This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-894 
entitled 'Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls 
Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps' which was released on 
August 4, 2006. 

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

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

August 2006: 

Department Of State: 

Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to 
Address Gaps: 

Department of State: 

GAO-06-894: 

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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

What GAO Found: 

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

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

Figure: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

[End of Figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

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

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-894]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford, (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

[End of Section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

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

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

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Department of State Staffing: 

Appendix III: Foreign Language Proficiency at Language-Designated 
Positions: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts: 

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

Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements: 

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

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

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

Figures: 

Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category: 

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

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

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

Abbreviations: 

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

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 4, 2006: 

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

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

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

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

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

Results in Brief: 

State has made progress in addressing staffing shortages since 
implementing DRI; however, the initiative did not fully meet its goals, 
and mid-level vacancies remain a problem at critical posts. DRI was 
intended to hire enough additional staff to respond to emerging crises 
and to allow staff time for critical job training. From 2002 to 2004, 
DRI enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition. 
However, according to State officials, most of this increase was 
absorbed by the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus 
the desired crises and training reserve was not achieved. Additionally, 
in an effort to address staffing shortfalls at historically hard to 
fill hardship posts, many of which are of significant strategic 
importance to the United States, State implemented various incentives, 
including offering extra pay to officers who serve an additional year 
at these posts and allowing employees to negotiate shorter tours of 
duty. More recently, State changed its promotion requirements to 
include service in a hardship post as a prerequisite for promotion to 
the senior foreign service. However, State has not evaluated the 
effectiveness of the incentives and hardship posts in Africa and the 
Middle East--including those in countries important to the war on 
terror, as well as those in other countries of strategic interest--and 
continues to have difficulty attracting qualified applicants at the mid-
level. Currently, mid-level positions at many posts are staffed by 
junior officers who lack experience and have minimal guidance. For 
example, at the time of our review, the mid-level consular manager 
positions in Shenyang and Chengdu, China--two locations with high 
incidence of visa fraud--were held by first tour junior officers. We 
observed similar shortages and employees above their grades in consular 
sections in China when we reported on staffing of hardship posts in 
2002.[Footnote 2] This experience gap at critical posts can severely 
compromise the department's diplomatic readiness and its ability to 
carry out its foreign policy objectives and execute critical post-level 
duties. We found that inexperienced officers are not as well-equipped 
to handle crises as more seasoned officers, and having inexperienced 
officers in key positions forces senior staff to devote more time to 
overseeing operational matters and less to advancing U.S. international 
interests. State does not assign its limited number of mid-level 
employees to particular posts because of risk and priorities; 
but rather, it generally assigns them to posts for which they have 
expressed an interest. State has recently launched a new initiative to 
reallocate positions from Europe and Washington, D.C., to critical 
emerging areas such as Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. 
However, without directing employees, when necessary, to high priority 
assignments, it is unclear whether the reallocation of positions alone 
will ensure that they are filled. 

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

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

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

Background: 

The Department of State is the lead agency in formulating and 
implementing U.S. foreign policy. The department represents the United 
States in about 172 countries, operating approximately 266 embassies, 
consulates, and other posts. During several years in the 1990s, State 
lost more staff than it hired, and the resultant shortfalls of staff 
and skills endangered diplomatic readiness. To address these 
shortfalls, in 2002, State implemented DRI, a $197 million effort 
designed to address a range of goals. In particular, the goals of DRI 
were to hire 1,158[Footnote 4] new foreign and civil service employees 
over a 3-year period, support training opportunities for staff, enhance 
the department's ability to respond to crises and emerging priorities 
overseas and at critical domestic locations, improve State's hiring 
processes to recruit personnel from more diverse experiences and 
cultural backgrounds, and fill critical skill gaps. Table 1 shows DRI 
hiring goals for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal 2004. 

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

Skill group: Foreign service generalist; 
FY 2002: 204; 
FY 2003: 206; 
FY 2004: 138; 
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 548. 

Skill group: Foreign service specialist; 
FY 2002: 81; 
FY 2003: 103; 
FY 2004: 102; 
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 286. 

Skill group: Total foreign service; 
FY 2002: 285; 
FY 2003: 309; 
FY 2004: 240; 
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 834. 

Skill group: Civil service; 
FY 2002: 75; 
FY 2003: 90; 
FY 2004: 70; 
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 235. 

Skill group: Total; 
FY 2002: 360; 
FY 2003: 399; 
FY 2004: 310; 
Total FY 2002-2004 goals: 1,069. 

Source: Department of State. 

[End of table] 

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

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

Figure 1: Assignment Process for FSOs: 

[See PDf for Image] 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The Director General is the official who heads State's Bureau of 
Human Resources. 

[End of Figure]

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

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2006 SND Posts: 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Abuja; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: Chengdu; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Almaty; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: Sana'a; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: Dhaka; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Georgetown. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Asmara; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: 
Guangzhou; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Ashgabat; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Paramaribo. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Bamako; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: Port 
Moresby; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Astana; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: Port au Prince. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Bangui; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: 
Shenyang; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Baku; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Brazzaville; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: 
Ulaanbaatar; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Bishkek; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Conakry; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Chisinau; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Cotonou; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Dushanbe; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Djibouti; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Kiev; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Freetown; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Minsk; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Kigali; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tashkent; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Kinshasa; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tbilisi; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Lagos; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Tirana; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Luanda; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Vladivostok; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: N'Djamena; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Yekaterinburg; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Niamey; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: Yerevan; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Nouakchott; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Ouagadougou; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Geographic regions: Africa: Overseas posts: Yaoundé; 
Geographic regions: East Asia and the Pacific: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Europe and Eurasia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Near East: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: South Asia: Overseas posts: [Empty]; 
Geographic regions: Western Hemisphere: Overseas posts: [Empty]. 

Source: Department of State. 

[End of table] 

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

State's Foreign Language Requirements: 

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

² Category I languages are world languages, such as Spanish and French, 
which relate closely to English. Fifty-five percent of the language- 
designated positions require proficiency in a world language. 

² Category II languages, such as Albanian or Urdu, are languages with 
significant linguistic or cultural differences from English. State 
refers to such languages as "hard" languages. Twenty-nine percent of 
the language-designated positions require proficiency in a hard 
language. 

² Category III, the "superhard" languages, include Arabic and Chinese, 
and are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers to learn. 
Sixteen percent of the language-designated positions require 
proficiency in a superhard language. Figure 2 shows the percentage of 
language-designated positions by category. 

Figure 2: Percentage of Language-Designated Positions by Category: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

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

[End of Figure] 

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness of Hardship Incentives Has Not Been Measured: 

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

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

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

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

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

Staffing Gaps at the Mid-Level Persist: 

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

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

Grade level: Senior level: MC; 
Management: (10); 
Consular: 10; 
Economic: 0; 
Political: 21; 
Public diplomacy: (8); 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: 13. 

Grade level : Senior level: OC; 
Management: Grade level : (16); 
Consular: Grade level : (3); 
Economic: Grade level : 18; 
Political: Grade level : 29; 
Public diplomacy: Grade level : (20); 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level : [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level : 8. 

Grade level: Senior level;
Management: [Empty]; 
Consular: [Empty]; 
Economic: [Empty]; 
Political: [Empty]; 
Public diplomacy: [Empty]; 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: 21; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: [Empty]. 

Grade level: Mid level: 1; 
Management: (19); 
Consular: 34; 
Economic: 32; 
Political: 71; 
Public diplomacy: (93); 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: 25. 

Grade level: Mid level: 2; 
Management: Grade level: (58); 
Consular: Grade level: 31; 
Economic: Grade level: 17; 
Political: Grade level: 36; 
Public diplomacy: Grade level: (186); 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level: [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level: (160). 

Grade level : Mid level: 3; 
Management: Grade level : 16; 
Consular: Grade level : (143); 
Economic: Grade level : (26); 
Political: Grade level : (56); 
Public diplomacy: Grade level : 28; 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: Grade level : [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: Grade level : (181). 

Grade level: Mid level; 
Management: [Empty]; 
Consular: [Empty]; 
Economic: [Empty]; 
Political: [Empty]; 
Public diplomacy: [Empty]; 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: (316); 
Total Surplus/Deficit: [Empty]. 

Grade level: Junior level: 4; 
Management: 232; 
Consular: (580); 
Economic: 124; 
Political: 166; 
Public diplomacy: 199; 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: 141; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: 141. 

Grade level: Total; 
Management: 145.0; 
Consular: (651.0); 
Economic: 165.0; 
Political: 267.0; 
Public diplomacy: (80); 
Surplus/Deficit by grade level: [Empty]; 
Total Surplus/Deficit: (154.0). 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

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

[End of table] 

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

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

[End of Figure] 

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

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

[See PDF for Image]

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

[End of Figure]

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

Many Mid-Level Positions Are Staffed by Junior Officers: 

In order to fill vacancies, primarily at hardship posts, State 
sometimes allows stretch assignments, which enable staff to bid for a 
position at either a higher grade than their current grade level 
(called an "upstretch") or a lower grade (a "downstretch"). Often, 
upstretch assignments are offered as a reward and career-enhancing 
opportunity for staff who have demonstrated outstanding performance, 
and many officers successfully fulfill the duties requested of the 
higher grade level.[Footnote 10] However, a 2004 report by State's 
Inspector General[Footnote 11] found that in many African posts, for 
example, there were significant deficiencies in the ability, training, 
and experience of FSOs serving in upstretch assignments. 

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

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

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

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

Family Issues and Locality Pay Discourage Bidding at Hardship Posts: 

Many of the overseas staff we whom we met cited family considerations-
-child-related and spousal employment concerns, in particular--as the 
greatest obstacle to attracting mid-level officers to hardship posts. 
The spouses and other household members of FSOs who responded to a 
State internet survey[Footnote 14] listed spousal employment as the 
primary reason why officers do not bid for hardship posts. In many 
hardship posts, it is extremely difficult for spouses to find 
employment, particularly in China and most of South Asia, where 
bilateral work agreements are not in place. State officials told us 
that the department has recently initiated new programs to mitigate 
this problem, such as providing fellowships for spouses to continue 
their professional development, offering online courses or 
entrepreneurial workshops to encourage small business development, or 
training spouses to find employment in the local economy. The 
department plans to expand these programs in the future with a 
particular emphasis on spouses in hardship locations. 

The survey respondents also listed child-related issues as a major 
factor in the officers not bidding for positions. A particular concern 
is that many hardship posts do not have appropriate schooling for 
American children, thus limiting options for employees with families. 
In Sana'a, Yemen, for example, post positions are only available to 
staff with children under age 5 or over 21 due to a lack of schools. 
This has been an outstanding concern for the Sana'a post, and post 
officials told us that post management is heavily engaged in trying to 
find a solution to the problem. In addition, the number of 
unaccompanied posts[Footnote 15] has increased in recent years, making 
it difficult for employees with families to bid on them. As of April 
2006, there were 21 unaccompanied and limited accompanied posts and 
more than 700 positions at such posts. Moreover, State officials said 
that this number will probably increase due to increasing security 
concerns around the world. 

Lastly, officers and State personnel we interviewed both, at hardship 
posts and in Washington, D.C., consistently cited the lack of locality 
pay[Footnote 16] as a deterrent to bidding at hardship positions. In 
2002, we reported that the differences in the statutes governing 
domestic locality pay and differential pay for overseas service had 
created a gap in compensation penalizing overseas employees.[Footnote 
17] This gap grows every year, as domestic locality pay rates increase, 
creating an ever-increasing financial disincentive for overseas 
employees to bid on hardship posts. After accounting for domestic 
locality pay for Washington, D.C., a 25 percent hardship post 
differential is eroded to approximately 8 percent. As estimated in our 
2002 report, differential pay incentives for the 15 percent 
differential hardship posts are now less than the locality pay for 
Washington, D.C., which is currently 17 percent and can be expected to 
soon surpass the 20 percent differential hardship posts. Currently, 
there is legislation pending in Congress to alleviate the locality pay 
disparity by providing FSOs stationed outside the United States with 
locality-based pay equal to that of Washington, D.C.[Footnote 18] 
However, there has been no final action in Congress regarding this 
legislation since 2005. 

State Reluctant to Use Directed Assignments: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Continues to Have Shortages of Staff Proficient in Foreign 
Languages: 

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

Some Staff Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions: 

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

Table 4: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements: 

Proficiency level: 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 
discussion 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 in 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. 

Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents. 

[End of table] 

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

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

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

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

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

Staff: Chinese language: Generalists; 
Filled language-designated positions: 147; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 40; 
Percent: 27%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Consular; 
Filled language-designated positions: 57; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 12; 
Percent: 21%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Management; 
Filled language-designated positions: 8; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 7; 
Percent: 88%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Economic; 
Filled language-designated positions: 29; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 10; 
Percent: 34%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Political; 
Filled language-designated positions: 24; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5; 
Percent: 21%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Public diplomacy; 
Filled language-designated positions: 18; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 6; 
Percent: 33%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Multifunctional; 
Filled language-designated positions: 11; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 0; 
Percent: 0%. 

Staff: Chinese language: Specialists; 
Filled language-designated positions: 53; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 38; 
Percent: 72%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Generalists; 
Filled language-designated positions: 140; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 49; 
Percent: 35%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Consular; 
Filled language-designated positions: 41; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 12; 
Percent: 29%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Management; 
Filled language-designated positions: 5; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5; 
Percent: 100%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Economic; 
Filled language-designated positions: 11; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 6; 
Percent: 55%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Political; 
Filled language-designated positions: 31; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 7; 
Percent: 23%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Public diplomacy; 
Filled language-designated positions: 40; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 14; 
Percent: 35%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Multifunctional; 
Filled language-designated positions: 12; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 5; 
Percent: 42%. 

Staff: Arabic language: Specialists; 
Filled language-designated positions: 20; 
Staff filling positions who do not meet language requirements: 15; 
Percent: 75%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data. 

[End of table] 

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

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

According to a State Inspector General report on Embassy Tel Aviv, the 
duties inherent in consular positions require staff to have better 
speaking and reading Hebrew language skills than the required level 
2.[Footnote 20] Therefore, the Office of the Inspector General 
recommended that entry-level officers be given the opportunity to study 
Hebrew for 4 weeks in Tel Aviv before they begin work at the embassy. 
Another Inspector General report said that staff in Cairo who speak 
Arabic below the required level-3 would prefer to be able to speak at a 
more advanced level to conduct effective public outreach.[Footnote 21] 
Officials from the Foreign Service Institute agreed that a level-3 
speaking and reading language proficiency in Arabic and Chinese was 
more appropriate for junior officers assigned to consular positions, 
but they explained that language-designated position requirements are 
set at a level officers can realistically achieve in the limited amount 
of time available to obtain training. 

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

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

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

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

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

² Consular officers: Officials at one high visa fraud post that we 
visited stated that, due to language skill deficiencies, consular 
officers sometimes adjudicate visas without fully understanding 
everything the applicants tell them during visa interviews. In Jakarta, 
where almost all visa interviews are conducted in Indonesian, the 
consul general position was filled, at the time of our review, by an 
officer with a language waiver,[Footnote 23] making supervision and 
monitoring of the six first tour junior consular officers problematic. 

² Economic and political officers: An economic officer in a superhard 
language-speaking country had been conducting several important 
negotiations in English with foreign government officials over a number 
of months with little results. When the officials began discussing the 
same issue in the host country language, the whole tenure of the 
negotiations changed. According to the officer, one of the foreign 
government officials who did not understand English, and was therefore 
silent throughout the initial meetings, had actually been the most 
valuable source of information all along, yet could only convey that 
information when the meeting was conducted in his own language. 
Additionally, according to senior officials in two of the countries we 
visited, officers without fluent language skills who accompany them to 
high-level meetings often produce inaccurate notes. Since these notes 
provide a basis for the embassy's reporting, the officials spend a 
great deal of time correcting notes rather than addressing more 
pressing concerns. Furthermore, in Beirut, State's Inspector General 
reported that most of the political and economic officers did not 
receive the Arabic-language training needed to work professionally in 
Lebanon, limiting opportunities to expand their contacts to the less 
sophisticated urban areas and into the countryside. 

² Public diplomacy officers: Officers at many posts cannot communicate 
effectively with foreign audiences in local languages, hampering their 
ability to cultivate personal relationships and explain U.S. foreign 
policy. According to a recent GAO report[Footnote 24] many public 
diplomacy officers in the Muslim world cannot communicate with local 
audiences as well as their positions require. For example, an 
information officer in Cairo stated that his office does not have 
enough Arabic speaking staff to engage the Egyptian media effectively. 
According to a State Inspector General inspection report on the U.S. 
embassy in Damascus, public affairs officers need Arabic language 
skills to maintain and expand contacts with nongovernmental, human 
rights, and civil society groups, but the language training offered in 
Damascus fails to prepare them for the idiomatic Arabic spoken in the 
country. 

² Management officers: According to one ambassador we met with, a 
senior level embassy official, who did not have sufficient speaking and 
reading language requirements for his position, met with a prime 
minister, but was unable to participate fully in the top-secret 
discussion without an outside translator present. However, because the 
prime minister would not speak freely with the translator present, the 
meeting was not productive. 

² Foreign service specialists: A regional security officer stated that 
lack of foreign language capability may hinder intelligence gathering 
because local informants are reluctant to speak through locally hired 
interpreters. 

State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Efforts: 

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

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

GAO's internal control standards[Footnote 28] instruct agencies to 
identify risks that could impede the efficient and effective 
achievement of their objectives and assess their impact. State has not 
conducted an assessment that would prioritize the resources it devotes 
to specific languages based on risk. However, a number of potential 
risks are associated with not having staff with the right language 
skills at critical posts, including the risks of (1) adjudicating visas 
to the wrong applicants, thereby jeopardizing U.S. national security; 
(2) missing opportunities to advance U.S. foreign policy positions due 
to ineffective communication with foreign media environments; 
and (3) compromising U.S. intelligence gathering as a result of lost 
information from potential informants. State's Director General has 
said that State has not conducted the type of risk assessment that 
would potentially reallocate resources from one area to another based 
on strategic importance. Instead, State refines its critical needs 
languages list on a yearly basis. 

Conclusions: 

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

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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

² Consider using directed assignments, as necessary, using a risk-based 
approach, to fill critical positions with fully qualified officers who 
have the skills and experience necessary to effectively manage and 
supervise essential mission functions at hardship posts; 

² Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the department's 
incentive programs for hardship post assignments, establishing specific 
indicators of progress and adjusting the use of the incentives based on 
this analysis; 

² Consider an assignment system that allows for longer tours, 
consecutive assignments in certain countries, and more regional 
specialization in certain areas, in order to hone officers' skills in 
certain superhard languages and better leverage the investment State 
makes in language training; 

² Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to improve 
the language proficiency of its FSOs and specialists, establishing 
specific indicators of progress in filling language gaps and adjusting 
its efforts, accordingly; and: 

² Conduct a risk assessment of critical language needs in regions and 
countries of strategic importance, make realistic projections of the 
staff time and related training float necessary to adequately train 
personnel to meet those needs, and target its limited resources for 
language training, as needed, to fill these critical gaps. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

[End of section] 

To assess the Department of State's (State) progress in eliminating 
staffing gaps, we: 

* reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports, 

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

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

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

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

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

We analyzed bidding data to determine the average number of position 
bids by posts, the median average bid for each differential rate, and 
the areas of specialization that are difficult to staff.[Footnote 29] 
For these analyses, we used the mid-level bidding data for the 2005 
summer assignments cycle. In order to compare 2005 data with 2002 data 
from our previous report and remain consistent, we used FS-04 tenured, 
FS-03, and FS-02 bid data. To obtain the average number of bids for 
each post, we took the total number of bids received on all positions 
at each post and divided it by the total number of positions to be 
filled at the post. For example, in the 2002 summer assignments cycle, 
Lagos had eight positions to be filled and received a total of 11 bids, 
resulting in an average of 1.38 bids for this post. To obtain the 
median bid at each differential rate, as represented in the line in 
figure 3, we arranged in ascending order the average bid for each post 
at the corresponding differential rate and used the middle average bid. 
For example, assuming there are only five posts at the 25 differential 
rate and their average bids are 3, 5, 7, 9, and 16, the median of the 
average bids is 7. The bidding data include the number of positions to 
be filled at each post and the number of bids received for each 
position. We used the mid-level bidding data because mid-level 
positions comprised 56 percent of the total foreign service workforce. 
We also used the bidding data for the summer assignments cycle because, 
according to State officials, most employees are transferred during 
this cycle, compared to the winter cycle. Although we analyzed data for 
the two cycles, we provided information for only the 2005 cycle because 
the results for 2004 were similar. 

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

² reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports; 

² analyzed data on the foreign language requirements of State and its 
efforts to enhance its foreign language capability; 

² analyzed worldwide data on language-designated positions by post, 
languages, career track, specialty, and grade; 

² analyzed data on the language proficiency of staff at specific posts 
by career track, specialty, and grade; and: 

² interviewed officials of the Office of Recruitment and the Office of 
Resource Management and Organizational Analysis of the Bureau of Human 
Resources, State's Office of Inspector General, and the Foreign Service 
Institute (FSI) regarding the hiring and training of language 
proficient staff. 

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

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

We conducted fieldwork in Abuja and Lagos, Nigeria; 
Sana'a, Yemen; and Beijing, China, to study the impact of staffing and 
language gaps at selected posts.[Footnote 30] We developed a matrix 
containing information on staffing vacancies, number of bids per 
position, officers in stretch positions, foreign language requirement, 
and the foreign language capabilities of staff in language-designated 
positions to identify potential fieldwork locations. We selected the 
posts in Nigeria because of the low number of staff applying for each 
position. We selected Sana'a because of the low number of staff 
applying for each position, because it requires staff proficient in 
Arabic, which is a difficult language to learn, and because of Yemen's 
importance to the war on terrorism. We selected Beijing because it 
requires staff proficient in Chinese, which is also a difficult 
language to learn, and because of its strategic importance to the 
United States. We performed our work from August 2005 to May 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Department of State Staffing: 

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

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

Total Department of State staffing; 
Full-time permanent positions: 21,180; 
Full-time Staff available: 19,255; 
Staff surplus (deficit): (1,925); 
Political appointees: 75. 

Total foreign service staffing; 
Full-time permanent positions: 11,387; 
Full-time Staff available: 11,189; 
Staff surplus (deficit): (198); 
Political appointees: 49. 

Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service generalist-overseas; 
Full-time permanent positions: 4,457; 
Full-time Staff available: 4,232; 
Staff surplus (deficit): (225); 
Political appointees: 45. 

Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service specialist-overseas; 
Full-time permanent positions: 3,403; 
Full-time Staff available: 3,150; 
Staff surplus (deficit): (253); 
Political appointees: 4. 

Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service generalist-domestic; 
Full-time permanent positions: 1,890; 
Full-time Staff available: 2,123; 
Staff surplus (deficit): 233; 
Political appointees: [Empty]. 

Total foreign service staffing: Foreign service specialist-domestic; 
Full-time permanent positions: 1,637; 
Full-time Staff available: 1,684; 
Staff surplus (deficit): 47; 
Political appointees: [Empty]. 

Total civil service staffing; 
Full-time permanent positions: 9,793; 
Full-time Staff available: 8,066; 
Staff surplus (deficit): (1,727); 
Political appointees: 26. 

Source: Department of State. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Foreign Language Proficiency at Language-Designated 
Positions: 

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

Location: Abidjan; 
Number of language-designated positions: 22; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47. 

Location: Abu Dhabi; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Abuja; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Adana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67. 

Location: Addis Ababa; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Algiers; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11. 

Location: Almaty; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30. 

Location: Amman; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18. 

Location: Amsterdam; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Ankara; 
Number of language-designated positions: 31; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36. 

Location: Antananarivo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 55. 

Location: Ashgabat; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Astana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Asuncion; 
Number of language-designated positions: 20; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22. 

Location: Athens; 
Number of language-designated positions: 27; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36. 

Location: Baghdad; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67. 

Location: Baku; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44. 

Location: Bamako; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 77. 

Location: Bangkok; 
Number of language-designated positions: 41; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37. 

Location: Bangui; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Banja Luka; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Barcelona; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Beijing; 
Number of language-designated positions: 104; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38. 

Location: Beirut; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12. 

Location: Belgrade; 
Number of language-designated positions: 23; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38. 

Location: Belize City; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Berlin; 
Number of language-designated positions: 37; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30. 

Location: Bern; 
Number of language-designated positions: 15; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 46. 

Location: Bishkek; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11. 

Location: Bogotá; 
Number of language-designated positions: 97; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Bordeaux; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Brasilia; 
Number of language-designated positions: 43; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47. 

Location: Bratislava; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: Bridgetown; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Brussels; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Brussels NATO; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47. 

Location: Brussels USE; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40. 

Location: Bucharest; 
Number of language-designated positions: 28; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Budapest; 
Number of language-designated positions: 28; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 48. 

Location: Buenos Aires; 
Number of language-designated positions: 41; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24. 

Location: Bujumbura; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Cairo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 32; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 59. 

Location: Caracas; 
Number of language-designated positions: 45; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27. 

Location: Casablanca; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 56. 

Location: Chengdu; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 54. 

Location: Chennai; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Chiang Mai; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Chisinau; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Ciudad Juarez; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Cologne; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Colombo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Conakry; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36. 

Location: Copenhagen; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12. 

Location: Cotonou; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Curacao; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Dakar; 
Number of language-designated positions: 29; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Damascus; 
Number of language-designated positions: 19; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 41. 

Location: Dar-es-Salaam; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67. 

Location: Dhahran; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Dhaka; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18. 

Location: Dili; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Djibouti; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 75. 

Location: Doha; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Douala; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Dubai; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Dushanbe; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 62. 

Location: Düsseldorf; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Florence; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Frankfurt; 
Number of language-designated positions: 32; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 39. 

Location: Fukuoka; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Geneva; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22. 

Location: Georgetown; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Guadalajara; 
Number of language-designated positions: 20; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 10. 

Location: Guangzhou; 
Number of language-designated positions: 35; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 31. 

Location: Guatemala; 
Number of language-designated positions: 36; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 26. 

Location: Guayaquil; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Hamburg; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Hanoi; 
Number of language-designated positions: 19; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24. 

Location: Havana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 27; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 36. 

Location: Helsinki; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14. 

Location: Hermosillo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Ho Chi Minh City; 
Number of language-designated positions: 26; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16. 

Location: Hong Kong; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44. 

Location: Islamabad; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Istanbul; 
Number of language-designated positions: 19; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Jakarta; 
Number of language-designated positions: 35; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21. 

Location: Jeddah; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14. 

Location: Jerusalem; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: Kabul; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67. 

Location: Kathmandu; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40. 

Location: Kiev; 
Number of language-designated positions: 40; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 9. 

Location: Kigali; 
Number of language-designated positions: 13; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30. 

Location: Kinshasa; 
Number of language-designated positions: 22; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24. 

Location: Krakow; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18. 

Location: Kuala Lumpur; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40. 

Location: Kuwait; 
Number of language-designated positions: 13; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: La Paz; 
Number of language-designated positions: 29; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19. 

Location: Lagos; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Leipzig; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Libreville; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Lima; 
Number of language-designated positions: 50; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21. 

Location: Lisbon; 
Number of language-designated positions: 20; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Ljubljana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12. 

Location: Lome; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: London; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Luanda; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Luxembourg; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37. 

Location: Lyon; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Madrid; 
Number of language-designated positions: 35; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 13. 

Location: Managua; 
Number of language-designated positions: 30; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15. 

Location: Manama; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Manila; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Maputo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 15; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15. 

Location: Marseille; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Matamoros; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Medan; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Merida; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Mexico City; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Mexico DF; 
Number of language-designated positions: 96; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16. 

Location: Milan; 
Number of language-designated positions: 13; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 18. 

Location: Minsk; 
Number of language-designated positions: 12; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 9. 

Location: Monterrey; 
Number of language-designated positions: 26; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Montevideo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Montreal; 
Number of language-designated positions: 13; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30. 

Location: Moscow; 
Number of language-designated positions: 95; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: Mumbai; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Munich; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: Muscat; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60. 

Location: Nagoya; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Naha; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Nairobi; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Naples; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: N'Djamena; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 57. 

Location: New Delhi; 
Number of language-designated positions: 15; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38. 

Location: Niamey; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 10. 

Location: Nicosia; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Nogales; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 67. 

Location: Nouakchott; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Nuevo Laredo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: OECD Paris; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Osaka-Kobe; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 30. 

Location: Oslo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Ottawa; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Ouagadougou; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 43. 

Location: Panama; 
Number of language-designated positions: 31; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19. 

Location: Paramaribo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Paris; 
Number of language-designated positions: 64; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22. 

Location: Paris UNESCO; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40. 

Location: Peshawar; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Phnom Penh; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Podgorica; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Punta Delgado; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Port Louis; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Prague; 
Number of language-designated positions: 23; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12. 

Location: Praia; 
Number of language-designated positions: 3; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Pristina, KO; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Port-Au-Prince; 
Number of language-designated positions: 30; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 15. 

Location: Quebec; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Quito; 
Number of language-designated positions: 28; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Rabat; 
Number of language-designated positions: 20; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 42. 

Location: Rangoon; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37. 

Location: Recife; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Reykjavik; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Riga; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Rio de Janeiro; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 24. 

Location: Riyadh; 
Number of language-designated positions: 19; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 31. 

Location: Rome; 
Number of language-designated positions: 43; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 38. 

Location: San Jose; 
Number of language-designated positions: 28; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 16. 

Location: San Salvador; 
Number of language-designated positions: 38; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21. 

Location: Sana'a; 
Number of language-designated positions: 19; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60. 

Location: Santiago; 
Number of language-designated positions: 29; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 22. 

Location: Santo Domingo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 50; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 7. 

Location: Sao Paulo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 30; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 28. 

Location: Sapporo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Sarajevo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 20; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 47. 

Location: Seoul; 
Number of language-designated positions: 33; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Shanghai; 
Number of language-designated positions: 32; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 37. 

Location: Shenyang; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60. 

Location: Singapore; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Skopje; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27. 

Location: Sofia; 
Number of language-designated positions: 17; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19. 

Location: St. Petersburg; 
Number of language-designated positions: 10; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 12. 

Location: Stockholm; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 44. 

Location: Strasbourg; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Surabaya; 
Number of language-designated positions: 7; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 17. 

Location: Suva; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Tallinn; 
Number of language-designated positions: 9; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 25. 

Location: Tashkent; 
Number of language-designated positions: 22; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 29. 

Location: Tbilisi; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 70. 

Location: Tegucigalpa; 
Number of language-designated positions: 33; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 19. 

Location: Tel Aviv; 
Number of language-designated positions: 22; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 28. 

Location: The Hague; 
Number of language-designated positions: 8; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14. 

Location: Thessaloniki; 
Number of language-designated positions: 2; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Tijuana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 14; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 14. 

Location: Tirana; 
Number of language-designated positions: 15; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Tokyo; 
Number of language-designated positions: 45; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 39. 

Location: Tokyo RLS; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Toulouse; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Tripoli; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 60. 

Location: Tunis; 
Number of language-designated positions: 26; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 35. 

Location: Tunis RLS; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Location: Ulaanbaatar; 
Number of language-designated positions: 4; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Vatican; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 75. 

Location: Vienna; 
Number of language-designated positions: 16; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Vienna OSCE; 
Number of language-designated positions: 1; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 100. 

Location: Vientiane; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 27. 

Location: Vilnius; 
Number of language-designated positions: 11; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 11. 

Location: Vladivostok; 
Number of language-designated positions: 5; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 40. 

Location: Warsaw; 
Number of language-designated positions: 42; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 21. 

Location: Yaoundé; 
Number of language-designated positions: 18; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 33. 

Location: Yekaterinburg; 
Number of language-designated positions: 6; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 20. 

Location: Yerevan; 
Number of language-designated positions: 17; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 50. 

Location: Zagreb; 
Number of language-designated positions: 17; 
Percent of staff who do not meet language requirements: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State Data. 

[End of table] 

[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: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "State 
Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite 
Initiatives to Address Gaps," GAO Job Code 320357. 

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 
Cynthia Nelson, Program Analyst, Bureau of Human Resources, at (202) 
647-2655. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: Bradford R. Higgins: 

cc: 
GAO - Laverne Tharpes: 
DGHR - George M. Staples: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist 
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps (GAO-06-894, GAO Job Code 320357): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 
draft report, which we believe is generally helpful in identifying the 
challenges we face in staffing hardship posts around the world and in 
ensuring that our officers have the language proficiency necessary to 
perform their jobs. Since the last reports in 2002 and 2003, the 
diplomatic challenges that we must address have significantly changed 
and the Department has instituted new programs aimed at meeting the 
opportunities of transformational diplomacy. 

In January 2005, the Department launched a Generalist Career 
Development Program (CDP), which addresses the issues of staffing 
hardship posts and increasing the language proficiency of Generalist 
officers that GAO discussed in the report. The CDP requires officers to 
spend a minimum of three tours in a geographic region, developing a 
"major" in the region in the mid-level years of an officer's career. 
The CDP also requires that officers spend a minimum of two tours in a 
second geographic region or a functional specialization, such as 
political-military affairs or consular work. This second area of 
expertise has been labeled an officer's "minor." Taken together, the 
major and minor require each officer to serve five tours (typically ten 
to 15 years) acquiring regional and/or functional expertise in 
preparation for increasingly senior positions abroad or in Washington. 
The CDP obliges officers to serve at a 15 percent or greater post 
(hardship) differential/danger pay post after tenure and to have a 
language proficiency of 3/3, tested within seven years, before applying 
to compete for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. The CDP also 
requires that officers fulfill a specific number of "electives," 
depending on their grade (class) on the program implementation date. 
Three of the electives are proficiency in an additional language and 
service in an officially designated critical needs position after 
tenure and/or in an unaccompanied post from entry. In addition to 
encouraging employees to gain the breadth of experience and training 
required to excel as senior officers, the CDP provides the Department 
with a means for staffing hardship posts, unaccompanied tours, and 
critical needs posts, as well as encouraging officers to increase their 
language proficiency. 

In January 2006, we launched Career Development Programs for the 18 
Specialist groups, each tailored to the needs of the Department for the 
particular specialty. This year we have implemented Phase I of Global 
Repositioning (GRP), an initiative to reorient our staffing on a 
worldwide basis to focus on the issues that present some of the most 
significant challenges to the safeguarding and promotion of U.S. 
national interests today. This entailed establishing one hundred new 
positions, the majority of which are located in East Asia, South and 
Central Asia and the Near East, to focus on transformational diplomatic 
priorities. To offset these increases, we eliminated one hundred 
positions around the world, mostly in Europe and in the U.S., which had 
been involved in the management of outdated or lower priority 
activities. We are in the process of determining the positions that 
will be shifted as part of Phase II of what is expect to be a multi-
year process. Senior management in the regional bureaus submitted 
recommendations to the Secretary about where to establish the new 
positions and identified the positions to eliminate based on their 
expert knowledge of diplomatic issues in each country and their 
strategic importance in implementing transformational diplomacy. The 
Secretary made the final decisions. 

We appreciate GAO's acknowledgement of a major challenge - the lack of 
locality pay for our mid-level and junior employees serving overseas - 
that the Department has been addressing over the last couple years. As 
the report indicates, the lack of locality pay for employees serving 
overseas is a disincentive for employees to bid on hardship posts 
because the various differentials provided to compensate employees for 
harsh and/or dangerous conditions are offset by the lack of locality 
pay, which is currently 18 percent in Washington, D.C. In the last 
year, and for the first time, we have secured Administration support 
for budget and legal solutions to the pay gap in combination with the 
institution of pay-for-performance for FS-01 s below. The Department 
continues to work with Congressional members and staff to ensure 
passage of the legislation and full funding of the President's related 
budget request. 

As the report indicates the Department received funding to hire over 
1,000 employees above attrition under the Diplomatic Readiness 
Initiative (DRI), between 2002 and 2004. These additional positions and 
employees were intended to build our staffing levels, which had been 
greatly reduced in the government downsizing of the mid 1990's, and 
provide for a training "float", which would have given us the ability 
to increase long-term language opportunities for our employees without 
imposing significant staffing gaps on our overseas posts. However, the 
increased demands for staffing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, as well 
as to monitor Iran and North Korea - all of which are Administration 
priorities - offset much of the increases in employees and positions we 
received under the DRI, especially the extra funding we had intended to 
use for long-term language training positions. 

The report affirms the challenge of the mid-level deficit of Generalist 
officers that we have been addressing for the last few years. The 
Foreign Service is a closed system in which employees enter at the 
junior level and are reviewed for promotion annually when they meet the 
time-in-class requirements (two years for mid-level officers). The 
first employees hired under DRI began competing for promotion from FS04 
to FS03 in 2005. Employees must be tenured, which requires that they 
have at least three years in the Foreign Service, before they first 
compete for promotion to FS03. We anticipate eliminating the deficits 
at the FS03 and FS02 (mid-level) levels by 2010. Once the deficits are 
eliminated, we will be able to reduce the number of stretch assignments 
(i.e., assigning employees to positions above their grade level). [As 
the report indicates some employees seek up-stretch assignments for 
career enhancing challenges. Employees bid on both up-stretch and down- 
stretch assignments for personal and family reasons (e.g., being 
assigned to a post with their spouse, education opportunities for 
children, and elder care responsibilities)]. 

We would like to mention that when junior officers are considered for 
stretch assignments, their prior work experience is often a factor. A 
number of our junior officers are on their second or third career and 
bring a wealth of management and leadership skills. 

We are concerned about the statements in the report that Lagos and two 
consulates in China, Chendu and Shenyang, are staffed mainly by first- 
tour officers and Civil Service employees on excursion tours. Lagos is 
staffed by a mix of officers: most are mid-level or entry-level 
officers; however, three senior officers are assigned to post. The 
Consular Section Chief position in Lagos was vacant for two years; 
however, it is currently staffed by a newly-arrived senior officer. Two 
FS02 officers (one serving in a FS03 position) as well as numerous 
junior officers work in the consular section. In Chendu, the consulate 
is staffed by a FS03 officer serving in a FS02 position and two FS04 
officers. Currently, in Consulate Shenyang, the FS02 position is vacant 
because the former incumbent (an FS02 officer) was medivaced about four 
months ago; however, a FS02 officer has been assigned to the position 
and is due to arrive in August. As indicated in the report, the 
consulate currently has three FS04 officers/positions; however, one 
position was recently upgraded to FS03. 

The report discusses the assignment process, focusing primarily on 
bidding on hardship posts. We agree that employees' preferences are a 
factor in the assignments on which employees bid; however, employees 
are required to submit bids that meet several criteria. For example, 
employees must bid on hardship assignments at differential posts if 
they have not served at least 18 months in a differential post (10 
months if the tour of duty was only one year at the time of your 
service) during the eight years prior to their upcoming transfer. 
Moreover, employees must submit six "core" bids that include bids for 
assignments in at least two geographic areas or bureaus. "Core" bids 
must be for positions in the employee's cone/skill code, at the 
employees grade level, and require a language proficiency that the 
employee already has or has time to acquire between their transfer 
eligibility date and that of the incumbent. 

Employees bid on positions that will become available during the 
bidding cycle: established positions that are or will become vacant 
during the bidding period. Thus, employees are bidding on the 100 new 
positions established in the GRP initiative and the positions that were 
eliminated will not be staffed. In fact, because the GRP initiative was 
implemented during the bidding cycle, several employees who had been 
assigned to positions that were eliminated were required to bid on 
other positions. (The Department worked with these employees 
individually to ensure that they found appropriate assignments.) 
Staffing these new positions is receiving high priority because they 
are essential to implementing the Administration's and the Secretary's 
transformational diplomacy initiative. 

As discussed above, the new Career Development Program for Generalists, 
as well as those for Specialists, is expected to encourage employees to 
bid on hardship, unaccompanied, and critical needs assignments. 

The analysis of bids at hardship posts is troubling because it is based 
on two snapshots of data that are constantly changing until each 
officer is assigned. A snapshot taken of bids in the fall is not an 
accurate reflection of the number of bids a given post/position 
eventually receives. For example, seventy people may bid on a Paris 
position, but only one will be assigned, and the rest will bid 
elsewhere. We are still assigning people to positions for this summer. 
The process does not end when a bidder submits the first list. During 
the assignment process, additional bidding, bureau recruitment, counter-
offers and pressure to accept jobs occur. Employees are required to 
maintain active bid lists; thus if employees don't receive a job from 
their first lists, they must bid on more jobs out of the remaining 
unassigned positions, maintaining an active list of at least six bids 
until they are assigned. 

Moreover, snapshots of bidding data may be deceiving because they don't 
take into account how the bidding process is structured. Employees are 
required to bid on a minimum of six positions at-grade and in-cone; 
thus, many bid one or two positions seriously then fill their core with 
"throwaway" bids in order to focus their attention on the few positions 
in which they are actively interested. A "throwaway" bid is usually 
placed on a job in a very popular place (Paris, etc.) that the employee 
has no real intention of pursuing. Thus, the bid snapshot is not an 
accurate reflection of where bidders really want to go or where people 
will end up being assigned. 

As the report indicates, we have also established the Service Need 
Differential (SND) Program to encourage employees to bid on hardship 
posts that are often difficult to staff. GAO correctly reports that we 
can provide the number of eligible employees who have received SND 
payments over the last four years; however, we do not have 
corresponding data for people who declined SND. The count of employees 
who received SND payments came from our payroll system. We do maintain 
assignment records of employees who declined and accepted SND when 
first paneled, as well as people who accepted SND after arriving at 
post; however, because of the nature of the program and the need to 
regularize our recording of SND information, the data may contain 
errors. It is important to note that employees frequently decline SND 
initially, choosing to wait to decide if they want to extend their 
assignments to three years and opt for SND until they have lived at 
post for a while. [Under the current SND program, tour lengths at SND 
posts must be at least three years.] We agree that we need to review 
our method for recording SND information to ensure that we are 
capturing the information necessary to track and evaluate the program's 
effectiveness. 

It is important to note, however, that the full impact of an incentive 
cannot be measured by decisions recorded in a database: there are many 
factors that affect employees' bidding and decision to accept and/or 
decline SND. In addition to considering the job content of the position 
and location, employees must factor in family-related aspects (e.g., 
schools, medical facilities, family member employment opportunities, 
etc.) 

We are pleased that GAO's examination of our foreign language 
capability affirmed that we have made several major efforts to improve 
our foreign language proficiency, including providing recruitment 
incentives for those entering the Foreign Service with specific 
language capabilities and instituting new language proficiency 
requirements for officers competing for promotion into the Senior 
Foreign Service. Moreover, GAO notes that we have increased the number 
of language-designated positions (LDPs). 

We are concerned by GAO's assertion that we have not conducted an 
assessment that would prioritize the resources we devote to specific 
languages based on risk and strategic interest in particular regions or 
countries. Our language requirements are based on the language 
designation of positions. As we align positions with the Department's 
transformational diplomacy strategy, our language requirements and 
corresponding resources are realigned. Each year, the regional bureaus, 
with input from posts, and the Bureau of Human Resources review the 
language designation of all positions to determine if the designations 
are correct based on the requirements of the position and the current 
diplomatic issues in each country. For example, we have realigned our 
language requirements and languages resources to take into account the 
changes triggered by the GRP initiative. As noted in the discussion of 
the GRP initiative, 100 new positions were established, most of which 
are language designated for Asian and Near Eastern languages, and 100 
positions were eliminated, many of which were language designated for 
world languages. 

We would like to note that the Department has reported its language 
competency gaps in the quarterly submissions to the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since 
September 2005 as part of our accountability under the President's 
Management Agenda (PMA). We have reported the total number of officers 
with general professional (3/3) and advanced professional and/or native 
speaker (4/4 or higher) proficiencies in critical needs languages, as 
well as the corresponding ratios of officers with language proficiency 
to LDPs. Moreover, our submissions have included out-year targets and 
analyses of the data. It is important to note that we anticipate that 
the ratio of officers to LDPs will decrease in the short term as more 
positions become language designated, an initiative stemming from the 
implementation of the CDP and aligning with the Department's 
transformational diplomacy strategy. 

We must take exception with the methodology GAO used in analyzing the 
language proficiency of officers encumbering LDPs. First, GAO presents 
information on both Generalists and Specialists combined, rather than 
as separate groups. Because the Department has emphasized in the past 
language proficiency and training for Generalists (commissioned Foreign 
Service Officers), the report would present a more comprehensive 
picture if it focused only on Generalists or provided separate analyses 
of each workforce. 

The table below contrasts the data presented by GAO with totals when 
limiting the analysis to the generalist position subset: 

Meet Superhard Requirement; 
GAO Report: 61%; 
Generalist Pos Only: 70%. 

Meet Superhard Requirement: Arabic; 
GAO Report: 62%; 
Generalist Pos Only: 70%. 

Meet Superhard Requirement: Chinese; 
GAO Report: 60%; 
Generalist Pos Only: 76%. 

Meet World Lang. Requirement; 
GAO Report: 75%; 
Generalist Pos Only: 83%. 

Meet Hard Lang. Requirement; 
GAO Report: 70%; 
Generalist Pos Only: 75%. 

[End of table] 

As noted above, we launched CDPs for all 18 specialist groups in 
January of this year. For several of the specialist groups, proficiency 
in a language is required; for others, it is optional. 

Moreover, the GAO report does not present the complete picture 
regarding language-qualified officers in LDPs. The report does not 
differentiate between incumbents who have the language but do not meet 
BOTH the speaking and reading requirement and those who do not have the 
language at all. For example, the GAO report considers a 3/3 Chinese 
LDP filled with an officer with a 3/2+ in Chinese equivalent to 
staffing same position with a person who has no Chinese whatsoever. 
Approximately 77 percent of the incumbents of super-hard generalist 
LDPs and 94 percent of those filling generalist world language LDPs 
have at least a 1/1 in the required language. 

We are pleased that the report identifies some of the challenges we 
face in trying to ensure that officers receive the language training 
they need for their onward assignment. The Department often must 
balance the need for language training with the requirement to reduce 
the amount of time a post must endure a gap while the officer is in 
training. In some instances, the Department decides that it is more 
important for the post to have an employee at post with a lower 
language proficiency level than to do without the employee for the 
training period. As the GAO reported, the "training float" for which we 
had planned under DRI has been consumed with priority staffing 
requirements. For this reason, we often must make tradeoffs between 
language training and reducing staffing gaps. 

Another challenge that GAO mentioned pertains to junior officers 
needing language proficiencies higher than a 2/0 in Chinese to 
effectively communicate. We agree; however, the Foreign Service Act of 
1980 restricts junior officers to limited, non-career appointments of 
five years. If a junior officer spends a full two years learning a 
language (required for a 3 in Chinese) and the better part of another 
year getting orientation and training, then we will have to base a 
tenure decision on a single overseas tour, which is not fair to the 
employee or the Department. Junior officers need to be judged in how 
they perform in a variety of posts and jobs in order to be meaningfully 
evaluated as to their potential to serve over a full career. 

The GAO report states that the short length of some tours, such as one- 
year unaccompanied assignments, may not give an officer sufficient time 
to master a language. We would like to clarify the assertion that one- 
year unaccompanied assignments are restricted to one year. They are 
made for one year; however, employees can and do extend for additional 
years. This is an example of the Department balancing the needs of the 
Department with the needs of our employees and their families. 
Unaccompanied tours do not just affect the employee: many spouses and 
children are placed in stressful situations and make significant 
sacrifices during the assignment. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. Our 
comments are based on the original draft report after some informal 
discussions with GAO. 

Our responses to GAO's five recommendations follow: 

Recommendation 1: The Secretary of State consider using directed 
assignments, as necessary, using a risk-based approach, to fill 
critical positions with fully qualified officers who have the skills 
and experience necessary to effectively manage and supervise essential 
mission functions at hardship posts. 

The Director General of the Foreign Service is prepared to use directed 
assignments if and when it becomes necessary in order to staff hardship 
assignments. 

Recommendation 2: The Secretary of State systematically evaluate the 
effectiveness of its incentive programs for hardship post assignments, 
establishing specific indicators of progress and adjusting the use of 
the incentives based on this analysis. 

The Department will evaluate, within its means, the effectiveness of 
our incentive programs for hardship posts assignments and develop 
appropriate indicators of progress. 

Recommendation 3: The Secretary of State consider an assignment system 
that allows for longer tours, consecutive assignments in certain 
countries, and more regional specialization in certain areas, in order 
to hone officers' skills in certain super-hard languages and better 
leverage the investment State makes in language training. 

We are currently examining our assignments system and expect to make 
significant changes that will address many of the concerns noted in 
this report. 

Recommendation 4: The Secretary of State systematically evaluate the 
effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its 
Foreign Service officers and specialists, establishing specific 
indicators of progress in filling language gaps and adjusting its 
efforts accordingly. 

We currently evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to improve the 
language proficiency of our Foreign Service Generalists and Specialists 
in our skills gap analysis, which is one of our quarterly submissions 
to OMB under the President's Management Agenda; and we will continue to 
monitor our recruitment initiatives and the results of the Career 
Development Programs (CDPs). As detailed earlier in our formal 
comments, our CDPs for Generalists and some Specialists require 
language proficiency for employees to compete into the Senior Foreign 
Service. 

Recommendation 5: The Secretary of State conduct a risk assessment of 
critical language needs in regions and countries of strategic 
importance, make realistic projections of the staff time and related 
training float necessary to adequately train personnel to meet those 
needs, and target its limited resources for language training, as 
needed, to fill these critical gaps. 

We will continue to conduct risk assessments of our critical language 
needs in regions or countries of strategic importance and make 
realistic projections of resources required to meet our needs. As 
explained above, we reassess our language needs when we realign 
positions to support Administration priorities. Furthermore, each year 
as we review the language designations of positions, we modify our 
critical language requirements to align with our diplomatic strategies. 

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

GAO Comments: 

1. We have modified our discussion of staffing at posts in Nigeria and 
China to show that there is a mix of officers. 

2. Any analysis of bidding data will necessarily involve "snapshots" in 
time. Our analysis of the 2005 bidding data was intended to demonstrate 
whether posts with higher hardship differentials have difficulty 
attracting applicants compared to posts with low or no differentials. 
Our approach was identical to the one we used in 2002, and State raised 
no such concerns then. Our analysis shows that State has not made much 
progress since 2002 in attracting employees to bid on hardship posts. 

3. We acknowledge that State has a system for identifying its language 
requirements. However, State continues to fill language-designated 
positions with staff who do not meet the language requirement. As noted 
in this report, foreign language gaps may negatively impact posts' 
operations. For example, consular officers at one post told us they 
sometimes adjudicate visas without fully understanding everything the 
applicants tell them during visa interviews. A risk-based approach will 
allow State to make choices given its current mix of staffing and 
language resources. 

4. State did not provide these reports to us until after our report was 
drafted, and we did not have sufficient time to assess them. The 
language competency assessment State provided shows the total number of 
officers with certain levels of proficiency in critical needs languages 
and corresponding ratios of officers with language proficiency to 
language designated positions. The assessment also establishes out-year 
targets for increasing the number of officers with level-3 language 
proficiency. However, it does not break out the data and targets by 
individual language. Thus, State's overall targets could be achieved, 
even if serious proficiency gaps remained for some languages but not 
for others. We also note that the report does not include targets for 
specialists. Further, State has acknowledged that it has not collected 
data to link its recruitment efforts to the number of people it hires 
with foreign language skills. 

5. Our analysis of the language proficiency of officers in language 
designated positions is based on State's own established requirements 
for these positions, whether for generalists or specialists. We 
provided information on the language proficiency of the two different 
groups for Arabic and Chinese, and we noted that specialists had some 
of the highest percentages of staff that did not meet their position's 
requirements. We further noted that State's Director General had 
stated, in a cable issued in January 2006 that the department had been 
shortsighted in not providing sufficient language training to 
specialists. We have included additional information on the overall 
percentages of officers meeting language requirements for the two 
different groups. 

6. We have included additional information on the percentages of 
officers meeting either the speaking or reading requirement, but not 
both requirements. We note that the differences are only 3 percentage 
points. 

7. We added a statement to the discussion of 1-year tours noting that 
employees may extend their tours. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess T. Ford (202) 512-4128: 

Staff Acknowledgment: 

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

(320357): 

FOOTNOTES 

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

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

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

[4] State received funding for 1,069 employees. 

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

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

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

[8] GAO-04-139. 

[9] GAO-02-626. 

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

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

[12] GAO-02-626. 

[13] ISP-I-04-54. 

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

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

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

[17] GAO-02-626. 

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

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

[20] ISP-I-05-13A. 

[21] ISP-I-05-04A. 

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

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

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

[25] GAO-02-375. 

[26] GAO-04-139. 

[27] State later compiled the data from FSI records. 

[28] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: September 
1999). 

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

[30] The results of the fieldwork cannot be generalized to posts 
worldwide. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 ( 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 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: 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. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: