This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-375
entitled 'Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls' which was released on January 31,
2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 General Accounting Office
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
January 2002:
Foreign Languages:
Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency
Shortfalls:
GA0-02-375:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Agencies Reported Varied Foreign Language Shortages:
Agencies Use a Variety of Strategies to Meet Their Foreign Language
Needs:
Some Agencies Lack Workforce Planning as a Long-term Strategy for
Filling Language Needs:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Army:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: Comments from the Foreign Commercial Service:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Federal Foreign Language-Speaking Proficiency Levels;
Table 2: Shortfalls of Army Translators and Interpreters, by Language,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 3: Shortfalls of Army Cryptologic Linguists, by Language, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Table 4: Shortfalls of Army Human Intelligence Collectors, by
Language, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 5: State Department Positions and Vacancies for Five Hard-to-
Learn Languages, July 2001:
Table 6: Shortfalls of FCS Officers, by Language, as of April 2001:
Table 7: FBI Special Agent Linguists' Foreign Language-Proficiency
Levels, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Strategies That Four U.S. Agencies Use to Address Foreign
Language Shortages and Shortfalls:
Figure 2: OPM Workforce Planning Model:
Figure 3: Steps in OPM's Workforce Planning Model:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FCS: Foreign Commercial Service:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
LEILA: Law Enforcement Interagency Linguist Access:
NSA: National Security Agency:
NSEP: National Security Education Program:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
January 31, 2002:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James A. Leach:
The Honorable Sam Farr:
House of Representatives:
In the wake of a changing security environment and the increasing
globalization of the U.S. economy, federal agencies' needs for
personnel with foreign language proficiency have grown significantly.
Since the end of the Cold War, the emergence of new nation states, the
presence of a wider range of security threats, and the signing of new
trade agreements have imposed greater demands on the foreign language
capabilities of federal agencies in areas such as intelligence
gathering, counterterrorism efforts, diplomatic affairs, and U.S.
commercial operations overseas. At the same time, many agencies have
experienced reductions in their workforces, limited hiring, and a
growing number of employees who are eligible for retirement. These
conditions have contributed to gaps in foreign language skills that
agencies are beginning to address. In light of the September 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent
U.S. response, agency efforts to address such gaps have taken on
increased importance and urgency. As agreed with your offices, this
report reviews the use of foreign language skills at the U.S. Army,
the Department of State, the Department of Commerce's Foreign
Commercial Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
[Footnote 1] Specifically, we (1) examined the nature and impact of
reported foreign language shortages, (2) determined the strategies
that federal agencies use to address these specific shortages, and (3)
assessed the efforts of agencies to implement an overall strategic
workforce plan to address current and projected shortages.
To answer these objectives, we initially reviewed the operations of 17
federal agencies and offices. We then selected 4 agencies for more
detailed review, as agreed with your offices. We selected these
agencies to ensure that we had a mix of both small and large programs
and a broad representation of program areas including national
security, foreign diplomacy, and U.S. economic interests. We then
developed a data collection instrument that we administered to all 4
agencies. The State Department provided only partial information on
foreign language shortages. We also conducted interviews with key
officials in these agencies and reviewed and analyzed supporting
documentation, data, and studies. For further information on our scope
and methodology, see appendix I.
Background:
The four federal agencies covered in our review reported shortages of
translators and interpreters as well as shortages of staff, such as
diplomats and intelligence specialists, with foreign language skills
that are critical to successful job performance. Agency officials
stated that these shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations
and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence,
counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts. Many shortages were in hard-
to-learn languages from the Middle East and Asia, although shortages
varied greatly depending on the agency, occupation, and language.
Agency officials said that foreign language shortages are, in part,
caused by technology advances that allow the collection of growing
amounts of information and thus require greater numbers of staff
proficient in foreign languages; by rising language proficiency
requirements in the face of changing and more complex agency missions;
and by a competitive job market that has made attracting and retaining
staff more difficult. At the FBI, for example, shortages of language-
proficient staff have resulted in the accumulation of thousands of
hours of audiotapes and pages of written material that have not been
reviewed or translated. The FBI says this situation has hindered its
prosecution of criminal cases and limited its ability to identify,
arrest, and convict violent gang members. Diplomatic and intelligence
officials have stated that lack of staff with foreign language skills
has weakened the fight against international terrorism and drug
trafficking and resulted in less effective representation of U.S.
interests overseas.
The agencies we reviewed reported using a range of workforce
strategies in an attempt to fill their specific foreign language
needs. These strategies included staff development efforts such as
language training and pay incentives, human capital management efforts
such as recruiting employees with foreign language skills or hiring
contractors, or taking advantage of information technology such as
networked computers and contractor databases to optimize the use of
existing foreign language resources. In general, agencies used
contractors to meet their additional translation and interpretation
needs, while staff training was one of the most widely used options
for filling language-skill needs in other areas. While these assorted
efforts have had some success, the agencies' current strategies have
not fully met the need for some foreign language skills.
One of the four agencies we reviewed has reported undertaking efforts
to resolve its foreign language shortages by focusing on human capital
management and workforce planning, as suggested in Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and GAO guidance.[Footnote 2] The Federal Bureau of
Investigation has instituted an action plan that links its foreign
language program to the Bureau's strategic objectives and program
goals. This action plan attempts to define the strategies, performance
measures, responsible parties, and resources the Bureau needs to
address current and projected foreign language shortages. In contrast,
the other three agencies have yet to pursue overall strategic planning
in this area. The Army, the State Department, and the Foreign
Commercial Service's (FCS) initiatives are not part of a coordinated
plan of action with regard to foreign language recruitment, training,
pay incentives, and workforce restructuring.
In this report, we are recommending that the Army, the State
Department, and the Foreign Commercial Service develop a comprehensive
strategic approach to human capital management and workforce planning
in order to better address current and projected shortages in staff
with foreign language skills. In commenting on a draft of this report,
the Army agreed with our recommendation but objected to a perceived
requirement that Office of Personnel Management and GAO guidance must
serve as the models for developing a strategic approach to human
capital management. To address the Army's concern, we revised our
recommendation to clarify that it focused on the core human capital
and workforce planning principles promoted by OPM and GAO. The State
Department provided a list of activities that it believes are
responsive to our recommendation. The Foreign Commercial Service
agreed with the recommendation.
Background:
Although more than 70 federal agencies have foreign language needs,
some of the largest programs are concentrated in the Army, the State
Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Office of Personnel and Management records indicate
that the government employs just under a thousand translators and
interpreters in the job series reserved for this group. The government
also employs tens of thousands of individuals who use foreign language
skills in positions such as cryptologic linguists,[Footnote 3] human
intelligence collectors,[Footnote 4] FBI special agents and legal
attaches, State Department Foreign Service officers, and Department of
Commerce Foreign Commercial Service officers.[Footnote 5] For the four
agencies we reviewed, a total of nearly twenty thousand staff are
employed in positions that require some foreign language proficiency.
Federal agencies use the foreign language proficiency scale
established by the federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an
individual's language skills. The scale has six levels from 0 to 5—-
with 5 being the most proficient—-to assess an individual's ability to
speak, read, listen, and write in another language. Proficiency
requirements vary by agency and position but tend to congregate at the
second and third levels of the scale. Table 1 shows the language skill
requirements for each proficiency level.
Table 1: Federal Foreign Language—Speaking Proficiency Levels:
Proficiency level: 0 - None;
Language capability requirements: No practical capability in the
language.
Proficiency level: 1 — Elementary;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to satisfy
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements.
Proficiency level: 2 - Limited working;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to meet
routine social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with
concrete topics in past, present, and future tense.
Proficiency level: 3 - General professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language with
sufficient ability to participate in most formal and informal
discussions on practical, social, and professional topics. Can
conceptualize and hypothesize.
Proficiency level: 4 - Advanced professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language fluently
and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs.
Has range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation,
and counseling.
Proficiency level: 5 - Functionally native;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language at a
functional level equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated
native speaker.
Note: When proficiency substantially exceeds one base skill level yet
does not fully meet the criteria for the next base level, a plus sign
(+) designation may be added.
Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents.
[End of table]
The difference between the second and the third proficiency levels--
the ability to interact effectively with native speakers--is
significant in terms of training costs and productivity. For example,
the Department of Defense (DOD) expects that more than 1 year of
language training is required to bring a new speaker of a hard-to-
learn language such as Arabic up to the second level. Moving to the
third level of proficiency generally requires practical field
experience. The benefits of reaching this higher level of proficiency,
however, can be substantial. U.S. government research has shown that a
level-3 speaker is up to four times as productive as a speaker at
level 2.
Agencies Reported Varied Foreign Language Shortages:
Officials in the four agencies we reviewed—the U.S. Army, the
Department of State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI—have
reported varied types and degrees of foreign language shortages,
depending on the agency, job position, and language. They noted
shortages of translators and interpreters and people with skills in
specific languages, as well as a shortfall in proficiency level among
people who use foreign language skills in their jobs. The Army's
greatest foreign language needs were for translators and interpreters,
cryptologic linguists, and human intelligence collectors. The State
Department has not filled all of its positions requiring foreign
language skills. Further, the State Department does not have reliable
aggregate data on whether Foreign Service officers currently serving
in positions requiring foreign language ability have the appropriate
language skills for their position. As for the Foreign Commercial
Service, although it has relatively few positions that require foreign
language proficiency, it had significant shortfalls in personnel with
skills in six critical languages.[Footnote 6] While the FBI does not
have a set number of positions for its special agent linguists, these
agents must have some level of foreign language proficiency they can
use in conducting investigations. When identified by language, FBI
staffing and proficiency data are classified.
Foreign language shortages can, in part, be traced to technology
advances that allow the collection of growing amounts of information,
rising proficiency requirements attributable to greater involvement in
global activities, and an increasingly competitive job market that
makes attracting and retaining qualified staff more difficult. Agency
officials noted that these shortages have hindered prosecution of
fraud cases and efforts to identify, arrest, and convict violent gang
members; resulted in less effective representation of U.S. interests
abroad; and resulted in less timely interpretation and translation of
intercepted materials possibly related to terrorism or national
security threats.
Agencies Reported Shortages of Translators and Interpreters:
Most of the agencies we reviewed experienced shortages in both
translators and interpreters, with the Army reporting some of the most
acute shortages. The State Department reported shortages but used
large numbers of contract translators and interpreters; the Foreign
Commercial Service used contract translators and interpreters when
needed; and the FBI supplemented its staff of full-time translators
and interpreters with numerous contract linguists.
* The Army provided data only on translator and interpreter positions
for six languages it considers critical: Arabic, Korean, Mandarin
Chinese, Persian-Farsi, Russian, and Spanish (we excluded Spanish from
our analysis, because the Army has a surplus of Spanish language
translators and interpreters). As shown in table 2, the Army had
authorization for 329 translator and interpreter positions for these
five languages in fiscal year 2001 but filled only 183 of them,
leaving a shortfall of 146 (44 percent).
Table 2: Shortfalls of Army Translators and Interpreters, by Language,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Arabic:
Authorized positions: 84;
Filled positions: 42;
Unfilled positions: 42;
Percent shortfall: 50%.
Korean:
Authorized positions: 62;
Filled positions: 39;
Unfilled positions: 23;
Percent shortfall: 37%.
Mandarin Chinese:
Authorized positions: 52;
Filled positions: 32;
Unfilled positions: 20;
Percent shortfall: 38%.
Persian-Farsi:
Authorized positions: 40;
Filled positions: 13;
Unfilled positions: 27;
Percent shortfall: 68%.
Russian:
Authorized positions: 91;
Filled positions: 57;
Unfilled positions: 34;
Percent shortfall: 37%.
Total:
Authorized positions: 329;
Filled positions: 183;
Unfilled positions: 146;
Percent shortfall: 44%.
Source: Army response to GAO data collection instrument.
[End of table]
The Army supplemented its translator and interpreter staff with
contractors to meet intermittent and ongoing work needs. For example,
the Army has had more than 1,000 contract linguists serving in Bosnia
and Kosovo over the past few years.
* The State Department had 50 authorized translator and interpreter
positions for fiscal year 2001, of which 37 were filled, creating a 26
percent shortfall However, it had more than 1,800 translators and
interpreters who could be called upon as needed.
* FCS does not have established translator and interpreter positions
and therefore relies on locally hired employees and its commercial
officers for these tasks. If these individuals are unavailable, FCS
will use contractors for translation and interpretation services.
* The FBI had 415 authorized translator and interpreter positions in
fiscal year 2001, 360 of which were filled—a 13 percent shortfall. The
FBI also had a contract workforce of 463 translators and interpreters,
who it reported were provided with part- to full-time employment. For
fiscal year 2003, the FBI has requested 96 full-time translators and
interpreters in addition to the 415 authorized translator and
interpreter positions.
Agencies Reported Shortages of Staff with Foreign Language Skills:
For the four agencies we reviewed, foreign language skills also fell
short in several other areas. These included Army cryptologic
linguists and human intelligence collectors, State Department Foreign
Service officers, Commerce Department Foreign Commercial Service
officers, and FBI special agent linguists. Individuals who fill these
positions have different skills from translators and interpreters in
that they may require a lower level of proficiency in a foreign
language to do their job successfully. For example, a State Department
Foreign Service officer working abroad may need such skills at the
second or third level of proficiency to interact with local
authorities, collect information, and converse socially, while
translators and interpreters generally need to be at least at the
third level or higher.
The Army:
For fiscal year 2002, the Army has designated approximately 15,000
positions as requiring language proficiency. These positions span
approximately 62 languages and cover active duty, National Guard, and
Reserve personnel. The Army has two language proficiency standards:
memorized proficiency for Special Forces personnel and basic linguist
skills for other Army positions requiring foreign language skills. In
fiscal year 2001, the Army had a shortfall of cryptologic linguists in
two of the six foreign languages it viewed as most critical—Korean and
Mandarin Chinese. Overall, there were 142 unfilled positions, which
amounted to a 25 percent shortfall in cryptologic linguists in these
two languages. Table 3 provides data on these shortfalls, by language.
Table 3: Shortfalls of Army Cryptologic Linguists, by Language, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Korean:
Authorized positions: 434;
Filled positions: 331;
Unfilled positions: 103;
Percent shortfall: 24%.
Mandarin Chinese:
Authorized positions: 144;
Filled positions: 105;
Unfilled positions: 39;
Percent shortfall: 27%.
Total:
Authorized positions: 578;
Filled positions: 436;
Unfilled positions: 142;
Percent shortfall: 25%.
Source: U.S. Army response to GAO data collection instrument.
[End of table]
The Army also had a shortfall of human intelligence collectors in five
of the six foreign languages it viewed as most critical in this area—
Arabic, Russian, Spanish, Korean, and Mandarin Chinese.[Footnote 7]
Overall, there were 108 unfilled positions, which amounted to a 13
percent shortfall in these five languages. The greatest number of
unfilled human intelligence collector positions was in Arabic, but the
largest percentage shortfall was in Mandarin Chinese. Table 4 provides
data on these shortfalls, by language.
Table 4: Shortfalls of Army Human Intelligence Collectors, by
Language, Fiscal Year 2001:
Arabic:
Authorized positions: 209;
Filled positions: 170;
Unfilled positions: 39;
Percent shortfall: 19%.
Russian:
Authorized positions: 205;
Filled positions: 197;
Unfilled positions: 8;
Percent shortfall: 4%.
Spanish:
Authorized positions: 181;
Filled positions: 163;
Unfilled positions: 18;
Percent shortfall: 10%.
Korean:
Authorized positions: 174;
Filled positions: 149;
Unfilled positions: 25;
Percent shortfall: 14%.
Mandarin Chinese:
Authorized positions: 58;
Filled positions: 40;
Unfilled positions: 18;
Percent shortfall: 31%.
Total:
Authorized positions: 827;
Filled positions: 719;
Unfilled positions: 108;
Percent shortfall: 13%.
Source: U.S. Army response to GAO data collection instrument.
[End of table]
As of July 2001, the State Department had 2,581 positions, or 29
percent of all Foreign Service positions, designated as requiring some
level of foreign language proficiency. These positions spanned 64
languages. The department acknowledged that it continues to have a
shortfall of Foreign
Service officers who meet the language requirements for their
positions. The reported figures regarding these shortfalls varied
considerably, however, from a high of 50 percent who did not meet the
requirements to a low of 16 percent. These figures appeared in two
State Department reports—one in January 2001 and the other in March
2001. When asked to explain these discrepancies, State Department
officials noted that some of its personnel databases have coding
errors. The officials said that they hoped to have accurate
information on staff meeting the foreign language proficiency
requirements for these positions shortly. In commenting on a draft of
this report, the State Department indicated that it is now preparing
reports to the Congress using the language capabilities of staff
assigned in the current year. According to the State Department, it is
relying on a hand count by the responsible office using primary
records to prepare these reports.
State Department officials noted that all the foreign languages used
at U.S. embassies are considered critical. However, certain languages
are deemed harder to learn or fill. For example, the department pays
incentives to encourage people to pursue the five languages that
require the longest amount of time to learn (nearly 2 years)—Mandarin
Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Cantonese Chinese. Vacancies in
these positions in July 2001 are listed in table 5.
Table 5: State Department Positions and Vacancies for Five Hard-to-
Learn Languages, July 2001:
Language: Mandarin Chinese;
Number of language-designated positions: 178;
Number of vacant positions: 8;
Percent of positions vacant: 4%.
Language: Arabic;
Number of language-designated positions: 112;
Number of vacant positions: 7;
Percent of positions vacant: 6%.
Language: Japanese;
Number of language-designated positions: 50;
Number of vacant positions: 2;
Percent of positions vacant: 4%.
Language: Korean;
Number of language-designated positions: 29;
Number of vacant positions: 4;
Percent of positions vacant: 14%.
Language: Cantonese Chinese;
Number of language-designated positions: 1;
Number of vacant positions: 0;
Percent of positions vacant: 0.
Language: Total;
Number of language-designated positions: 370;
Number of vacant positions: 21;
Percent of positions vacant: 6%.
Source: State Department data.
[End of table]
Foreign Commercial Service:
Overall, at the FCS, there were 155 overseas positions for permanent
staff that required proficiency in a total of 23 foreign languages. As
seen in table 6, the FCS had significant shortfalls in staff that
required foreign language proficiency in 6 hard-to-fill languages-55
percent as of April 2001. In these 6 languages—Mandarin Chinese,
Russian, Japanese, Indonesian, Korean, and Turkish—unfilled positions
ranged from 33 percent (for Korean and Turkish speakers) to 71 percent
(for Russian speakers). FCS management noted that in determining an
employee's assignment, it focused on business acumen first and the
willingness of an employee to learn a language second.
Table 6: Shortfalls of FCS Officers, by Language, as of April 2001:
Mandarin Chinese:
Authorized positions: 31;
Filled positions: 15;
Unfilled positions: 16;
Percent shortfall: 52%.
Russian:
Authorized positions: 14;
Filled positions: 4;
Unfilled positions: 10;
Percent shortfall: 71%.
Japanese:
Authorized positions: 16;
Filled positions: 7;
Unfilled positions: 9;
Percent shortfall: 56%.
Indonesian:
Authorized positions: 4;
Filled positions: 2;
Unfilled positions: 2;
Percent shortfall: 50%.
Korean:
Authorized positions: 3;
Filled positions: 2;
Unfilled positions: 1;
Percent shortfall: 33%.
Turkish:
Authorized positions: 3;
Filled positions: 2;
Unfilled positions: 1;
Percent shortfall: 33%.
Total:
Authorized positions: 71;
Filled positions: 32;
Unfilled positions: 39;
Percent shortfall: 55%.
Note: Because of the small size of the FCS, some of the percentages
are calculated on a small number of positions. Figures for FCS in the
table refer only to 6 hard-to-fill languages. The comparable shortfall
for the 23 languages used by FCS personnel is 45 percent.
Source: FCS response to GAO data collection instrument.
[End of table]
In commenting on this report, the FCS said that 27 of the 39 positions
listed in table 6 as unfilled were staffed by individuals whose
foreign language abilities were below the required levels. The FCS
reported that 7 of the 27 individuals in the "unfilled positions" had
valid test scores in Mandarin Chinese when they were assigned, but
these scores expired while they were abroad. The FCS plans to retest
the individuals when they are in the United States for home leave or
reassignment (tested foreign language proficiency is generally valid
for 5 years). The other 12 positions remained vacant.
The FBI:
In fiscal year 2001, the FBI had 1,792 special agents with foreign
language skills in more than 40 languages. The FBI refers to these
agents as "special agent linguists." They interview suspects and
develop informants,[Footnote 8] sometimes performing these duties in a
foreign language. The Bureau does not set a staffing goal for special
agents with foreign language skills, however, making it impossible to
calculate shortfall figures. As seen in table 7, close to half of the
Bureau's special agents with foreign language skills have attained a
"general professional level" (level 3) or higher degree of foreign
language proficiency. FBI officials said many of the special agents
listed as having no foreign language proficiency are currently
receiving language training.
Table 7: FBI Special Agent Linguists' Foreign Language—Proficiency
Levels, Fiscal Year 2001:
Proficiency level: Level 0 - none;
Number of agents: 169;
Percent of total: 9%.
Proficiency level: Level 1 - elementary;
Number of agents: 322;
Percent of total: 18%.
Proficiency level: Level 2 - limited working;
Number of agents: 512;
Percent of total: 29%.
Proficiency level: Level 3- general professional;
Number of agents: 468;
Percent of total: 26%.
Proficiency level: Level 4 - advanced professional;
Number of agents: 257;
Percent of total: 14%.
Proficiency level: Level 5 - functionally native;
Number of agents: 64;
Percent of total: 4%.
Total:
Number of agents: 1,792;
Percent of total: 100%.
Source: FBI response to GAO data collection instrument.
[End of table]
Several Factors Have Contributed to Changing Agency Needs:
The Army and the FBI face a dramatic increase in the volume of
intelligence data available for analysis because of technological
advances in data collection. Where past intelligence data-gathering
focused on capturing line-of-sight radio communications or FBI
wiretaps, information can now be collected from other sources such as
fiber-optic cables, cell phones, and the Internet. For example, the
head of the FBI's Language Services Section stated that new technology
is expected to increase the volume of foreign language work by as much
as 30 percent each year. She added that the volume of foreign language
material generated from computers and other types of technology has
outstripped the Bureau's ability to find and hire the qualified
linguists needed to review and interpret the information.
Agency officials we spoke with also stated that the number of
languages required and the proficiency levels have both increased as
the agencies have pursued more complex and diverse missions within the
context of evolving operating environments. The Army, for example,
used to focus on long-term threats from a few countries about which
much was known but now must respond to conflicts in less well-known
areas on relatively short notice. FBI officials stated that the Bureau
increasingly focuses on international matters such as terrorism, drug
trafficking, organized crime, and money laundering. U.S. intelligence
missions have also increased in scope and complexity as the number and
diversity of threats to U.S. security have risen.
In addition, agency officials stated that a competitive job market
makes attracting and retaining qualified staff more difficult. The
Army pointed out that retaining qualified cryptologic linguists is a
problem, because these individuals have attractive educational options
such as college and private-sector opportunities, where their language
skills are in demand. Because of the high turnover in cryptologic
linguists (fewer than 50 percent stay beyond their initial 4 to 6 year
tour), the military services must continue to focus on basic language
training.
Impact of Language Shortages on Agency Operations:
Agency officials stated that foreign language shortages have adversely
affected agency operations and compromised U.S. military, law
enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.
[Footnote 9] Although it is sometimes difficult to link knowledge of a
foreign language to a specific negative outcome or event, some agency
officials were able to provide examples of the impact that language
shortages had on agency operations.
* In terms of hindering prosecution of fraudulent activity, FBI
officials noted that the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami, Florida, in
charge of health care fraud investigations recently advised the Bureau
that his office will decline to prosecute health care fraud cases
unless timely translations of monitored Spanish conversations are
turned over to the Office of the U.S. Attorney. The Miami metropolitan
area has the largest ongoing health care fraud investigation in the
country, with Medicare and Medicaid losses to the U.S. government
estimated by the FBI to be in excess of $3 billion.
* In terms of identifying, arresting, and convicting violent gang
members, the FBI's Los Angeles office cited a critical need for
Spanish language specialists and language monitors to work on these
cases. According to the Bureau, the ability to target violent gang
members will save lives in Los Angeles but is contingent on the
availability of linguists to work these investigations.
* In terms of less effective representation of U.S. interests abroad,
the deputy director of State's National Foreign Affairs Training
Center testified in September 2000 that foreign language proficiency
shortfalls have contributed to a lack of diplomatic readiness.
[Footnote 10] This problem results in less effective representation
and advocacy of U.S. interests abroad; a loss of U.S. exports,
investments, and jobs; and a weakening of the fight against
international terrorism and drug trafficking.
* In terms of potential gaps in U.S. efforts to thwart terrorism, the
FBI has raised concern over the thousands of hours of audiotapes and
pages of written material that have not been reviewed or translated
because of a lack of qualified linguists. Likewise, a senior Central
Intelligence Agency official speaking for the wider intelligence
community said that thousands of technical papers that provide details
on foreign research and development in scientific and technical areas
currently go untranslated, because intelligence agencies lack the
personnel to interpret the material.[Footnote 11] The Army noted that
linguist shortfalls affect its readiness to conduct current and
anticipated military and other missions. As an example, the Army said
that it does not have the linguistic capacity to support two
concurrent major theaters of war, as planners require.
Agencies Use a Variety of Strategies to Meet Their Foreign Language
Needs:
The agencies we reviewed pursue three general strategies to meet their
foreign language needs. First, agencies focus on staff development by
training staff in foreign languages, providing pay incentives for
individuals using those skills, and ensuring an attractive career path
for linguists or language-proficient employees. Second, agencies make
use of external resources. This can include contracting staff as
needed; recruiting native or U.S.-trained language speakers; or
drawing on the expertise of other agency staff, reservists, or
retirees. Third, several agencies have begun to use technology to
leverage limited staff resources, including developing databases of
contract linguists, employing language translation software, and
performing machine screening of collected data. Figure 1 provides an
overview of these categories and related strategies.
Figure 1: Strategies That Four U.S. Agencies Use to Address Foreign
Language Shortages and Shortfalls:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Agency: Army;
Staff development: Language training: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Pay incentives: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Attractive career path for linguists: [Empty];
External management of resources: Contract staff: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Recruitment of native language
speakers: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Recruitment of language-capable
employees: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Other agency staff, reservists, and
retirees: Agency uses strategy;
Other: Technology: Agency uses strategy.
Agency: State;
Staff development: Language training: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Pay incentives: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Attractive career path for linguists: Agency uses
strategy;
External management of resources: Contract staff: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Recruitment of native language
speakers: [Empty];
External management of resources: Recruitment of language-capable
employees: Agency uses strategy[A];
External management of resources: Other agency staff, reservists, and
retirees: [Empty];
Other: Technology: Agency uses strategy.
Agency: FCS;
Staff development: Language training: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Pay incentives: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Attractive career path for linguists: NA;
External management of resources: Contract staff: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Recruitment of native language
speakers: [Empty];
External management of resources: Recruitment of language-capable
employees: Agency uses strategy[B];
External management of resources: Other agency staff, reservists, and
retirees: [Empty];
Other: Technology:
Agency: FBI;
Staff development: Language training: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Pay incentives: Agency uses strategy;
Staff development: Attractive career path for linguists: Agency uses
strategy;
External management of resources: Contract staff: Agency uses strategy;
External management of resources: Recruitment of native language
speakers: [Empty];
External management of resources: Recruitment of language-capable
employees: Agency uses strategy[C];
External management of resources: Other agency staff, reservists, and
retirees: Agency uses strategy;
Other: Technology: Agency uses strategy.
Note: NA = not applicable, since the FCS does not hire staff linguists.
[A] State's Office of Language Services recruits and hires skilled
linguists; however, foreign language skills are not required to apply
for Foreign Service positions.
[B] At the FCS, hard-to-fill language-designated positions are
sometimes filled by individuals who are recruited and hired as
noncareer limited appointees who have needed language skills.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Language Training:
All four agencies we reviewed used foreign language training as a key
strategy to meet their foreign language needs. Training costs
represented a significant program expense at those four agencies. For
example, according to an Army contractor, the Army spends
approximately $27,000 over a year-long period to train one cryptologic
linguist to the target proficiency of level 2 in a more difficult
language such as Chinese or Korean. The Army spent approximately $27.3
million on foreign language training through the Defense Language
Institute's training facilities in fiscal year 2001, according to a
senior program analyst at the Institute. According to the State
Department's director for human resources policy coordination, the
department spent $23.1 million in fiscal year 2000 on language
training through the Foreign Service Institute. Additional language
training is available to State employees serving overseas through the
department's post language program. In fiscal year 2000, the FCS sent
staff to State's Foreign Service Institute and used local contract
schools, at an estimated annual cost of just under $500,000. In fiscal
year 2001, the FBI utilized the Foreign Service Institute and contract
services, at a total estimated cost of $1.4 million. For some
positions, foreign language skills were viewed as making an important
contribution to job performance but were not mandatory for hiring
purposes. Once employees were hired, however, agencies were willing to
devote substantial resources to developing employee language skills.
Pay Incentives:
All four agencies also used pay incentives to motivate staff to gain
expertise in hard-to-learn languages or to maintain their language
skills at a designated minimum level. According to an analyst with the
Army's Foreign Language Proponency Office, the Army provides a monthly
stipend of $50 to $300 to employees who are studying certain languages
for language-designated positions. In fiscal year 2001, the Army spent
an estimated $6.5 million on these incentives. State and the FCS have
a policy to offer payment incentives of between 5 and 15 percent,
depending on the level of proficiency in hard-to-learn languages,
while the individual is assigned to a post where the language is used.
State's Office of Language Services also pays retention bonuses to a
few staff members. State Department officials noted that they have not
yet evaluated whether the new incentive system to study hard-to-learn
languages, which sent its first group of participants to overseas
posts last summer, has helped to close skill gaps for certain target
languages. The State Department and the FCS's total fiscal year 2000
budgets devoted to pay incentives came to approximately $5.3 million.
As for the FBI, it provides an incentive of 5 percent of base salary
to selected special agent linguists who have a working level
proficiency in a language and use that language on the job a majority
of the time. In fiscal year 2001, pay incentives for the FBI totaled
$721,000.
Attractive Career Path:
Establishing an attractive career path for linguists was also a key
strategy for some of the agencies we reviewed. However, the Army has
historically experienced a low rate of retention among its language-
capable staff in key positions. According to an analyst in the Army's
Foreign Language Proponency Office, data on Army staff retention
showed that in fiscal year 2001 more than 45 percent of cryptologic
linguists left the service after completing their initial tour of
duty, with up to 2 years spent in basic, foreign language, and
intelligence training. The Army recognizes this is a key personnel
issue and is conducting a "cradle-to-grave" review of cryptologic
linguists' attrition rates. Translators and interpreters working in
the State Department's Office of Language Services and the FBI have a
career path that allows them to rise to positions above the GS-12
level.
Contract Staff:
All the agencies we reviewed utilized contract translators and
interpreters to meet some of their workforce needs. The Army Language
Master Plan issued in January 2000 identified the use of contractors
as a key future strategy for meeting the foreign language needs
associated with small-scale conflicts. The Army concluded that its
training resources do not permit preparing military staff for a wide
variety of unknown and hard-to-forecast small-scale conflicts. With
limited resources, the Army prefers to concentrate on major theater-of-
war scenarios and a restricted number of small-scale conflict
scenarios. The plan noted that the balance of the Army's small-scale
conflict needs could be met with contract translators and
interpreters. As for the State Department, it had a list of 1,800
contract translators and interpreters to fill intermittent
assignments. In fiscal year 2000, State spending on those individuals
came to $13 million. While the FCS relied primarily on its locally
hired employees and its commercial officers for translation and
interpretation services, the agency occasionally used contractors to
supply these services. The FBI had a cadre of 463 contract translators
and interpreters who generally worked an average of 16 hours per week.
In fiscal year 2001, FBI costs for those individuals totaled $15
million.[Footnote 12]
Recruitment of Native Language Speakers:
One of the four agencies we reviewed has a targeted recruitment
program aimed at native language speakers. The Army has developed a
native speaker recruitment program and has dedicated 10 recruiters to
this effort. The Army is increasing its focus on this particular
strategy, citing the significant cost savings associated with hiring
native language speakers as compared with providing 23 to 64 weeks of
language training at the Defense Language Institute's Foreign Language
Center. The State Department, the FCS, and the FBI do not have
recruitment programs targeted at native language speakers. The State
Department does not target native speakers, because it does not
believe that language proficiency is the primary criterion for
selecting Foreign Service officers. According to FBI and State
Department officials, conducting background investigations on native
speakers can be particularly difficult, because many of these
individuals have lived abroad, in some cases for years.
Recruitment of Language-capable Employees:
All of the agencies we reviewed recruited and hired language-capable
employees. All four agencies provided additional hiring "points" to
job candidates with target language skills, and some had extensive
outreach programs. The Army provided enlistment bonuses to job
candidates with demonstrated proficiency in target languages. The
State Department's Office of Language Services recruited and hired
proficient translators and interpreters after they had demonstrated
their abilities as contract employees. The State Department has also
recruited individuals for Foreign Service officer positions at
university language departments and at meetings of foreign language
associations. In addition, the department's Fascell Fellowship Program
offers 2-year assignments to a few individuals proficient in languages
of the former Soviet Union and China. Some of these individuals apply
for the Foreign Service at the end of their fellowship assignments.
The FCS has used its noncareer limited appointment authority to hire
commercial officers with foreign language skills for hard-to-fill
positions. These posts comprise approximately 7 to 8 percent of FCS
officer positions located overseas. In addition, in the early 1990s
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, FCS hired Foreign Commercial
Service officers who were proficient in the languages of former Soviet
Union countries. The FBI has placed a special emphasis on hiring
special agents with target language skills. The Bureau has a website
dedicated to recruitment, an active outreach program to academic
institutions, and a new language intern program under development. The
Bureau's Foreign Language Program office conducts its own recruitment
efforts for both language specialists and contract translators and
interpreters.
The National Security Education Program (NSEP), which is authorized by
the National Security Education Act of 1991, provides federal support
for advanced language training.[Footnote 13] According to the NSEP's
director, the program obligated approximately $3 million in fiscal
year 2001 in support of 215 scholarships. The director also said that
NSEP is the only government program that links U.S. national security
interests with the development of foreign area and language skills.
Each year, NSEP surveys federal agencies to identify critical-need
languages and distributes college scholarships in line with these
needs. Scholarship recipients agree to a term of federal service in
national security affairs agencies in return for these funds.
Other Agency Staff, Reservists, and Retirees:
Agencies also use other agency staff, reservists, and part-time
appointees to meet their foreign language needs. The Army's foreign
language program includes National Guard and Army Reserve language
personnel. For example, the 300th Military Intelligence Brigade (Utah
National Guard) has several hundred linguists available for temporary
duty. The FBI makes use of other agency staff on a temporary basis to
fill low-demand language needs. For example, the FBI has a memorandum
of agreement with the Defense Intelligence Agency for such services.
The Bureau also has a memorandum of understanding with the Army to
advertise the availability of temporary-duty translator and
interpreter positions in the FBI.
Technology:
Technology represents another major strategy that agencies use to
address and manage their foreign language shortfalls. For example, the
Army has developed a new technology for collecting field intelligence
that could potentially reduce its need for cryptologic linguists.
According to Army officials, this technology will eventually allow
signals intercepted on the battlefield to be sent to a central
location for translation, interpretation, and analysis, alleviating
the need to have staff with foreign language skills placed in a
conflict situation. The Army and the FBI also use machine "gisting"
(reviewing intelligence documents to determine if they contain target
key words or phrases) to better manage their workloads and target the
information that trained linguists need to review in depth. In
addition, both the private and the public sectors are exploring
advances in machine translation of spoken and written communications.
Numerous demonstration projects are under way, and early results show
some promise for this type of technology. However, language experts
noted that machine translation software will never be able to replace
a human translator's ability to interpret fine nuances, cultural
references, and the use of slang terms or idioms. Finally, State's
Office of Language Services and the Foreign Service Institute use an
automated translation system for translation of technical terms and
consistent translation of stock phrases in diplomatic and legal
documents to help human translators work more efficiently.
Other forms of technology, such as networked computer operations, will
increasingly allow translation work to be routed to linguists
regardless of their location. The FBI, for example, has established
eight field translation centers to provide flexibility in assigning
priority translation work throughout the FBI. The FBI is also
maintaining a database, the Law Enforcement Interagency Linguist
Access (LEILA) database, that is an attempt to share information on
more than 1,000 contract linguists distributed among Department of
Justice agencies LEILA will list all available language contractors by
specialty, language skill level, and security clearance. The FBI
received $100,000 in end-of-year reallocated funds to develop LEILA
for use across all Department of Justice agencies. Future plans call
for LEILA to be extended to the entire intelligence community. This
move would supplement other efforts to better coordinate limited
foreign language resources across agency lines. For example, the
Senate Committee on Intelligence has proposed expanding U.S.
translating capabilities by establishing a National Virtual
Translation Center to help bring together permanent agency staff and
contractors. The committee expects that such a center would link
secure locations maintained by the intelligence community throughout
the country and would apply digital technology to network, store,
retrieve, and catalogue audio and textual information. Foreign
intelligence could then be collected in one location, translated in a
second location, and provided to an intelligence analyst in a third
location.[Footnote 14]
Some Agencies Lack Workforce Planning as a Long-term Strategy for
Filling Language Needs:
Despite the variety of actions taken by the agencies we reviewed, gaps
in foreign language skills exist. To help fill such gaps, some
agencies have begun to adopt a strategic approach to human capital
management and workforce planning that reflects the elements in OPM's
1999 Workforce Planning Model, as outlined in figure 2. The model's
five steps, which are further defined in appendix II, provide a
general framework to understand workforce planning. Although our data
collection instrument asked how agencies are implementing these steps,
it became clear in reviewing the documentation provided that the first
step—setting a strategic direction—is a process that is handled
differently at each agency. Therefore, we focused our review primarily
on steps 2 through 5 in the model.
Figure 2: OPM Workforce Planning Model:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Step 1: Set strategic direction.
Step 2: Determine supply, demand, and discrepancies.
Step 3: Develop an action plan.
Step 4: Implement action plan.
Step 5: Monitor, evaluate, and revise.
Source: OPM's Workforce Planning Model [hyperlink,
http://www.opm.gov/workforceplanning/wfpmodel.htm].
[End of figure]
Applying OPM's model to the agencies we examined, we found that the
FBI has most closely followed the model. In contrast, the Army, the
State Department, and the FCS have not yet implemented the full
workforce planning model. The latter agencies have focused their
efforts on identifying the gaps in foreign language needs but have not
developed an overall strategy, including implementation and monitoring
plans.
In addition to the OPM model, GAO, the president, and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) also have issued policy statements and
guidance reinforcing the importance of sound human capital management
and workforce planning. GAO's guidance emphasizes the use of a self-
assessment checklist for better aligning human capital with strategic
planning and core business practices.[Footnote 15] OMB's guidance
stresses that agencies should seek to address shortages of skills by
conducting thorough workforce analyses.[Footnote 16] Agencies have
also been encouraged to identify additional authorities or
flexibilities they might need to remove current obstacles and barriers
to effective workforce management (for additional information on human
capital management and workforce planning guidance, see appendix II).
The FBI Has Implemented a Strategic Approach:
The FBI has instituted a strategic workforce plan (step 1) and made
efforts to implement the five steps in the OPM model. The Bureau's
fiscal year 2001-2004 strategic plan cites the critical need for
foreign languages to support specific FBI missions. The Bureau's
Foreign Language Program plan determines supply, demand, and
discrepancies, along with specific goals and objectives (steps 2 and
3). This supports an action plan that includes performance measures
and priority actions (step 3) regarding foreign language hiring,
training, and related technology (step 4). We found that this program
plan was supported by detailed reports from field offices that
documented the Bureau's foreign language needs. These reports were
reviewed along with workload statistics from the FBI's regional
offices (step 5).
Despite the FBI's strategic planning and follow-up efforts, its
requested Foreign Language Program budget enhancements have not always
been considered a high priority within the Department of Justice. For
example, in fiscal year 2000, these enhancements ranked 45 out of a
list of 120 budget increase requests within the Bureau. The comparable
rankings for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were 32 out of 112 and 42 out
of 114 budget increase requests, respectively. For fiscal year 2003,
the Bureau is changing its budget prioritization process, and the
Foreign Language Program has risen to number 3 out of 42 ranked
priorities.
Army Has Yet to Implement Strategic Language Planning:
With regard to the OPM model, the Army has limited its efforts to
developing a plan partially outlining a strategic direction and
identifying its available supply and demand for staff with foreign
language skills (addressing only steps 1 and 2 of the OPM model). With
regard to the Army's strategic planning, in January 2000 it issued
phase one of the Army Language Master Plan, which provided an
assessment of the composition, location, and proficiency level of Army
staff with language capabilities. In February 2000, the Army Audit
Agency issued a report that commented on phase one of the Army's
Language Master Plan.[Footnote 17] The report recommended that the
Army develop an overall strategic plan that identifies foreign
language program goals, objectives, and performance measures. In
response, the Army noted that it would update the Language Master Plan
to include the elements of a strategic plan.
In theory, the Army had an opportunity to update its phase one plan or
phase two of the plan that was released for comment on July 12,
2001,[Footnote 18] but it did not do so. According to our analysis,
both the phase one and phase two plans were never updated to
incorporate an action plan (step 3) or devise any follow-on activities
(steps 4 and 5). In responding to our data collection instrument, the
Army acknowledged that the Language Master Plan does not include
specific goals and performance expectations linked to its human
capital strategies.[Footnote 19]
State and FCS Workforce Planning Efforts Have Just Begun:
Workforce planning as it relates to addressing foreign language skills
has yet to be fully developed at the State Department and the FCS. The
State Department has not yet prepared a separate strategic plan for
developing foreign language skills or a related action plan designed
to correct proficiency shortfalls that date back at least to the mid-
1970s (step 1). State Department officials' response to our survey
noted that language is such an integral part of the department's
operations that a separate planning effort for foreign language skills
is not needed.
The American Foreign Service Association recently prepared a study of
workforce planning at the State Department. The Association noted in
recommendations to the Congress that despite the availability of
language training at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute,
there are institutional barriers that prevent State Department staff
from receiving the training they need. The Association wrote that
State Department managers often did not allow adequate time for
training when assigning staff to positions requiring language skills.
Managers often had to choose between accepting not-fully-proficient
personnel immediately or suffering long gaps while waiting for staff
to complete their training. The Association urged the Congress to
require State to prepare a needs-based workforce plan with a 4-year
projection. State's authorization act for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
[Footnote 20] then directed the State Department to submit such a
workforce plan, describing its projected personnel needs by grade and
by skill category.
The State Department's workforce plan focused primarily on hiring and
promotion requirements and on the additional personnel needed to allow
for training opportunities for staff. The plan cited a need for 46
additional positions, at a cost of $4.8 million, but it did not
identify how specific foreign language proficiency needs could be met
by adding these positions (partially addressing step 3). State
officials said that a funding request for these and other positions
was included in the department's fiscal year 2002 and that the
Congress has fully funded this portion of the budget.[Footnote 21]
State officials noted that their workforce planning effort is a first
step toward the development of a fully integrated workforce planning
system.
Despite the lack of a foreign language strategic plan, the State
Department addresses step 2 in the workforce planning model through
its annual survey of ambassadors regarding foreign language needs at
their posts on a position-by-position basis This results in a list of
positions identified as requiring foreign language skills by position,
e.g., a political officer at the U.S. embassy in Moscow with a
specific level of expertise in Russian.
Similarly, the FCS has not developed a workforce plan that addresses
how it will meet its foreign language needs. FCS management has
convened a task force to begin assessing its organizational needs,
including its need for language-proficient staff. In the FCS's
response to our data collection instrument, these early efforts were
identified as being in an "embryonic" state of development. FCS
officials noted that their workforce plan will ultimately be
incorporated into the workforce plan of the Department of Commerce.
However, every 3 years the FCS surveys its senior officers regarding a
post's foreign language needs (step 2 of the workforce planning model).
Conclusions:
Personnel with foreign language skills are needed in a range of
federal agency programs and missions. In light of the attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the importance of foreign
language skills will increase as the United States expands its efforts
to counter terrorist activities. The federal agencies we reviewed face
shortages of translators and interpreters, as well as staff with other
foreign language skills. These shortages strain agency operations that
depend in part on language-skilled employees to meet increasingly
complex missions. Agencies have pursued strategies such as training,
targeted recruitment efforts, and contracting to fill documented skill
gaps. However, these strategies have not been completely effective in
closing those gaps. As a result, some agencies have begun to take a
more strategic and results-oriented approach to managing their
workforce needs.
The OPM's five-step model for conducting human capital management and
workforce planning provides one method for managing agency workforce
needs. The FBI has developed and is implementing an action plan in
keeping with the OPM's 1999 workforce planning model to help fill
their shortages. While the Army has developed detailed assessments of
its needs for staff with foreign language skills, these planning
efforts fall short of the strategic planning approach called for by
the OPM's model. The State Department and FCS have just begun their
workforce planning efforts and have yet to develop strategic plans of
action. Without a specific strategic direction and a related action
plan that effectively implements the strategies these agencies intend
to use to correct shortages in foreign language skills, it will be
difficult for the agencies to fill current and projected shortages.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve the overall management of foreign language resources and to
better address current and projected shortages in foreign language
skills, we recommend that the secretary of the army, the secretary of
state, and the director general of the FCS adopt a strategic, results-
oriented approach to human capital management and workforce planning.
This approach should include setting a strategic direction, assessing
agency gaps in foreign language skills, developing a corrective plan
of action, and monitoring the implementation and success of this
action plan.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Army,
the Department of State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI.
These comments and GAO's responses to specific points are reprinted in
appendixes III through VI, respectively. All four agencies agreed with
our overall findings. The Army said it agreed with our recommendation
but objected to a perceived requirement that OPM and GAO guidance must
serve as the models for developing a strategic approach to human
capital management. It based this objection on the fact that there are
differences among DOD and non-DOD foreign language requirements, and
that agencies should be given the latitude to use an approach that
best meets their particular needs. The State Department expressed
similar concerns and provided a list of activities and initiatives
that it believes are responsive to our recommendation. The Foreign
Commercial Service agreed with our recommendation.
To address the Army and State's concern, we revised our recommendation
to clarify that it focused on the core human capital and workforce
planning principles promoted by the OPM and the GAO. These principles
should serve as the basis for the more detailed human capital efforts
agencies design to address their unique needs.
While the State Department's actions should offer some benefits, they
do not fully address each of the core principles contained in our
report recommendation. The State Department has partially addressed
one of these principles by documenting its foreign language skills
needs on an annual basis. However, as discussed in our report, the
department has had difficulties in generating a consistent measure of
its actual language shortfalls because of inadequate departmentwide
data on the number of positions filled with qualified language staff.
With regard to the other core principles, the State Department still
needs to set a strategic direction for its foreign language needs,
develop an action plan for correcting foreign language shortfalls, and
institute a monitoring process to assess action plan implementation
and performance.
All four agencies provided technical or administrative comments that,
where appropriate, have been incorporated throughout the report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its content
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of the report
to congressional committees with responsibilities for foreign affairs
issues, the secretary of state, the director general of the Foreign
Commercial Service, members of the House-Senate International
Education Study Group, and interested congressional committees. Copies
will be made available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8979. Other GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
At the request of Senators Thad Cochran and Christopher J. Dodd and
Representatives James A. Leach and Sam Farr (members of the House-
Senate International Education Study Group), we reviewed the use of
foreign language skills at four federal agencies: the U.S. Army, the
Department of State, the Department of Commerce's Foreign Commercial
Service (FCS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[Footnote
22] Specifically, we (1) examined the nature and impact of reported
foreign language shortages, (2) determined the strategies that
agencies use to address these specific shortages, and (3) assessed the
efforts of agencies to implement an overall strategic workforce plan
to address current and projected shortages.
To understand the nature and impact of reported foreign language
shortages in the federal government, we first met with officials from
the Department of Defense (DOD), the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of State, the FCS, the
U.S. Agency for International Development, the Foreign Agricultural
Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Immigration Service,
the U.S. Customs Bureau, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, the National Institutes of
Health, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Peace Corps. We also met with
officials from the National Foreign Language Center to discuss broad
policy issues and met with Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
officials to obtain information on its central personnel data file and
data collected on government translators, interpreters, and foreign
language--required positions. We also requested a briefing from the
Central Intelligence Agency to learn more about its central
coordinating role for foreign language issues in the intelligence
community. The Central Intelligence Agency declined to meet with GAO.
Based on our review of these agencies' programs, we selected the U.S.
Army, the State Department, the FCS, and the FBI for further review.
We selected these programs on the basis of the size of their programs
and the diversity of their missions. To determine the nature and
extent of reported foreign language shortages at these agencies, we
met with officials from each agency, reviewed and analyzed agency
workforce planning documents, and developed a data collection
instrument that we asked agency staff to complete. The State
Department provided only partial information on foreign language
shortages in their responses.
To determine the strategies that the four agencies use to address the
foreign language shortages, we met with officials from each agency,
reviewed agency documents related to foreign language programs, and
analyzed responses to the questions on these strategies that were
posed in our data collection instrument.
To assess the efforts at the four agencies to develop and implement
strategic workforce plans to address current and projected foreign
language shortages, we reviewed applicable workforce planning
documents and guidance issued by the OPM, the GAO, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the National Academy of Public
Administration, and the American Foreign Service Association. We also
analyzed responses to questions on agency workforce planning that were
included in our data collection instrument. In addition, we obtained,
reviewed, and analyzed available agency workforce planning documents.
We did our work primarily in the Washington, D.C., area. We also
visited the Defense Language Institute, the Defense Manpower Data
Center, and the Language Line Services in Monterey, California, to
observe the Army's language training program, the Department of
Defense's human resource data collection service, and the commercial
linguistic services that can be used by U.S. government agencies. We
also met with officials to discuss Army intelligence activities at
Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
We performed our work from November 2000 through October 2001, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance:
The Office of Personnel Management, GAO, and the Office of Management
and Budget have developed guidance for managing human capital and
planning workforce strategy. This appendix discusses each agency's
guidance.
OPM Guidance:
OPM plays an important role in promoting effective human capital
management and workforce planning across the federal government. OPM
notes that the strategic planning requirements of the 1993 Government
Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62) provides a framework for
agencies to integrate their human capital planning into their broader
strategic and program planning efforts.[Footnote 23]
OPM has developed a Workforce Planning Model (illustrated in our main
report) to help the agency manage its human capital resources more
strategically. The executive branch has identified this model as a key
tool to help agencies meet the president's and OMB's human capital
management initiatives. The model is organized into five key steps and
a number of related substeps, as noted in figure 3.
Figure 3: Steps in OPM's Workforce Planning Model:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Step 1: Set strategic direction;
* Organize and mobilize strategic partners;
* Set mission vision/values/objectives;
* Review organizational structure;
* Conduct business process engineering;
* Set measures for organizational performance;
* Position human resources division to be an active partner.
Step 2: Determine supply, demand, and discrepancies;
* Analyze workforce;
* Conduct competency assessment and analysis;
* Compare workforce needs against available skills
Step 3: Develop an action plan;
* Design a workforce plan to address skills gaps;
* Set specific goals;
* Develop human resources infrastructure to support the plan.
Step 4: Implement action plan;
* Communicate the workforce plan;
* Gain organizational buy-in;
* Conduct recruiting, hiring, and placement;
* Conduct succession planning;
* Restructure where needed;
* Implement retention strategies.
Step 5: Monitor, evaluate, and revise;
* Assess successes and failures;
* Adjust plan as needed;
* Address new workforce and organizational issues.
Source: OPM's Workforce Planning Model [hyperlink,
http://www.opm.gov/workforceplanning/wfpmodel.htm].
[End of figure]
OPM has also developed a Human Resource Innovators' Tool Kit and a
related guide, in part to alert agency planners to the range of
personnel flexibilities and authorities they already have at their
disposal to help manage human capital challenges such as current and
projected skill gaps.[Footnote 24] OPM and GAO have encouraged
agencies to consider all available flexibilities and authorities in
pursuing creative solutions to long-standing problems.
GAO Guidance:
To help focus attention on the importance of human capital management
and workforce planning, we recently added strategic human capital
management to the list of federal programs and operations we
identified as "high risk."[Footnote 25] We have developed a human
capital self-assessment checklist based on work with leading private-
and public-sector organizations.[Footnote 26] The checklist covers a
suggested five-part framework that includes strategic planning,
organizational alignment, leadership, talent, and establishment of a
performance culture. The checklist was designed to help agency leaders
review their human capital programs and to provide a means for agency
leaders to put the spotlight on improving the alignment of human
capital management with strategic planning and core business practices.
OMB Guidance:
OMB, consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2002 Management
Agenda,[Footnote 27] has issued guidance[Footnote 28] to agencies on
governmentwide human capital management and workforce planning. The
president's agenda includes the strategic management of employees as
one of five key governmentwide initiatives. To begin the process of
implementing this initiative, OMB requested that federal agencies
develop preliminary workforce analyses by June 29, 2001. These
analyses are intended, among other things, to document their current
employment patterns, expected retirement trends, and actions they plan
to take to correct anticipated skills surpluses and needs over the
next 5 years. Significantly, OMB's guidance also calls for agency
observations on barriers (statutory, administrative, physical, or
cultural) that prevent or hinder agency reform and management efforts.
The executive branch has signaled a willingness to work with federal
agencies and the Congress to address such barriers.
OMB has further instructed agencies that as part of their fiscal year
2003 budget submission and annual performance plan, they should
develop a 5-year workforce restructuring plan designed to streamline
and better align their workforce to serve agency missions, goals, and
objectives more effectively. OMB guidance notes that the restructuring
plan should include specific organizational changes, potential cost
savings, human resources management tools and flexibilities needed to
implement the plan, specific actions to be taken and associated
timetables, and agency plans for monitoring progress.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Army:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.
Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
Mr. Joseph Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Christoff:
This is the Department of Defense response to your draft report,
"Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls," dated November 26, 2001 (GAO Code
320022/GAO-02-237).
In general, the Department concurs with the report. However, we have
identified certain issues and recommendations for clarification or
correction, as well as technical changes, which should be incorporated
into the final report. Note that portions of the attachment are marked
"Unclassified/for Official Use Only (U/FOUO)" to denote sensitive
material.
The management of foreign language assets is an area of the
Secretary's interest and emphasis; it also represents an important
component of the Human Resource Strategic Plan now being prepared to
shape the next issuance of Defense Planning Guidance. However, we are
concerned that the report fails to make critical operational
distinctions between DoD's foreign language requirements and those of
other Federal agencies reviewed--for example, human intelligence
(HUMINT) collection and tactical intelligence operations requiring
interpreters and translators and cryptologic linguists in a
battlefield environment. There are clear distinctions in these
requirements which are lost in this report, thus not providing an
accurate representation of the difference between DoD and non-DoD
issues. One possible solution may be to restructure the report into
"DoD" and "Non-DoD" sections. Note: GAO comments supplementing those
in the report text appear at the end of this appendix. [See comment 1]
Additionally, in several instances the report implied that the
National Security Agency (NSA), failed to provide information
requested. In most cases, the information requested was classified
thereby restricting its further release. For further information my
point of contact is Mr. Brad Loo, 695-6312, or email
Bradford.Loo@osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David S. C. Chu:
[End of letter]
Gao Draft Report Gao-02-237:
Dated November 26, 2001:
(GAO Code 320022):
"Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendation:
Recommendation: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Army
adopt a strategic, results-oriented approach to human capital
management and workforce planning as described in OPM's model and
GAO's self assessment checklist. (p. 29/GAO Draft Report)
DOD Response: The Department of Defense concurs with the portion of
the recommendation that the Secretary of the Army adopt a strategic,
results-oriented approach to human capital management and workforce
planning in order to better address current and projected shortages in
their foreign language skills. The Department of Defense agrees with
the Army that adoption of the OPM model or the GAO self assessment
checklists would be premature — what may work for the FBI may not be
appropriate for the Army. At the same time, the Department recognizes
that sound management of foreign language assets is important to
Defense performance, and this topic will be addressed as part of the
development of the Human Resource Strategic Plan now being prepared to
shape the next issuance of Defense Planning Guidance. [See comment 2]
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Defense's letter
dated January 17, 2002. (Note: DOD's response included an addendum
with Unclassified/For Official Use Only comments that are not
reprinted in this report. However, these additional comments are
addressed in this report, where appropriate.)
GAO Comments:
1. We did not modify our report because we do not believe these
operational distinctions affect our report findings, conclusions, or
recommendation.
2. We revised our recommendation to clarify that it focuses on the
core planning principles promoted by OPM and GAO rather than the
detailed implementation steps recommended by each agency. These
principles should serve as the basis for the detailed human capital
programs that agencies design to meet their unique needs.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.
United States Department of State:
Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520-7427:
December 18, 2001:
Ms. Susan S. Westin:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Dear Ms. Westin:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Foreign
Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and
Proficiency Shortfalls," GAO-02-237, GAO Job Code 320022.
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
Laura Hall, Policy Coordination Staff, Bureau of Human Resources, at
(202) 647-2665.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Larry J. Eisenhart:
Acting:
Enclosure: As stated.
cc:
GAO/IAT - Mr. Christoff:
State/OIG - Mr. Atkins:
State/DGHR/PC - Mr. Delawie:
[End of letter]
Comments on GAO Draft Report "Foreign Languages: Human Capital
Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls,"
(GAO-02-237, Job Code 320022):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
draft report. The GAO is correct in identifying a number of
difficulties the Department faces in meeting its diverse and changing
language requirements. We believe that the single largest, and
overwhelmingly, the most significant factor that prevents us from
meeting our language staffing and proficiency goals is our staffing
shortfall of over 1100 people as outlined in our Diplomatic Readiness
report. Without adequate capacity to fill all positions and without a
"training float" of personnel to ensure we can send people to training
without suffering staffing gaps, we will not be able to meet our
goals. The Secretary has committed to a Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative that will meet our staffing and training needs.
In this context of staffing shortfalls, we believe that the Department
has done remarkably well in meeting staffing requirements in language-
designated positions. While many positions are simply not filled due
to our overall staffing shortages, of those positions that were filled
last year, 83 percent were filled with fully language-qualified
employees, or those assigned to appropriate language training, and 10
percent were filled with employees who had some proficiency and were
going to participate in language programs at posts. That program is
designed and managed at posts and allows employees, even those who
have the required skills - to strengthen their language skills while
on the job. Also, we assign employees to non-language-designated
positions who do have some relevant language skills and also assign
many employees who exceed the required language proficiency. With
increased staffing that will allow for more training, we will be able
to increase the number of positions designated for language because we
will have a better chance of staffing them with language-qualified
employees and because it will help us do the work more effectively.
We offer the following information with regard to specific issues
raised in the report. We provide, first, some additional context and
explanation for some of GAO's conclusions, and second, a response to
the report's recommendation.
The report identified some data deficiencies. We agree that accurate
information on the total number of language-designated positions in
the Department was not provided. This was due to some errors in data
collection and processing at the macro level with the Department's new
personnel management database. At this date, we believe we have
identified the source of the errors and are now correcting the data as
well as the processes for collecting and using the data in the future.
We anticipate validating this correction shortly and will be able to
produce this information in the future. However, the report's
characterization of the Department's inability to provide the total
number of language designated positions is somewhat misleading. The
Department is fully aware at the post, bureau, and Department levels
of the status of language-designated positions and language skills of
bidders on positions through the assignments process. That process
relies on case-by-case, primary-source data, not the global data in
which there are errors. [See comment 1]
In addition, we agree that reports to Congress on language staffing
vary. This is due to two factors. First, our system is fluid. Every
year, we assign one-third of our foreign service employees, reevaluate
all language-designated positions, and complete training of many
employees in languages they began studying one or two years before.
This means that natural variation in staffing of language-designated
positions will occur. Secondly, part of the discrepancy between
reports arose from the aforementioned data problem. It is also partly
explained by the fact that we previously reported unfilled language-
designated positions as ones in which the language requirement was not
met. However, the Congressional requirement is to report on actual
assignments. From now on, our report will only consider positions
filled that year and measure the language skills of the employee
assigned. This report data is accurate and not affected by the data
system errors. It is based on a hand count by the office responsible
for the assignments process of assignments made that year.
The GAO recommends that the Department develop a workforce planning
approach to language needs. We believe that languages are integral to
our work and are important to our mission. However, we do not have a
separate workforce plan for languages because each of our employees is
required to do much more than use a foreign language. We have a
comprehensive, coherent approach to meeting our language needs that
fits with our unique Foreign Service system. It addresses many of the
elements of workforce planning in the OPM model GAO references, but is
tailored to our system. [See comment 2]
* We have targeted outreach to attract candidates for the Foreign
Service who have language skills. We hire Foreign Service employees
based on a wide range of skills that are carefully selected to predict
success in this career. Language skills are not a primary focus, but
we actively seek candidates who possess language skills as well as
other required skills. We have done outreach at universities with
strong language programs and conferences of language professionals,
and we use fellowships that emphasize language skills as sources from
which to recruit Foreign Service candidates. We do not believe that
the solution to shortfalls in languages in the Foreign Service is to
hire only to those language deficiencies.
* In meeting the requirements for Civil Service interpreters and
translators, positions in which almost 100 percent of the employee's
time is spent using a foreign language, the Department follows a dual
approach. Staff members are recruited through a highly selected and
targeted recruitment of experienced professionals to meet recurring
requirements in the major world languages. The need for additional
personnel to handle surge requirements in the world languages and all
needs for speakers of more exotic languages are met through the
careful recruitment and testing of individual contractors who are
available on an "as needed" basis.
* We have a flexible and responsive system so we can respond to
changing needs. Our system reflects this goal with: entry-level
hiring, a "generalist" emphasis, training in several languages, and
promotions based on broad skills. Language needs vary from year to
year based on international realities and policy priorities. A year
ago we needed Albanian speakers desperately. This year we need Pashto
speakers. Long-term projections are difficult and hiring to those
projections would not be responsive enough to the changing needs. In
the area of interpreter/translator positions which are not part of the
Foreign Service, we use flexible contractors. We do not believe that
rigid planning in the sense GAO suggests of projecting needs and
hiring to them would help meet our staffing and proficiency
shortfalls. [See comment 3]
* We do work to anticipate coming broad trends in language needs and
build needed capacity. For example, we are preparing to produce
increasing numbers of Chinese and Arabic speakers that will be
increasingly in demand in the coming years, even though we do not have
current assignments for them. We will be seeking ways to extend that
to other needed languages such as Farsi. What we will also need in
coming years as the international environment continues to shift is
not just language skills but relevant experience and diplomatic
skills--for that we must turn to our employees who are already on
board. For that reason we have a system that is responsive and relies
on internal resources.
* To identify those changing needs on the ground, every year we
undergo a detailed and comprehensive review of language needs by
posts. This process begins with posts identifying new or changed needs
and allows the initial recommendations to be made from the field where
position requirements are best understood. Requests for changes are
reviewed in Washington by the appropriate regional and functional
bureaus, the Foreign Service Institute's language school and the
Bureau of Human Resources.
* Employees are selected for positions based on a range of
qualifications, including language. The language requirements of
positions are key factors in assignments and waivers of requirements
when an employee's proficiency is not at the level required are given
judiciously and only when we believe that additional time for training
would leave an untenable staffing gap, when other qualifications are
deemed more critical, and when other candidates are not available.
* The Foreign Service Institute is able to flexibly adjust training to
meet needs and produce the language skills in employees that the
service requires.
* We instituted a new language incentive pay plan in 1999 to create
incentives for the study and use of hard languages. It is too early to
assess its effectiveness because many employees assigned under the new
system have only recently arrived at their posts.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter
dated December 18, 2001.
1. The State Department's response notes that such data are available
in primary records. However, information in this format is of little
use to internal management and congressional decisionmakers unless it
can be systematically analyzed, summarized, and presented.
2. The State Department lists a disparate assortment of activities—
targeted outreach of foreign language speakers and translators, a
"generalist" approach to staff development, annual surveys of post
language needs—as examples of how they have addressed many of the
elements of workforce planning. While the State Department's actions
should offer some benefits, they do not represent a strategic approach
to workforce planning. Our report recommendation is designed to help
focus attention on the key elements embodied in such an approach. The
State Department has partially addressed one of these elements by
documenting its foreign language skills needs on an annual basis.
However, as discussed in our report, the department has been unable to
generate a consistent measure of its actual foreign language
shortfalls because of inadequate departmentwide data. With regard to
the other key elements, State still needs to set a strategic direction
for its foreign language needs, develop an action plan for correcting
foreign language shortfalls, and institute a monitoring process to
assess action plan implementation and performance.
3. To address State's concern that our report prescribes a rigid
approach to workforce planning, we revised our recommendation to
clarify that it focuses on the core planning principles promoted by
OPM and GAO. These principles should serve as the basis for the
detailed human capital programs that agencies design to meet their
unique needs.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Foreign Commercial Service:
United States Department Of Commerce:
The Under Secretary for International Trade:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
January 10, 2002:
Mr. Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Christoff:
Thank you for the draft GAO report "Foreign Languages: Human Capital
Approach to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls" and the
opportunity to comment. The report was enlightening and gave us an
opportunity to view our agency practices and procedures. We appreciate
your recommendations and my management team is considering them very
carefully.
However, based on this careful review, we have several suggested
modifications to the draft report. The enclosed list of suggested
modifications helps to explain the unique nature of the Foreign
Commercial Service work and the rationale behind the decisions that
have been made. Please note, prior to this report, we were reviewing
some of our hard-language designations, and had decided that we need
to change the designation requirements for certain positions.
In closing, I want to assure you that I am committed to training our
Foreign Commercial Service Officers up to the required language levels
or all positions. Again, we thank you for your work in producing this
report.
Warm regards,
Signed by: [Illegible], for:
Grant D. Aldonas:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.
U.S. Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Washington, D.C. 20535:
December 11, 2001:
Mr. Joseph A. Christoff:
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Christoff:
Thank you for providing the Department of Justice (Department) with
the opportunity to respond to GAO's draft report entitled, "Foreign
Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and
Proficiency Shortfalls." The Department has asked us to prepare their
response since we were the only component of the Department involved
in this review.
The FBI is appreciative of GAO's observations in the aforementioned
draft report. Although the FBI has experienced notable resource
shortfalls in critical language areas, GAO recognizes that the FBI's
Foreign Language Program (FLP) is on track with current strategic and
workforce planning to correct these shortfalls. The following comments
include an update of the Bureau's recent successes in narrowing the
gaps between requirements and resources.
GAO's report shows that all agencies experience resource gaps in key
language areas. Recent world events, however, have particularly
intensified the focus on the lack of adequate foreign language
resources in the U.S. Government. The ability to provide competent
linguists on short notice in all languages, not only the less commonly
spoken languages, is a continuing challenge for everyone.
The Intelligence Community (IC) (Foreign Language Committee and
Foreign Language Executive Committee) recently met to establish a
"Strategic Direction for Intelligence Community Foreign Language
Activities." This planning document recognizes that although the
various IC agencies have different requirements and uses for foreign
language skills and capabilities, there must be an integrated strategy
and cooperation among components to meet today's challenges. The
Strategic Direction calls for IC components to coordinate, integrate,
and effectively apply limited foreign language resources throughout
the IC, as well as to collaborate within the IC and with other U.S
Government agencies as well as academia and the commercial sector to
meet requirements. [See comment 1]
While effective workforce planning is critical, the FBI sees this
collaboration and cooperation in foreign language matters as a key
step toward meeting the challenges facing the IC and law enforcement
communities today. In fact, it is the only way the U.S. Government can
quickly respond to emergency requirements. As cited in the report, one
such collaborative effort, LEILA (Law Enforcement Interagency Linguist
Access), will provide member Department of Justice and IC components
quick access to competent and vetted contract linguists who work for
translation companies under contract to the U.S. Government.
GAO also recognizes the increased demand for linguists with a high
level of proficiency in the foreign language as well as in English.
Although the FBI does not have a recruitment program specifically
targeted at recruiting native speakers, the Bureau advertises in
ethnic publications as part of its overall language recruitment
strategy. Ninety-five percent of the FBI Contract Linguist and
Language Specialist applicants are native speakers of the foreign
language. As noted in the report, conducting background investigations
on native speakers can be particularly difficult; however, in
recognition of the benefits of highly qualified native speakers, the
Bureau does not shy away from recruiting them.
There is an increased need for FBI Special Agents who speak foreign
languages both domestically and abroad. While the FBI does not set
specific staffing goals for Special Agents with foreign language
skills, FBI field offices are surveyed annually for their Special
Agent linguist needs. The results of these surveys directly impact the
focused recruitment and hiring of Special Agent linguist applicants,
as well as the deployment of Special Agents with foreign language
skills. Special Agent applicants who demonstrate a proficiency in a
foreign language are considered more competitive than equally
qualified applicants who do not have foreign language skills.
Successful efforts to bring on board qualified linguists in recent
months have significantly reduced or eliminated the unaddressed work
in most languages. For example, the recent FBI recruitment effort to
hire Arabic and Farsi linguists will yield enough additional language
resources to completely satisfy the requirements for both of these
languages in the years to come.
The FBI views GAO's report on foreign language capabilities and
shortfalls as a timely and necessary focus on an important and highly
complex issue facing the U.S. Government today. Recent world events
have particularly stressed the consequences of the lack of critical
foreign language resources throughout the government. There is no
doubt that increased attention to this issue will bring about the
activities within the government, academia, and commercial sector
needed to meet the growing language requirements projected in future
years.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
draft report. Please contact us if you have questions or desire
additional discussion.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
John E. Collingwood:
Assistant Director:
Office of Public and Congressional Affairs:
The following are GAO's comments on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's letter dated December 11, 2001.
GAO Comments :
1. We requested that the Central Intelligence Agency provide a
briefing on this important report. However, they declined to meet with
us.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Phillip Herr, (202) 512-8509.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Joseph Brown,
Maria Oliver, Richard Seldin, and Rona Mendelsohn made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We issued a separate For Official Use Only report which included
details on National Security Agency/Central Security Service
operations. See Foreign Languages: Five Agencies Could Use Human
Capital Strategy to Handle Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-237], Jan. 31, 2002. We
also issued a classified report providing related staffing details on
the National Security Agency/Central Security Service and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's foreign language programs. See Foreign
Languages: Staffing Shortfalls and Related Information for the
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-C-02-258R], Jan. 31, 2002.
[2] See Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OGC-00-14G], Sept. 2000,
and Strategic Human Resources Management: Aligning with the Mission
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Sept. 1999).
[3] Cryptologic linguists specialize in intercepting and interpreting
intelligence information collected electronically. Cryptologic
linguists from the military services help collect signal intelligence
data.
[4] These employees work with individuals rather than interpret
information intercepted electronically or by other means.
[5] OPM does not maintain comprehensive records on the number of
federal employees serving in positions requiring foreign language
skills.
[6] The FCS manages a relatively small operation compared with the
other organizations we reviewed. The FCS is charged with the promotion
of goods and services from the United States and the protection of
U.S. business interests abroad. This work is carried out by foreign
commercial officers stationed at 160 overseas posts located in
commercial centers throughout the world.
[7] There was no shortfall in Persian-Farsi speakers.
[8] Included in this group are special agent linguists serving as
legal attaches at 44 embassies outside the United States.
[9] See The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in National
Security and the Federal Government, Hearing before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14 and
19, 2000).
[10] Statement by the deputy director, National Foreign Affairs
Training Center, Department of State, before the Senate Governmental
Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and
Federal Services (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2000).
[11] Statement by the vice chairman, National Intelligence Council,
before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services (Sept. 14, 2000).
[12] Army contracting costs were not readily available.
[13] 50 U.S.C., sections 1901-1910.
[14] Senate Report No. 107-63, at 11.
[15] See Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders.
[16] OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, issued May 8, 2001.
[17] Army Foreign Language Program Requirements, Audit Report: AA00-32
(Washington, D.C.: Army Audit Agency, Feb. 2000).
[18] Among the initiatives the Army lists in phase two is a "cradle-to-
grave" review of its cryptologic linguists to seek ways to reduce high
attrition rates. This complex effort involves a number of recruitment,
training, and career development initiatives. Other initiatives
concern the use of new technology such as a field intelligence
collection system, which could reduce the need for 900 cryptologic
linguist positions.
[19] In addition to the Army's planning efforts, there are two ongoing
Department of Defense strategic human resource initiatives that may
influence the Army's planning efforts. One effort aims to develop a
comprehensive human resources plan for the entire Department of
Defense. A second effort focuses on an eight-part strategic plan for
utilizing the department's foreign language resources.
[20] Public Law 106-113, section 326, 113 stat. 1501A-437.
[21] See House Report (Conference) 107-278, at 145, accompanying
Public Law 107-77, 115 Stat. 783.
[22] We issued a separate For Official Use Only report which included
details on National Security Agency/Central Security Service
operations. We also issued a separate classified report which provides
staffing details on the National Security Agency/Central Security
Service and the FBI's foreign language programs.
[23] See OPM's Strategic Human Resources Management: Aligning with the
Mission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Sept.
1999).
[24] See Human Resource Innovators' Tool Kit and Human Resources
Flexibilities and Authorities in the Federal Government (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2001).
[25] High-Risk Series: An Update [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-263], Jan. 2001.
[26] Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OGC-00-14G], Sept. 2000.
[27] The President's Management Agenda (Fiscal Year 2002) (Washington,
D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget).
[28] OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, issued May 8, 2001.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its
core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on
its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office: 441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: