This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-799 
entitled 'Overseas Rightsizing: State Has Improved the Consistency of 
Its Approach, but Does Not Follow Up on Its Recommendations' which was 
released on July 25, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate: 

July 2012: 

Overseas Rightsizing: 

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, but Does Not 
Follow Up on Its Recommendations: 

GAO-12-799: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-799, a report to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, a U.S. government panel 
determined that staffing levels had not been adjusted to reflect 
changing missions, requirements, and security concerns. In 2004, 
Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of Rightsizing 
within the Department of State. The office reviews levels of overseas 
staffing for all U.S. government agencies at every post every 5 years, 
projects future staffing levels it determines are appropriate to meet 
mission needs, and recommends ways to improve efficiency. Rightsizing 
is intended to align the number and location of staff with foreign 
policy priorities, security, and other constraints. 

GAO examined (1) the consistency of State’s approach to conducting 
rightsizing reviews and how its projections compare to actual staffing 
levels; (2) the focus of State’s rightsizing recommendations; and 
(3) the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and 
monitors implementation of recommendations. GAO reviewed 181 
rightsizing reviews, compared projections in reviews with current 
actual staffing data, and interviewed officials from State and other 
agencies in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of State (State) has improved the consistency of its 
rightsizing approach across overseas posts. However, differences 
between future staffing levels it projects are appropriate to meet 
mission needs and actual staffing levels still exist due to 
unanticipated events and other factors. GAO reported in 2006 that State’
s Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) had 
not been conducting its rightsizing reviews consistently. Some reviews 
discussed various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing, while 
others did not. State has since improved the consistency of its 
reviews by developing a variety of methodological tools and a standard 
template which it applies to each post. GAO found that over half of 
the 144 rightsizing projections analyzed were within 10 percent of 
actual staffing levels as of December 2011. In contrast, over 40 
percent of the posts have staffing level differences of over 10 
percent. Unanticipated events and other factors, such as changes in 
policies, contributed to these differences. For example, according to 
the management officer in Mozambique, M/PRI projected staffing 
increases as a result of the President’s program to combat AIDS, but 
the actual funding level for the program was much higher than 
anticipated. This resulted in higher actual staffing levels for both 
U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions. 

Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations 
and eliminate duplicative services and positions. To develop its 
recommendations, M/PRI reviews the levels of all staff at posts and 
seeks input from State and non-State agencies. M/PRI relies on non-
State agencies to determine independently their own staffing needs. 
Many of State’s recommendations for a specific post focus on the level 
of State’s administrative or management staff, rather than State’s 
programmatic staff or staff from other agencies. Some State officials 
stated that the activities of administrative and management staff are 
better suited to quantitative measurement while the qualitative nature 
of programmatic staff activities, such as discussing policy issues 
with foreign diplomatic counterparts, is more difficult to measure. 

State’s use of rightsizing reviews varies, and State does not follow 
up on review recommendations. State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings 
Operations uses the staffing projections in rightsizing reviews to 
plan the size of new embassy compounds. Further, M/PRI uses 
rightsizing reviews when it assesses requests by State or other 
agencies to add staff to overseas posts, although the final decision 
is made by the respective Chief of Mission. In addition, Bureau of 
Diplomatic Security officials said that they incorporate rightsizing 
reviews into their annual staffing planning exercise, and some post 
officials said that they refer to rightsizing reviews to support 
staffing changes. Some U.S. officials stated that undertaking the 
rightsizing process acts as a check on growth in overseas staffing 
levels. However, some State regional bureau officials said that they 
do not actively use the reviews except as a historical overview of 
staffing, and some post officials said that they do not use the 
reviews at all. State often uses documents other than rightsizing 
reviews for decisions in areas including staffing levels. Finally, 
State does not monitor the implementation of rightsizing review 
recommendations and has not designated an office with responsibility 
for their implementation. State issues an annual report to Congress in 
which it lists the rightsizing reviews it has completed, number of 
positions recommended for elimination, and potential cost savings; the 
report does not address whether recommendations have been implemented. 
Because State does not track or report on the implementation of 
recommendations, State cannot determine if rightsizing reviews are 
achieving their purpose of aligning overseas staffing levels with U.S. 
priorities. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State designate the appropriate 
entities to ensure that rightsizing recommendations are addressed and 
to track and report the actions taken to implement the 
recommendations. State described a number of actions it intends to 
take that could address GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-799]. For more 
information, contact Michael J. Courts at (202) 512-8980 or 
courtsm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, but Unanticipated 
Events and Other Factors Contribute to Differences between Actual and 
Projected Staff Levels: 

Rightsizing Recommendations Focus on State Administrative and 
Management Staff, and State Relies on Non-State Agencies to Determine 
Their Own Staffing Needs: 

State Offices Vary in Their Use of Rightsizing Reviews, and State Does 
Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing Recommendations: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Required Elements of Rightsizing Reviews: 

Table 2: Countries with the Largest Differences between December 2011 
Staffing Levels and Rightsizing Review Projections: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Percentage of Rightsizing Reviews with December 2011 
Staffing Levels Over and Under Rightsizing Projections: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

ICASS: International Cooperative Administrative Support Services: 

M/PRI: Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation: 

MSRP: Mission Strategic Resource Plan: 

NSDD-38: National Security Decision Directive 38: 

OBO: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

PEPFAR: President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: 

State: Department of State: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 25, 2012: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

After the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, 
Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, a U.S. government panel convened to 
conduct an assessment of overseas presence determined that the 
staffing levels at embassies and consulates worldwide had not been 
adjusted to reflect changing missions, requirements, and security 
concerns. In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office 
of Rightsizing within the Department of State (State).[Footnote 1] 
This office, now part of the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing 
and Innovation (M/PRI), reviews staffing levels for all U.S. 
government agencies at every overseas mission[Footnote 2] once every 5 
years and before undertaking all capital construction projects. The 
office also projects future staffing levels that it determines are 
appropriate to meet the missions’ needs and recommends ways to improve 
efficiency. Since 2002, we have conducted several reviews related to 
U.S. government staffing overseas.[Footnote 3] In these reviews, we 
examined the rightsizing process and issues related to the 
construction of new facilities overseas, among other things. In 2006, 
we found that the information presented within rightsizing reviews 
varied from post to post, and the rightsizing elements that the posts 
evaluated and reported were not consistent. 

In response to your request, we examined (1) the consistency of 
State’s approach to conducting rightsizing reviews and how its 
projections compare to actual staffing levels; (2) the focus of 
State’s rightsizing recommendations; and (3) the extent to which State 
uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors implementation of 
recommendations. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed rightsizing guidance, related 
legislation, 181 rightsizing reviews State undertook from 2005 through 
2011, and previous GAO reports related to U.S. government staffing 
levels overseas. We reviewed 14 rightsizing reviews in greater depth, 
to obtain additional information about the rightsizing process, the 
differences between projected and actual staffing levels, and post 
officials’ use of the reviews. We conducted site visits at 3 of the 
posts: Prague, the Czech Republic; Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and 
Kuwait City, Kuwait. We communicated via teleconference and other 
means with the additional posts. To compare projected staffing levels 
in rightsizing reviews with actual staffing levels as of December 
2011, we compared staffing data from State’s personnel database as of 
December 2011 with the staffing projections of 144 rightsizing reviews 
State conducted from 2006 through 2011. We did not include all of the 
rightsizing reviews in the comparison between the actual and projected 
staffing levels for various methodological reasons, such as data 
reliability concerns and review time frames that were outside the 
scope of our analysis. To assess the reasons for the differences 
between the projection and the actual staffing levels, we constructed 
a composite index for each country taking into account the differences 
in staffing levels for various personnel categories. We then sent 
questions to the management officers in 10 countries with the highest 
indices: 5 for reviews that had projected staff levels that were 
higher than actual levels and 5 for those that had projected levels 
that were lower than actual levels. In addition, we discussed 
rightsizing with State officials in Washington, D.C., from M/PRI, State’
s regional bureaus, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), 
the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Bureau of Consular Affairs. 
We also discussed rightsizing with officials from non-State agencies 
based in Washington, D.C. or overseas, including the Departments of 
Defense (DOD); Commerce; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security; 
and Justice; and the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID). Appendix I provides more information on our scope and 
methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to July 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The U.S. government maintains more than 270 diplomatic posts, 
including embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices, in 
about 180 countries worldwide. More than 80,000 U.S. government 
employees work overseas, including both U.S. direct hires and locally-
employed staff under chief of mission[Footnote 4] authority, 
representing more than 30 agencies and government entities. Agencies 
represented overseas include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, the Treasury, and USAID. 

In the aftermath of the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in 
Africa, State formed the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel to conduct 
an assessment of overseas presence. The panel determined that overseas 
staffing levels had not been adjusted to reflect changing missions, 
requirements, and security concerns. Some missions were overstaffed, 
while others were understaffed. In 2002, we outlined a framework for 
assessing overseas staff levels.[Footnote 5] In 2003, we found that 
U.S. agencies' staffing projections for new embassy compounds were 
developed without a systematic approach or comprehensive rightsizing 
analysis.[Footnote 6] 

In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of 
Rightsizing within State. The Office of Rightsizing was combined with 
two other offices in 2007 to create M/PRI. The House Foreign Affairs 
Committee directed the office to lead State's efforts to develop 
internal and interagency mechanisms to coordinate, rationalize, and 
manage the deployment of U.S. government staff overseas. This 
legislation was intended to result in the reallocation of resources to 
achieve a leaner, streamlined, more agile and secure U.S. government 
presence abroad. The conference report accompanying the legislation 
establishing the Office of Rightsizing stated that a proper 
rightsizing plan should include a systematic analysis to bring about a 
reconfiguration of overseas staffing to the number necessary to 
achieve U.S. foreign policy needs, and noted that rationalizing 
staffing and operations abroad had the potential for significant 
budgetary savings. The office was directed by the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee to review all U.S. government staffing overseas, 
including all American and foreign national personnel, in all 
employment categories. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also 
directed OBO to work closely with M/PRI to ensure that projected 
staffing levels for new embassy compounds were prepared in a 
disciplined and realistic manner, and that these estimates become a 
basis for determining the size, configuration, and budget of new 
embassy construction projects. 

M/PRI conducts rightsizing reviews before each construction project 
and on each mission every 5 years, among other responsibilities. 
[Footnote 7] M/PRI focuses on streamlining staffing levels by, for 
example, consolidating or outsourcing administrative functions. M/PRI 
also looks for opportunities to substitute less expensive, locally-
employed staff for more expensive U.S. direct-hire employees.[Footnote 
8] According to the guidance M/PRI provides to overseas missions, a 
rightsizing analysis may lead to the reallocation of resources from 
one mission goal to another and to enhancing operational efficiency 
through regionalization[Footnote 9] and centralization. M/PRI uses 
GAO's definition of rightsizing: aligning the number and location of 
staff assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, security 
concerns, and other constraints. Rightsizing may result in the 
addition or reduction of staff, or a change in the mix of staff at a 
given embassy or consulate. M/PRI's guidance stresses that all 
sections and agencies of an overseas mission should be included in a 
rightsizing analysis. 

In the first step of the rightsizing process, overseas missions, 
generally led by the mission's management officer, prepare a report 
for M/PRI outlining their strategic goals, current staffing data for 
all agencies, and projected staffing levels 5 years into the future. 
State and non-State agencies present at an overseas mission provide 
their staffing data to be included in the mission's submission to 
M/PRI. M/PRI officials stated that, under their current process, an 
M/PRI analyst usually visits the mission to assist in preparing the 
rightsizing report. After a mission completes its rightsizing report, 
the relevant regional bureau approves the submission before sending it 
to M/PRI. Next, M/PRI conducts its analysis of staffing at the 
mission, coordinating with the headquarters of non-State agencies to 
confirm the numbers provided at the mission for those agencies. When 
M/PRI completes a draft rightsizing review, other State bureaus and 
agencies have the opportunity to review and discuss it. According to 
officials from State bureaus, they frequently engage in a dialogue 
with M/PRI to negotiate the staffing projections to be published in 
the rightsizing review and in a majority of cases, differences in 
projected staffing numbers are resolved through these discussions. 
Once all bureaus and agencies have reviewed the rightsizing review 
document, M/PRI finalizes and publishes it on an internal State 
website. Since its creation in 2004, State's rightsizing office has 
conducted 224 reviews.[Footnote 10] According to M/PRI officials, all 
overseas missions have undergone the process once, and a second round 
of reviews is now under way. 

The staffing levels of a mission are determined by the chief of 
mission through the National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38) 
[Footnote 11] process, which provides authority for the chief of 
mission to determine the size, composition, or mandate of personnel 
operating at the mission. To add or abolish U.S. direct-hire positions 
at a mission, agencies electronically submit an NSDD-38 request for 
the chief of mission to either approve or deny. Requests may only 
include one agency in one country, but may include requests for 
multiple positions. Formal submission is generally preceded by 
informal discussions about the requested positions, according to 
officials. 

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, but Unanticipated 
Events and Other Factors Contribute to Differences between Actual and 
Projected Staff Levels: 

State has improved the consistency of its analyses across overseas 
missions, but differences between actual and projected staffing levels 
still exist due to unanticipated events and other factors. We reported 
in 2006 that the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and 
Innovation (M/PRI) had not been conducting its rightsizing reviews in 
a consistent manner.[Footnote 12] State has since improved the 
consistency of its reviews by developing a variety of methodological 
tools and a standard template that it applies to each mission. These 
tools include ratios and formulas that compare missions similar in 
size and foreign policy priority to help M/PRI project what the office 
determines is the appropriate level of staffing at each mission. We 
found that although actual staffing levels as of December 2011 were 
within 10 percent of projected staffing levels in over half of the 
reviews we analyzed, over 40 percent of the missions have staffing 
level differences over 10 percent. Unanticipated events and other 
factors, such as changes in policies and priorities, contributed to 
the differences between actual and projected staffing levels. 

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Rightsizing Reviews Since 
2006: 

With its current approach to rightsizing, State has improved the 
consistency of its analysis across overseas missions. In 2006, we 
reported that the information presented in rightsizing reviews varied 
from mission to mission and the rightsizing elements that missions 
evaluated and reported were not consistent.[Footnote 13] Some missions 
provided narratives discussing various rightsizing elements, such as 
outsourcing and post security, while others did not. The reviews 
ranged in length from less than 5 pages to over 20 pages. 

According to current M/PRI officials, the methodology used in the 
rightsizing process has evolved since the office was created. M/PRI 
officials stated that their reviews are now more standardized than in 
the past. The reviews now contain the same types of information in a 
similar format and have a more uniform level of detail. The required 
elements of a rightsizing review include detailed analysis of current 
and projected staff for each section of an overseas mission, as shown 
in table 1. M/PRI has also refined its methodology for analyzing 
administrative, management, and program staff. M/PRI has developed 
uniform guidance for staff at overseas missions to use in preparing 
rightsizing submissions. The majority of State officials at posts we 
visited that had participated in a rightsizing review said that the 
M/PRI guidance was helpful for the post in completing its submission. 

Table 1: Summary of Required Elements of Rightsizing Reviews: 

Element: Mission goals and objectives; 
Description: For each mission goal, identify the resources currently 
supporting that goal, and analyze the post's specific achievements in 
meeting the objectives. 

Element: Current and projected staffing; 
Description: Analyze current and projected staffing in each section of 
an overseas post and for each agency, using comparative indicators. 
Complete the summary staffing table, including all sections and/or 
agencies, showing current staffing levels, projected staffing levels, 
and the net change. 

Element: Duplicative activities; 
Description: Assess areas of duplication, activities that are no 
longer required or may require adjustment of resource levels, and 
identify activities that require increased resources to achieve their 
objectives. 

Element: Competitive sourcing; 
Description: Identify services that are or could be outsourced, 
including services contracted by the embassy such as local guard 
services, vehicle maintenance, janitor services, gardening services, 
etc. 

Element: Regionalized services; 
Description: Identify activities that are or could be performed by 
regional or U.S.-based government personnel such as financial 
management and human resources services. 

Element: Substitution of locally-employed staff for U.S. direct-hire 
positions; 
Description: Identify U.S. direct-hire or eligible family member 
positions for which locally-employed staff may be substituted. 

Element: ICASS[A] workload count; 
Description: Compare the productivity of locally-employed staff in the 
different management service functions to worldwide average 
productivity and to the productivity of staff at other posts of 
approximately the same size and operating environment. 

Source: GAO and M/PRI. 

[A] The International Cooperative Administrative Support Services 
(ICASS) system provides more than 30 services--including financial 
management, human resources, and travel services, among others--with 
costs of the services divided among the agencies and sub-agencies with 
staff at the post, based on the level of ICASS services used. 

[End of table] 

M/PRI has developed standard methodological tools to examine overseas 
staffing on a mission-by-mission basis. These tools are ratios and 
formulas that compare missions considered similar in size, foreign 
policy priority, and management and administrative requirements, and 
help M/PRI to determine what it believes to be appropriate staffing 
levels in each section of an overseas post. The total management 
ratio, for example, is the number of customer units divided by the 
number of U.S. direct-hire management positions.[Footnote 14] Further, 
the level of program staff[Footnote 15] is analyzed using two tools--
the Four Factor Index and diplomatic density. The Four Factor Index is 
an attempt to measure a country's theoretical foreign policy 
importance to the United States using a combination of factors such as 
population, gross domestic product, trade volume with the United 
States, and U.S. foreign assistance. Diplomatic density is an effort 
to quantify the size of the U.S. diplomatic presence in a country with 
respect to U.S. interests in that particular country. It is calculated 
by dividing the number of diplomatic direct-hire positions present in 
a given country by the Four Factor Index. According to M/PRI 
officials, diplomatic density tends to be relatively low in developed 
countries with which the United States has close relations, such as 
Canada, Japan, and Germany, or where our interests are limited or 
primarily humanitarian. Diplomatic density may be higher where the 
United States has or has recently had difficult relations or where 
vital security interests are at stake, such as in Russia and many of 
the countries in the Middle East. 

Many post officials we spoke with considered M/PRI's standardized 
analysis appropriate but emphasized the need for flexibility to 
account for varying circumstances at each post. Some officials noted 
that M/PRI's comparative analysis among posts was particularly helpful 
in providing context for staffing decisions. For example, one 
management officer stated that the rightsizing review found that 
locally-employed staff at post had heavier workloads than their 
counterparts at similar posts. The post used this analysis as 
justification for requesting more locally-employed staff positions. 

According to non-State officials, M/PRI generally coordinates with 
other agencies in preparing rightsizing reviews of U.S. government 
staffing overseas. In 2006, we reported that coordination with other 
agencies in the rightsizing process was initially limited.[Footnote 
16] Non-State agencies had voiced a number of concerns regarding their 
interaction with the Office of Rightsizing, including their desire for 
greater participation in the rightsizing process. We recommended that 
the Office of Rightsizing increase its outreach activities with non-
State agencies so that all relevant agencies with an overseas presence 
could discuss rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous 
basis. During our current review, non-State officials stated that 
M/PRI's current coordination efforts had improved. 

Over Half of Staffing Projections Were within 10 Percent of Actual 
Staffing Levels as of December 2011, but Some Posts Have Larger 
Differences: 

For more than half of the 144 staffing projections based on 
rightsizing reviews that we analyzed, actual staffing levels as of 
December 2011 were within 10 percent of review staffing projections, 
either higher or lower.[Footnote 17] However, over 40 percent of the 
projections based on the reviews had differences of greater than 10 
percent. About 30 percent of these had more staff than projected and 
13 percent had fewer (see fig. 1). In a few cases, the actual staffing 
levels as of December 2011 were much higher or lower than the 
projected levels. For example, the actual number of U.S. direct-hire 
desk positions (81) in Bolivia as of 2011 was less than half of the 
projected number of U.S. direct-hire desk positions (164). On the 
other hand, the actual number of U.S. direct-hire desk positions in 
Algeria (56) was nearly 20 percent higher than the projected level 
(45). See appendix I for more information about our methodology. 

Figure 1: Percentage of Rightsizing Reviews with December 2011 
Staffing Levels Over and Under Rightsizing Projections: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

81 reviews: Dec. 2011 staffing levels within 10 percent of rightsizing 
projection: 56%; 
43 reviews: Dec. 2011 staffing levels 10 to 50 percent over 
rightsizing projection: 30%; 
19 reviews: Dec. 2011 staffing levels 10 to 50 percent under 
rightsizing projection: 13%; 
1 review: Dec. 2011 staffing levels more than 50 percent over 
rightsizing projection: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of rightsizing review reports and State personnel 
database. 

Notes: 

1. The projected staffing levels were from the rightsizing reviews if 
the projection year was 2011 and were extrapolated if the projection 
year was beyond 2011. The actual staffing levels refer to the levels 
from the State post personnel database as of December 2011. The 
database includes overseas staff from State and non-State agencies. 

2. Our comparison included 144 rightsizing reviews. We excluded 
reviews for a variety of reasons, including the following: (1) the 
projection year was before 2011; (2) the actual staffing level as of 
December 2011 was deemed unreliable; (3) the review was for an 
individual post, not for all posts in a country; and (4) the review 
had no projected staffing level. 

[End of figure] 

Unanticipated Events and Other Factors Contribute to Differences 
between Projected and Current Staffing Levels: 

Numerous factors contribute to differences between projected and 
current staffing levels, such as unanticipated U.S. and foreign 
government policy changes. Officials from ten missions we identified 
as having the largest differences between December 2011 staffing 
levels and the rightsizing projected staffing levels, either higher or 
lower, identified such factors.[Footnote 18] Table 2 shows the 
percentage differences between December 2011 actual staffing levels 
and projected total staffing levels based on the rightsizing reviews 
for these missions. 

Table 2: Countries with the Largest Differences between December 2011 
Staffing Levels and Rightsizing Review Projections: 

December 2011 Staffing Level Below Rightsizing Projection: 

Country: Libya; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: -39%. 

Country: Philippines[A]; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: -32%. 

Country: Korea; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: -30%. 

Country: Bolivia; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: -28%. 

Country: Tunisia; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: -24%. 

December 2011 Staffing Level Above Rightsizing Projection: 

Country: Burkina Faso; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: 30%. 

Country: Mozambique; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: 25%. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: 22%. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: 21%. 

Country: Ghana; 
Percentage Differences between December 2011 Total Staffing Levels and 
Rightsizing Review Projections: 20%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: 

Because size of missions varies greatly, similar differences in 
percentages represent a higher number of staff in a larger mission 
than in a smaller mission. 

[A] The management officer in the Philippines explained that the large 
difference between the projected and the actual staffing levels was 
because rightsizing projections included certain contractor positions, 
such as local guards, janitors, gardeners and cafeteria workers that 
were not included in State's post personnel database, which was the 
basis for the actual staffing level. After taking out these positions 
from the projection, the total actual staffing level was close to the 
projected level. This post was the only location we interviewed where 
staffing level differences were identified as a result of data 
differences, rather than other factors related to U.S. operations in 
the country. 

[End of table] 

Unanticipated changes in U.S. government policies and priorities 
contribute to differences between actual and projected staffing levels 
at overseas posts.[Footnote 19] Programs such as the President's 
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)[Footnote 20] and USAID and 
State hiring initiatives, including Diplomacy 3.0,[Footnote 21] have 
added additional staff to overseas posts, while other changes in U.S. 
foreign policy have led to lower-than-projected staffing levels. 

* According to the management officer in Mozambique, the increase in 
the number of U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions as 
a result of PEPFAR's initiation was greater than anticipated. 

* The introduction of the Visa Waiver Program for Korea reduced the 
need for consular officers to conduct visa interviews and led to lower-
than-projected staffing levels, according to the management officer in 
Korea. 

* Ghana became a USAID priority country and the beneficiary of the 
Global Health Initiative, Feed the Future, and Partnership for Growth, 
which led to increased staffing levels, according to the management 
officer in Ghana. 

* USAID's and State's hiring initiatives added a human resource 
officer, a political officer, and a general service officer, positions 
not anticipated at the time of the rightsizing review, according to 
the management officer in Mozambique. 

* According to the management officer in Pakistan, increased funding 
to address development and security projects has led to higher 
staffing levels than the rightsizing review projected. 

* The closure of an Arabic language school for State employees in 
Tunisia resulted in staffing levels below rightsizing projections, 
according to the management officer. 

Unanticipated changes in foreign government priorities and political 
environment can contribute to differences between actual and projected 
staffing levels. A foreign government's decision to eliminate program 
funding or request the closure of a U.S. program usually leads to 
lower staffing levels, as in the following examples. 

* According to the Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait, the decrease in 
Kuwaiti government funding for the Office of Military Cooperation-
Kuwait caused the post to reduce staffing levels beginning in 2009. 

* In 2008, the Bolivian government ordered the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Agency to leave Bolivia, leading to an unexpected reduction in staff, 
according to the management officer in Bolivia. 

* According to the management officer in Libya, staff levels decreased 
after the evacuation and destruction of the U.S. embassy in February 
2011. 

Additionally, some posts reported that they were unable to carry out 
the relatively large reductions in staffing levels projected in the 
rightsizing reviews, usually for locally-employed staff positions. 
M/PRI projected sizeable reductions in locally-employed staffing 
levels for posts through outsourcing or contracting. However, some 
posts reported that a lack of viable service options in the local 
economy made it unfeasible to outsource or contract services. For 
example, 

* In Mozambique, outsourcing services such as the motor pool, customs 
shipping, travel services, and warehousing are not feasible due to the 
country's poor infrastructure, according to a management officer in 
the country. 

* In Bangladesh, according to a management officer in the country, the 
post does not contract custodial services, warehouse services, or car 
repair as recommended by the rightsizing review because no local 
contracting options exist. 

* In Burkina Faso, the embassy did not contract guard services because 
no major contractors exist in the capital, Ouagadougou, and local 
companies cannot provide the level of quality and service required by 
the post, according to the embassy's management officer. 

Rightsizing Recommendations Focus on State Administrative and 
Management Staff, and State Relies on Non-State Agencies to Determine 
Their Own Staffing Needs: 

Rightsizing recommendations often focus on administrative or 
management positions, where efficiencies are considered likely to be 
achieved. M/PRI typically does not make recommendations to non-State 
agencies and generally relies on non-State agencies, as well as 
certain State bureaus, to determine their own staffing needs. 

State's Recommendations Generally Focus on State Administrative and 
Management Staff at a Specific Post to Improve Efficiency: 

Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations 
and eliminate duplicative services and positions;[Footnote 22] these 
recommendations often focus on State's administrative and management 
staff. To develop its recommendations, M/PRI reviews the levels of all 
staff at missions and seeks input from both State and non-State 
agencies. Many of M/PRI's recommendations that we analyzed focused on 
State administrative and management staff rather than programmatic 
staff or staff from other agencies. Officials stated that 
administrative and management functions are where greater efficiencies 
are considered likely to be achieved. M/PRI recommendations may 
include outsourcing or regionalization of administrative functions 
such as voucher processing or warehousing. These changes affect 
administrative staff responsible for those functions, at times 
addressing dozens of positions filled by locally-employed staff. In 
Albania, for example, the rightsizing review recommended a reduction 
of over half of the locally-employed staff non-desk[Footnote 23] 
positions, from 216 to 93, mainly through outsourcing of guard 
services. In Bangladesh, the rightsizing review recommended 
eliminating 27 locally-employed non-desk staff positions out of a 
total of 192 to improve the efficiency of administrative functions, 
such as building, gardening, and custodial services. The review found 
that the number of square meters maintained per service provider for 
both residential and non-residential buildings in Bangladesh was lower 
than the worldwide median. For example, the review found that the area 
a service provider maintained in Bangladesh was less than half that in 
other posts for non-residential buildings and thus deemed the service 
to be inefficient. It recommended eliminating a sufficient number of 
positions to bring the ratio of square meters per service provider on 
par with other posts. 

According to State officials, the focus on management services is 
appropriate because that is where duplication of effort is most likely 
to occur. State officials said that it is easier to apply M/PRI's 
quantitative tools to administrative and management staff activities 
than to programmatic activities. According to State officials, 
administrative or management work is better suited to measurements 
that can be compared across posts. For example, voucher examiners can 
record the volume of vouchers handled in a given time and the length 
of time they take to process. M/PRI has developed tools to assess the 
level of administrative support needed at posts of different sizes and 
has used those tools to compare posts of similar size. By comparing 
the efficiency of administrative services across similar posts, M/PRI 
has developed targets that posts should meet and uses these targets to 
identify posts that may be under-or overstaffed in administrative 
functions. For example, the rightsizing review for Paraguay 
recommended that the embassy cut one U.S. direct-hire position in 
administrative services support, a general services officer. This 
recommendation was based on comparing the workload of Paraguay's 
service providers with workloads of service providers at similar 
posts--Uruguay, Croatia, and Cyprus. Rightsizing reviews also evaluate 
whether posts can utilize locally-employed staff in a position rather 
than a more costly U.S. direct hire. For example, the 2010 rightsizing 
review for Kenya recommended that the post use appointment-eligible 
family members[Footnote 24] to serve in office management positions 
instead of U.S. direct hires. According to M/PRI, the cost of 
employing these appointment-eligible family members is only a fraction 
of U.S. direct-hire employees and helps minimize the American 
footprint in dangerous overseas environments. In addition, M/PRI 
recommended that appointment-eligible family members be considered for 
employment if host country nationals are unavailable or present an 
unacceptable risk. 

According to State officials, it is more difficult to quantify the 
workload of program staff such as political officers than that of 
administrative and management staff. M/PRI has developed 
methodological tools to measure a post's diplomatic density and 
foreign policy priority for comparison with similar posts. However, 
State officials said that it is difficult to assess the efficiency of 
program staff due to the qualitative nature of their activities, such 
as discussing policy issues with their diplomatic counterparts or 
drafting briefing documents for visiting officials. Nevertheless, 
M/PRI makes recommendations regarding programmatic staff where 
possible. In Kuwait, for example, the 2010 rightsizing review 
recommended the periodic reevaluation of the political and economic 
sections to assess the possibility of combining them. In some cases, 
M/PRI has made broader recommendations for posts to review levels of 
staff across an entire region. For example, M/PRI recommended that the 
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs reevaluate an appropriate 
presence in former Warsaw Pact country posts, given that the political 
and economic environment in these countries has shifted dramatically 
during the past 2 decades. 

State Does Not Often Make Recommendations Directed at Other U.S. 
Government Agencies and Relies on These Agencies to Determine Their 
Own Staffing Needs Overseas: 

M/PRI reviews all U.S. government staffing overseas and incorporates 
staffing data and projections from non-State agencies with a presence 
overseas.[Footnote 25] While chiefs of mission have final decision-
making authority on staffing changes at their missions, M/PRI 
officials stated that their office does not have the authority to 
direct non-State agencies' overseas staffing decisions. M/PRI 
generally does not analyze staffing numbers of other U.S. agencies 
overseas or make recommendations affecting these staff. Instead, M/PRI 
officials stated that they rely on these agencies to conduct their own 
rightsizing assessments and determine independently what their 
staffing needs will be for each post. M/PRI infrequently makes 
recommendations to other agencies, such as USAID. For example, M/PRI 
recommended that USAID evaluate the distribution of its staff in 
Central America, questioning the sustainability and cost-effectiveness 
of high USAID staffing levels in El Salvador and suggesting that 
USAID's development resources could be better utilized elsewhere in 
Central America. However, such broader recommendations are an 
exception in rightsizing reviews and not a common occurrence, 
according to M/PRI officials. 

According to some bureau officials, non-State agencies that are 
relatively new to operating overseas have been slow to acclimate to 
the rightsizing process. State officials noted that non-State agency 
officials in Washington might have a different view of long-range 
overseas staffing needs than their agency officials at post. Several 
officials from different regional bureaus said that agencies prefer to 
conduct their own strategic planning and staffing exercises and view 
rightsizing as an activity internal to State. Officials from several 
non-State agencies confirmed that they conduct their own internal 
staffing analyses. For example, officials from the Department of 
Homeland Security noted that they review overseas staffing on an 
ongoing basis, since current events dictate the department's 
operational needs. Similarly, officials from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention stated that they evaluate overseas staffing 
through annual updates to their strategic staffing plan and look for 
opportunities to reduce U.S. direct hires by empowering locally-
employed staff to serve in senior management and leadership positions. 
The Defense Intelligence Agency coordinates the DOD's rightsizing 
efforts at U.S. posts; DOD components reevaluate positions worldwide 
as requirements change to ensure that staff are best positioned to 
achieve the department's mission, according to an agency official. 

State Offices Vary in Their Use of Rightsizing Reviews, and State Does 
Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing Recommendations: 

State uses rightsizing reviews to plan facilities construction and for 
certain staffing considerations, but some U.S. officials said that use 
of the reviews is limited, and State officials do not monitor whether 
recommendations are implemented. State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings 
Operations (OBO) uses the staffing projections in rightsizing reviews 
to plan the size and estimate the initial costs of new embassy and 
consulate compounds. Further, M/PRI uses rightsizing reviews when it 
assesses requests from State or other agencies to add staff to 
overseas posts, although the respective chief of mission makes the 
final decision for his or her mission. However, some regional bureau 
officials said that they do not actively use the reviews except as a 
historical overview of staffing, and some post officials said that 
they do not use the reviews at all. In addition, State often uses 
documents other than rightsizing reviews to inform decisions in areas 
such as determining staffing levels and regionalization. Finally, 
State does not monitor the implementation of rightsizing review 
recommendations and has not designated an office with that 
responsibility, making it difficult to know the extent to which 
rightsizing reviews are having an impact. 

Some State Officials Use Rightsizing Reviews to Plan Construction and 
for Certain Staffing Considerations: 

State uses rightsizing reviews for various purposes, according to U.S. 
officials. These officials use reviews to, among other things, plan 
new construction, assess requests to add staff to a post, and 
sometimes, in conjunction with other information, allocate resources. 
In addition, some State officials stated that rightsizing is the only 
comprehensive process to verify the number of overseas positions and 
the personnel occupying them. 

The reviews that precede the construction of a new diplomatic compound 
have the most impact, according to M/PRI's fiscal year 2010 report to 
Congress, because OBO uses the rightsizing projections to plan the 
size and estimate the preliminary costs of such projects. OBO 
officials told us that using rightsizing reviews to plan new 
construction is a significant improvement over the process previously 
used, which was informal and not systematic.[Footnote 26] Rightsizing 
reviews must accompany any proposal for new construction that is sent 
to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress. While OBO 
bases its construction plans on M/PRI's rightsizing review, OBO 
officials stated that they also verify the staffing numbers in the 
rightsizing reviews with the staffing numbers in personnel databases 
and with agency and post officials. If post staffing levels increase 
by more than 10 percent (the amount of growth space OBO builds in) 
after a project has started, OBO asks M/PRI to do a rightsizing 
revision to obtain more accurate numbers and improve construction 
planning, according to OBO officials.[Footnote 27] Regional bureau 
officials stated that they and post officials pay particularly close 
attention to rightsizing reviews that are conducted in preparation for 
construction because they want to ensure that OBO plans enough space 
for the new diplomatic compounds.[Footnote 28] 

Further, M/PRI and post officials stated that they use rightsizing 
reviews when assessing requests by State or other agencies through the 
NSDD-38 process to add staff to overseas posts, although the final 
decision on requests is made by the chief of mission. An M/PRI 
official stated that rightsizing reviews are intended to be used by 
the chief of mission to inform decisions on staffing, including those 
made through the NSDD-38 process. A few post management officers told 
us that the rightsizing process had prompted posts to review staffing 
requests more carefully. One management officer said that the 
rightsizing process also prompted a more substantial justification for 
NSDD-38 requests, adding organization and structure to the decision-
making process. Another management officer said that rightsizing 
prompted the post to launch a new internal mechanism to control 
growth. The post instituted an internal pre-NSDD-38 vetting process 
requiring each office or agency to justify the need for a requested 
position via internal memorandum and explain how it would be funded 
and address other logistical needs (such as available office space). 

In addition, some officials from State bureaus and posts told us that 
they use rightsizing reviews in a variety of other ways. Bureau of 
Diplomatic Security officials said that they use rightsizing reviews 
in conjunction with Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, annual 
Mission Strategic Resource Plans (MSRP),[Footnote 29] and other 
information to make resource allocation decisions in their annual 
staffing planning exercise. In addition, an official in Kuwait said 
that she read the rightsizing review when she arrived at post because 
it gave a more concise summary of conditions at post than other 
documents, such as the MSRP. Further, a regional bureau official 
stated that the primary value of rightsizing was that it forces 
missions to systematically collect information and plan for future 
staffing. Several officials stated that undertaking the rightsizing 
process acts as a check on growth in overseas staffing levels. For 
example, M/PRI's fiscal year 2011 report to Congress states that M/PRI 
projected 42 fewer U.S. direct-hire positions than missions had 
projected. 

Some post officials, particularly those in management functions, said 
that they refer to rightsizing reviews to support staffing changes. 
For example, the management officer in Paraguay stated that the post 
concurred with the rightsizing recommendation to eliminate an 
assistant general services officer position; post officials are now in 
the process of abolishing the position. The financial management 
officer in Sarajevo said that she had already considered outsourcing 
cashiering, but a rightsizing recommendation to do so gave her more 
incentive to take action. Further, according to M/PRI officials, 
M/PRI's 2007 review on Uruguay recommended adding a second U.S. direct-
hire public diplomacy position, and the post has since implemented 
that recommendation. 

According to State officials, M/PRI provides a broader perspective in 
analyzing overseas staffing, providing information on where posts are 
overstaffed or understaffed, and recommending potential ways to 
achieve greater efficiencies. OBO officials stated that rightsizing is 
an independent process that provides staffing projections. According 
to regional bureau officials, the rightsizing review is currently the 
only tool that provides a comprehensive process to verify the number 
of overseas positions and the personnel occupying them. Officials from 
several regional bureaus said that M/PRI's broader perspective in 
analyzing post operations was a benefit to rightsizing, as posts tend 
to have a narrower, more parochial perspective on what staffing levels 
are necessary. 

Some U.S. Officials Use Rightsizing Reviews Less Often than Other 
Documents that Are More Timely and More Widely Known: 

Several U.S. officials stated that they do not actively use 
rightsizing reviews; they view other documents and tools as more 
timely and useful for planning and staffing decisions. For example, 
officials from a regional bureau said that they do not actively use 
the reviews except as a historical overview of staffing. Officials 
from one regional bureau said that the 5-year reviews do not have as 
clear a use as those done specifically for construction. Some State 
post officials, especially in non-management functions, said that the 
rightsizing reviews were of little or no use to them. 

Several U.S. officials stated that they use MSRPs and OIG reports more 
frequently than rightsizing reviews to make staffing and resource 
allocation decisions. These officials said that they were more aware 
of the annual MSRPs, which are more current than 5-year rightsizing 
reviews, and OIG reports and recommendations, which require follow-up 
until they are closed. Officials said that rightsizing reviews, done 
every 5 years, quickly become outdated as the situation at a post 
changes. Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
said that, while the rightsizing review is a long-term planning 
document, the more immediate time frame of the annual MSRP is more 
actionable, given the short-term program-driven nature of the agency's 
work. Further, some State officials told us that because the 
rightsizing process is still relatively new and done at each post only 
once every 5 years, many post management officers have not yet gone 
through a rightsizing review and may be unfamiliar with it. As a 
result, some post officials may be resisting the rightsizing process 
rather than viewing it as a tool, according to M/PRI officials. 

In addition, some officials said that the final rightsizing reviews 
are not widely disseminated, or that they do not know how to find the 
reviews. Department of Homeland Security officials said that this is 
the first year State has given them access to the final rightsizing 
review on State's intranet. Previously, while they provided comments 
on drafts, they were not given access to the final document. In 
addition, a human resources officer at one of the posts we visited 
stated that the training State provides to new human resources 
officers does not mention the rightsizing review. Several officials at 
the posts we visited said that they first learned about their post's 
rightsizing review in an announcement of our visit to discuss 
rightsizing. 

State Does Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing Recommendations 
and Has Not Clearly Designated an Office Responsible for Following Up 
on Recommendations: 

State has not clearly designated an office with responsibility for 
pursuing implementation of rightsizing recommendations and does not 
track recommendation status after completing a rightsizing review, 
making it difficult for M/PRI to assess impact.[Footnote 30] The 
legislation that established the rightsizing process states that the 
Secretary of State shall take actions to carry out the recommendations 
made in each rightsizing review. 

State officials have differing opinions about who should be 
responsible for implementing recommendations. M/PRI's 2010 report to 
Congress states that rightsizing decisions are implemented through the 
NSDD-38 process, with the final decision resting with the chief of 
mission. However, one post official stated that regional bureaus 
should have responsibility for taking action on rightsizing 
recommendations because they make resource allocations across posts. 
Other post and regional bureau officials, in contrast, stated that 
individual posts have responsibility to take action on rightsizing 
recommendations because the recommendations are generally directed at 
the posts, not the bureau. Still other officials stated that the posts 
and regional bureaus should share responsibility for implementing the 
recommendations. Officials from one regional bureau said that M/PRI's 
recent rightsizing recommendations were often developed in concert 
with the regional bureaus, which could prompt the bureau to follow up 
and encourage the post to implement the recommendations. M/PRI began 
requiring posts to provide recommendation implementation action plans 
in 2007 in response to one of our previous recommendations.[Footnote 
31] However, officials said that they stopped doing the plans after 
about a year. The time horizon for implementing the rightsizing 
recommendations varied to such an extent that frequent reevaluation of 
progress would have been required to ensure compliance, which was 
impractical given M/PRI's resource constraints, according to M/PRI 
officials. Officials from both M/PRI and the regional bureaus have 
noted that M/PRI does not have the authority to compel implementation 
of rightsizing recommendations. 

Some post officials noted that there is little incentive to implement 
recommendations, particularly if the recommendations are to decrease 
the workforce size. While posts may agree with rightsizing 
recommendations in concept, the tendency is for posts to protect their 
staffing levels and look for increases if possible. For example, an 
official in Prague agreed with a rightsizing recommendation to conduct 
a strategic regional review of staffing in former Warsaw Pact 
countries to determine whether the number of positions could be 
reduced. He noted, however, that it would be difficult to accomplish 
in practice because posts lack incentive to cut positions. The post's 
budget provides salaries and other compensation for locally-employed 
staff, while State's headquarters budget provides U.S. direct-hire 
staff salaries.[Footnote 32] As a result, posts lack incentive to 
reduce U.S. direct-hire staff even though they are more costly than 
locally-employed staff. In addition, the chief of mission in a 
particular country has final authority over staffing decisions and may 
have priorities that extend beyond rightsizing considerations. 

Because it is unclear which entity is responsible for addressing 
recommendations, and State does not monitor actions taken in response 
to rightsizing reviews, State's ability to report to Congress on the 
results of the reviews is limited. No entity within State monitors 
implementation of rightsizing recommendations. Some regional bureau 
officials have stated that, since M/PRI makes the recommendations, it 
should be M/PRI's responsibility to track their implementation. M/PRI 
issues an annual report to Congress[Footnote 33] in which it lists the 
rightsizing reviews it has completed, the number of staff positions 
recommended for elimination, potential cost savings, and information 
on NSDD-38 decisions to add or abolish positions overseas. M/PRI's 
fiscal year 2010 report to Congress stated that rightsizing is a tool 
in reallocating existing personnel resources and related costs and 
ensuring that requests for new resources are the minimum required to 
meet national goals and objectives. The report asserted that 
rightsizing had resulted in 838 fewer U.S. direct-hire positions 
between 2005 and 2010, decreasing future costs by an estimated $503 
million per year for these positions. However, these numbers were 
simply an accounting of what M/PRI recommended, not what actually 
occurred. The report did not indicate whether rightsizing review 
recommendations had been implemented. M/PRI did not review those 
positions to determine if they were in fact eliminated, and, if so, 
whether they were reinstated later. In addition, the eliminated 
positions would not necessarily result in a net cost savings to the 
government. For example, although some U.S. direct-hire positions 
might be cut at one post, the persons occupying those positions could 
then be assigned to a position at a different post. M/PRI officials 
noted that they no longer calculate decreases in future costs because 
these numbers are problematic. M/PRI's fiscal year 2011 report to 
Congress does not include these estimates. 

Conclusions: 

Rightsizing reviews play a crucial role in planning construction of 
new diplomatic facilities overseas, can inform bureau and post 
decisions on staffing, and have prompted some posts to reassess 
staffing increases. M/PRI has improved the consistency of its 
rightsizing approach over the past several years. In addition, 
undertaking the rightsizing process can act as a check on growth in 
overseas staffing. A valuable component of the reviews is the 
recommendations made to improve post operations. 

The legislation that established the rightsizing process requires the 
Secretary of State to ensure that rightsizing recommendations are 
addressed; however, State officials have not developed a clear 
approach or designated an office to address, track, and report on such 
recommendations. No State office has responsibility for following up 
on recommendations, and posts or bureaus have limited incentive to 
undertake an examination of recommendations and implement them if they 
prove to have value. Further, any actions post officials take to 
implement recommendations may not be known or documented outside the 
post, which contributes to a substantial loss of information for State 
officials. Although the reviews have certain limitations, including 
competing priorities at posts, State has not yet realized the full 
potential of its rightsizing reviews. To strengthen the impact of 
future rightsizing reviews, State needs a process by which it can 
capture this information to inform future decisions about the optimal 
number and mix of staff at posts overseas to maximize the use of 
limited resources. Such a process would also strengthen State's 
ability to report to Congress on the accomplishments of its 
rightsizing process. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To strengthen the effectiveness of the rightsizing effort, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State designate the appropriate entity 
or entities to take the following two actions: 

1. ensure that rightsizing recommendations are addressed, including 
time frames for their evaluation and implementation, and: 

2. track and report on the actions taken to implement the 
recommendations. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. In its 
written comments, reproduced in appendix II, State emphasized that 
correctly aligning staffing with foreign policy goals and ensuring the 
maximum safety and efficiency of overseas operations remain top 
department priorities. State also noted that, given the critical role 
rightsizing reviews play in determining staffing levels in preparation 
for the construction of diplomatic facilities overseas and informing 
bureau and post decisions on future staffing needs, it is important 
that the rightsizing function be carried out optimally and that 
rightsizing data and analysis be shared widely. 

State indicated that it would carefully consider our recommendations, 
and it described a number of actions it intends to take that could 
address them. State noted that M/PRI will take the lead with regard to 
tracking implementation of rightsizing review recommendations. For 
rightsizing reviews initiated after August 1, 2012, as part of the 
ongoing second cycle of reviews, M/PRI analysts will outline the 
extent to which specific recommendations M/PRI provided in the 
previous rightsizing cycle have been implemented, as appropriate. 
State proposed that this information on progress related to 
implementation of M/PRI's recommendations for overseas posts be 
included in the yearly rightsizing report to Congress beginning in 
December 2012. In addition, beginning in calendar year 2013, M/PRI 
will survey each mission 1 year after the completion of a rightsizing 
review to assess progress with regard to the implementation of 
recommendations. Posts will be asked to report on measures taken to 
comply with recommendations, provide a time frame for doing so, or 
explain changing conditions or policies that make compliance 
unfeasible. State proposed to then include this additional information 
in the yearly rightsizing report to Congress beginning in December 
2013. Further, State reported ongoing efforts to refine analytical 
tools used in the rightsizing analysis and cited an intention to 
expand the number of outreach sessions and training on rightsizing to 
classes at its Foreign Service Institute. 

State also provided technical comments that were incorporated, as 
appropriate. We provided the Departments of Defense; Health and Human 
Services; Homeland Security; and Justice; and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development with relevant excerpts of the report and 
requested technical comments, but none were provided. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies of this report to the Secretary 
of State. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the 
GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8980 or c [Hyperlink, courtsm@gao.gov] 
ourtsm@gao.gov. 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 key contributions to this reported are 
listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Michael J. Courts: 
Acting Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the consistency of 
the Department of State's (State) approach to conducting rightsizing 
reviews and how its projections compare to actual staffing levels; (2) 
the focus of State's rightsizing recommendations; and (3) the extent 
to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors 
implementation of recommendations. 

Our scope included the 181 rightsizing reviews that State's Office of 
Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) completed 
between 2005 and 2011 that were provided within the time frame of our 
review. Each U.S. overseas mission has undergone at least one 
rightsizing review, according to M/PRI; a few have undergone two 
reviews. 

To obtain information on the consistency of State's approach to 
conducting rightsizing reviews, the focus of rightsizing 
recommendations, and the extent to which State uses its rightsizing 
reviews and monitors implementation of recommendations, we reviewed 
agency documents--including M/PRI's annual reports to Congress, and 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports--and interviewed officials 
from State and non-State agencies, both in Washington, D.C., and at 
overseas posts. Specifically, we discussed rightsizing with State 
officials in Washington from M/PRI, regional bureaus, the Bureau of 
Overseas Buildings Operations; the Bureau of Diplomatic Security; the 
Bureau of Consular Affairs; and the OIG. We also spoke with officials 
from non-State agencies in the United States and overseas, including 
the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, 
Homeland Security, and Justice, and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. 

To obtain more detailed information on the consistency of State's 
approach to conducting rightsizing reviews, how projections compare to 
actual staffing levels, the focus of rightsizing recommendations, and 
how State uses and monitors implementation, we selected 14 reviews to 
analyze in greater depth, traveling to 3 of the posts and contacting 
the other 11 by telephone or email. We based our selections on 
interviews with M/PRI and State's regional bureaus, the content of the 
rightsizing reviews, and the political and security conditions at post 
to ensure that we analyzed a range of experiences. In selecting posts, 
we considered the date the rightsizing review was completed, whether 
other U.S. agencies were present at post, geographic diversity and 
whether a post was located in a new embassy compound. We traveled to 
Prague, the Czech Republic; Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; and 
Kuwait City, Kuwait to discuss their respective rightsizing reviews 
with post officials. While at post, we interviewed officials in each 
embassy section, including the office of the chief of mission, 
management, human resources, financial management, facilities 
management, the regional security office, political affairs, public 
affairs, and consular affairs, among others. We also met with 
officials from other U.S. government agencies present at post. We also 
communicated with management officers at the following 11 missions: 
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Korea, Libya, Mozambique, 
Pakistan, Paraguay, the Philippines, and Tunisia. 

To obtain additional information on the consistency of State's 
approach to conducting rightsizing reviews, we reviewed agency 
documents--including M/PRI's annual reports to Congress, M/PRI's 
guidance to posts, and M/PRI's guide to rightsizing for its analysts--
and interviewed officials from State and non-State agencies, both in 
Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts. During our overseas site 
visits to the Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kuwait, we 
discussed the rightsizing process with the embassy section heads. To 
examine M/PRI's coordination with other U.S. government agencies, we 
spoke with officials from non-State agencies in the United States and 
overseas. We also discussed their process for allocating overseas 
staff with these officials. In addition, we reviewed legislation 
related to the establishment of the Office of Rightsizing within State 
and the intent of rightsizing. To examine how M/PRI's methodology has 
evolved in recent years, we reviewed 181 rightsizing reviews completed 
by M/PRI between 2005 and 2011. We reviewed information papers on 
M/PRI's methodological tools for assessing both administrative staff 
and program staff, including the total management ratio and diplomatic 
density. 

To assess the extent to which State's staffing projections compare 
with actual staffing levels, we relied on two main sources of data: 
(1) the staffing projections in the rightsizing reviews, which we 
manually entered into a spreadsheet and (2) the actual staffing levels 
State extracted from the Post Personnel database for us. To assess the 
reliability of the data, we conducted a data consistency check and 
interviewed knowledgeable State officials on how the data were 
collected and maintained, as well as how the data were extracted for 
our use. We sent the staffing projection data we manually entered to 
State for verification. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for our purpose of comparing staffing projections with actual 
staff levels as of December 2011. We obtained 181 rightsizing reviews 
from the Office of Rightsizing. We took the following steps to reduce 
the number of reviews to 144 for the comparison analysis: 

* deleted entries with projection years prior to 2011; 

* deleted entries based on an older review if there were multiple 
reviews; 

* deleted entries with unreliable data. For example, State told us 
that Afghanistan personnel numbers were not reliable; 

* consolidated projections for bilateral and multilateral missions in 
the same country. For example, we combined projections for the U.S. 
missions to Belgium, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization into one entry; 

* consolidated projections for multiple posts in one country into one 
entry. For example, we consolidated projections for posts in Russia 
and posts in Poland; and: 

* deleted entries with no projections. 

To compare rightsizing projections to the actual staffing levels of 
2011, which is the year for which State provided personnel data, we 
extrapolated 2011 staffing levels based on rightsizing review 
projections. We assumed linear growth or decline in staffing levels. 
For example, if the base year was 2008 and the projection year was 
2013, we divided the change in staffing levels by 5 (5 years between 
the projection year and the base year) to get the annual change in 
staffing levels. We added the changes for 3 years (3 years between the 
base year and 2011) to the base-year staffing level. We then 
identified the number of reviews in each category of differences 
between the actual and the projection: within 10 percent, 10 to 50 
percent overprojection, 10 to 50 percent underprojection, more than 50 
percent overprojection, and more than 50 percent underprojection. 
Missions with overprojections had fewer staff than projected, while 
those with underprojections had more. 

To understand the factors that could lead to differences between the 
actual and projected staffing levels, we identified posts with 
relatively large differences by generating a composite index for each 
country, taking into consideration the differences in absolute numbers 
and percentages for the following three categories: (a) U.S. direct-
hire desk positions, which have the most significant impact on the 
physical space at a post; (b) locally-employed staff, which comprise 
the majority of the personnel overseas; and (c) country total, which 
captures all personnel at a post . Based on the composite index, we 
identified five countries for overprojection--Tunisia, Libya, Bolivia, 
Korea, and the Philippines--and five countries for underprojection--
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Mozambique, and Burkina Faso. The 
differences between projected and actual total staffing levels as of 
December 2011 were over 10 percent for all 10 countries. We then sent 
questions to the management officers in each country asking them the 
reasons for the differences. We summarized their responses in the 
report. 

To obtain information on the focus of recommendations made by State's 
rightsizing office, we reviewed 181 rightsizing reviews completed by 
M/PRI between 2005 and 2011. During our overseas site visits to the 
Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kuwait, we discussed the 
rightsizing recommendations with the relevant section heads at each 
post. We also discussed rightsizing recommendations with the 
management officers in the other 11 missions that we selected for more 
in-depth review. 

To assess the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and 
tracks implementation of recommendations, we reviewed agency 
documents, including M/PRI's annual report to Congress, and 
interviewed officials from State and non-State agencies, both in 
Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts to obtain information on how 
officials use the reviews and monitor implementation. In addition, we 
reviewed our prior work on rightsizing, embassy construction, and 
guidance on internal controls. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Comptroller
1969 Dyess Avenue: 
Charleston, SC 29405: 

July 9, 2012: 

Dr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Dr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
"Overseas Rightsizing: State Has Improved the Consistency of Its
Approach, but Does Not Follow up on Its Recommendations" GAO Job
Code 320854. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Margot Carrington, Deputy Director, Office of Management Policy,
Rightsizing and Innovation at (202) 647-6477. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO — Michael J. Courts: 
M — Patrick Kennedy: 
State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Overseas Rightsizing: State Has Improved the Consistency of Its
Approach, but Does Not Follow up on Its Recommendations: 
(GAO-12-799, GAO Code 320854): 

Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to 
comment on the draft report "Overseas Rightsizing: State Has Improved 
the Consistency of Its Approach, but Does not Follow up on Its 
Recommendations," which discusses progress in the Department's 
rightsizing efforts. 

Correctly aligning staffing with foreign policy goals and ensuring the 
maximum safety and efficiency of overseas operations remain top 
Department priorities. The GAO report highlights the numerous ways in 
which the Department's rightsizing process contributes to these goals. 
In spite of the fact that we operate in many high threat environments 
and in areas of the world undergoing rapid change, the systematic and 
analytical framework for making staffing decisions engendered by 
rightsizing is now part of the Department's approach to making 
resource allocation decisions. As noted in the report's conclusion, 
rightsizing reviews play a critical role in determining accurate 
staffing levels in preparation for the construction of diplomatic 
facilities overseas. Moreover, rightsizing can inform bureau and post 
decisions on future staffing needs and acts as "a check on growth." 
The Department appreciates that GAO found that recommendations geared 
to improving post operations through outsourcing, regionalization and 
the elimination of duplicative staff and functions were valuable 
components of the reviews. 

Given this valuable role, it is critical that the rightsizing function 
be carried out optimally and that rightsizing data and analysis be 
shared widely. The Department appreciates GAO's interest in further 
strengthening our efforts in this regard and will consider the 
report's recommendations very carefully. 

Recommendations that State designate the appropriate entity or 
entities to ensure that 1) Rightsizing Recommendations are Addressed, 
Including Time Frames for their Evaluation and Implementation 2) the 
Actions Taken to Implement the Recommendations are Tracked and 
Reported: 

As the GAO report underscored, rightsizing is a process that involves 
numerous players in the Department, including the regional and 
functional bureaus, overseas missions, and the office of Management 
Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation (M/PRI). M/PRI will take the lead 
with regard to tracking the implementation of recommendations as 
outlined below. 

The Department has completed successfully at least one rightsizing 
review of every overseas mission and has started the second round of 
rightsizing This provides the Department a baseline to assess the 
extent to which a particular post has followed previous rightsizing 
recommendations for improving staffing alignment and post operations. 
For rightsizing reviews initiated after August 1, 2012, M/PRI will 
outline the extent to which specific recommendations M/PRI provided in 
the previous rightsizing cycle have been implemented, while taking 
into account changing conditions and policies that might have made
implementation difficult or no longer appropriate. Rightsizing reviews 
are distributed to overseas missions, regional and functional bureaus 
in the Department, and the interagency community. Moreover, reviews 
are also posted by M/PRI on the Department's internal website, 
ensuring that all information related to implementation of rightsizing 
recommendations is widely available. The Department proposes that the 
yearly report to Committees of Congress on "Rightsizing Reviews at 
Missions Overseas and the NSDD-38 Process," which outlines rightsizing 
reviews completed during that fiscal year, include information based 
on these progress assessments, starting with the December 2012 report. 

Beginning as soon as is technically feasible in CY 2013, M/PRI will 
survey each mission one year after the completion of a rightsizing 
review to assess progress with regard to the implementation of 
recommendations at this early stage in the five-year rightsizing 
cycle. Posts will be asked to report on measures taken to comply with 
recommendations, provide a time frame for doing so, or explain 
changing conditions or policies that make compliance unfeasible. The 
Department further proposes to include this additional information in 
the December 2013 yearly report to Congress. 

As some officials at overseas posts told GAO, rightsizing provides a 
context for staffing decisions and helps support staffing changes As a 
management officer at one post explained to GAO, M/PRI's comparative 
analysis helped form the justification for a request for more locally 
employed staff positions. At the same time, some regional bureau 
officials reported to GAO that the broader perspective provided by 
rightsizing was beneficial, particularly since posts tend to have more
"parochial" views about the staffing levels they require. This 
highlights the extent to which the analysis that M/PRI provides as 
part of its five year rightsizing reviews can influence the strategic 
planning process. GAO recognized the improved methodologies and 
analytical tools that the Rightsizing Office employs in its reviews; 
M/PRI continues to refine these tools to help us better align staffing 
resources. For example, the M/PRI Innovation Office just deployed a 
new interface that displays graphically the efficiency of locally 
employed ICASS staff, allowing comparisons of management operations at 
similar posts. 

As the GAO notes, chiefs of mission have full authority to determine 
the composition of staff at their missions. The President instructs 
chiefs of mission to eliminate duplicative staff and functions, and to 
bear in mind that rightsizing is an ongoing requirement. Some post 
management officers shared with GAO the fact that the rightsizing 
process had prompted their posts to review staffing requests made 
through the NSDD-38 process more carefully, including in one case 
demanding "a more substantial justification for NSDD-38 requests", and 
in another case "launching a new internal mechanism to control 
growth." M/PRI will further encourage posts to adopt such mechanisms 
by widely disseminating these types of best practices. Moreover, when 
NSDD-38 staffing requests are forwarded to posts, M/PRI will continue 
including comments that incorporate relevant rightsizing analysis to 
help inform these staffing decisions. 

Enhancing our training of management and human resources officers, who 
play a leading role in rightsizing, provides yet another way for the 
Department to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the rightsizing 
process. M/PRI will expand the number of outreach sessions and 
training on rightsizing to classes at the Department's Foreign Service 
Institute. At the same time, interagency conferences have been shown 
to be an effective way to foster coordination and collaboration, and 
to bring other agencies with an overseas presence up to date on 
rightsizing initiatives. The Department plans to hold the next 
interagency rightsizing conference in Washington, D.C., in early FY 
2013. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Michael J. Courts, (202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao.gov]. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Ming Chen, Debbie Chung, 
Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Mark Dowling, Etana Finkler, Leslie 
Holen (Assistant Director), Heather Latta, Lisa Reijula, and Christina 
Werth made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 108-199, Div. B, Title IV; 118 Stat. 80. 

[2] U.S. overseas missions can encompass multiple locations, or posts, 
within a country. For example, the U.S. mission to Germany comprises 
six posts, including an embassy in Berlin, and consulates in 
Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Leipzig, and Munich. 

[3] See GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff 
Levels Can Support Rightsizing Initiatives, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-780] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 26, 
2002); GAO, Embassy Construction: Process for Determining Staffing 
Requirements Needs Improvement, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-411] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 
2003); GAO, Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking 
Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jun. 30, 2006); and GAO, New Embassy Compounds: State Faces Challenges 
in Sizing Facilities and Providing for Operations and Maintenance 
Requirements, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-689] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jul. 20, 2010). 

[4] A chief of mission is the principal officer, usually the 
Ambassador, in charge of a U.S. diplomatic mission abroad, and has 
full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision 
of all U.S. government executive branch employees in that country 
(except for Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and 
employees under the command of a U.S. area military commander). See 22 
U.S.C. 3927. 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-780]. 

[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-411]. 

[7] The legislation establishing the Office of Rightsizing also 
directed the Secretary of State to require chiefs of mission to 
review, not less than once every 5 years, every staff element under 
their authority, including staff from other departments or agencies of 
the United States, and recommend approval or disapproval of each staff 
element. Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. B. sec. 409(a). M/PRI coordinates 
this process and provides analysis of chief of mission submissions. 

[8] U.S. overseas missions are staffed by both U.S. direct-hire and 
locally-employed staff, all of whom are considered during the 
rightsizing process. U.S. direct-hire staff work directly for a U.S. 
government agency (i.e., are not contractors); individuals who are 
hired locally to work at U.S. missions overseas are referred to as 
locally-employed staff. U.S. direct-hire staff salaries are paid for 
by budgets in Washington, D.C., while locally-employed staff salaries 
and benefits are paid for out of a specific post's budget. M/PRI 
estimates that the average cost to maintain a U.S. direct-hire 
position overseas is approximately $530,000 annually, which includes 
housing and other benefits and allowances. Costs for locally-employed 
staff, who do not receive the same benefits and allowances as U.S. 
direct-hire staff, are often significantly less. 

[9] Regionalization could include outsourcing certain activities, such 
as voucher examining, from a post to a regional center or U.S. office. 

[10] M/PRI provided us with 181 rightsizing reviews within the time 
frame of our analysis. Since that time, M/PRI has completed additional 
reviews. 

[11] NSDD-38 states that agencies with staff under chief of mission 
authority will ensure that approval from the chief of mission is 
sought, in coordination with State, before making any proposed changes 
to the size, composition, or mandate of the agencies' staffing 
elements at the post. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. 

[14] The total management ratio is a way to quantify the workload of 
service providers in the management section by measuring the amount of 
customer units served. Customer units represent the different 
customers served by the management section, including U.S. direct-hire 
staff, their family members, and locally-employed staff. 

[15] Program staff include State Department staff in the offices of 
the chief of mission, political affairs, economic affairs, and public 
diplomacy. 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. 

[17] Rightsizing reviews usually project staffing levels 4 to 5 years 
into the future based on the existing levels at the time of the 
review. For actual staffing levels, we used data as of December 2011 
from State's post personnel database, which includes overseas staff 
numbers for all agencies. For the projected staffing levels, we used 
the rightsizing reviews' numbers if the projection year was 2011 and 
we extrapolated the staffing levels if the projection year was beyond 
2011. We did not include all of the rightsizing reviews in the 
comparison between the actual and projected staffing levels for 
various methodological reasons, such as data reliability concerns and 
review time frames that were outside the scope of our analysis. See 
appendix I for more information about our methodology. 

[18] To understand the factors that could explain the differences 
between the actual and projected staffing levels, we identified posts 
with relatively large differences by generating a composite index for 
each country. Based on the composite index, we identified the top 5 
countries with projected staff levels that were higher than actual 
levels and the top 5 countries with projected staff levels that were 
lower than the actual level. We sent questions to the management 
officers in each of the 10 countries asking for their views on causes 
for the differences, and received responses from all of them. The 
following section summarizes responses from the management officers in 
these countries, as well as Kuwait, a country we visited. 

[19] Multiple factors can contribute to the differences between actual 
and projected staffing levels. The data we have are not at a level of 
specificity that would allow us to isolate the effect of each of the 
factors. 

[20] PEPFAR is a U.S. government initiative which began in 2008 with 
the goal to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. 

[21] Diplomacy 3.0 is State's multi-year hiring program to increase 
its Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel. 

[22] M/PRI officials stated that their recommendations can make posts' 
administrative services platform more efficient, which can lower costs 
for all agencies at a post. 

[23] Desk positions are those that require the use of designated 
office and desk space, while those that do not need an office, such as 
guards and garden and custodial staff, are considered non-desk 
positions. These designations help OBO determine how much space is 
needed when planning construction of an embassy or consulate. 

[24] An appointment-eligible family member is a U.S. citizen spouse or 
domestic partner, or U.S. citizen child who is at least 18 and up to 
their 21ST birthday, and who is included on the travel orders of a 
foreign service or civil service employee or uniformed service member 
permanently assigned to an overseas post under chief of mission 
authority. The appointment-eligible family member must be a resident 
at the employee's overseas post. 

[25] State's Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of Diplomatic 
Security also have methodologies for determining staffing levels. 

[26] In 2003, prior to the establishment of M/PRI, we reported that 
U.S. agencies' staffing projections for new embassy compounds were 
developed without a systematic approach or comprehensive rightsizing 
analyses. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-411]. 

[27] While many of the new U.S. facilities were planned or built prior 
to the start of the current rightsizing process, which began in 2004, 
some were planned using current rightsizing reviews. M/PRI identified 
21 rightsizing reviews that were used to plan construction. OBO 
officials said that most of the new facilities OBO has built have had 
more staff move in than originally planned. In a 2010 report on new 
embassy compounds completed between 2001 and 2009, we found that 
actual staffing levels exceeded the originally-built office space by 
more than 10 percent at almost half of the new buildings that we 
analyzed. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-689]. 

[28] According to officials, OBO's planning process typically 
incorporates a 10 percent future growth allowance to accommodate 
future unanticipated growth. 

[29] Posts articulate country goals and make budget requests to 
support those goals through the MSRP. The MSRP serves as the 
programmatic planning tool for all U.S. government agencies with 
programming in that country. State is currently in the process of 
transitioning to a new planning system to replace the MSRP. 

[30] According to GAO's standards for internal control in the federal 
government, management should assess the quality of performance over 
time and ensure that the findings of audits and other reviews are 
promptly resolved. Resolution could be through correcting identified 
deficiencies, producing improvements, or demonstrating that the 
findings and recommendations do not warrant management action. GAO, 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. 

[32] The post budget also provides some benefits to U.S. direct-hire 
staff. 

[33] Congress requires State to submit an annual report on the 
rightsizing reviews that occurred during the previous 12 months, 
trends in overseas staffing, and the Secretary of State's 
recommendations regarding such reviews. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s 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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.