well as by increasing the number of weeks of training offered
in certain critical languages and by providing language immersion courses
for officers transitioning to new posts.

State Continues to Have Shortages of Staff Proficient in Foreign Languages

Despite its efforts to enhance the language capabilities of its staff,
State continues to fill language-designated positions with staff who do
not meet the proficiency requirements. Even some officers who met the
requirements told us their language ability was not adequate for them to
effectively perform their job-related responsibilities. Furthermore, some
officers believe that State's assignment and promotion system hindered
their ability to maintain their language skills over time. Officials whom
we met with at several posts described a number of situations in which the
posts' operations were adversely effected by their lack of language
proficiency. State has not assessed the effectiveness of its efforts to
increase its language capabilities or conducted a risk assessment to
prioritize the allocation of foreign language resources.

  Some Staff Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions

State assesses language proficiency based on a scale established by the
federal Interagency Language Roundtable. The scale has six levels-0 to
5-with 5 being the most proficient (see table 4). Proficiency requirements
for language-designated positions at State tend to congregate at the
second and third levels of the scale. When proficiency substantially
exceeds one base skill level yet does not fully meet the criteria for the
next base level, a plus sign (+) designation may be added.

Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements

Proficiency level         Language capability requirements                 
0 - None                  No practical capability in the language.         
1 - Elementary            Sufficient capability to satisfy basic survival  
                             needs and minimum courtesy and travel            
                             requirements.                                    
2 - Limited working       Sufficient capability to meet routine social     
                             demands and limited job requirements. Can deal   
                             with concrete topics in past, present, and       
                             future tense.                                    
3 - General professional  Able to use the language with sufficient ability 
                             to participate in most formal and informal       
                             discussion on practical, social, and             
                             professional topics. Can conceptualize and       
                             hypothesize.                                     
4 - Advanced professional Able to use the language fluently and accurately 
                             in all levels normally pertinent to professional 
                             needs. Has range of language skills necessary    
                             for persuasion, negotiation, and counseling.     
5 - Functionally native   Able to use the language at a functional level   
                             equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated 
                             native speaker.                                  

Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents.

We compared the language proficiency of staff in all language-designated
positions as of October 2005 with the requirements for the positions, and
our analysis showed that 71 percent of all worldwide language-designated
positions were filled by individuals who met the position's proficiency
requirements, while 29 percent of the positions were not.19 Language
deficiencies exist world-wide, but were among the greatest in the Middle
East, a region of great importance to the war on terror, where 37 percent
of all language-designated positions were filled by staff without the
language skills required of their positions. The skills gap was even
greater at some critical posts; for example, 59 percent in Cairo, Egypt;
and 60 percent in Sana'a, Yemen. See appendix III for the worldwide
percentages of staff filling language-designated positions that did not
meet the language speaking and reading requirements of their positions.

To further illustrate how skill gaps differ among languages of varying
levels of difficulty, we analyzed data on superhard, hard, and world
language-designated positions. Our analysis showed that the greatest
deficiencies existed for positions requiring superhard languages, such as
Arabic, compared with hard and world languages. Almost 40 percent of
superhard language-designated positions worldwide (465 positions) were
filled by individuals who did not meet the language requirements of their
position; this figure was 30 and 25 percent for hard and world language
designated positions, respectively. Further, the highest percentage-almost
40 percent-of superhard positions filled by officers that did not meet the
speaking and reading language requirements were among positions requiring
Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. (See fig. 5).

19The percentages are for officers and specialists who met both the
speaking and writing requirement for their positions. The percentage
increases to 74 percent if individuals who met either the speaking or the
reading requirement, but not both, are included. This analysis combined
the language proficiency scores of FSO generalists and specialists. If the
specialists are excluded, 78 percent of generalists met the requirement.

Figure 5: Percentage of Staff Who Meet Requirements for World, Hard, and
Superhard Languages as of October 2005

Note: Several posts had dual language positions. For example, Tunis had
positions that could either be filled by an Arabic or French speaker. See
appendix I for more details on how we treated these positions.

Further analysis of Arabic and Chinese, two languages spoken in regions of
strategic interest to the United States, showed that the percentage of
staff that did not meet language requirements for their positions varied
by career tracks. For example, 100 percent of the staff filling positions
in the management career track requiring Arabic and 88 percent of the
staff filling positions in the management career track requiring Chinese
did not meet the language requirements of their positions.

Foreign service specialists-staff who perform security, technical, and
other support functions-also had high percentages of staff that did not
meet the Chinese or Arabic language requirements of their positions. In
particular, 72 and 75 percent of specialist positions requiring Chinese
and Arabic, respectively, were filled by staff who did not meet the
language requirement. (See table 5). Six of the specialists we met with in
Beijing said they did not receive sufficient language training before
arriving at post. State officials have acknowledged that foreign service
specialists have not received the required amount of training, and FSI
officials attributed this situation to time constraints. Most specialists
only have enough time to participate in FSI's Familiarization and
Short-term Training language courses designed for beginners with 2 months
or less time to devote to training. State's Director General, in a cable
issued in January 2006, stated that the department has been shortsighted
in not providing training to specialists, especially office management
specialists, and stated that required training would be available for
specialists in the future.

Table 5: Percentage of Staff Filling Chinese and Arabic
Language-Designated Positions Who Do Not Meet Proficiency Requirements, by
Type of Position

                                                        Staff filling         
                                                 positions who do not 
                    Filled language-designated          meet language 
Staff                             positions           requirements Percent
Chinese language                                                   
Generalists                             147                     40     27% 
Consular                                 57                     12     21% 
Management                                8                      7     88% 
Economic                                 29                     10     34% 
Political                                24                      5     21% 
Public diplomacy                         18                      6     33% 
Multifunctional                          11                      0      0% 
Specialists                              53                     38     72% 
Arabic language                                                    
Generalists                             140                     49     35% 
Consular                                 41                     12     29% 
Management                                5                      5    100% 
Economic                                 11                      6     55% 
Political                                31                      7     23% 
Public diplomacy                         40                     14     35% 
Multifunctional                          12                      5     42% 
Specialists                              20                     15     75% 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

  Some Question the Adequacy of the Language Proficiency Requirements of Their
  Positions

Some officers whom we met with who attained the proficiency requirements
for their assignments stated that they were not sufficiently fluent to
effectively perform their jobs. For example, the 50 language-designated,
junior officer consular positions at posts requiring Chinese require
proficiency at a speaking level of 2 and reading level of 0. Consular
officers we met with in China who tested at that level said they could ask
appropriate questions during consular interviews, but could not always
understand the answers. They pointed out that Spanish or French
language-designated consular positions require a level-3 speaking and
reading language proficiency. Moreover, a survey of junior officers
currently serving in China revealed that most of the officers not
interested in serving in China again cited language issues as the primary
reason. According to the Deputy Chief of Mission in Sana'a, the level-3
Arabic speaking and reading proficiency requirements for senior officers
do not provide staff with the proficiency needed to participate in debates
about U.S. foreign policy. He described an instance when he was asked to
appear as an embassy spokesperson on an Arabic language media program. The
program, which involved a debate format and addressed U.S. politics,
lasted 1 hour and was conducted entirely in Arabic. The official said
that, given his 4+proficiency in Arabic, he was the only official at the
embassy capable of engaging in such a debate.

According to a State Inspector General report on Embassy Tel Aviv, the
duties inherent in consular positions require staff to have better
speaking and reading Hebrew language skills than the required level 2.20
Therefore, the Office of the Inspector General recommended that
entry-level officers be given the opportunity to study Hebrew for 4 weeks
in Tel Aviv before they begin work at the embassy. Another Inspector
General report said that staff in Cairo who speak Arabic below the
required level-3 would prefer to be able to speak at a more advanced level
to conduct effective public outreach.21 Officials from the Foreign Service
Institute agreed that a level-3 speaking and reading language proficiency
in Arabic and Chinese was more appropriate for junior officers assigned to
consular positions, but they explained that language-designated position
requirements are set at a level officers can realistically achieve in the
limited amount of time available to obtain training.

20ISP-I-05-13A.

  State's Assignment and Promotion System May Hinder Efforts to Improve Its
  Foreign Language Capability

Several FSOs we met with said they believe State's current assignment and
promotion system may hinder officers' ability to enhance and maintain
their language skills over time, as well as State's ability to take
advantage of those skills and the investment it makes in training. For
example, State's requirements for tenure stipulate that junior officers
work in a variety of regions and jobs to prepare them for careers as
generalists, while State's assignment regulations do not allow junior
officers and specialists to serve consecutive tours at the same post. As a
result, junior officers are often assigned to second tours that do not
utilize the language skills they acquired for their first tour. For
example, according to FSI, assignments to Russian-speaking posts would be
complemented by assignments elsewhere in the world or Washington, D.C., to
provide the broader experience required at the senior level. There is also
a perception among some officers that spending too much time in one region
can lead to being labeled as too narrowly specialized, which could
adversely impact the officers' career. However, a senior State official
asserted that the belief that regional specialization hurts an officer's
career is untrue, and, further, that State's new career development plan
supports regional specialization.

In addition, the short length of some tours, such as 1-year unaccompanied
assignments, may not give an officer sufficient time to master a language.
According to State's Inspector General, as long as unaccompanied
assignments are restricted to 1 year, there is little incentive for
officers to seek extensive language training.22 In an effort to make
better use of the department's training investment, the FSI has encouraged
officers and specialists to take FSI courses to refine their language
skills and achieve greater facility when dealing with the local community.
But officers in both Yemen and China stated that State's assignment system
does not allow for sufficient time between assignments to utilize FSI's
continued language training. Compounding this problem, officers stated
that their language skills often diminish when a new assignment takes them
to a region requiring different language skills. According to FSI, the
need to fill gaps at posts, the lack of a training float, and other
circumstances particular to individual staff-such as family issues,
learning difficulties and aptitude, and application-hinder FSI's language
training efforts.

21ISP-I-05-04A.

22Employees assigned to one-year unaccompanied posts may extend their
tours.

  Lack of Foreign Language Capability May Adversely Effect State's Operations

State's foreign language gaps may negatively impact posts' operations.
According to the Assistant Secretaries of State for Education and Cultural
Affairs and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, deficits in foreign
language education negatively affect our national security, diplomacy, law
enforcement, intelligence gathering efforts, and cultural understanding by
preventing effective communication in foreign media environments, impeding
counter-terrorism efforts, and limiting our capacity to work with people
and governments in post conflict zones. We found examples of this negative
impact involving a variety of officers and specialists serving in
language-designated positions without the required foreign language
skills.

           o  Consular officers: Officials at one high visa fraud post that
           we visited stated that, due to language skill deficiencies,
           consular officers sometimes adjudicate visas without fully
           understanding everything the applicants tell them during visa
           interviews. In Jakarta, where almost all visa interviews are
           conducted in Indonesian, the consul general position was filled,
           at the time of our review, by an officer with a language waiver,23
           making supervision and monitoring of the six first tour junior
           consular officers problematic.

           o  Economic and political officers: An economic officer in a
           superhard language-speaking country had been conducting several
           important negotiations in English with foreign government
           officials over a number of months with little results. When the
           officials began discussing the same issue in the host country
           language, the whole tenure of the negotiations changed. According
           to the officer, one of the foreign government officials who did
           not understand English, and was therefore silent throughout the
           initial meetings, had actually been the most valuable source of
           information all along, yet could only convey that information when
           the meeting was conducted in his own language. Additionally,
           according to senior officials in two of the countries we visited,
           officers without fluent language skills who accompany them to
           high-level meetings often produce inaccurate notes. Since these
           notes provide a basis for the embassy's reporting, the officials
           spend a great deal of time correcting notes rather than addressing
           more pressing concerns. Furthermore, in Beirut, State's Inspector
           General reported that most of the political and economic officers
           did not receive the Arabic-language training needed to work
           professionally in Lebanon, limiting opportunities to expand their
           contacts to the less sophisticated urban areas and into the
           countryside.

           o  Public diplomacy officers: Officers at many posts cannot
           communicate effectively with foreign audiences in local languages,
           hampering their ability to cultivate personal relationships and
           explain U.S. foreign policy. According to a recent GAO report24
           many public diplomacy officers in the Muslim world cannot
           communicate with local audiences as well as their positions
           require. For example, an information officer in Cairo stated that
           his office does not have enough Arabic speaking staff to engage
           the Egyptian media effectively. According to a State Inspector
           General inspection report on the U.S. embassy in Damascus, public
           affairs officers need Arabic language skills to maintain and
           expand contacts with nongovernmental, human rights, and civil
           society groups, but the language training offered in Damascus
           fails to prepare them for the idiomatic Arabic spoken in the
           country.

           o  Management officers: According to one ambassador we met with, a
           senior level embassy official, who did not have sufficient
           speaking and reading language requirements for his position, met
           with a prime minister, but was unable to participate fully in the
           top-secret discussion without an outside translator present.
           However, because the prime minister would not speak freely with
           the translator present, the meeting was not productive.

           o  Foreign service specialists: A regional security officer stated
           that lack of foreign language capability may hinder intelligence
           gathering because local informants are reluctant to speak through
           locally hired interpreters.

           State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Efforts

           State has yet to evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to
           improve its foreign language capabilities. In 2002, we reported
           that State did not know whether its language incentives had helped
           to close skill gaps for certain languages. We recommended that
           State adopt a strategic, results-oriented approach to its human
           capital management and workforce planning. We recommended an
           approach that included setting strategic direction, assessing
           agency gaps in foreign language skills, developing an action plan,
           and monitoring its implementation and level of success. In
           response, State described a number of activities it was
           undertaking as examples of how it had addressed many of the
           elements of workforce planning. However, we noted that State still
           needed to develop an action plan for correcting foreign language
           shortfalls and institute a monitoring process to assess the action
           plan's implementation and performance.25

           In 2003, we reported that State had not established numerical
           targets for the number of individuals with hard-to-learn language
           skills it aimed to hire. We also reported that State could not
           provide current or historical data showing the number of
           individuals it hired as a direct result of its targeted outreach
           efforts. We further recommended that State collect and maintain
           data on the effectiveness of its efforts to address language
           gaps.26 At the time of that review, State said that it maintains
           data on its recruitment efforts. More recently, State's Director
           of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment told us that State has
           made greater use of technology to track the results of its
           outreach efforts. However, State was not using these data to
           routinely and systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its
           efforts. For example, when we asked for data to demonstrate
           whether the percentage of new hires with foreign language skills
           had increased since our last review, State initially told us that
           such data were not available.27 State also told us that it still
           could not link the results of its hiring to its targeted outreach
           efforts. In its comments on this report, State provided a skills
           gap analysis, which it submitted to the Office of Management and
           Budget under the President's Management Agenda, as an example of
           how it evaluates the effectiveness of its efforts to increase the
           language proficiency of its FSO generalists and specialists. This
           submission included targets for increasing the number of officers
           who speak and read a language at a level 3 or above in fiscal year
           2007. However, these targets were not linked to individual
           languages.

           GAO's internal control standards28 instruct agencies to identify
           risks that could impede the efficient and effective achievement of
           their objectives and assess their impact. State has not conducted
           an assessment that would prioritize the resources it devotes to
           specific languages based on risk. However, a number of potential
           risks are associated with not having staff with the right language
           skills at critical posts, including the risks of (1) adjudicating
           visas to the wrong applicants, thereby jeopardizing U.S. national
           security; (2) missing opportunities to advance U.S. foreign policy
           positions due to ineffective communication with foreign media
           environments; and (3) compromising U.S. intelligence gathering as
           a result of lost information from potential informants. State's
           Director General has said that State has not conducted the type of
           risk assessment that would potentially reallocate resources from
           one area to another based on strategic importance. Instead, State
           refines its critical needs languages list on a yearly basis.

           Conclusions
			  
			  Despite the progress made under the DRI, critical gaps in staffing
           at hardship posts and shortages of staff with foreign language
           proficiency in critical languages continue to impact State's
           diplomatic readiness. State has provided a variety of incentives
           and taken a number of other actions to attract staff to hardship
           posts and to improve its foreign language capabilities since we
           last reported on this issue in 2003; however, State has not
           evaluated these efforts. Further, some mid-level positions at
           hardship posts continue to remain vacant for years, and we found
           that bids for such positions have not increased significantly.
           Moreover, State has resisted using its authority to direct staff
           to hardship posts to fill critical vacancies. Similarly, State has
           not conducted the type of risk assessment of its critical language
           needs that would allow it to reallocate limited staffing,
           training, and other resources to fill critical language gaps in
           areas of high priority. Because State does not currently have a
           sufficient level and mix of staffing and language resources to
           immediately fill all of its gaps in these areas, choices must be
           made about diplomatic readiness priorities, given the risk and
           strategic interests in particular regions and countries. Without
           taking a risk-based approach to the allocation of these limited
           resources, these gaps will continue to compromise State's ability
           to carry out its foreign policy objectives and execute critical
           mission functions, including reaching out to foreign audiences in
           regions of critical importance to the war on terror.

           Recommendations for Executive Action

           To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as
           the language proficiency of FSOs and other staff, this report
           recommends that the Secretary of State take the following five
           actions:

           o  Consider using directed assignments, as necessary, using a
           risk-based approach, to fill critical positions with fully
           qualified officers who have the skills and experience necessary to
           effectively manage and supervise essential mission functions at
           hardship posts;

           o  Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the department's
           incentive programs for hardship post assignments, establishing
           specific indicators of progress and adjusting the use of the
           incentives based on this analysis;

           o  Consider an assignment system that allows for longer tours,
           consecutive assignments in certain countries, and more regional
           specialization in certain areas, in order to hone officers' skills
           in certain superhard languages and better leverage the investment
           State makes in language training;

           o  Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to
           improve the language proficiency of its FSOs and specialists,
           establishing specific indicators of progress in filling language
           gaps and adjusting its efforts, accordingly; and

           o  Conduct a risk assessment of critical language needs in regions
           and countries of strategic importance, make realistic projections
           of the staff time and related training float necessary to
           adequately train personnel to meet those needs, and target its
           limited resources for language training, as needed, to fill these
           critical gaps.

           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           State provided written comments on a draft of this report. The
           comments and our responses to specific points are reprinted in
           appendix IV. State generally concurred with the report's
           observations, conclusions, and recommendations. For example, State
           said it would consider using directed assignments when necessary
           and evaluate the effectiveness of its incentives programs. The
           department also stated that it is examining its assignment system
           and expects to make significant changes that will address many of
           the concerns noted in this report. State described a number of
           programs that it has initiated to address staffing and foreign
           language shortfalls. State cited the Generalist Career Development
           Program and its Global Repositioning Initiative as examples of
           efforts to encourage service at hardship posts and enhance foreign
           language proficiency.

           State commented that it is evaluating the effectiveness of its
           efforts to improve the language capabilities of its staff.
           However, while State is evaluating some components of its efforts
           to enhance language capabilities, it is not doing so routinely and
           systematically. For example, it did not compile data to determine
           whether the percentage of new hires with language skills had
           increased until we requested it, and State acknowledged that the
           department still could not link the results of its hiring to its
           targeted outreach efforts. In addition, State commented that it
           conducts a risk assessment when the department reassesses its
           language needs when realigning positions to support administration
           priorities, conducts annual reviews of language designations of
           positions, and modifies its critical language requirements to
           align with its diplomatic strategies. However, State does not
           conduct the type of assessment that we are recommending, which
           would allocate language resources based on the strategic
           importance of a country or region and the risks associated with
           not having language-proficient staff at posts in those locations.

           We are sending this report to other interested Members of Congress
           and to the Secretary of State. We will also make copies available
           to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available
           at http://www.gao.gov .

           If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-4128 or [email protected] . Contact points for
           our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
           found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
           contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

           Sincerely yours,

           Jess T. Ford Director, International Affairs and Trade

           Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
			  
			  To assess the Department of State's (State) progress in
           eliminating staffing gaps, we

           o  reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports,

           o  reviewed documentation on the goals and results of the
           Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) and reports on incentives to
           attract bidders to hardship posts,

           o  analyzed staffing and vacancy data, including State
           surplus/deficit reports,

           o  analyzed 2004 and 2005 bidding data to determine the average
           number of bids per posts by hardship differential and by career
           track, and

           o  interviewed officials in State's Bureau of Human Resources and
           Bureau of Consular Affairs and six regional bureaus regarding
           vacancy and staffing issues.

           To determine the total staff surplus/deficit at the Department of
           State, we analyzed State staffing data and compared the number of
           positions in each career track with the number of FSOs in each
           track. To calculate the deficit for the mid-level officers, we
           used data for FS-01, FS-02, and FS-03. For example, if the total
           number of employees in the consular career track is 1,055 and the
           total number of consular positions is 1,866, the deficit in
           officers would be 811. We analyzed data for each career track to
           determine the surplus/deficit for each.

           We analyzed bidding data to determine the average number of
           position bids by posts, the median average bid for each
           differential rate, and the areas of specialization that are
           difficult to staff.1 For these analyses, we used the mid-level
           bidding data for the 2005 summer assignments cycle. In order to
           compare 2005 data with 2002 data from our previous report and
           remain consistent, we used FS-04 tenured, FS-03, and FS-02 bid
           data. To obtain the average number of bids for each post, we took
           the total number of bids received on all positions at each post
           and divided it by the total number of positions to be filled at
           the post. For example, in the 2002 summer assignments cycle, Lagos
           had eight positions to be filled and received a total of 11 bids,
           resulting in an average of 1.38 bids for this post. To obtain the
           median bid at each differential rate, as represented in the line
           in figure 3, we arranged in ascending order the average bid for
           each post at the corresponding differential rate and used the
           middle average bid. For example, assuming there are only five
           posts at the 25 differential rate and their average bids are 3, 5,
           7, 9, and 16, the median of the average bids is 7. The bidding
           data include the number of positions to be filled at each post and
           the number of bids received for each position. We used the
           mid-level bidding data because mid-level positions comprised 56
           percent of the total foreign service workforce. We also used the
           bidding data for the summer assignments cycle because, according
           to State officials, most employees are transferred during this
           cycle, compared to the winter cycle. Although we analyzed data for
           the two cycles, we provided information for only the 2005 cycle
           because the results for 2004 were similar.

           To assess State's progress in filling gaps in the language
           proficiency of foreign service officers and other staff, we
           performed the following:

           o  reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports;

           o  analyzed data on the foreign language requirements of State and
           its efforts to enhance its foreign language capability;

           o  analyzed worldwide data on language-designated positions by
           post, languages, career track, specialty, and grade;

           o  analyzed data on the language proficiency of staff at specific
           posts by career track, specialty, and grade; and

           o  interviewed officials of the Office of Recruitment and the
           Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis of the
           Bureau of Human Resources, State's Office of Inspector General,
           and the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) regarding the hiring and
           training of language proficient staff.

           We compared the number of language designated positions in fiscal
           year 2001 with the number in 2005 to determine whether the number
           of language-designated positions had increased, decreased, or
           remained the same. We also compared staff's language proficiency
           skills with their position's language requirements to determine
           whether they met the requirements for the positions. For this
           analysis we considered language-designated generalist and
           specialist positions that were filled as of October, 2005. We
           compared the positions' speaking and reading requirements against
           their occupants' tested scores in the designated languages. In
           cases where the occupants of language-designated positions had no
           tested score, we deemed that they had failed to meet the
           requirements. Several posts had "dual-language" positions; for
           example, Tunis had a number of positions that could either be
           filled by an Arabic or a French speaking officer. For some
           dual-language positions, the occupants tested for both languages,
           and in those instances we selected either the designated primary
           language, according to State's records, or the secondary language
           if the occupant failed to meet the primary language's requirements
           but met the second language's requirements. In our tabulations, we
           classified those dual language positions according to the ones we
           selected, which were usually, but not always, the designated
           primary languages. There were a number of dual language positions
           whose occupants met the requirements for both languages. As our
           analysis was designed to test whether the positions' requirements
           were being met, not to estimate the number of occupants with
           language abilities at each post or for each language, we did not
           include those secondary languages. For a few positions, State had
           created two sets of language requirements; when that occurred, we
           compared the higher of the requirements against the tested scores.

           We obtained bidding, assignment, and foreign language data from
           State's Global Employee Management System (GEMS) database, which
           tracks State personnel actions. The data in GEMS are compiled from
           a variety of sources. For example, the Office of Career
           Development and Assignments (HR/CDA) in State's Bureau of Human
           Resources enters data in GEMS on the results of the bidding and
           the assignment of employees to overseas posts. FSI provides the
           data on the language proficiency of FSOs and specialists. We
           reviewed the data for reasonableness and interviewed officials
           from the Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis
           and HR/CDA, and officials of the Foreign Service Institute
           concerning the reliability of the data. The officials stated that
           all employees are knowledgeable about their data, which serves as
           a reliability check on the system. Based on our analysis of the
           data and discussions with the officials, we determined the data
           are sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

           We conducted fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria; Sana'a, Yemen;
           and Beijing, China, to study the impact of staffing and language
           gaps at selected posts.2 We developed a matrix containing
           information on staffing vacancies, number of bids per position,
           officers in stretch positions, foreign language requirement, and
           the foreign language capabilities of staff in language-designated
           positions to identify potential fieldwork locations. We selected
           the posts in Nigeria because of the low number of staff applying
           for each position. We selected Sana'a because of the low number of
           staff applying for each position, because it requires staff
           proficient in Arabic, which is a difficult language to learn, and
           because of Yemen's importance to the war on terrorism. We selected
           Beijing because it requires staff proficient in Chinese, which is
           also a difficult language to learn, and because of its strategic
           importance to the United States. We performed our work from August
           2005 to May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
           auditing standards.

           Appendix II: Department of State Staffing
			  
			  As of September 30, 2005, the Department of State (State) had
           about 19,000 full-time American employees, including foreign
           service generalists, foreign service specialists, and civil
           servants. Table 6 illustrates State's staffing by position type,
           as of September 30, 2005.

           Table 6: State Department Worldwide Staffing by Position Type as
           of September 30, 2005

           
                                     Full-time Full-time     Staff            
                                     permanent     Staff   surplus  Political 
                                     positions available (deficit) appointees
Total Department of State                                                  
staffing                             21,180    19,255   (1,925)         75
Total foreign service staffing       11,387    11,189     (198)         49 
Foreign service                                                            
generalist-overseas                   4,457     4,232     (225)         45
Foreign service                                                            
specialist-overseas                   3,403     3,150     (253)          4
Foreign service                                                 
generalist-domestic                   1,890     2,123       233 
Foreign service                                                 
specialist-domestic                   1,637     1,684        47 
Total civil service staffing          9,793     8,066   (1,727)         26 

           Source: Department of State.
			  
			  Appendix: III: Foreign Language Proficiency at Language-Designated
Positions 


           Table 7: Location, Number of Language-Designated Positions, and
           Percent of Staff Filling the Positions Who Do Not Meet the
           Speaking and Reading Language Requirements

                      Number of language-     Percent of staff who do not meet 
Location         designated positions                language requirements 
Abidjan                            22                                   47 
Abu Dhabi                          10                                   25 
Abuja                               1                                  100 
Adana                               3                                   67 
Addis Ababa                         2                                  100 
Algiers                            10                                   11 
Almaty                             14                                   30 
Amman                              18                                   18 
Amsterdam                           3                                    0 
Ankara                             31                                   36 
Antananarivo                       12                                   55 
Ashgabat                           11                                   20 
Astana                              6                                   25 
Asuncion                           20                                   22 
Athens                             27                                   36 
Baghdad                             6                                   67 
Baku                               18                                   44 
Bamako                             14                                   77 
Bangkok                            41                                   37 
Bangui                              3                                    0 
Banja Luka                          1                                  100 
Barcelona                           4                                    0 
Beijing                           104                                   38 
Beirut                              9                                   12 
Belgrade                           23                                   38 
Belize City                         1                                  100 
Berlin                             37                                   30 
Bern                               15                                   46 
Bishkek                             9                                   11 
Bogota                             97                                   20 
Bordeaux                            1                                    0 
Brasilia                           43                                   47 
Bratislava                         14                                   29 
Bridgetown                          2                                  100 
Brussels                           16                                   20 
Brussels NATO                      16                                   47 
Brussels USE                       11                                   40 
Bucharest                          28                                   33 
Budapest                           28                                   48 
Buenos Aires                       41                                   24 
Bujumbura                          10                                   33 
Cairo                              32                                   59 
Caracas                            45                                   27 
Casablanca                         12                                   56 
Chengdu                            16                                   54 
Chennai                             1                                    0 
Chiang Mai                          6                                    0 
Chisinau                           11                                   33 
Ciudad Juarez                      18                                   33 
Cologne                             1                                  100 
Colombo                             4                                    0 
Conakry                            12                                   36 
Copenhagen                          8                                   12 
Cotonou                             9                                   25 
Curacao                             1                                    0 
Dakar                              29                                   33 
Damascus                           19                                   41 
Dar-es-Salaam                       3                                   67 
Dhahran                             3                                   33 
Dhaka                              11                                   18 
Dili                                2                                   50 
Djibouti                            7                                   75 
Doha                                4                                   25 
Douala                              1                                  100 
Dubai                               6                                   17 
Dushanbe                            8                                   62 
Du:sseldorf                         2                                    0 
Florence                            3                                    0 
Frankfurt                          32                                   39 
Fukuoka                             4                                   50 
Geneva                             10                                   22 
Georgetown                          1                                  100 
Guadalajara                        20                                   10 
Guangzhou                          35                                   31 
Guatemala                          36                                   26 
Guayaquil                          12                                    0 
Hamburg                             4                                    0 
Hanoi                              19                                   24 
Havana                             27                                   36 
Helsinki                            7                                   14 
Hermosillo                          8                                    0 
Ho Chi Minh City                   26                                   16 
Hong Kong                          18                                   44 
Islamabad                           6                                    0 
Istanbul                           19                                   25 
Jakarta                            35                                   21 
Jeddah                              8                                   14 
Jerusalem                          14                                   29 
Kabul                              16                                   67 
Kathmandu                           8                                   40 
Kiev                               40                                    9 
Kigali                             13                                   30 
Kinshasa                           22                                   24 
Krakow                             12                                   18 
Kuala Lumpur                        5                                   40 
Kuwait                             13                                   50 
La Paz                             29                                   19 
Lagos                               1                                    0 
Leipzig                             3                                   33 
Libreville                          7                                   17 
Lima                               50                                   21 
Lisbon                             20                                   25 
Ljubljana                           9                                   12 
Lome                                9                                   29 
London                              1                                    0 
Luanda                             11                                   33 
Luxembourg                          8                                   37 
Lyon                                1                                    0 
Madrid                             35                                   13 
Managua                            30                                   15 
Manama                              7                                   17 
Manila                              6                                   17 
Maputo                             15                                   15 
Marseille                           2                                   50 
Matamoros                           6                                    0 
Medan                               2                                    0 
Merida                              5                                    0 
Mexico City                         1                                    0 
Mexico DF                          96                                   16 
Milan                              13                                   18 
Minsk                              12                                    9 
Monterrey                          26                                    0 
Montevideo                         16                                   20 
Montreal                           13                                   30 
Moscow                             95                                   29 
Mumbai                              2                                    0 
Munich                              8                                   29 
Muscat                              6                                   60 
Nagoya                              2                                   50 
Naha                                5                                   50 
Nairobi                             4                                  100 
Naples                              8                                   29 
N'Djamena                           8                                   57 
New Delhi                          15                                   38 
Niamey                             10                                   10 
Nicosia                             2                                    0 
Nogales                             4                                   67 
Nouakchott                          6                                   20 
Nuevo Laredo                        5                                   20 
OECD Paris                          5                                   20 
Osaka-Kobe                         10                                   30 
Oslo                               10                                   25 
Ottawa                              7                                   17 
Ouagadougou                        10                                   43 
Panama                             31                                   19 
Paramaribo                          3                                    0 
Paris                              64                                   22 
Paris UNESCO                        5                                   40 
Peshawar                            3                                    0 
Phnom Penh                         10                                   50 
Podgorica                           3                                   33 
Punta Delgado                       2                                   50 
Port Louis                          6                                   25 
Prague                             23                                   12 
Praia                               3                                   50 
Pristina, KO                        8                                  100 
Port-Au-Prince                     30                                   15 
Quebec                              2                                    0 
Quito                              28                                   17 
Rabat                              20                                   42 
Rangoon                             8                                   37 
Recife                              4                                    0 
Reykjavik                           4                                   50 
Riga                               11                                   25 
Rio de Janeiro                     18                                   24 
Riyadh                             19                                   31 
Rome                               43                                   38 
San Jose                           28                                   16 
San Salvador                       38                                   21 
Sana'a                             19                                   60 
Santiago                           29                                   22 
Santo Domingo                      50                                    7 
Sao Paulo                          30                                   28 
Sapporo                             2                                  100 
Sarajevo                           20                                   47 
Seoul                              33                                   17 
Shanghai                           32                                   37 
Shenyang                           16                                   60 
Singapore                           2                                   50 
Skopje                             14                                   27 
Sofia                              17                                   19 
St. Petersburg                     10                                   12 
Stockholm                          11                                   44 
Strasbourg                          1                                    0 
Surabaya                            7                                   17 
Suva                                1                                    0 
Tallinn                             9                                   25 
Tashkent                           22                                   29 
Tbilisi                            14                                   70 
Tegucigalpa                        33                                   19 
Tel Aviv                           22                                   28 
The Hague                           8                                   14 
Thessaloniki                        2                                    0 
Tijuana                            14                                   14 
Tirana                             15                                   33 
Tokyo                              45                                   39 
Tokyo RLS                           1                                    0 
Toulouse                            1                                    0 
Tripoli                             6                                   60 
Tunis                              26                                   35 
Tunis RLS                           1                                    0 
Ulaanbaatar                         4                                   50 
Vatican                             5                                   75 
Vienna                             16                                   33 
Vienna OSCE                         1                                  100 
Vientiane                          11                                   27 
Vilnius                            11                                   11 
Vladivostok                         5                                   40 
Warsaw                             42                                   21 
Yaounde                            18                                   33 
Yekaterinburg                       6                                   20 
Yerevan                            17                                   50 
Zagreb                             17                                    0 

           Source: GAO analysis of Department of State Data.
			  
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State

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

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's
letter dated July 17, 2006.

                        1. We have modified our discussion of staffing at
                        posts in Nigeria and China to show that there is a
                        mix of officers.
                        2. Any analysis of bidding data will necessarily
                        involve "snapshots" in time. Our analysis of the 2005
                        bidding data was intended to demonstrate whether
                        posts with higher hardship differentials have
                        difficulty attracting applicants compared to posts
                        with low or no differentials. Our approach was
                        identical to the one we used in 2002, and State
                        raised no such concerns then. Our analysis shows that
                        State has not made much progress since 2002 in
                        attracting employees to bid on hardship posts.
                        3. We acknowledge that State has a system for
                        identifying its language requirements. However, State
                        continues to fill language-designated positions with
                        staff who do not meet the language requirement. As
                        noted in this report, foreign language gaps may
                        negatively impact posts' operations. For example,
                        consular officers at one post told us they sometimes
                        adjudicate visas without fully understanding
                        everything the applicants tell them during visa
                        interviews. A risk-based approach will allow State to
                        make choices given its current mix of staffing and
                        language resources.
                        4. State did not provide these reports to us until
                        after our report was drafted, and we did not have
                        sufficient time to assess them. The language
                        competency assessment State provided shows the total
                        number of officers with certain levels of proficiency
                        in critical needs languages and corresponding ratios
                        of officers with language proficiency to language
                        designated positions. The assessment also establishes
                        out-year targets for increasing the number of
                        officers with level-3 language proficiency. However,
                        it does not break out the data and targets by
                        individual language. Thus, State's overall targets
                        could be achieved, even if serious proficiency gaps
                        remained for some languages but not for others. We
                        also note that the report does not include targets
                        for specialists. Further, State has acknowledged that
                        it has not collected data to link its recruitment
                        efforts to the number of people it hires with foreign
                        language skills.
                        5. Our analysis of the language proficiency of
                        officers in language designated positions is based on
                        State's own established requirements for these
                        positions, whether for generalists or specialists. We
                        provided information on the language proficiency of
                        the two different groups for Arabic and Chinese, and
                        we noted that specialists had some of the highest
                        percentages of staff that did not meet their
                        position's requirements. We further noted that
                        State's Director General had stated, in a cable
                        issued in January 2006 that the department had been
                        shortsighted in not providing sufficient language
                        training to specialists. We have included additional
                        information on the overall percentages of officers
                        meeting language requirements for the two different
                        groups.
                        6. We have included additional information on the
                        percentages of officers meeting either the speaking
                        or reading requirement, but not both requirements. We
                        note that the differences are only 3 percentage
                        points.
                        7. We added a statement to the discussion of 1-year
                        tours noting that employees may extend their tours.
								
           Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

           GAO Contact
			  
			           Jess T. Ford (202) 512-4128

           Staff Acknowledgment

           In addition to the individual named above, Michael Courts,
           Assistant Director; Joseph Carney, Martin de Alteriis, Gloria
           Hernandez-Saunders, Julia Roberts, Josie Sigl, and La Verne
           Tharpes made key contributions to the report.

           GAOï¿½s Mission
			  
			  The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.

           Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
           GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
           its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
           products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
           to Updates."

           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. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548

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

           To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470

           Congressional Relations
			  
			  Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           Public Affairs
			  
			  Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

                       
23A language waiver is granted to officers who do not comply with the
position's required language proficiency levels. A language waiver is
requested by a post or bureau and granted by the Bureau of Human Resources
under some circumstances, usually because of an urgent need for the
assignee to proceed to post.

24GAO, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim
Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant
Challenges, GAO-06-535 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006).

25 GAO-02-375 .

26 GAO-04-139 .

27State later compiled the data from FSI records.

28GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1 (Washington, D.C.: September 1999).

1The bidding and assignment data that we reviewed were for tenured FS-04,
FS-03, and FS-02 mid-level positions. In terms of the foreign service
grade structure, mid-level positions are equivalent to the civil service
GS-12, GS-13, and GS-14, respectively.

2The results of the fieldwork cannot be generalized to posts worldwide.

(320357)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-894 .

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above.

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-4128 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-894 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.S. Senate

August 2006

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to
Address Gaps

GAO has reported in recent years on a number of human capital issues that
have hampered the Department of State's ability to carry out U.S. foreign
policy priorities and objectives, particularly at posts central to the war
on terror. In 2002, State implemented the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative
(DRI) to address shortfalls in the number and skills of State employees.
This report discusses State's progress in (1) addressing staffing
shortfalls since the implementation of DRI and (2) filling gaps in the
language proficiency of foreign service officers and other staff. To
accomplish these objectives, GAO analyzed staffing and language data and
met with State officials.

What GAO Recommends

To enhance staffing levels and skills at hardship posts as well as
language proficiency of foreign service staff, GAO is making five
recommendations to the Secretary of State in the areas of staffing and
assignment of foreign service staff, including using directed assignments,
as necessary, using a risk-based approach to fill critical positions with
fully qualified officers who have the skills and experience necessary to
effectively manage and supervise essential mission functions at hardship
posts; and systematically evaluating the effectiveness of initiatives to
reduce staffing and language gaps. State generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations.

State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since
implementing the DRI. However, the initiative did not fully meet its
goals, and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at many posts, including
some critical to the war on terror. State implemented various incentives
to attract more mid-level officers to these locations, including offering
extra pay to officers who serve an additional year at certain posts.
However, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of these incentives and
continues to have difficulties attracting qualified applicants. Mid-level
positions at many posts are staffed by junior officers who lack
experience, have minimal guidance, and are not as well-equipped to handle
crises as more seasoned officers. This experience gap can severely
compromise the department's readiness to carry out foreign policy
objectives and execute critical post-level duties.

State has made progress in increasing its foreign language capabilities,
but serious language gaps remain. State initiated a number of efforts to
improve its foreign language capabilities. However, it has not evaluated
the effectiveness of these efforts, and it continues to experience
difficulties filling its language-designated positions with language
proficient staff. Almost one third of the staff in these positions do not
meet the language requirements. The percentage is much higher at certain
critical posts-for example, 60 percent in Sana'a, Yemen. Several
factors-including the perception that spending too much time in one region
may hinder officers' and specialists' promotion potential-may discourage
employees from bidding on positions where they could enhance and maintain
their language skills over time and limit State's ability to take
advantage of those skills and the investment it makes in training. Gaps in
language proficiency can adversely impact State's ability to communicate
with foreign audiences and execute critical duties.
*** End of document. ***