GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2001 UNITED NATIONS

Targeted Strategies 

Could Help Boost 

U.S. Representation

GAO-01-839

Page 1 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Contents

Letter 7

Results in Brief 8

Background 11

Americans Are Not Equitably

Represented in the U.N. System 13

U.N. Organizations Lack Long-Range

Workforce Planning Strategies 20

State’s Efforts Do Not Reflect Equitable U.S. Representation

As a High Priority 28

Other Major Contributors Actively Promote U.N. Employment 

for Their Citizens 36

Conclusions 37

Recommendations 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Scope and Methodology 39

Appendixes Appendix I: Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to Determine 

Representation Status of Member Countries 42

Appendix II: U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of Representation 47

Appendix III: Countries That Are Overrepresented in the U.N.

Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO 69

Appendix IV: Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries in 

Specific U.N. Organizations 74

Appendix V: Overall Representation Status of Selected Other 

Countries and Their Efforts to Promote U.N. 

Employment for Their Citizens 88

Appendix VI: Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That May

Affect Recruiting Americans for U.N. Organizations 93

Appendix VII: U.N. Salary Scales 98

Appendix VIII:Methodology 101

Appendix IX: Comments From the U.S. Department of State 106

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 109

Tables Table 1: United Nations, Subsidiary Bodies, Specialized Agencies, 

and International Atomic Energy Agency - U.S. Staff 

Relative to Total U.N. Staff and Total U.N. Professional

Staff (2000) 12
Contents

Page 2 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 2: U.N. Grade Scale and Approximate U.S. Government 

Equivalent 12

Table 3: Overall Representation of Americans Compared With U.N. 

Organizations’ Geographic Targets (2000) 18

Table 4: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels, 

3-Year Average (1998-2000) 20

Table 5: Number of Junior Professional Officers by Organization 

(2000-2001) 25

Table 6: Number of External Appointments for Geographic 

Positions and the Percentages of Applicants Hired From 

Underrepresented, Equitably Represented, and 

Overrepresented Countries for Selected Organizations

(1998-2000) 27

Table 7: Factors Used by the U.N. Secretariat in Calculating 

Geographic Targets 42

Table 8: FAO Position-Weighting System 43

Table 9: U.N. Secretariat - Representation in Senior and 

Policymaking Levels and Financial Assessments for 

Selected Major Contributors (1998-2000) 50

Table 10: FAO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking

Levels and Financial Assessments for Selected Major

Contributors (1998-2000) 54

Table 11: ILO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels 

and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors 

(1998-2000) 57

Table 12: WHO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels 

and Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors 

(1998-2000) 60

Table 13: U.N. Secretariat - Top Five Overrepresented Countries

(1998-2000) 70

Table 14: U.N. Secretariat - Number of Overrepresented Countries 

(1998-2000) 70

Table 15: FAO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 71

Table 16: FAO – Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 71

Table 17: ILO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 72

Table 18: ILO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 72

Table 19: WHO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 73

Table 20: WHO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000) 73

Table 21: Representation Status of Japan (2000) 88

Table 22: Representation Status of Germany (2000) 88

Table 23: Representation Status of France (2000) 90

Table 24: Representation Status of the United Kingdom (2000) 91
Contents

Page 3 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 25: Representation Status of Canada (2000) 92

Table 26: Salary Scales for U.N. Professional and Senior Employees 

(Effective Mar. 1, 2001) 98

Figures Figure 1: U.N. Organizations’ Targets for Equitable U.S.

Representation and Factors Used to Determine 

These Targets (2000) 16

Figure 2: State Department’s Support Services for U.N.

Employment 30

Figure 3: ILO Formula for Determining a Country’s Geographic

Target 45

Figure 4: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) 

Compared With the Secretariat’s U.S. Geographic

Representation Target 48

Figure 5: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000)

Compared With the Secretariat’s U.S. Geographic 

Representation Target 49

Figure 6: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) 

Compared With FAO’s U.S. Geographic Representation 

Target 52

Figure 7: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992–2000)

Compared With FAO’s U.S. Geographic Representation

Target 53

Figure 8: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) 

Compared With ILO’s U.S. Geographic Representation 

Target 55

Figure 9: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1995-2000) 

Compared With ILO’s U.S. Geographic Representation 

Target 56

Figure 10: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) 

Compared With WHO’s U.S. Geographic Representation 

Target 58

Figure 11: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000) 

Compared With WHO’s U.S. Geographic Representation

Target 59

Figure 12: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Percentage of 

American Professional Staff at UNDP (1992-2000) 61

Figure 13: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1995-2000) 

Compared With UNDP’s U.S. Contribution 62

Figure 14: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Informal Targets for

Americans and Percentage of U.S. Professional Staff at 

UNHCR (1992-2000) 64
Contents

Page 4 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 15: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000) 

Compared With U.S. Contributions and UNHCR’s 

Informal Geographic Target for the United States 65

Figure 16: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Informal Targets for 

Americans and Percentage of U.S. Professional Staff 

at WFP (1996-2000) 67

Figure 17: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1996-2000)

Compared With U.S. Contributions and WFP’s Informal 

Geographic Target for the United States 68

Figure 18: Trends in Japanese Representation in U.N. Organizations, 

by Grade, Compared With Japanese Contributions and 

Representation Targets 76

Figure 19: Trends in German Representation in U.N. Organizations, 

by Grade, Compared With German Contributions and 

Representation Targets 78

Figure 20: Trends in French Representation in U.N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With French Contributions and 

Representation Targets 80

Figure 21: Trends in British Representation in U.N. Organizations, 

by Grade, Compared With British Contributions and 

Representation Targets 82

Figure 22: Trends in Canadian Representation in U.N. Organizations,

by Grade, Compared With Canadian Contributions and 

Representation Targets 84

Figure 23: Trends in Combined European Union (EU) Representation in 

U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With EU Member 

Countries’ Combined Contributions 86
Contents

Page 5 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Abbreviations

ADG Assistant Director-General 

ASG Assistant Secretary-General 

DDG Deputy Director-General

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

ICSC International Civil Service Commission

ILO International Labor Organization

UG Ungraded

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

USG Under Secretary-General

WFP World Food Program

WHO World Health Organization
Page 6 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation
Page 7 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Letr

July 27, 2001

The Honorable Jesse Helms

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman, Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia,

Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

The employment of Americans in international organizations, particularly 

at senior and policymaking levels, is a high priority for the United States, 

according to the U.S. Department of State. State believes that placing 

qualified Americans in these key positions allows U.S. citizens to become 

“goodwill ambassadors” for U.S. interests and values; brings the 

organizations a U.S. perspective on global needs; and provides 

international entities with management, administrative, and technical 

skills. While State plays a central role in promoting U.S. representation in 

the United Nations and other international organizations, it acts in 

collaboration with other federal agencies that have a direct interest in these 

international entities. 

To employ the nationals of U.N. member states in an equitable manner, 

several U.N. organizations have established employment targets for 

geographical representation. In 1991, the Congress enacted legislation1

requiring the Secretary of State to report annually on whether U.N. entities 

with geographic targets2

 were meeting these targets. The Congress has 

continued to be concerned about the number of Americans employed by 

U.N. organizations, particularly in senior-level and policymaking positions, 

1

22 U.S.C. 276c-4.

2

Geographic employment targets, which are established for each member state, are 

calculated using a combination of factors, such as population and contribution to the United 

Nations.
Page 8 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

because the United States is the largest contributor to most of these 

organizations. To address these concerns, you asked us to study whether 

U.N. organizations have increased the employment of Americans and, 

specifically, to (1) analyze the overall levels of U.S. representation and 

Americans in senior and policymaking positions at U.N. organizations, (2) 

assess U.N. organizations’ efforts to employ nationals of countries that are 

underrepresented or close to becoming underrepresented, (3) examine 

State’s and other U.S. agencies’ efforts and resources devoted to assisting 

the United Nations in meeting their employment targets for Americans, and 

(4) identify representation levels of selected U.N. member countries and 

describe their approaches and resources directed toward employing their 

nationals in the U.N. system. (See apps. I - V.) You also asked us to identify 

factors related to the difficulty that organizations may have experienced in 

hiring more Americans. (See app. VI.)

This report analyzes data for the period of 1992 through 20003

 that were 

obtained from seven U.N. organizations: the U.N. Secretariat (Secretariat) 

and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in New York; the 

International Labor Organization (ILO), the World Health Organization 

(WHO), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 

in Geneva; and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World 

Food Program (WFP) in Rome. We did not test the accuracy of the data 

provided by these organizations. These bodies represent about 60 percent 

of the professional, senior, and policymaking staff in the U.N. system and 

have about 80 percent of the positions in the U.N. system that are subject to 

geographic targets.

Results in Brief Since 1992, some U.N. organizations in our study have made gains in the 

number of Americans employed, but most of the organizations we 

reviewed continue to fall short of their own targets. Moreover, compared 

with relative financial contributions, American representation in seniorlevel and policymaking positions is below several major contributors in a 

number of U.N. organizations. Of the six U.N. organizations in our study 

with either formal or informal geographic targets, only the Secretariat 

employed Americans in sufficient numbers to consistently satisfy its goal

3

WFP provided aggregate employment figures for the period of 1996 through 2000; UNDP 

data covered 1995 through 2000.
Page 9 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

for equitable representation of Americans from 1992 through 2000.4 In 

addition, of the four organizations we analyzed that had formal 

geographical targets, only the Secretariat employed Americans in senior 

and policymaking positions at levels commensurate with those of selected 

major contributors relative to their contribution levels.

Several U.N. organizations have various human resources management 

initiatives under way, but none of them has developed a long-range 

workforce planning strategy or a formal recruiting and hiring action plan 

for achieving equitable geographical representation within a specified time 

frame. According to U.N. officials, merit is the overriding criterion used for 

appointing staff, but U.N. organizations’ policies require that priority 

consideration be given to qualified applicants from unrepresented and 

underrepresented countries. Nevertheless, recent hiring data show that 

new hires from equitably represented or overrepresented countries 

outnumber those from unrepresented and underrepresented countries. 

The State Department—which has the lead role for the United States in 

recruiting Americans for work at U.N. organizations—has identified the 

participation of Americans on U.N. staff as a “high priority.” However, 

State’s efforts to recruit qualified Americans for positions at U.N. 

organizations do not reflect this stated priority. State has a two-person 

office that, among other duties, provides employment assistance to 

Americans, and, in selected cases, high-ranking U.S. officials discuss 

American candidates for top-level positions with U.N. officials. Despite the 

minimal progress in improving U.S. representation in U.N. organizations, 

State has reduced many of its recruitment efforts without assessing how 

these reductions will affect recruitment. For example, it has reduced 

activities to support hiring for professional positions, which is the pipeline 

for the more senior-level positions. While State’s policies call for obtaining 

an “equitable” share of high-level positions for Americans, and much of its 

recruitment efforts are aimed toward this goal, it has not developed 

guidelines that define “equitable” nor does it have a mechanism for 

assessing progress in this area. Moreover, State does not have recruiting 

and hiring strategies or action plans in place to support U.N. employment 

of Americans. In addition, while the promotion of Americans for U.N. 

4

The U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO have formal geographic targets, while UNHCR 

and WFP have informal geographical representation targets. UNDP does not have 

geographical representation targets for member states. However, representation of 

Americans at UNDP is close to the percentage of U.S. contributions; thus, it appears that the 

United States is equitably represented at UNDP. 
Page 10 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

employment is a collaborative effort between the State Department and 

other federal agencies, there has been little interagency coordination in this 

area. 

In contrast to State’s U.N. recruiting efforts, several other U.N. members—

both those adequately represented, such as Canada, and those who are 

generally underrepresented, such as Germany—focus their recruiting 

efforts on all levels of U.N. positions and use a variety of strategies to 

maintain or improve their countries’ representation. For example, 

Germany has a high-level working group of top officials from several 

ministries that meets regularly to discuss key positions and German 

participation in various international organizations, and its federal 

employment agency provides assistance to candidates for professional 

positions.

To help increase the level of American employment, we are recommending 

that the Secretary of State (1) develop, with other U.S. government 

agencies, a comprehensive U.S. strategy that specifies performance goals 

and time frames for achieving equitable representation of Americans in the 

U.N. system and includes efforts to foster interagency coordination; (2) 

work with U.N. organizations to develop plans and strategies for achieving 

equitable geographic representation within specified time frames; (3) 

develop guidelines that define State’s goal of obtaining an equitable share 

of senior-level and policymaking positions for U.S. citizens and use these 

guidelines to assess whether the United States is equitably represented in 

high-level positions in U.N. organizations; and (4) provide copies of State’s 

annual report to the Congress on U.N. progress to the heads of U.N. 

organizations for appropriate attention and action.

The Department of State, in commenting on a draft of this report, generally 

agreed with our analysis and three of our four recommendations. Although 

State said that placement of Americans in senior-level and policymaking 

positions is a high priority for the Department, State has not clearly defined 

targets for placing Americans in these positions and it disagreed with our 

recommendation that it should develop such guidelines for obtaining an 

equitable share of senior-level and policymaking positions at U.N. 

organizations. State said it should apply the guidelines already being used 

by the organizations for equitable employment representation at all levels. 

We believe that because of the importance of senior-level and policymaking 

positions and the relatively low representation of Americans in them at 

several organizations, additional emphasis in this area of recruitment is 

warranted. We further believe that without guidelines defining equitable 
Page 11 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

share, State lacks a mechanism for assessing progress toward achieving its 

top recruitment priority.

Background The United Nations comprises six core bodies: the General Assembly, the 

U.N. Secretariat, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, 

the Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice. In addition, 

the U.N. system has 12 funds and programs and 14 specialized agencies. 

Article 101 of the U.N. Charter calls for staff to be recruited on the basis of 

“the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity” as well as 

from “as wide a geographical basis as possible.” Thus, to employ the 

nationals of U.N. members in an equitable manner, the Secretariat and 

several associated U.N. organizations have quantitative formulas that 

establish targets for equitable geographical representation.5

Geographic representation targets do not apply to all staff positions in the 

organizations that have established them. These organizations set aside a 

certain number of positions that are subject to geographic representation 

from among the professional and high-level positions.6

 There also are some 

professional positions that are typically exempt from being counted 

geographically, including linguist and peacekeeper positions and positions 

of 1 year or less in duration. For example, in 2000, the U.N. Secretariat had 

a total of 14,312 staff—5,854 of whom were in professional positions. Of 

those professional positions, 2,389 were subject to geographic 

representation. Table 1 provides information for 2000 on the total number 

of staff in the U.N. system compared with the total number of American 

staff.

5

These formulas are explained in the “Organizations Vary on Geographic Representation 

Targets” section of this report.

6

Professional and high-level positions comprise less than half of the total positions within 

the U.N. system.
Page 12 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 1: United Nations, Subsidiary Bodies, Specialized Agencies, and International 

Atomic Energy Agency - U.S. Staff Relative to Total U.N. Staff and Total U.N. 

Professional Staff (2000)

Source: State Department.

U.N. organizations use a standard pay scale known as the U.N. Common 

System base salary scale to compensate their staff. (See app. VII for the 

salary scales for U.N. staff in professional, senior-level, and policymaking 

positions.) However, each U.N. organization has its own personnel 

policies, procedures, and staff rules. Table 2 shows the U.N. grade scale 

and the approximate U.S. government equivalent as determined by the 

International Civil Service Commission. 

Table 2: U.N. Grade Scale and Approximate U.S. Government Equivalent

Note: There are no established equivalencies for policymaking positions (equivalent to the Assistant 

Secretary-General and the Under Secretary-General).

Source: International Civil Service Commission.

The State Department is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for leading 

U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in employment 

in U.N. organizations. In doing so, State works in cooperation with at least 

17 federal agencies7

 that have interests in specific U.N. organizations.8 A 

1970 executive order assigns the U.S. Secretary of State responsibility for 

Total U.N. 

staff

Total/Percentage

U.S. staff

Total

professional

staff

Total/Percentage

professional U.S. staff

56,289 4,036 / 7.2% 21,941 2,076 / 9.5%

U.N. grade P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1/D2

U.S. grade GS-9 GS11/12GS12/13GS13/14GS-15 Senior Executive Service 

7

These include, among others, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs.

8

For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a direct interest in the international 

food and agricultural agencies in Rome while the Department of Health and Human Services 

and the Department of Labor have a direct interest in WHO and ILO in Geneva, respectively.
Page 13 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

leading and coordinating the federal government’s efforts to increase and 

improve U.S. participation in international organizations through transfers 

and details of federal employees.9

 The order further calls for each agency 

in the executive branch to cooperate “to the maximum extent feasible” to 

promote details and transfers through measures such as (1) notifying wellqualified agency employees of vacancies in international organizations and 

(2) providing international organizations with detailed assessments of the 

qualifications of employees being considered for specific positions. In 

addition, under the 1991 U.S. law,10 the Secretary of State is required to 

report to the Congress on whether each international organization with a 

geographic distribution formula is making “good faith efforts” to increase 

U.S. staff as well as meeting its own geographic targets. State’s Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs is responsible for implementing these 

requirements. While State is responsible for promoting and seeking to 

increase U.S. representation in the U.N. organizations, the U.N. entities 

themselves are ultimately responsible for achieving equitable 

representation.

Americans Are Not 

Equitably

Represented in the 

U.N. System 

Since 1992, some of the U.N. organizations in our study have made gains in 

employing Americans, but most of the organizations we reviewed continue 

to fall short of their own targets for employing U.S. citizens. Moreover, 

compared with relative financial contributions, American representation in 

senior-level and policymaking positions11 is below several major 

contributors in a number of U.N. organizations. Of the six U.N. 

organizations in our study with geographic employment targets, only the 

U.N. Secretariat employed Americans in sufficient numbers to consistently 

satisfy its goal of equitable representation of Americans from the period of 

1992 to 2000. These targets and the methodology for calculating them are 

different for each U.N. organization and are based on factors such as the 

level of the country’s U.N. contribution and population. UNDP does not 

have geographical representation targets for member states; however, 

representation of Americans at UNDP is close to the percentage of U.S. 

contributions, and thus it appears that the United States is equitably 

9

E.O. 11552 (1970).

1022 U.S.C. 276c-4.

11In this report, senior-level posts are D1 and D2 positions and policymaking positions are 

equivalent to the Assistant Secretary-General and Under Secretary-General levels.
Page 14 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

represented at UNDP. Although several U.N. organizations have 

established overall geographical representation targets, none of the U.N. 

organizations has developed numerical targets for senior-level and 

policymaking positions among the nationals of its member states. 

Furthermore, of the four organizations in our analysis with formal targets 

for overall geographic representation, only the Secretariat employed 

Americans in senior-level and policymaking positions at levels 

commensurate with those of selected major contributors relative to their 

contribution level.

Organizations Vary on

Geographic Representation 

Targets

The charters and governing documents of most organizations in the U.N. 

system articulate the principle of equity, which requires that due regard be 

given to the importance of employing staff members from as wide a 

geographical basis as possible, and many U.N. organizations have 

developed formal or informal targets to achieve this objective. In the 

Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO, where members pay regular assessments 

and may make additional voluntary contributions, a formal target or range 

is established to calculate geographic targets for employing the nationals of 

each member state. These targets are expressed in terms of a range of 

positions to provide organizations with some flexibility in meeting these 

targets, but the midpoint of the range is generally viewed as the ideal level 

of representation. A member country is regarded as “underrepresented” 

when it falls below the minimum range and “overrepresented” when it 

exceeds the maximum range.

The remaining three organizations in our study—UNDP, UNHCR, and 

WFP—generally follow the principle of equitable geographic 

representation but have not adopted formal targets that are based on 

nationality because their funding comes from voluntary contributions 

rather than annual assessments. However, UNHCR and WFP have 

established informal targets12 for representation of Americans since the 

United States is the largest contributor to both organizations. UNDP 

officials, on the other hand, said that while the program does not have 

targets for individual countries, it seeks to achieve a “reasonable 

12These targets have not been adopted by UNHCR’s and WFP’s governing bodies. However, 

a “Framework for Cooperation” between UNHCR and the U.S. Department of State 

approved on January 19, 2001, states that UNHCR will strive to achieve the goal concerning 

the percentage of U.S. national staffing—now targeted to at least 13 percent of all 

professional positions—and will report on its effort during biannual consultations with 

State.
Page 15 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

geographic balance” of international staff between donors and program 

countries as well as “equity within contribution levels.”

The organizations in our analysis with formal geographic targets for 

individual countries have similar approaches to determining which 

positions are subject to these targets. For example, these organizations 

exclude general service positions (e.g., clerical positions), appointments of 

less than a year, and language-related positions (such as translators and 

interpreters). In addition, all organizations except WHO disregard 

positions that are financed from voluntary contributions in the formula for 

calculating equitable geographic distribution targets. Unlike the 

Secretariat and the specialized agencies, UNHCR and WFP do not set aside 

positions subject to geographic distribution and apply their informal 

targets to all professional positions. Figure 1 provides a summary of the 

targets for equitable U.S. representation established by the U.N. 

organizations that we covered in our study, expressed both in numerical 

and in percentage terms. The figure also lists the factors used by these 

organizations to determine their geographical representation targets.
Page 16 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 1: U.N. Organizations’ Targets for Equitable U.S. Representation and Factors Used to Determine These Targets (2000)

a

For the U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies, the percentage relates to the total number of 

positions subject to geographic distribution. For the funds and programs, the percentage relates to the 

total number of professional positions.

b

GAO estimate.

c

Department of State estimate.

d

FAO uses a position-weighting system in which points are attributed to a position’s grade level, with a 

country’s target expressed as a number of points rather than a number of positions.

Source: GAO and State Department analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Page 17 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Member contributions,13 population size,14 and membership status15 are 

three factors that are used to determine equitable representation targets for 

U.N. organizations’ member states. However, not all of these factors are 

used by each of the organizations in our analysis. For example, ILO uses 

the contribution and membership factors to calculate its geographic 

targets, while FAO uses only the contribution factor. FAO also differs from 

the other organizations in that the level of position that a country’s citizens 

hold, in addition to the number of positions, is considered in determining 

that country’s representation status. FAO operates on the principle that a 

position low on the hierarchical scale ought not to count as much as one at 

the top of the scale. Thus, FAO uses a position-weighting system in which 

points are attributed to a position’s grade level, with a country’s quota 

expressed as a number of points, not positions. Appendix I provides more 

detailed information on the different methods used by the Secretariat and 

the three specialized agencies to calculate their formal targets for the 

equitable representation of member countries. 

Overall, Americans Are Not 

Equitably Represented

Although some of the U.N. organizations have made gains toward 

employing Americans, most of the U.N. organizations in our study continue 

to fall short of their own targets for employing Americans. Almost a 

decade after the Congress first required the State Department to report on 

American representation in the U.N. system, the United States was 

equitably represented in only one of the six U.N. organizations in our study 

with either formal or informal targets—the U.N. Secretariat. Americans 

were underrepresented in the three specialized agencies—FAO, ILO, and 

WHO—and in two of the U.N. funds and programs—UNHCR and WFP. 

13Member state contributions are the common factor used by U.N. organizations to 

determine targets or ranges because the level of budgetary contribution is an inherent factor 

in a state’s membership in the organization. It is estimated that roughly two-thirds of the 

money spent by international organizations goes to pay staff members’ salaries, according 

to a U.N. Joint Inspection Unit study.

14Population size is used to ensure that member states are represented in keeping with their 

respective demographic profiles and range of cultural diversity. 

15Membership status refers to the right of each member state to a number of positions. For 

example, in the U.N. Secretariat, a minimum of about 1 to 14 positions are assigned to each 

member state. This provision is especially important for countries with a relatively small 

population and small U.N. assessment, which could get only one position if a minimum 

number of positions were not set.
Page 18 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

While UNDP does not have a target for U.S. representation, the level of 

Americans in UNDP is close to the percentage level of U.S. contributions. 

The summary in table 3 provides the overall representation status of 

Americans in the U.N. organizations in our study for 2000. Appendix II 

provides more detailed information on the trends in U.S. representation for 

each of the organizations in our study since 1992. 

Table 3: Overall Representation of Americans Compared With U.N. Organizations’ 

Geographic Targets (2000)

a

The U.N. Secretariat and WHO use a base number rather than the number of filled positions to 

calculate geographic targets for equitable representation. Therefore, the percentages for the 

Secretariat and WHO that are presented in this table are based on these organizations’ base numbers 

and not their filled numbers of positions.

b

The Secretariat, ILO, and WHO use geographic targets for member states’ equitable representation 

that are expressed as numbers rather than percentages. For purposes of consistency, we converted 

these numbers and the numbers of U.S. staff to percentages. The numbered U.S. geographic targets 

for these countries are presented in table 1.

c

The Secretariat reports each year’s staffing data as of June 30, rather than December 31, of the 

calendar year. The figure in this table is the percentage of U.S. staff as of June 30, 2000.

d

FAO uses a position-weighting system to assess the representation status of member countries. 

Therefore, the U.S. representation percentage shown here is the percentage using FAO’s weighting 

system rather than the actual percentage of staff.

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data. 

Representation in SeniorLevel and Policymaking 

Positions

We compared the relative financial contributions of the United States and 

the representation levels of Americans in senior and policymaking 

positions with those of four major contributors in the four U.N. 

U.N. 

organization

U.S. assessed

or voluntary

contribution

percentage

Percentage of

total

geographic

positions

targeted for

Americans

Percentage of

geographic

positions filled

by Americans

Geographic 

target met?

U.N.

Secretariata b

25% 12 - 16% 12.5%c Yes

FAO 25 18.75 - 25 12.5d No

ILOb 25 15 - 20 13.2 No

WHOa 25 12 -16 10.5 No

UNDP 11 No target 12.4 --

UNHCR 35 13 9.7 No

WFP 47 20 10.3 No
Page 19 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

organizations with geographic targets.16 We found that only the U.N. 

Secretariat employed Americans in senior-level and policymaking positions 

at levels commensurate with the average of selected major contributors 

relative to their contribution level.17 (See table 4.) While some U.N. 

organizations have created overall targets for equitable representation of 

member countries, they do not set quantitative targets for distributing 

positions by grade level—including senior-level and policymaking 

positions—among member states. Both U.S. and U.N. officials indicated 

that determining equitable distribution among member states for these 

high-level18 positions can be very subjective. There are no standard 

recruitment procedures for these positions nor is there a formal policy for 

rotating policymaking positions among member states. Traditionally, these 

policymaking appointments are made by the Secretary-General or the 

respective U.N. agency heads. The U.N. General Assembly in several 

resolutions has emphasized that “no post shall be considered the exclusive 

preserve of any member state or group of states.”19

The summary in table 4 shows the 3-year average (1998-2000) for the U.S. 

assessment to the four U.N. organizations and the representation of 

Americans in senior-level and policymaking positions, and a calculated 

comparative representation level if U.S. representation in senior-level and 

policymaking positions were proportionate to the average for major 

contributors given their level of contributions.20 In table 4, we multiplied 

the four-country average representation by the U.S. assessment to derive a 

hypothetical comparative representation level, under the assumption that 

U.S. representation in senior-level and policymaking positions was 

proportionate to the average of these four major contributors. (This 

analysis is not meant to suggest criteria or a methodology for determining 

16We did not include in this analysis the three funds and programs, UNHCR, UNDP, and WFP, 

that receive voluntary contributions from donor countries, which tend to fluctuate, and have 

not established formal geographic targets for these donors.

17The organizations in our analysis include the Secretariat, ILO, FAO, and WHO, and the 

selected major contributors are Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

18In this report, high-level posts refer to senior-level (D1-D2) positions and policymaking 

positions (equivalent to Assistant Secretary-General and Under Secretary-General).

19For example, see the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly 

A/RES/53/221 (Apr. 23, 1999).

20See appendix VIII for a description of the methodology used to compute the comparative 

representation level.
Page 20 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

equitable representation in these positions. It is for comparison purposes 

only, to show U.S. representation in senior and policymaking positions 

relative to the average of four major contributors.) For example, if the 

United States, given its 25-percent assessment at FAO, were to have 

representation proportionate to the 0.76 average ratio for the four selected 

countries, then its representation would be 19.1 percent. For details on the 

average ratio of the four contributors for each U.N. organization, refer to 

appendix II. As shown in table 4, only the U.N. Secretariat employs 

Americans in senior-level and policymaking positions commensurate to the 

average representation levels for the four major U.N. contributors we 

included in this study.

Table 4: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels, 3-Year Average 

(1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.

While acknowledging that U.S. representation may appear to be less than 

ideal, several U.S. officials told us that U.S. influence in certain 

organizations is not lacking given its voice and leadership in the governing 

bodies and the size of U.S. contributions. Nonetheless, these officials 

recognize the importance of placing highly qualified Americans in highlevel positions, particularly in areas considered critical to U.S. interests.

U.N. Organizations 

Lack Long-Range

Workforce Planning 

Strategies

While several U.N. organizations in our study are undertaking various 

human resource management initiatives, none of them has a long-range 

workforce planning strategy nor a formal recruiting and hiring action plan 

for achieving equitable representation within a specified time frame. 

However, several U.N. organizations did tailor some approaches to address 

underrepresentation of member countries, such as targeting entry-level 

U.N. 

organization

Percentage of U.S.

assessment

Percentage of highlevel positions

filled by Americans

Percentage of high-level

positions if U.S.

representation were

commensurate to selected

major contributors

U.N. 

Secretariat 25% 13.6% 13.4%

FAO 25 9.4 19.1

ILO 25 9.7 25.8

WHO 25 8.0 11.0
Page 21 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

programs to nationals from underrepresented countries. U.N. officials and 

documents emphasized that the most important criterion for appointing 

staff is merit in order to ensure the highest standards of efficiency and 

competence—with due consideration to recruiting staff from as wide a 

geographical basis as possible. But in selecting staff, nationality is weighed 

against other competing factors because U.N. officials are also asked to 

give priority consideration to gender. Although some organizations have 

specific guidelines that provide a preference for hiring qualified nationals 

from unrepresented and underrepresented countries, our analysis of actual 

hiring statistics shows that several U.N. agencies hired more nationals from 

equitably represented and overrepresented countries than those from 

unrepresented and underrepresented countries. 

Various Human Resource 

Management

Initiatives Are Under Way

As part of U.N.-wide reform, several U.N. organizations have a number of 

human resource management initiatives under way—including measures 

that begin to address some workforce planning issues, hold managers 

accountable for staff selection decisions, and provide placement and 

promotion opportunities for staff that are merit-based—and give due 

regard to geographical representation and gender balance considerations.21

For example, in 1997, the U.N. Secretary-General proposed a reform 

program that included, as one of its core elements, developing a 

performance-based human capital system. In May 2000, we testified that 

the United Nations had made some progress in such areas as implementing 

a merit-based appraisal system, although overall reform objectives had not 

yet been achieved.22 According to human resources directors with whom 

we met, addressing these broad human capital issues—including 

competitive compensation packages, aging of the workforce, spousal 

employment, and work-life balance—could in the long run help to attract 

and retain Americans for U.N. employment in greater numbers. (For a 

discussion of some of these human capital issues and related factors that 

may affect recruiting Americans for U.N. organizations, see app. VI.)

21The U.N. agencies that provided information about their human resource management 

initiatives are the Secretariat, FAO, and UNHCR.

22United Nations: Reforms Are Progressing, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been 

Achieved (GAO/T-NSIAD-00-169, May 10, 2000).
Page 22 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Recruiting and Hiring 

Efforts Are Not Linked to

Long-Range Workforce 

Planning

Although some human resource management initiatives are under way, 

U.N. organizations have not yet developed long-range workforce planning 

strategies to guide recruitment and hiring efforts, nor have U.N. 

organizations formulated specific action plans and time frames for 

achieving equitable representation for underrepresented countries, 

including in some cases the United States. A hallmark of high-performing 

organizations is that human resource policies, procedures, and programs 

should be directly linked to achieving organizational objectives.23

Specifically, it is important that such organizations have a formal recruiting 

and hiring action plan targeted to fill short- and long-term human capital 

needs identified through workforce planning efforts.

The U.N. organizations we examined had not systematically collected 

essential human capital data that could help identify factors contributing to 

difficulties in achieving equitable representation. For example, we asked 

U.N. officials about exit interviews of and feedback from American staff 

leaving the U.N. system as well as reasons why Americans had declined 

offers of U.N. employment. However, we were told that these 

organizations do not collect such information, which could help tailor 

appropriate strategies for recruiting and retaining Americans. The 

Secretariat and WFP recently have begun collecting this information but 

have not yet reported their findings. 

Some Recruitment 

Programs for Entry-Level 

Positions

Target Underrepresented 

Member Countries 

Each U.N. organization has its own processes and procedures for 

recruiting, assessing, and selecting candidates for employment, and many 

of their efforts focus on entry-level recruitment. In addition, these entrylevel recruiting programs—including the U.N. Secretariat’s national 

competitive recruitment examinations and the other U.N. entities’ young 

professional programs—specifically target underrepresented member 

countries. Another program for junior professional officers is funded by 

donor countries and used as a recruitment strategy, but this program does 

not focus specifically on nationals from underrepresented member states. 

23Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders (GAO/OCG-00-14G, 

September 2000).
Page 23 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Recent U.N. National 

Competitive Recruitment 

Examination

Was Not Widely Promoted

To address concerns that the United States was nearing 

underrepresentation in the Secretariat due to anticipated retirements, the 

national competitive recruitment exam, which is a prerequisite for P1 and 

P2 positions, was held in New York in February 2001. However, the State 

Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York did not 

widely publicize this examination. Only 40 American applicants took the 

examination—according to U.N. officials, this turnout was disappointingly 

low compared with the last examination in 1992 when 333 American 

applicants took the test in 3 major U.S. cities. Twenty-one of these 

applicants from the 1992 examination were eventually employed. A U.N. 

official told us that the U.N. Secretariat relies on the member states to 

publicize the exam, which, with the exception of the February exam, is 

usually conducted in capital cities. According to the U.N. official, it was not 

feasible to conduct the most recent exam at more U.S. sites because of 

resource constraints. Notice of the 2001 examination was posted on the 

U.N. Web site and advertised in an August 2000 issue of The Economist and 

in two September 2000 issues of the International Career Employment 

Weekly, which is a publication offering free advertising that was used by the 

State Department. According to a U.S. mission officer in New York, 

another examination will be scheduled for the United States in early 2002.

Programs Offer Opportunities

for Young Professionals

Over the past few years, several U.N. organizations have developed entrylevel programs and have used these programs to hire citizens from 

underrepresented countries. In 2000, WFP initiated a New Graduates 

Program to give young graduates an opportunity to join the U.N. system. 

Exclusively targeted at underrepresented countries, 3 of the 10 graduates 

selected in 2000 were from the United States. Similarly, ILO launched a 

Young Professionals Career Entrance Program in January 2001 to identify 

and hire young, highly qualified persons with the potential to become 

future managers within the organization. Although these positions are 

open to nationals of all member states, the program offers a vehicle for 

hiring citizens from underrepresented countries, who we were told were 

given preference. Three of the 10 positions filled earlier this year went to 

Americans. In addition, in March 2001, the first 20 recruits started training 

under UNDP’s Leadership Development Program, which, UNDP officials 

told us, takes demographic balance as well as technical competence into 

account in screening applicants. With assistance from their liaison offices 

in Washington, D.C., these organizations have organized some recruitment 

missions on U.S. college and university campuses. ILO, in particular, made 

a concerted effort to recruit new graduates, conducting five recruiting 

missions during the past year to visit several American colleges and 
Page 24 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

universities, including Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cornell, Tufts, Columbia, and Stanford, among others.

For many years, U.N. organizations have operated junior professional 

officers programs24 that were funded by donor countries for training young 

professionals who serve, usually for 2 or 3 years, in various areas. 

Countries that sponsor these junior professional officers pay their full 

costs, which range from $70,000 to $150,000 per year depending on an 

officer’s grade level, duty station, and marital status. At the end of their 

terms, these officers are often recruited as regular international staff, and 

donor countries have used the program as a way to promote their nationals 

for entry-level positions, although officers who complete the program are 

not guaranteed U.N. employment. As shown in table 5, the U.S. 

government sponsors a small number of junior professional officers. Since 

1984, State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration has sponsored 

49 junior officers at UNHCR at an average cost of $110,000 per officer 

annually. In supporting the junior professional officers program at 

UNHCR, State seeks to assist U.N. organizations in implementing programs 

of priority interest to the United States while increasing the pool of 

American candidates for recruitment in U.N. organizations. According to 

State officials, about half of the junior officers that State has sponsored 

have been hired by UNHCR. Of the current American employees at 

UNHCR, 17 are former U.S. junior professional officers. Over the years, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture has also supported a limited number of 

junior professional officers in the Rome-based international food and 

agricultural agencies at an average cost of $90,000 to $100,000 per year. 25

24Comparable programs in selected agencies may be called differently—for example, the 

Associate Professional Officers program at FAO and the Associate Experts program at ILO.

25Since 1987, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded 17 Associate Professional 

Officers—sponsoring 1 or 2 officers each year—and has jointly funded 2 other officers along 

with the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Page 25 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 5: Number of Junior Professional Officers by Organization (2000-2001) 

a

Includes 100 officers administered by UNDP on behalf of 3 other U.N. funds and programs.

Source: U.N. organizations listed above. 

Merit Is the Overriding 

Criterion;

Nationality Is Weighed 

Against Other Competing 

Factors 

While U.N. officials and documents emphasize that the most important 

criterion for filling positions is merit, U.N. organizations’ policies generally 

call for giving additional consideration to hiring qualified nationals from 

unrepresented or underrepresented member states. A resolution on human 

resources management adopted by the General Assembly in 1999 requests 

the Secretary-General to ensure that “among equally qualified candidates, 

preference is given to candidates from underrepresented member states.”26

Nevertheless, U.N. organizations generally weigh nationality against other 

competing factors in appointing staff in accordance with policies that aim 

to achieve gender balance and to recruit from qualified staff already within 

the U.N. system. Following the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, 

the U.N. General Assembly requested a 50/50 gender balance by the year 

2000, a target date the United Nations now says will not be met until 2012. 

(Specific gender balance goals adopted by various U.N. entities are 

discussed in app. VI.) Although the principle of merit as the overriding 

criterion is clearly established, the priority placed on secondary factors, 

such as nationality and gender, is not as clear. For instance, while the 

Secretariat’s hierarchy places nationality second and gender third, ILO 

gives nationality and gender equal consideration, while FAO has no 

established hierarchy after merit. A 1998 report of the International Civil 

Organization

Total number of

junior officers

Number of

American junior

officers

Number of

participating

donors

U.N. Secretariat 130 0 16

FAO 146 2 19

ILO 87 0 16

WHO 38 0 9

UNDP 340a 0 19

UNHCR 80 7 18

WFP 77 1 15

26U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/53/221 (Apr. 23, 1999).
Page 26 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Service Commission acknowledged that, in some cases, U.N. organizations 

have to balance the priorities of gender and geography. 27

Table 6 shows that several U.N. agencies in our study continue to hire more 

nationals from equitably represented and overrepresented countries than 

from unrepresented and underrepresented countries. Although U.N. 

organizations “encourage” hiring managers to recruit candidates from 

unrepresented and underrepresented countries, they do not generally 

restrict eligibility of candidates on the basis of nationality. A major 

variation is ILO’s practice—that is, competitions are usually open only to 

nationals of unrepresented and underrepresented countries, which are 

listed in each vacancy announcement. Even so, according to an ILO 

official, when it is difficult to find suitable candidates from one of the 

unrepresented or underrepresented countries, applications from nationals 

of equitably represented or overrepresented countries may be considered. 

In the case of WHO, its executive board adopted a resolution in 1997 to 

maintain a recruitment target of 60 percent for nationals from 

unrepresented and underrepresented countries and those that are 

considered equitably represented but fall below the midpoint of the range 

while limiting recruitment from overrepresented countries to 20 percent of 

all new appointments. Nonetheless, WHO officials told us that the 

organization does not restrict eligibility of applicants on the basis of 

nationality.

27Gender Balance in the United Nations Common System, International Civil Service 

Commission (December 1998).
Page 27 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 6: Number of External Appointments for Geographic Positions and the 

Percentages of Applicants Hired From Underrepresented, Equitably Represented, 

and Overrepresented Countries for Selected Organizations (1998-2000)

a

The period covered for U.N. Secretariat data was July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2000.

b

WHO did not provide data on external appointments broken out for positions subject to geographic 

distribution.

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.

Although human resources directors indicated that they give priority 

consideration to hiring qualified nationals from unrepresented and 

underrepresented countries, our analysis of the statistics they provided 

showed that the number of nationals hired from overrepresented countries 

remains relatively high. As of 2000, FAO had 85 overrepresented countries, 

up from 72 in 1998; ILO had 45 overrepresented countries, down from 49 in 

1998; and WHO had 22 overrepresented countries, compared with 12 in 

1998. For a list of the top five countries whose nationals are most 

overrepresented at these U.N. entities, see appendix III.

We asked human resources directors whether U.N. organizations face a 

shortage of qualified American applicants interested in U.N. employment. 

On the basis of the data they provided, in general this does not appear to be 

the case. For instance, at the U.N. Secretariat, nearly 30,000 applications 

were received for 649 positions that were announced in 2000. Of those 

applications, more than 2,000 were Americans—of whom 410 were listed 

among the best qualified candidates. Six Americans were eventually hired. 

FAO reported receiving 11,670 applications for 130 vacancy 

announcements for professional positions it issued in 2000. More than 

8,000 of the applications had been evaluated as of March 2001, of which 

1,279 were deemed qualified—115 of them Americans. Of these, seven 

Americans were hired. However, FAO officials noted, recent statistics 

show that while the number of applications from Americans steadily 

Organization

Number of

external

appointments

Percentage

 hired from

underrepresented

countries

Percentage

 hired from

equitably

represented

countries

Percentage

 hired from

overrepresented

countries

U.N. 

Secretariata

368 24% 72% 3%

FAO 255 30 44 26

ILO 134 26 39 35

WHOb -- -- -- --
Page 28 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

increased between 1997 and 1999, there was a significant decline in 2000. 

FAO has not yet conducted a study examining the reasons for this decline.28

State’s Efforts Do Not 

Reflect Equitable U.S. 

Representation As a 

High Priority

The State Department has written policies stating that equitable 

representation of Americans employed by U.N. organizations is a “high 

priority” and has mechanisms in place to support American employment in 

these bodies. Nevertheless, State’s level of effort in achieving this objective 

does not reflect the stated priority. Despite only minimal progress in 

improving representation of Americans in the U.N. system, State has 

reduced resources aimed at recruitment of qualified professionals and has 

curtailed other related activities without assessing how these reductions 

will affect recruitment. State’s reduction in resources resulted in its scaling 

back activities to support recruitment for professional positions—the 

pipeline for senior-level positions. Although State’s policies seek an 

equitable share of high-level positions for Americans, and much of the 

Department’s recruitment efforts are aimed toward this goal, State has not 

developed guidelines that define “equitable” or a mechanism for assessing 

progress in this area. Moreover, State also has not developed recruiting and 

hiring strategies or action plans to support U.N. employment of Americans. 

In addition, while State and other U.S. government officials with whom we 

spoke view promotion of Americans for U.N. employment as a 

collaborative effort between the State Department and other federal 

agencies, there has been little interagency coordination in this area. Efforts 

by other U.S. government agencies—such as providing federal employees 

with opportunities for international assignment—are not systematically 

organized or coordinated with State to provide assurances that the United 

States employs the best strategies to place Americans in the U.N. system.

Written Policies Identify 

U.S. Representation as High 

Priority

In a July 1999 cable to the U.S. missions to U.N. agencies, the State 

Department articulated the U.S. government’s goal to achieve equitable 

representation of Americans in all international organizations, stating that 

participation of Americans on the staffs of these organizations is a “high 

priority.” The cable established specific guidelines for supporting 

individuals and promoting the hiring of American citizens for senior-level 

28Although a study has not yet been conducted, FAO officials suggested that the decline in 

American applicants may be due to the reduction in the post adjustment allowance to zero 

in 2000, which they think may have the effect of reducing FAO’s salary competitiveness in 

the U.S. labor market.
Page 29 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

and professional positions. This issue was again addressed in the October 

2000 Government Performance and Results Act performance plan for 

State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs. The plan states that 

the Bureau will seek to increase the number/percentage of Americans 

employed in international organizations, especially those in which the 

United States is underrepresented, including FAO, ILO, UNHCR, WFP, and 

WHO. 

Measures Are in Place to 

Support U.N. Employment

The State Department has a variety of mechanisms in place to carry out its 

objectives of recruiting Americans for positions in the U.N. system. The 

primary mechanism is the Bureau of International Organization Affairs’ 

U.N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit, which helps qualified 

candidates from both the private and public sectors find employment in the 

U.N. system. In addition, high-ranking U.S. officials (such as the Secretary 

of State, ambassadors, and assistant secretaries) and U.N. officials have 

discussed American candidates for key U.N. positions and U.S. 

underrepresentation. The U.N. Employment Information and Assistance 

Unit relies on wide-ranging as well as targeted distribution of employment 

information as the primary vehicle for increasing recruitment. Figure 2 lists 

the main activities that the unit conducts to promote Americans for 

positions in the U.N. system. 
Page 30 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 2: State Department’s Support Services for U.N. Employment

Source: State Department.

Lists of Key Senior-Level 

and Policymaking Positions Are 

Not Widely Known

Once a year, State’s U.N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit, in 

collaboration with other federal agencies and the U.S. missions, compiles 

lists of key senior-level and policymaking U.N. positions targeted for 

recruitment. However, several State and other U.S. officials whose duties 

include recruiting American citizens for U.N. employment told us that they 

were not aware that such lists existed. Initiated in 1998, the lists identify 
Page 31 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

positions by three rankings: (1) top priority for recruitment because they 

are critical to U.S. interests, (2) important because the functions of the 

position could impact U.S. interests, and (3) less significant. The lists 

include, where applicable, the expiration date of the incumbent’s position 

so that U.S. agencies can be notified when positions are expected to 

become vacant in order to find the most qualified candidates. 

U.S. Missions Maintain Liaison 

With U.N. Agencies,

Provide Additional Support

U.S. missions to U.N. agencies, such as those we visited in Geneva, Rome, 

and New York, have a designated officer as the focal point for U.N. 

personnel and other management issues. These mission officials are the 

U.S. representatives on the ground with day-to-day contact with U.N. 

officials. According to these designated mission officers, they spend about 

10 percent of their time on U.N. employment matters, including responding 

to inquiries and requests for support from American citizens applying for 

U.N. employment. They also help identify positions that are vacant or are 

expected to become vacant, which could be of particular interest to the 

United States.

Although State’s guidelines urge U.S. missions to maintain active 

communications with U.S. citizens employed by international 

organizations, American citizens at every U.N. agency we visited expressed 

a desire to have more interaction with State staff at the U.S. missions in 

New York, Geneva, and Rome. Without compromising their status as 

international civil servants,29 American employees believe that they can 

provide U.S. officials with information and insights on substantive policy 

and management issues of interest to the United States. For instance, in 

Geneva, American employees at ILO cited a meeting held last year with a 

visiting high-level official from the U.S. Department of Labor that provided 

a forum for exchanging views on policy matters and issues of common 

concern, such as U.S. government and American employees’ views on 

various management reforms. Many of the American employees in the U.N. 

agencies we visited also expressed uncertainty about the type of support 

they can expect from the U.S. mission.

29Article 100 of the U.N. Charter directs staff not to “seek or receive instructions from any 

government or from any other authority external to the Organization [and to] refrain from 

any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to 

the Organization.”
Page 32 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Resources Were Reduced 

and Activities Were 

Curtailed Without Assessing 

Impact

Even though Americans remain underrepresented in many U.N. 

organizations, State has reduced its level of effort overall to recruit 

Americans in the U.N. system without analyzing and assessing the potential 

impact these curtailed and/or reduced functions could have had on 

recruitment. These changes included, among other things, (1) decreasing 

the number of staff resources assigned to carry out recruitment efforts, 

which required State to focus resources to support primarily senior-level 

and policymaking positions rather than all positions; (2) reducing the 

frequency of scheduled visits with U.N. human resources directors; and

(3) not updating an electronic roster from which candidates are 

recommended to U.N. organizations for employment.

Decline in Staff Resources In 1992, the State Department had five professionals assigned to the U.N. 

Employment Information and Assistance Unit, which is the unit 

responsible for recruitment and monitoring of American employment in 

numerous international organizations. Since then, State has reduced the 

number of staff assigned to this unit. In 1993, staff were reduced to four 

professionals, and 2 years later staff were further reduced to three 

professionals. Since 2000, two staff have been carrying out the functions 

assigned to the unit.30

State’s Recruiting Efforts

Focus on Senior-Level Positions

In 1995, State ended its practice of supporting Americans for U.N. 

employment at professional levels and instead focused on senior-level and 

policymaking positions, which include D1 and above positions. While 

State’s policies call for obtaining an equitable share of high-level positions 

for Americans, and much of its recruitment efforts are aimed toward this 

goal, the Department has not developed guidelines that define “equitable” 

nor does it have a mechanism for assessing progress in this area. The 

redirection of State’s efforts to focus only on high-level positions may have 

the effect of reducing the pipeline of Americans in the lower ranks who 

could advance to high-level positions through internal promotions, which 

our analysis showed was the primary source for senior-level positions at 

U.N. organizations. For example, at WFP, out of 37 senior positions filled 

from 1998 to 2000, 31 (83 percent) were internal promotions, while only 6 

were recruited externally. Seven of the internal promotions and two of the 

external hires were Americans. This demonstrates the importance of 

maintaining an adequate “pipeline” of qualified entry- and mid-level 

30The unit was established as the Office of International Recruitment and was subsequently 

renamed the U.N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit.
Page 33 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Americans to be considered for senior positions. Agriculture officials said 

that a long-term 10- to 15-year strategy aimed at entry-level recruitment to 

create a pool of qualified American candidates within the international 

organizations may be necessary in order to improve representation levels.

State’s Liaison With U.N. 

Agencies on Workforce Matters 

Has Declined

With support from the U.S. missions, the U.N. Employment Information 

and Assistance Unit is State’s primary liaison with the human resources 

offices of the different U.N. organizations. But due to funding constraints, 

the director of the unit had not met with the human resources directors of 

U.N. organizations in the last 3 years.31 Human resources directors at the 

U.N. agencies told us that a planning session once a year with a U.S. 

government representative would be very useful, especially with the large 

number of retirements expected in the next several years. Several human 

resources directors told us that due to the age profiles of their staffs, they 

need to formulate and implement plans to address this and other workforce 

planning issues. For example, the U.N. Secretariat projects that up to onefourth of the 400 staff retiring each year for the next 5 years are in positions 

subject to geographic distribution. Moreover, the number of Americans 

who left the Secretariat from 1997 to 2000 exceeded the number of 

Americans hired, resulting in a net loss of 50 American staff over the last 4 

years. In its strategic framework for 2000 to 2015, FAO projected a staff 

turnover of 70 percent in the next 15 years. In light of this expected 

turnover, FAO’s medium-term plan for 2002 to 2007 called for effective 

workforce planning and recruitment efforts to ensure that skills and 

competencies of staff who are retiring are not lost. 

Roster of Qualified American 

Candidates Is Not Being Updated

The U.N. Employment Information and Assistance Unit has maintained a 

roster of highly qualified American citizens who wish to be considered for 

senior positions but, according to State officials, updating the roster was 

put on hold earlier this year due to resource constraints. More than 2,000 

names were on the roster before 1995 when State fielded candidates for 

both professional and senior-level positions. In 1991, when the roster was 

actively used, State submitted approximately 600 applications for 293 

professional positions throughout the United Nations. However, in 1995 

State decided to stop maintaining a central roster of candidates for most 

professional or technical positions and to stop screening, nominating, and 

offering support to American candidates for these positions. About 300 

names for senior positions are currently registered on the roster. Over the 

31Travel meetings with human resources directors in Rome and Geneva were conducted in 

June 2001, after the completion of our study.
Page 34 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

past 3 years, State has used the roster to submit slates of 3 or 4 candidates 

for about 40 senior positions. 

State Lacks Recruiting Strategy 

and Action Plan

The State Department has no recruiting strategy or action plan to guide its 

efforts to support Americans for employment in the United Nations and 

against which to measure its performance. The Bureau of International 

Organization Affairs’ performance plan includes the employment of 

American citizens in U.N. organizations as an important objective, but this 

objective is not included in State’s overall annual performance report 

prepared in response to the Government Performance and Results Act. 

The act requires agencies to pursue performance-based management, 

including strategic planning and goal-setting, that is results-oriented and 

measures performance. State does report annually to the Congress on 

efforts by international organizations to improve U.S. representation levels, 

but the report is limited to actions taken by the U.N. organizations and does 

not include the Department’s own efforts. The annual report includes 

information on those agencies that have established geographic 

distribution formulas, as well as a few other organizations that are of 

particular interest to the United States due to the size of U.S. contributions 

and level of representation. State does not officially provide the report to 

the heads of U.N. agencies to press those organizations with persistent U.S. 

underrepresentation to respond with appropriate targeted strategies to 

improve levels of U.S. representation. A State official told us that while 

some State and U.S. mission officials use the Department’s annual report to 

the Congress in discussions with U.N. agencies about underrepresentation, 

this practice does not occur consistently.

Interagency Coordination Is 

Largely Ad Hoc

Although State officials acknowledge that promoting U.S. representation at 

U.N. and other international organizations must be a collaborative effort 

between State and other federal agencies, coordination of U.S. 

governmentwide efforts over the last several years has largely been done 

on an informal, ad hoc basis. In a special report to State’s Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs in August 1992, State’s Office of 

Inspector General found a lack of understanding among U.S. agencies on 

what they can do to help with the recruitment effort. Accordingly, the 

Inspector General recommended that the Bureau develop memorandums 

of understanding between State and other U.S. government agencies to 

facilitate better cooperation, support, and effectiveness in recruitment. In 

its November 1994 response to the Inspector General’s recommendations, 

the Bureau stated that this was an excellent recommendation and began to 

work with the various federal agencies to develop memorandums of 
Page 35 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

understanding with at least 13 of them. The memorandums were to have 

been completed by the end of 1994. However, when we asked State 

officials about them, they could not provide evidence that any 

memorandums were in place. 

We found that U.S. governmentwide efforts to recruit and place Americans 

in specific areas within the U.N. system that are of particular importance to 

U.S. interests are done primarily on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, such as 

when a key post critical to the United States needs to be filled. It appears 

that formal mechanisms to organize and coordinate U.S. government 

activities in the past have not worked without consistent high-level 

management attention and support. For instance, an Inter-agency Contact 

Group of working-level agency staff has not been active for many years. 

Instead, various U.S. government agencies, particularly those that deal 

regularly with international organizations, have staff assigned to serve as 

the liaison for international recruitment activities. These include, among 

others, staff from the Foreign Agricultural Service within Agriculture; the 

Bureau of International Labor Affairs within Labor; and the Office of 

International and Refugee Health within the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). However, related activities within each of the U.S. 

agencies are often decentralized to several offices and units that work with 

international organizations on specific areas. Furthermore, staff assigned 

as liaisons typically have other duties and responsibilities, and they told us 

that they are unable to devote the attention necessary to address U.N. 

employment matters in a comprehensive, systematic way because of 

resource constraints and other limitations within their own departments. 

Nonetheless, on a specific area—in this case, food and agricultural issues—

Agriculture has recently taken the initiative to reconstitute an informal, 

interagency international recruitment network, primarily for informationsharing purposes and to help identify qualified candidates for key 

vacancies.

U.S. Agencies Can Do More to 

Promote Details and Transfers of 

Federal Employees

Executive Order 11552 of August 24, 1970, calls on executive branch 

agencies to assist in and encourage details and transfers of federal 

employees to international organizations to the maximum extent possible 

and with due regard to the agencies’ manpower requirements. According 

to U.S. agency officials, placing federal employees on details and transfers 

to international organizations can be an effective way to provide significant 

input on policy and technical issues of interest to the United States. In 

fiscal year 2000, 17 federal agencies had 165 employees on detail or 

transferred to the United Nations and other international organizations, 

according to State Department records. Of this total, the agencies with the 
Page 36 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

largest number of federal employees assigned to international 

organizations were: HHS, 59 employees; the State Department, 20; the 

Departments of Transportation and the Treasury, 18 each; Agriculture, 15; 

the Department of Energy, 6; and Labor, 4. An official from HHS attributed 

that Department’s level of participation to the fact that the agency 

considers its contributions to international organizations an integral part of 

the Department’s mission to combat diseases such as polio and Acquired 

Immune Deficiency Syndrome. According to this official, public health 

specialists in HHS vigorously vie for opportunities to gain international 

work experience, which they view to be not only meaningful and important 

but also career-building. However, several Americans we interviewed, 

particularly those from other federal agencies, suggested that executive 

agencies can do more to promote opportunities and provide incentives for 

work in international organizations and to help employees apply for these 

jobs.

Other Major 

Contributors Actively 

Promote U.N. 

Employment for Their 

Citizens 

In 2000, the representation levels of other major contributors to the United 

Nations varied in the four organizations in our study that had formal 

geographic targets—the Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO. The five 

countries for which we identified representation levels were Canada, 

France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Japan, which is the 

second largest contributor to the United Nations, was significantly 

underrepresented in each of the four organizations. Germany, the third 

largest contributor, was underrepresented in three organizations and 

equitably represented in one organization. Canada, France, and the United 

Kingdom were either equitably represented or overrepresented in the four 

organizations. For more information on the representation trends for these 

selected countries, see appendix IV. 

Japan and Germany, which have higher representation targets because of 

their higher contributions, devote more resources toward achieving 

equitable representation than France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, 

which are within equitable levels or are overrepresented. For example, 

Germany has established formal mechanisms, including a high-level Office 

of the Coordinator for International Personnel, to organize and coordinate 

efforts to place its nationals in key positions within the U.N. system and 

other international organizations. Japan—which has historically been 

significantly underrepresented—has full-time staff at its mission in Geneva 

dedicated to promoting U.N. employment of Japanese nationals. The 

United States, like Japan and Germany, is generally underrepresented but is 

not as active as these two countries in promoting its citizens for U.N. 
Page 37 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

employment. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, the United 

States has higher representation targets to fill than Japan or Germany, but it 

takes a less active approach in assisting its citizens to gain U.N. 

employment. Ultimately, responsibility for hiring decisions and achieving 

equitable representation rests with U.N. officials. However, it does not 

appear that given the slow progress in improving U.S. representation over 

nearly 10 years, U.S. representation levels will significantly improve 

without changes in the United Nations’ and United States’ actions. For a 

more detailed presentation of selected member states’ efforts to promote 

U.N. employment for their nationals, see appendix V.

Conclusions The United Nations and its affiliated entities face the dual challenge of 

attracting and retaining staff who meet the highest standards of efficiency, 

competence, and integrity while maintaining the international character of 

the organizations by ensuring equitable geographic balance in the 

workforce. Nevertheless, U.N. organizations have made slow progress in 

addressing U.S. concerns about underrepresentation, and except for the 

U.N. Secretariat in New York, the organizations with representation targets 

that we studied have not achieved equitable employment of Americans 

since 1992. Although the U.N. organizations are ultimately responsible for 

achieving fair geographic balance among its member countries, the State 

Department, in coordination with other U.S. agencies, plays a role in 

ensuring that the United States is equitably represented. U.N. organizations 

have not fully developed long-range workforce planning strategies, and 

neither State nor the U.N. agencies have formal recruiting and hiring action 

plans to improve U.S. representation in the U.N. system. Without these 

measures, the United States’ ability to even maintain the number of 

Americans employed in the United Nations could be hampered. Regular 

planning sessions with human resources directors could help State identify 

areas in which to focus its recruitment of American candidates and ensure 

that U.S. levels of representation do not decline as a result of American 

retirements without corresponding increases in new hires. High-level State 

Department attention and intervention is needed to elevate the importance 

of this matter to the United States and to reemphasize the seriousness of 

this concern to State, U.S., and U.N. officials. Finally, sustained efforts and 

actions by State to facilitate employment of Americans for professionallevel positions, as well as senior-level and policymaking positions, will be 

required to ensure progress toward the goal of equitable U.S. 

representation.
Page 38 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Recommendations Because equitable representation of Americans employed at the U.N. 

organizations has been determined to be important to U.S. interests, we 

recommend that the Secretary of State:

• develop, with other U.S. government agencies, a comprehensive U.S. 

strategy for achieving equitable representation of Americans in U.N. 

employment that includes efforts to improve interagency coordination 

and specifies performance goals, time frames, and resource 

requirements, and incorporate these goals and progress achieving them 

into State’s Annual Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report, 

respectively;

• work with human resources directors of U.N. organizations in which 

Americans are underrepresented or are close to being 

underrepresented, particularly in light of anticipated retirements in the 

next several years, to help ensure that long-range workforce planning 

efforts include measures targeted to achieve equitable U.S. 

representation within a specified time frame; 

• develop guidelines that define State’s goal of securing an equitable share 

of senior-level and policymaking posts, and use these guidelines to 

assess whether the United States is equitably represented in highranking positions in U.N. organizations; and

• provide heads of U.N. agencies, for their appropriate attention and 

action, with copies of State’s annual report to the Congress on efforts by 

the United Nations and other international organizations to employ 

Americans.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, State generally agreed with our 

findings and conclusions, and agreed with most of our recommendations. 

However, State disagreed that it should develop guidelines that define its 

goal for obtaining an equitable share of high-level positions for Americans 

and use these guidelines to help assess whether the United States is 

equitably represented. State said it should not develop separate guidelines 

for defining its goal of obtaining an equitable share of Americans in seniorlevel and policymaking positions but rather that it should focus on 

equitable representation at all levels. While we agree that State should be 

concerned about achieving equitable employment for Americans at all 

levels in U.N. organizations, we believe it is important to emphasize 

achieving an equitable share of senior-level and policymaking positions. 

We further believe that without guidelines defining equitable share, State 

lacks a mechanism for assessing whether its top recruitment priority—
Page 39 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

equitable representation of Americans in high-level positions—is being 

achieved.

In addition, the Department of State’s Bureau of International Organization 

Affairs and officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, and Labor who deal with international recruitment 

provided technical comments on this report, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. U.N. human resources offices also reviewed a draft of this 

report for technical accuracy. (State’s written comments, along with our 

evaluation of them, are in app. IX.)

Scope and 

Methodology

To analyze trends in the overall representation levels of Americans and 

nationals of other selected countries and Americans in senior-level and 

policymaking U.N. positions, we performed various statistical analyses of 

personnel data provided by the State Department and the U.N. entities that 

fully cooperated with our review—the U.N. Secretariat and UNDP in New 

York; ILO, UNHCR, and WHO in Geneva; and FAO and WFP in Rome. 

These organizations represent about 60 percent of the professional staff in 

the U.N. system and have about 80 percent of the positions in the U.N. 

system that are subject to geographic distribution. We did not 

independently verify the accuracy of the data provided to us. In some 

cases, the data in the State Department’s annual report to the Congress 

were not the same as data that the U.N. organizations provided to us. (For 

a detailed discussion of the statistical methods we used, see app. VIII.)

To assess U.N. efforts to employ nationals of countries that are 

underrepresented or close to becoming underrepresented, we reviewed 

various U.N. documents and met with the human resources directors at the 

headquarters of the U.N. entities we reviewed. In addition, we met with 

officials from the U.N. Joint Inspection Unit, the International Civil Service 

Commission, the Administrative Committee on Coordination, the U.N. 

Office of Internal Oversight Services, and the U.N. Board of Auditors. We 

also met with representatives of the Washington, D.C., liaison offices of 

FAO, ILO, UNHCR, WFP, and WHO.

To examine State’s and other U.S. agencies’ efforts and resources devoted 

to assisting the United Nations in achieving equitable U.S. representation, 

we met with State Department officials from the Bureau of International 

Organization Affairs and the U.S. missions in New York, Geneva, and Rome. 

We also spoke with officials from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, 
Page 40 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Labor, and Health and Human Services who deal with international 

recruitment. 

To describe other member countries’ activities to assist employing their 

nationals in the U.N. system, we met with representatives of the British, 

Canadian, French, German, and Japanese missions to the United Nations in 

New York, Geneva, and Rome.

In addition, we met with several American citizens employed in each of the 

U.N. organizations in our study to obtain their views about U.N. and U.S. 

efforts to recruit Americans.

We conducted our review from December 2000 to June 2001 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, Senate 

Committee on Appropriations; the Ranking Minority Member, House 

Committee on International Relations; the Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia, House Committee on 

International Relations; and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. We are also sending copies 

of this report to the Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State. Copies will 

be made available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix X.

Harold J. Johnson

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 41 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation
Page 42 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix I

Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to Apendxies

Determine Representation Status of Member 

Countries ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on the methods that the U.N. 

Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Labor 

Organization (ILO), and World Health Organization (WHO) used to 

calculate equitable representation targets for member countries and thus 

determine the representation status of each organization’s member 

countries. The other organizations in our study—the United Nations 

Development Program (UNDP), United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees (UNHCR), and World Food Program (WFP)—do not calculate or 

use equitable representation ranges to determine a country’s 

representation status.

U.N. Secretariat The Secretariat takes into consideration three factors—assessed 

contribution, membership, and population—in calculating the equitable 

representation targets for member countries. In determining the number of 

positions attributed to each of these factors, the Secretariat uses a base 

number as the total number of positions, rather than the actual number of 

filled positions. In 2000, the base number used was 2,600, while the number 

of filled positions subject to geographic distribution was 2,389. Table 7 

shows the weight assigned to each of the three factors and the number of 

positions assigned to each factor when multiplied by the base number. 

Table 7: Factors Used by the U.N. Secretariat in Calculating Geographic Targets

Source: U.N. Secretariat.

For each member country: 

• The number of positions allocated for the assessed contribution factor 

(1,430) is multiplied by the member country’s percentage assessment to 

the Secretariat.

• The number of positions allocated for the membership factor (1,040) is 

divided by the number of member states (189).

Factors used

Percentage of

positions applied

to each factor (x) Base number

(=) Number of

positions assigned

to each factor

Assessed 

contribution

55% 2,600 1,430

Membership 40 2,600 1,040

Population 5 2,600 130
Appendix I

Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to 

Determine Representation Status of Member 

Countries

Page 43 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

• The number of positions allocated for the population factor (130) is 

divided by the world population and multiplied by the member country’s 

population.

For each country, the resulting numbers of positions attributed to each 

factor are added together to produce the midpoint of that country’s 

equitable representation range. The upper and lower limits of each range 

are 15 percentage points above and below the midpoint, respectively, or a 

minimum of 4.8 positions from the midpoint. The minimum range for 

member countries is 1 to 14. 

In 2000, the midpoint for the United States was 369, and the upper and 

lower limits of the U.S. range were 424 and 314, respectively. In 2000, there 

were 325 Americans in positions subject to geographic representation. 

FAO FAO determines each member country’s representation status using a 

system that weighs the level of positions, rather than focusing on the 

number of positions targeted for each country. In this system, point values 

are assigned to grade levels, with the higher grades being worth more 

points. This system, therefore, attempts to measure a country’s level of 

influence rather than just the number of positions it holds. Table 8 shows 

the point values that FAO assigns to each grade level.

Table 8: FAO Position-Weighting System

a

Deputy Director-General and Assistant Director-General.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization.

A country’s representation status is determined by dividing the number of 

points from the positions held by that country’s nationals by the total 

number of points of all filled regular budget positions.1

 The resulting 

Grade P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1/D2 DDG/ADGa

Points 1 2 4 6 8 10 15

1

FAO uses the number of filled positions, rather than a base number, in determining the total 

number of points for the organization.
Appendix I

Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to 

Determine Representation Status of Member 

Countries

Page 44 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

percentage then is compared with the country’s equitable representation 

range, which is also expressed as a percentage.

In calculating the equitable representation targets for member countries, 

FAO takes into consideration only one factor—contribution. The 

contribution factor is used as follows:

• If a country contributes 10 percent or less of the budget, it is considered 

equitably represented if its representation ranges from 25 percent below 

to 50 percent above its contribution percentage.

• If a country contributes between 10 percent and 20 percent of the 

budget, it is considered equitably represented if its representation 

ranges from 25 percent below to 25 percent above its contribution 

percentage.

• If a country contributes more than 20 percent of the budget, it is 

considered equitably represented if its representation ranges from 25 

percent below to 0 percent above its contribution percentage.

In 2000, the United States was in the third category, with a target 

representation range of 18.75 percent to 25 percent. The actual U.S. 

representation level was 12.5 percent.

ILO ILO takes two factors into consideration—contribution and membership—

in determining the equitable representation targets for member countries. 

For the membership factor, ILO uses an equitable range of one to two 

positions for countries that contribute 0.2 percent or less of the ILO budget. 

In 2000, 142 of ILO’s member countries contributed 0.2 percent or less of 

the budget, and their total budget contribution was 4.03 percent. The 

number of positions set aside for these minimum contribution countries 

can vary from year to year, depending on the number of countries that fit 

the criteria. 

For countries that contribute more than 0.2 percent of the budget, equitable 

geographic targets are determined by the contribution factor. For these 

countries there is one further differentiation:

• In 2000, for countries that contributed between 0.2 percent and 10 

percent of the budget, a midpoint was calculated using the following 

formula:
Appendix I

Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to 

Determine Representation Status of Member 

Countries

Page 45 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 3: ILO Formula for Determining a Country’s Geographic Target

Source: International Labor Organization.

After the midpoint is calculated, the equitable range is obtained by adding 

and subtracting 25 percent from the midpoint.

• The formula presented above is also used for countries that contribute 

10 percent or more of the budget. However, the number that is 

calculated using the formula becomes the maximum of the country’s 

range. The minimum of the range is obtained by subtracting 25 percent 

from the maximum number.

Because the United States contributed 25 percent of the ILO budget in 

2000, its geographic range was calculated using the latter method. The 

equitable range for the United States in 2000 was 101 to 135, and there were 

87 American staff in geographically counted positions during that year. 

WHO WHO’s method for determining member countries’ representation status is 

based on the system used by the U.N. Secretariat, although there are some 

differences. As with the Secretariat, WHO uses three factors (contribution, 

membership, and population), with 55 percent of the positions being tied to 

the contribution factor, 40 percent tied to the membership factor, and 5 

percent tied to the population factor. The midpoint for each country is 

obtained by adding the number of positions attributed to each of these 

factors. The minimum and maximum of the range are set by subtracting
Appendix I

Methods Used by U.N. Organizations to 

Determine Representation Status of Member 

Countries

Page 46 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

and adding 15 percent to the midpoint.2 Like the Secretariat, WHO also 

uses a base number for the total number of positions subject to geographic 

distribution rather than using the number of filled positions. In 2000, WHO 

used a base number of 1,450, while there were 1,138 filled positions subject 

to geographic distribution. 

A major difference between the systems used by the Secretariat and WHO 

is that WHO includes positions financed by extrabudgetary resources as 

geographically counted positions. However, the contribution factor 

includes only contributions made to the regular budget, not extrabudgetary 

contributions. 

The number of positions assigned to each factor was as follows:

• 580 positions were set aside for the membership factor (3.02) per 

country; 

• 797.5 positions were set aside for the contribution factor (7.975 

positions for each 1 percent contributed); and

• 72.5 positions were set aside for the population factor (0.012 positions 

for each 1 million of population). 

The United States’ equitable range was 174 to 237, and there were 152 

American staff in positions subject to geographic distribution. 

2

WHO also stipulates that a country’s range must be 0.1778 of the total number of positions 

more or less than the midpoint. In addition, the maximum of the range must be 0.51852 

percent of the total number of positions.
Page 47 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation ApendxiI

This appendix details the U.S. staffing situation at each of the seven U.N. 

organizations we examined—the U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, WHO, UNDP, 

UNHCR, and WFP.

U.N. Secretariat 

Representation of 

Americans Within the 

Geographic Range 

The Secretariat, located in New York, has met its targets for employing 

Americans each year from 1992 to 2000, and Americans are represented in 

senior-level and policymaking positions at a level commensurate with the 

average of selected major contributors relative to their contributions to the 

Secretariat. From 1992 through 1997, the number of Americans in 

geographically targeted positions was near the midpoint of the range, 

which the Secretariat describes as the desirable representation, until about 

3 years ago when the number of Americans declined to the minimum 

portion of the range (see fig. 4). During this period, hiring rates did not 

compensate for the number of separations of Americans in the Secretariat. 

From 1992 through 2000, the total number of geographically targeted 

positions in the Secretariat decreased by more than 200 positions to about 

2,400, representing about an 8.4 percent decline. The United States’ 

assessed contribution to the Secretariat from 1998 through 2000 averaged 

25 percent of total contributions. In 2001, the range for the United States 

was lowered as a result of the decrease in the U.S. assessment to 22 

percent. Because of the lowered range, it is expected that in 2001 

Americans will remain represented in the lower portion of the geographic 

range.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 48 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 4: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000)a Compared With the 

Secretariat’s U.S. Geographic Representation Target

a

The U.S. equitable range for 2001 was included to show the reduction of the range that resulted from 

the reduction in the U.S. assessment. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. Secretariat data.

Americans are represented in senior-level and policymaking positions at a 

level commensurate with the average for selected major contributors 

relative to their contributions to the Secretariat. Combining the 

percentages of Americans in policymaking (Assistant Secretary-General 

(ASG) and Under Secretary-General (USG)) positions and senior-level (D1-

D2) positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997, and 2000 shows Americans 

holding 11.5 percent, 14 percent, and 13.6 percent of these positions, 

respectively. (Fig. 5 provides information, by grade category, on the 

percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans. The period 

covered is from 1992 to 2000, with each bar representing staffing grade 

information as an average over a separate 3-year period between 1992 and 

2000. The number in the 1998 to 2000 bar is the average annual number of 

staff positions during 1998 to 2000 for each grade level.) For the period of 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 49 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

1998 to 2000, the United States had its highest representation at grade 

levels equivalent to middle management positions (P4-P5 equivalencies).

Figure 5: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000) Compared With the 

Secretariat’s U.S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. Secretariat data.

Table 9 shows the financial contributions and senior-level and 

policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected 

countries with regard to the Secretariat. This table also shows the ratio of 

each country’s representation to its assessment, and the average ratio for 

the four other selected countries. As shown in table 9, the U.S. 

representation-to-assessment ratio is approximate to the average ratio for 

the four selected countries. 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 50 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 9: U.N. Secretariat - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and 

Financial Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. Secretariat data.

Country

Assessment

(percent)

Percentage of

representation in

high-level

positions

Ratio of high-level

positions to

assessments

United States 25.0% 13.6% 0.55

Average for four 

countries

0.54

 Japan 19.5 2.0 0.10

 Germany 9.8 3.7 0.38

 France 6.5 4.5 0.69

 United Kingdom 5.1 4.9 0.97
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 51 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

FAO

Some Gains Made, but 

Americans Are Still 

Significantly 

Underrepresented Overall

Although modest progress in employing Americans has been made in 

recent years at FAO, headquartered in Rome, Americans continue to be 

significantly underrepresented overall and are represented in senior and 

policymaking positions at levels that are below the average for four major 

contributors, given their contribution to FAO. (Fig. 6 provides information 

on the trends in overall U.S. representation compared with FAO’s 

geographic representation range for the United States.) Since 1992, FAO 

has increased its staff by 42 to 992, which is equivalent to an annual average 

growth rate of 0.5 percent compared with an annual average growth rate of 

4.5 percent for the United States. During this period, the number of 

Americans in geographically targeted positions increased by 38 to 126. 

Because FAO uses a position-weighting system to calculate each member 

country’s representation percentage, the equitable ranges were derived 

using this weighting system. The United States’ assessed contribution to 

FAO from 1998 through 2000 averaged 25 percent of total contributions. 

Although the minimum range for the United States decreased in 2001 as a 

result in the decrease in the U.S. assessment,1

 the United States is still 

expected to remain significantly below the minimum range. In contrast to 

the high level of underrepresentation of Americans, about 80 countries 

were overrepresented in FAO over the last 3 years. (Refer to app. III for a 

list of the top five overrepresented countries.)

1

FAO adopted the United Nations’ changes to its assessment rates for member countries, 

which took effect on January 1, 2001.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 52 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 6: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000)a Compared With FAO’s 

U.S. Geographic Representation Target

a

The U.S. equitable range for 2001 was included to show the reduction of the range that resulted from 

the reduction in the U.S. assessment. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.

Americans are represented in senior and policymaking positions at levels 

that are below the average of four major contributors, given their 

contribution to FAO. (Fig. 7 provides information, by grade category, on 

the percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans.2

 The 

number in the 1998 through 2000 bar is the average annual number of staff 

positions during 1998 through 2000 for each grade level.) Combining the 

percentages of Americans in policymaking positions—the Assistant 

Director-General (ADG) and the Deputy Director-General (DDG)—and 

2

The period covered in figure 6 is from 1992 to 2000, with each bar representing staffing 

grade information as an average over a separate 3-year period between 1992 and 2000.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 53 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

senior-level positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997, and 2000 shows 

that Americans held 11.1 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.4 percent of these 

positions, respectively.

Figure 7: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992–2000) Compared With FAO’s 

U.S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.

Table 10 shows the financial contributions and senior-level and 

policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected 

countries with regard to FAO. This table also shows the ratio of each 

country’s representation to its assessment and the average ratio for the four 

other selected countries. As shown in table 10, the U.S. representation-toassessment ratio is below the average ratio for the four selected countries. 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 54 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 10: FAO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and Financial 

Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of FAO data.

ILO 

Overall Progress Made, but 

Senior-Level and 

Policymaking Positions 

Have Declined

Progress toward achieving equitable representation of Americans has been 

made at ILO, located in Geneva, where the United States has been 

underrepresented during the period under review, 1992 to 2000. 

Nonetheless, U.S. representation in high-ranking positions has declined. 

Americans continue to be underrepresented overall and are represented in 

senior-level and policymaking positions at levels that are below the average 

of four major contributors given their contribution. (Fig. 8 provides 

information on the trends in overall U.S. representation from 1992 to 2000, 

compared with ILO’s geographic representation range for the United 

States.) Overall, since 1992, geographic positions in ILO have increased by 

5 to 659. With the average annual growth rate for the United States (about 3 

percent) exceeding the ILO’s (about -0.3 percent),3

 the number of 

Americans in geographic positions has increased and accordingly brought 

the United States closer to its minimum geographic range in 2000. By 

contrast with historical U.S. underrepresentation, 45 member states are 

overrepresented. (Refer to app. III for a list of the top five overrepresented 

countries.) The United States’ assessed contribution to ILO from 1998 to 

Country

Assessment

(percent)

Percentage of

representation in

high-level

positions

Ratio of high-level

positions to

assessments

United States 25.0% 9.4% 0.38

Average for four 

countries

0.76

 Japan 19.2 2.8 0.14

 Germany 9.8 5.2 0.53

 France 6.7 9.9 1.48

 United Kingdom 5.3 4.8 0.90

3

Annual average growth rates are calculated using ordinary least square regressions.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 55 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

2000 averaged 25 percent of total contributions. Beginning in January 2002, 

the geographic representation range for the United States is expected to be 

lowered, from 101 through 135 to 89 through 119 positions, as a result of 

the decrease in the U.S. assessment to 22 percent effective in the next 

biennium. 

Figure 8: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) Compared With ILO’s 

U.S. Geographic Representation Target 

Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

U.S. representation in senior levels (D1-D2) has declined and U.S. 

representation in senior-level and policymaking positions (ADG-DDG) is 

below that of the average of four major contributors given their 

contribution. (Fig. 9 provides information, by grade category, on the 

percentages of the total number of positions held by Americans. The 

period covered is from 1995 to 2000, with each bar representing staffing 

grade information as an average over a 3-year period.) Combining the 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 56 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

percentages of Americans in policymaking positions and senior-level 

positions for the periods ending 1997 and 2000 shows Americans holding 

12.1 percent and 9.7 percent of these positions, respectively.

Figure 9: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1995-2000) Compared With ILO’s 

U.S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

Table 11 shows the financial contributions and senior-level and 

policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected 

countries with regard to ILO. This table also shows the ratio of each 

country’s representation to its assessment and the average ratio for the four 

other selected countries. As shown in this table, the U.S. representation-toassessment ratio is below the average ratio for the four selected countries. 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 57 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 11: ILO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and Financial 

Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of ILO data.

WHO

Americans Remain 

Underrepresented; TopLevel Positions Have 

Declined

WHO, based in Geneva, continues to have Americans represented below 

the equitable geographic targets for the United States, which has been 

underrepresented there since 1993. In addition, there has been a decline in 

policymaking positions, and combined U.S. representation in senior-level 

and policymaking positions is below the average of the four major 

contributors, given their contributions. (Fig. 10 provides information on 

the trends in overall U.S. representation levels from 1992 to 2000 compared 

with WHO’s geographic representation range for the United States.) In 

1992, U.S. representation was at the minimum level of the equitable range. 

However, since that time, there have been declines in the level of U.S. 

representation; in 2000, the United States was underrepresented. In 

contrast to U.S. underrepresentation at WHO, 22 countries were 

overrepresented in 2000. (Refer to app. III for a list of the top five 

overrepresented countries.) By and large, from 1992 to 2000, the total 

number of geographic positions decreased by 174, or 13 percent, to 1,138, 

for WHO, and similarly the number of geographic positions filled by 

Americans declined by 14 percent. In 2001, the U.S. assessment decreased 

from 25 percent to 22 percent, and accordingly, the geographic target for 

the United States will be reduced for 2002.

Country

Assessment

(percent)

Percentage of

representation in

high-level

positions

Ratio of high-level

positions to

assessments

United States 25.0% 9.7% 0.39

Average for four 

countries

1.03

 Japan 18.5 4.7 0.26

 Germany 9.4 8.4 0.89

 France 6.4 10.0 1.57

 United Kingdom 5.1 7.2 1.42
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 58 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 10: Trends in Overall U.S. Representation (1992-2000) Compared With WHO’s 

U.S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

There has been a decrease in U.S. representation at the top policymaking 

positions (Ungraded (UG) is equivalent to the ASG and USG positions) and 

U.S. representation in senior-level and policymaking positions is below the 

average for four of WHO’s major contributors, given their contribution 

level. (Fig. 11 provides information, by grade category, on trends in U.S. 

representation by grade, compared with WHO’s U.S. geographic 

representation target. The time period covered is from 1992 through 2000, 

with each bar representing staffing grade information as an average over a 

3-year period.) While the percentage of Americans in D1 to D2 positions 

has been relatively constant from 1992 through 2000, there has been a 

significant decline in the percentage of Americans in policymaking 

positions. The most recent year that an American held a top-ranking 

position in WHO was in 1998. Combining the percentages of Americans in 

policymaking and senior-level positions for the periods ending 1994, 1997, 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 59 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

and 2000 shows Americans holding 8.1 percent, 8.0 percent, and 8.0 percent 

of these positions, respectively.

Figure 11: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000) Compared With 

WHO’s U.S. Geographic Representation Target

Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

Table 12 shows the financial contributions and senior-level and 

policymaking representation of the United States and four other selected 

countries with regard to WHO. This table also shows the ratio of each 

country’s representation to its assessment, and the average ratio for the 

four selected countries. As shown in table 12, the U.S. representation-toassessment ratio is below the average ratio of the four selected countries.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 60 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 12: WHO - Representation in Senior and Policymaking Levels and Financial 

Assessments for Selected Major Contributors (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of WHO data.

UNDP

Americans Appear to Be 

Equitably Represented 

Overall 

The United States appears to be equitably represented at UNDP. Because 

UNDP, headquartered in New York, does not have a geographic 

representation target for the United States, we did not have an established 

criterion with which to assess U.S. representation there. However, when 

comparing U.S. representation with U.S. contributions to UNDP, from 1995 

to 2000, the U.S. representation percentage at UNDP was higher than the 

U.S. contribution percentage for most of these years. As shown in figure 

12, from 1995 to 2000, the percentage of Americans in professional 

positions remained relatively constant, declining slightly. Over the broader 

9-year period, the U.S. contribution to UNDP varied, ranging from a high of 

14 percent of the budget in 1993 to a low of 6 percent in 1996.

Country

Assessment

(percent)

Percentage of

representation in

high-level

positions

Ratio of high-level

positions to

assessments

United States 25.0% 8.0% 0.32

Average for four 

countries

0.44

 Japan 18.6 1.9 0.10

 Germany 9.5 3.3 0.35

 France 6.5 3.4 0.53

 United Kingdom 5.1 4.0 0.78
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 61 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 12: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Percentage of American Professional 

Staff at UNDP (1992-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of UNDP data.

Figure 13 provides information, by grade category, on the percentage of the 

total number of positions held by Americans and presents this information 

as a 3-year average. The percentage of Americans in senior-level positions 

(D1-D2) and lower level professional positions (P1-P3) remained close to 

14 percent throughout the period we covered.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 62 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 13: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1995-2000) Compared With 

UNDP’s U.S. Contribution

Source: GAO analysis of UNDP data.

Although an American held the top position at UNDP from 1993 through 

1999, beginning in 2000, no Americans were represented in policymaking 

positions (equivalent to ASG and USG). Combining the percentages of 

Americans in policymaking and senior-level positions for the periods 

ending 1997 and 2000 shows Americans holding 13.9 percent and 14.2 

percent of these positions, respectively. 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 63 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

UNHCR

Americans Continue to Be 

Underrepresented

Overall, Americans have been underrepresented at UNHCR. Moreover, 

little progress has been made in hiring Americans. Because voluntary 

contributions by member states provide the funding for UNHCR, it does 

not have formal targets for achieving equitable geographic representation 

of the nationals of its member states. However, since 1995, UNHCR has had 

an informal target of 13 percent of its international professional positions 

for the United States, from which it received about one-third of its 

resources over the last 3 years. (Refer to fig. 14 for the trend in the level of 

representation of Americans.) Despite the existence of this informal target, 

UNHCR has not come close to meeting it, and, for almost a decade, the 

percentage of Americans employed by UNHCR compared with the total of 

its international professional positions has not improved. During 1992 

through 2000, UNHCR staffing levels have grown by 380 to 1,159, an annual 

growth rate of 4.1 percent. The annual average growth rate for the United 

States has been virtually the same at 4.3 percent.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 64 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 14: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Informal Targets for Americans and 

Percentage of U.S. Professional Staff at UNHCR (1992-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.

For the period 1993 to 1998, not one American was at the policymaking 

level, although subsequently, an American was hired for one of these three 

high-ranking positions at UNHCR. (Refer to fig. 15, which provides 

information, by grade category, for the percentage of the total number of 

positions held by Americans and presents this information as a 3-year 

average.) Combining the percentages of Americans in policymaking 

positions (High Commissioner, Deputy High Commissioner, and Assistant 

High Commissioner) and senior-level positions for the periods ending 1994, 

1997, and 2000 shows Americans holding 10.6 percent, 10.8 percent, and 9.2 

percent of these positions, respectively. 
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 65 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 15: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1992-2000) Compared With U.S. 

Contributions and UNHCR’s Informal Geographic Target for the United States 

Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR data.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 66 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

WFP

American Representation Is 

Below Informal Target 

Americans have been underrepresented at WFP, located in Rome, but gains 

have been made in hiring more Americans in senior-level and policymaking 

positions. Because voluntary contributions by member states provide the 

funding for WFP, it does not have formal targets for achieving equitable 

geographic representation of its member states. However, in 1997, WFP 

established informal targets for donor countries in order to address an 

imbalance in the representation levels between donor countries and 

program countries. Accordingly, WFP set an informal target of 20 percent 

of its international professional positions for the United States from which 

it received almost one-half of its resources over the last 3 years.4

 Despite 

establishing an informal target in 1997, the percentage of Americans 

employed as international professional staff has not improved. (Refer to 

fig. 16, which presents data on U.S. contributions, percentage of 

Americans, and the informal target for the United States.) From 1996 

through 2000, annual employment growth rates for WFP and the United 

States were 10.5 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively, with the size of 

WFP’s international staff increasing by 255 positions to 831.

4

U.S. contributions to WFP in 2000 included food totaling $796 million. In addition, under its 

full cost recovery system, WFP requires each donor to cover direct and indirect costs such 

as shipping and distribution. U.S. contributions for WFP’s costs come from various sources, 

including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of State.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 67 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 16: Trends in U.S. Contributions and Informal Targets for Americans and 

Percentage of U.S. Professional Staff at WFP (1996-2000)

Source: GAO analysis of WFP data.

WFP has made progress in hiring Americans in senior-level (D1-D2) 

positions since 1996. (Fig. 17 provides information, by grade category, on 

the percentage of the total number of positions held by Americans.)5

 

Combining the percentages of Americans in policymaking positions 

(equivalent to ASG and USG) and senior-level positions for the periods 

ending 1997 and 2000 shows Americans holding 14.1 percent and 24.1 

percent of these positions, respectively. 

5

The period covered is from 1996 to 2000, with the first bar representing an average for 1996 

and 1997 and the second bar representing an average for the 3 years 1998 through 2000.
Appendix II

U.S. Staffing Trends and Levels of 

Representation

Page 68 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 17: Trends in U.S. Representation by Grade (1996-2000) Compared With U.S. 

Contributions and WFP’s Informal Geographic Target for the United States

Source: GAO analysis of WFP data
Page 69 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix III

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the 

U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO ApendxiI

For each organization, the top five overrepresented countries for 1998 to 

2000 are listed on the basis of the number of staff exceeding the maximum 

of the country’s equitable range.1

 The total numbers of overrepresented 

countries at each organization are also listed for the years 1998 to 2000. 

(See tables 13-20.)

The use of a base number, rather than actual employment figures, to 

calculate target ranges may tend to reduce the number of countries that are 

classified as underrepresented. The larger upper targets for the Secretariat 

and WHO may partially explain why they have fewer overrepresented 

countries than FAO and ILO (see app. VIII).

1

Because FAO uses percentages rather than numbers to present each country’s range and 

representation status, the top five overrepresented countries at FAO are calculated in terms 

of the percentage above the country’s maximum percentage. 
Appendix III

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the 

U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 70 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 13: U.N. Secretariat - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. data.

Table 14: U.N. Secretariat - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. data.

Year/Ranking Country Staff Equitable range

Number of staff exceeding range

maximum

2000

1 Russia 119 19 - 29 90

2 Philippines 56 4 - 14 42

3 Chile 31 3 - 14 17

4 Thailand 27 5 - 14 13

5 Pakistan 20 5 - 14 6

1999

1 Russia 122 25 - 35 87

2 Philippines 61 4 - 14 47

3 Chile 32 3 - 14 18

4 Thailand 27 5 - 14 13

5 Ethiopia 21 2 - 14 7

1998

1 Russia 128 43 - 58 70

2 Philippines 66 4 - 14 52

3 Chile 29 3 - 14 15

4 Thailand 27 4 - 14 13

5 Ethiopia 23 2 - 14 9

Year Number of overrepresented countries

2000 14

1999 13

1998 13
Appendix III

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the 

U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 71 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 15: FAO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

a

In view of FAO’s position-weighting formula, the top five overrepresented countries are expressed in 

terms of the percentage, rather than the number of positions, above the country’s maximum equitable 

representation range.

Source: GAO analysis based on FAO data.

Table 16: FAO – Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on FAO data.

Year/Ranking Country

Staff representation

percentagea Equitable rangea

Staff percentage

exceeding range

maximuma

2000

1 Morocco 1.23 .03-.06 1.17

2 Senegal .781 0-.01 .771

3 India 1.216 .23-.45 .766

4 Cameroon .721 .01-.02 .701

5 Tunisia .721 .02-.04 .681

1999

1 India 1.451 .23-.45 1.001

2 Morocco .978 .03-.06 .918

3 Cameroon .886 .01-.02 .866

4 Belgium 2.52 .84-1.68 .84

5 Tunisia .825 .02-.04 .785

1998

1 India 1.68 .25-.5 1.18

2 Belgium 2.769 .81-1.62 1.149

3 Senegal .969 .01-.02 .949

4 Tunisia .969 .02-.05 .919

5 Cameroon .878 .01-.02 .858

Year Number of overrepresented countries

2000 85

1999 82

1998 72
Appendix III

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the 

U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 72 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 17: ILO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on ILO data.

Table 18: ILO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on ILO data.

Year/Ranking Country Staff Equitable range

Number of staff exceeding

range maximum

2000

1 Russia 23 4-7 16

2 India 11 1-2 9

3 Australia 18 6-10 8

4 Chile 8 1-2 6

4 Malaysia 8 1-2 6

1999

1 Russia 23 6-9 14

2 India 10 1-2 8

3 Netherlands 16 6-10 6

3 Australia 15 6-9 6

3 Chile 8 1-2 6

1998

1 India 9 1-2 7

2 Netherlands 16 6-10 6

2 Australia 15 6-9 6

3 Belgium 11 4-6 5

3 Malaysia 7 1-2 5

3 Ghana 7 1-2 5

Year Number of overrepresented countries

2000 45

1999 48

1998 49
Appendix III

Countries That Are Overrepresented in the 

U.N. Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO

Page 73 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 19: WHO - Top Five Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on WHO data.

Table 20: WHO - Number of Overrepresented Countries (1998-2000)

Source: GAO analysis based on WHO data.

Year/Ranking Country Staff Equitable range

Number of staff

exceeding range

maximum

2000

1 Canada 40 21 - 29 11

2 Russia 26 10 - 16 10

3 Netherlands 28 13 - 19 9

4 United Kingdom 58 37 - 51 7

4 Brazil 27 14 - 20 7

4 Philippines 15 1 - 8 7

4 Ghana 15 1 - 8 7

1999

1 Philippines 16 1 - 8 8

2 Canada 39 23 - 32 7

2 Brazil 28 15 - 21 7

3 Belgium 19 8 - 14 5

3 Ghana 13 1- 8 5

1998

1 Philippines 13 1 - 8 5

2 Canada 36 23 - 32 4

2 Brazil 25 15 - 21 4

2 Netherlands 23 13 -19 4

2 Ghana 12 1 - 8 4

2 Congo 12 1 - 8 4

Year Number of overrepresented countries

2000 22

1999 14

1998 12
Page 74 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations ApendxIVi

Figures 17 to 22 provide information on trends in staffing levels for selected 

countries at the seven U.N. organizations we studied—the U.N. Secretariat, 

FAO, ILO, WHO, UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP. The selected countries are 

Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, which are all 

major contributors. We also present combined staffing data for the 

European Union countries. The figures provide information on the trends 

in each country’s total staff compared with its geographic target and 

contribution to the U.N. organization, as well as the trends in that country’s 

representation at different grade levels. The grade level groupings used in 

the figures are P1 to P3 (entry-level and mid-level professionals, equivalent 

to GS-9 to GS-13); P4 to P5 (mid-level professionals, equivalent to GS-13 to 

GS-15); D1 to D2 (equivalent to Senior Executive Service positions); and 

Assistant Secretary-General to Under Secretary-General (ASG-USG) 

(policymaking positions).1

In the figures, grade level employment percentages are presented as 3-year 

averages for the non-overlapping periods 1992 to 1994, 1995 to 1997, and 

1998 to 2000.2

 The numbers in the 1998 to 2000 bars are the 3-year average 

of the number of nationals employed at the respective U.N. organization for 

the designated grade levels. The line that represents a country’s financial 

assessment or contribution percentage share is a 3-year average for 1998 to 

2000.3

 Similarly, the target range is a 3-year average for 1998 to 2000. 

1

FAO and ILO use the titles Assistant Director-General and Deputy Director-General (ADGDDG), which are equivalent to the ASG-USG positions. Staffing data provided by WHO 

labeled these positions as Ungraded (UG), which are also equivalent to ASG-USG positions. 

2

Only 5 years of grade level data are available for WFP, 1996 to 2000. For this organization, 

the black bar in the figures describing country representation is a 2-year average, 1996 to 

1997.

3

In figure 23, the contributions of the European Union member countries to UNHCR and 

WFP include a contribution of the European Commission, which is separate from the 

individual country’s contribution. 
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 75 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 76 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 18: Trends in Japanese Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With Japanese Contributions and 

Representation Targets
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 77 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 78 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 19: Trends in German Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With German Contributions and 

Representation Targets
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 79 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 80 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 20: Trends in French Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With French Contributions and 

Representation Targets
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 81 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 82 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 21: Trends in British Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With British Contributions and 

Representation Targets
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 83 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 84 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 22: Trends in Canadian Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With Canadian Contributions and 

Representation Targets
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 85 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 86 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Figure 23: Trends in Combined European Union (EU) Representation in U.N. Organizations, by Grade, Compared With EU 

Member Countries’ Combined Contributions 
Appendix IV

Staffing Trends for Selected Other Countries 

in Specific U.N. Organizations

Page 87 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Source: GAO analysis based on U.N. organizations’ data.
Page 88 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix V

Overall Representation Status of Selected 

Other Countries and Their Efforts to Promote 

U.N. Employment for Their Citizens ApendxVi

This appendix describes the overall representation status of selected major 

contributors in the U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies in our 

study1

 and discusses some of the approaches they employ to support their 

citizens seeking U.N. employment. In this study, we included Japan, which 

was admitted to the United Nations in 1956; Germany, which became a 

member in 1973; and France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, all original 

members of the United Nations.

Japan Japan is the second largest contributor to the U.N. secretariat and the 

specialized agencies in our study but is significantly underrepresented in 

each of these U.N. organizations. (See table 21.)

Table 21: Representation Status of Japan (2000)

a

FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country’s representation status.

Sources: U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

According to a Japanese mission representative, the government of Japan 

seeks to achieve representation levels that reflect its financial 

contributions to these organizations, which are about 20 percent, second 

only to the United States. Japanese officials with whom we met noted that 

although seriously underrepresented in U.N. organizations, Japan has made 

slow progress in improving its representation. Within its foreign ministry in 

Tokyo, Japan has a recruitment center for international organizations with 

about a half dozen staff. In addition, in Geneva there is an officer in the 

Japanese mission who works full time on personnel management issues, 

including promoting the employment of Japanese citizens in U.N. 

organizations. This officer and her counterparts in Japan’s missions in 

1

We do not include the countries’ representation status at UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP since 

these funds and programs do not have formal geographic targets.

U.N. organization Assessment

Equitable

range

Number of

staff

Representation 

status

U.N. Secretariat 20.6% 257 - 348 106 Underrepresented

FAOa 20.7 15.5% -

20.67%

2.21% Underrepresented

ILO 20.3 82 - 109 32 Underrepresented

WHO 20.2 141-191 38 Underrepresented
Appendix V

Overall Representation Status of Selected 

Other Countries and Their Efforts to 

Promote U.N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 89 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Rome and New York spend a substantial amount of their time prescreening 

résumés of Japanese citizens interested in U.N. employment, providing 

interested parties with information and advice about employment in 

international organizations, and following up with U.N. officials on behalf 

of individual applicants. The Japanese government uses the junior 

professional officers program systematically because it is viewed to be an 

effective recruitment tool for entry-level positions. Japan sponsors about 

50 to 60 junior professional officers annually for 2- to 3-year terms; 

therefore, there are about 160 junior officers working in various U.N. 

organizations at any given time.

Germany Germany, which is the third largest contributor in these organizations, 

generally falls short of its representation targets in most of the U.N. entities 

we reviewed. (See table 22.)

Table 22: Representation Status of Germany (2000)

a

FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country’s representation status.

Sources: U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

Concerned about its overall representation status in international 

organizations, the German government addresses the issue on various 

levels, starting with a high-level working group of top officials from several 

ministries, which meets regularly at the Chancellor’s Office to discuss 

German participation in international organizations. In light of continuing 

concerns, Germany has in the past year established a new office within the 

foreign ministry—the Office of the Coordinator for International 

Personnel—to organize its recruitment efforts. The new office focuses its 

efforts on junior and senior-level positions alike. The Coordinator for 

U.N. organization Assessment

Equitable

range

Number

of staff

Representation 

status

U.N. Secretariat 9.9% 126 - 171 123 Underrepresented

FAOa 9.9 7.4% -

14.85%

5.9% Underrepresented

ILO 9.7 39 - 65 40 Equitably 

represented

WHO 9.7 69 - 94 37 Underrepresented
Appendix V

Overall Representation Status of Selected 

Other Countries and Their Efforts to 

Promote U.N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 90 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

International Personnel is ranked at the ambassador level. In addition, 

Germany’s Federal Employment Agency has an office that deals with 

promoting the employment of German citizens in international 

organizations, mostly for professional and technical positions. The 

German government also provides support for junior professional officers 

programs, annually funding anywhere from 25 to 30 new officers, who 

serve for 2 to 3 years.

France As shown in table 23, France, the fourth largest contributor, is equitably 

represented across all of the U.N. organizations we examined.

Table 23: Representation Status of France (2000)

a

FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country’s representation status.

Sources: U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

The French foreign ministry has an office in Paris that promotes 

employment in international organizations. This office prescreens 

candidates and forwards applicants’ files to the French missions that have 

responsibility for U.N. organizations. In some cases, Mission officials may 

support French applicants by sending a letter in support of the candidate 

to, or meeting in person with, the relevant U.N. hiring official. In addition 

to funding about 40 junior professional officers per year, mostly in field 

locations, the French government has also agreed to sponsor a limited 

number of junior officers from developing countries.

U.N. organization Assessment

Equitable

range

Number of

staff

Representation 

status

U.N. Secretariat 6.6% 85 - 115 102 Equitably 

represented

FAOa 6.6 4.93% - 9.86% 7.3% Equitably 

represented

ILO 6.5 26 - 43 41 Equitably 

represented

WHO 6.4 46 - 64 7 Equitably 

represented
Appendix V

Overall Representation Status of Selected 

Other Countries and Their Efforts to 

Promote U.N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 91 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

United Kingdom As shown in table 24, the United Kingdom is generally well-represented, 

falling within or exceeding its desirable levels of representation in major 

U.N. agencies.

Table 24: Representation Status of the United Kingdom (2000)

a

FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country’s representation status.

Sources: U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

According to representatives of the British missions with whom we met, 

geographic representation is not a particularly important concern to their 

government, especially in light of U.K. representation levels. These 

officials told us they are primarily concerned about efficient management 

of the United Nations and a competent workforce and do not consider 

geographic representation a key issue. For this reason, the United 

Kingdom generally makes no special effort to promote the employment of 

its citizens.

Canada Canada, as shown in table 25, is generally well-represented in the United 

Nations.

U.N. organization Assessment

Equitable

range

Number of

staff

Representation 

status

U.N. Secretariat 5.1% 68-92 90 Equitably 

represented

FAOa 5.1 3.84%-

7.67%

7.7% Overrepresented

ILO 5.0 20 - 34 27 Equitably 

represented

WHO 5.0 37 - 51 58 Overrepresented
Appendix V

Overall Representation Status of Selected 

Other Countries and Their Efforts to 

Promote U.N. Employment for Their Citizens

Page 92 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Table 25: Representation Status of Canada (2000)

a

FAO uses a percentage to assess a member country’s representation status.

Source: U.N. Secretariat and the specialized agencies listed above.

The Public Service Commission of Canada is responsible for coordinating 

the Canadian government’s efforts to identify professional Canadians for 

jobs in international organizations. The Commission’s international 

programs office works in concert with the Department of Foreign Affairs 

and International Trade in targeting key positions considered attainable 

and of strategic interest to Canada and identifying Canadian candidates for 

them. According to Canadian mission representatives, the Director of 

International Programs visits the human resources directors of U.N. 

organizations about once a year to establish contacts, verify information, 

and plan to search for suitable candidates. Although Canada provides only 

limited support for junior professional officers programs, Canada’s 

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has a Youth 

International Internship Program that provides young people, ages 18 to 29, 

with an opportunity for international work experience for a period of 6 to 8 

months.

U.N. organization Assessment

Equitable

range

Number of

staff

Representation 

status

U.N. Secretariat 2.7% 38 - 52 52 Equitably 

represented

FAO* 2.7 2.06% - 4.12% 3.98% Equitably 

represented

ILO 2.7 11- 18 16 Equitably 

represented

WHO 2.7 21 - 29 40 Overrepresented
Page 93 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix VI

Human Capital Issues and Other Factors That 

May Affect Recruiting Americans for U.N. 

Organizations ApendxViI

Several U.N. organizations have recently developed human resource 

management strategies to address a broad range of human capital issues 

they face, some of which affect their efforts to achieve equitable 

geographic balance. The following section discusses selected human 

capital issues that provide insight into some factors that may affect 

recruiting qualified Americans in greater numbers for U.N. employment. 

Many of the American citizens with whom we met cited these among the 

contributing factors to difficulties recruiting and retaining Americans in the 

U.N. system.

Gender Balance Following the Fourth World Conference on Women in September 1995, the 

U.N. Secretary-General established a goal that the United Nations will 

strive to achieve 50-percent representation of women in its workforce by 

2000. The United Nations has since determined that this target will not be 

met until 2012. In accordance with this goal, some U.N. organizations have 

similarly adopted policies to reach specific gender balance targets. For 

example, in 1997, WHO established a target of 50-percent employment of 

women on its staff. UNDP expects that by the end of this year, the gender 

ratio for senior management positions at headquarters will be at least 4 

women to 6 men, and that 38 percent of resident representative positions 

and 40 percent of the deputy resident representative positions will be 

occupied by women. In its written personnel policies, UNHCR aims to 

ensure that women constitute two-thirds of recruits until equal 

representation of women is achieved. Several U.N. officials with whom we 

met noted that the United States may have an advantage in recruiting 

qualified women candidates. State officials acknowledged that, to the 

extent possible, the State Department tries to make qualified American 

women aware of U.N. vacancies and assists in forwarding their 

applications.

Compensation All of the U.N. entities we examined follow the U.N. Common System of 

Salaries, Allowances, and Benefits established by the International Civil 

Service Commission (ICSC).1 Salaries and benefits are based on the 

1

Created by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1974, the International Civil 

Service Commission is responsible for regulating and coordinating the conditions of service 

of the United Nations Common System, which applies to the U.N. Secretariat and its funds 

and programs and specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a 

number of other international organizations. 
Appendix VI

Human Capital Issues and Other Factors 

That May Affect Recruiting Americans for 

U.N. Organizations

Page 94 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

application of the Noblemaire principle, which states that compensation be 

set on the basis of the highest paid civil service—historically, the United 

States. The Commission is currently undertaking a major review of the pay 

and benefits system and is expected to propose recommendations to the 

General Assembly in 2002. According to ICSC documents and Commission 

officials with whom we met, the objective of the review is to devise a 

compensation system, more flexible than the current one, that will, among 

others, (1) enable U.N. organizations to attract and retain highly qualified 

staff, including senior management personnel and professional and 

technical staff that are in short supply, and (2) provide staff with career 

progression opportunities.

U.N. officials and many of the American citizens with whom we met 

suggested that certain studies have shown that the United States civil 

service may no longer be the highest paid civil service. A 1995 study of the 

ICSC reported that the compensation package for the German civil service 

was 15.2 percent higher than the U.S. civil service—primarily because, 

although U.S. salaries were generally higher, German compensation was 

superior in terms of retirement and health insurance, leave, and other 

benefits. However, ICSC officials told us that Germany’s standing has since 

slipped due to significant budgetary obligations facing the government, and 

the Commission will be scheduling the next Noblemaire study shortly.

Although noncompetitive compensation was a common concern among 

American employees, there were other compensation issues raised by 

certain groups. For example, Americans who were transferred or detailed 

to U.N. agencies expressed concerns about pension and related benefits. 

They believed that the U.S. government could be more supportive of those 

who accept a detail or transfer to an international organization by allowing 

them to continue as active members of the Thrift Savings Plan for U.S. 

federal employees, thereby allowing them to continue making regular 

payments and choosing their own investment options. American 

employees in New York called for extending education grant benefits to 

U.S. professional staff at U.N. headquarters and proposed several methods 

to do so without costing the organization more money.2

 These employees 

argued that the system—originally designed to provide equality for staff 

serving at foreign duty stations away from their home countries—has 

2

At a meeting of the Fifth Committee in October 1999, the U.S. representative indicated that 

the United States did not favor extending the education grant to staff living in their country 

or whose children lived in their home country.
Appendix VI

Human Capital Issues and Other Factors 

That May Affect Recruiting Americans for 

U.N. Organizations

Page 95 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

evolved into one that discriminates against professional staff at 

headquarters by virtue of their nationality.

Spousal Employment Because of the rise in dual income families and dual career couples, 

employment opportunities for spouses are an important factor in recruiting 

and retaining staff, according to U.N. documents and many people with 

whom we met. In the last several years, a number of organizations, 

including ILO, UNDP, and WFP, have taken steps to address the issue of 

spousal employment, including adopting policies and programs to facilitate 

employment of spouses. This issue appeared to be of particular concern to 

American citizens employed at FAO in Rome because, unlike the other U.N. 

organizations we examined—including WFP, which also is in Rome—FAO 

still prohibits spouses from employment within the organization. 

According to American staff with whom we met, while the association of 

professional staff at FAO favors spousal employment, the issue has been 

extremely contentious because the union for the general services staff 

strongly opposes allowing spousal employment. General service staff are 

concerned that their positions, which include secretaries and file clerks, 

would be taken by spouses. Thus, FAO management has not made the 

policy changes for spousal employment that other U.N. organizations have.

Other Related Issues

Language Skills To ensure the international character of U.N. organizations, fluency in a 

second U.N.-designated language is typically a requirement for 

employment. Many view this requirement as an obstacle for Americans 

and certain other nationals who are less likely than the French, Canadians, 

and others to be multilingual. However, human resources directors told us 

that waivers may be granted for candidates viewed to be best qualified in 

all areas except for the second language requirement. American citizens 

employed in the United Nations had mixed reactions regarding the need for 

a second language. Along with some U.N. officials, many of the American 

citizens with whom we spoke told us that English is the language 

commonly used within agencies and that at certain locations, such as 

Geneva, one can get by without fluency in a second language such as 

French. Although the requirement for a second language may be waived, 

this practice is not widely known; therefore, it is unclear how many 
Appendix VI

Human Capital Issues and Other Factors 

That May Affect Recruiting Americans for 

U.N. Organizations

Page 96 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Americans interested in U.N. employment choose not to even apply 

because they do not meet the requirement.

Organizational Culture and 

Management Processes

Many of the American citizens with whom we spoke expressed the need to 

advance reforms that promote greater transparency and accountability in 

the human resource management practices of U.N. agencies. While citing 

some progress in recent years, American staff characterized the 

organizational culture within several of the agencies to be “very 

bureaucratic,” “highly centralized,” and “authoritarian.” According to these 

staff, this organizational attitude can lead to a high level of frustration 

among Americans, who are accustomed to greater organizational efficiency 

and more participatory management styles. 

A particular problem mentioned by some Americans we interviewed was 

the need to expedite the lengthy recruitment and selection process, which 

can take as long as 1 year. Recognizing this impediment, several human 

resources directors told us they are taking steps to streamline the 

recruitment process. For example, at FAO and WFP, officials claimed they 

cut the recruitment time for professional positions by half in the last few 

years—reducing it from 1 year to 6 months for FAO and from 8 to 10 

months to 4 to 5 months for WFP. 
Page 97 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation
Page 98 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix VII

U.N. Salary Scales ApendxiVI

Table 26 shows annual gross salaries and net msp equivalents after 

applications of staff assessment:

Table 26: Salary Scales for U.N. Professional and Senior Employees (Effective Mar. 1, 2001)

Steps

Grade I II III IV V VI VII

USG GROSS $167,035

NET D 113,762

NET S 102,379

ASG GROSS 151,840

NET D 104,341

NET S 94,484

D2 GROSS 124,384 $127,132 $129,877 $132,623 $135,369 $138,115

NET D 87,318 89,022 90,724 92,426 94,129 95,831

NET S 80,218 81,645 83,072 84,498 85,925 87,352

D1 GROSS 109,894 112,245 114,598 116,944 119,297 121,648 $124,002

NET D 78,334 79,792 81,251 82,705 84,164 85,622 87,081

NET S 72,407 73,687 74,967 76,245 77,525 78,796 80,018

P5 GROSS 96,705 98,832 100,961 103,089 105,216 107,342 109,471

NET D 70,157 71,476 72,796 74,115 75,434 76,752 78,072

NET S 65,176 66,385 67,745 68,703 69,862 71,018 72,177

P4 GROSS 79,780 81,733 83,680 85,627 87,579 89,527 91,571

NET D 59,255 60,544 61,829 63,114 64,402 65,688 66,974

NET S 55,180 56,364 57,543 58,722 59,902 61,080 62,259

P3 GROSS 65,388 67,220 69,053 70,880 72,714 74,544 76,373

NET D 49,756 50,965 52,175 53,381 54,591 55,799 57,006

NET S 46,445 47,556 48,669 49,780 50,892 52,002 53,113

P2 GROSS 53,129 54,632 56,132 57,633 59,135 60,692 62,332

NET D 41,253 42,335 43,415 44,496 45,577 46,657 47,739

NET S 38,694 39,675 40,653 41,633 42,611 43,592 44,587

P1 GROSS 41,189 42,633 44,075 45,519 46,960 48,403 49,847

NET D 32,656 33,696 34,734 35,774 36,811 37,850 38,890

NET S 30,805 31,763 32,720 33,677 34,633 35,590 36,584
Appendix VII

U.N. Salary Scales

Page 99 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Legend

D = Applicable to staff with a dependent spouse or child.

S = Applicable to staff with no dependent spouse or child.

VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV

$126,352 $128,702

88,538 89,995

81,240 82,460

111,598 113,724 $115,853 $117,982 $120,106 $122,234

79,391 80,709 82,029 83,349 84,666 85,985

73,335 74,493 75,651 76,809 77,966 79,101

93,645 95,723 97,795 99,869 101,947 104,019 $106,095 $108,171

68,260 69,548 70,833 72,119 73,407 74,692 75,979 77,266

63,439 64,617 65,796 66,949 68,082 69,210 70,340 71,470

78,206 80,038 81,868 83,700 85,529 87,361 89,191 91,089

58,216 59,425 60,633 61,842 63,049 64,258 65,466 66,675

54,225 55,335 56,447 57,555 58,663 59,770 60,877 61,985

63,967 65,606 67,244 68,879 70,520

48,818 49,900 50,981 52,060 53,143

45,580 46,577 47,571 48,564 49,561

51,290 52,731 54,174

39,929 40,966 42,005

37,493 38,434 39,375
Appendix VII

U.N. Salary Scales

Page 100 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Note: U.N. employees do not receive the gross salary amounts shown in the table. Their net 

renumeration is the appropriate net figure (with or without dependents) plus or minus a post 

adjustment allowance that varies by grade and also by duty station.

Source: International Civil Service Commission.
Page 101 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix VIII

Methodology ApendxiVI

The methodology section describes the data used in our analysis and 

highlights some of the methodological issues and approaches that we use. 

It also includes a discussion of the use of a base number by some U.N. 

organizations to calculate a country's representation target range and 

possible implications.

Most U.N. organizations included in our study provided the annual total 

number of geographic staff positions filled for the organization and for 

selected countries for 1992 to 2000.1

 Annual financial country assessments 

or contributions and the organization’s regular budget were also supplied. 

Information was provided for the United States, Canada, Japan, and each of 

the 15 member countries of the European Union. The four organizations 

that have formal geographic equitable staff representation targets–the U.N. 

Secretariat, FAO, ILO, and WHO–provided these annual targets. 

Employment data generally refer to the end of the calendar year, except for 

the Secretariat, which was for June 30. Four organizations provided annual 

data on the number of geographic staff employed by grade level for the 

organization as a whole and for the selected nationalities for the 9-year 

period. ILO and UNDP provided these data for 1995 to 2000 and WFP for 

1996 to 2000.

To facilitate comparisons across time and across countries, financial 

assessments/contributions, equitable representation targets, and grade 

level staff are expressed as percentages. For example, the high and low 

equitable representation target staff numbers for each country are divided 

by the respective organization's total number of geographic staff used in 

the calculation of these targets. For the Secretariat and WHO, this is a 

specified base number, which includes actual filled positions and 

vacancies. For ILO, it is the number of filled positions. FAO provides its 

targets as a position-weighted percentage.2

 In order to compare a country's 

actual employment to the target range, the total number of national staff 

employed is divided by the organization's total number that was used to 

calculate the annual targets. For organizations that do not have formal 

targets–UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP–the organization's total number of filled 

international professional positions is used.

1

WFP provided aggregate employment figures for the period of 1996 to 2000; UNDP data 

covered 1995 to 2000.

2

See appendix I for a description of the methodology used to calculate equitable 

representation targets.
Appendix VIII

Methodology

Page 102 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

For the figures in appendixes II and IV, grade level employment 

percentages are presented as 3-year averages for the non-overlapping 

periods of 1992 to 1994, 1995 to 1997, and 1998 to 2000. Only 5 years of 

grade level data are available for WFP, 1996 to 2000. For this organization, 

the black bar in the figures describing country representation is a 2-year 

average, 1996 to 1997. The numbers in the 1998 to 2000 bars are the 3-year 

average of the number of nationals employed at the respective U.N. 

organization for the designated grade levels during 1998 to 2000. The sum 

of grade level employment numbers may not equal the total number due to 

rounding. The line that represents a country’s financial assessment or 

contribution percentage share is a 3-year average for 1998 to 2000. 

Similarly, the target range is a 3-year average for 1998 to 2000.

To calculate the grade level representation percentage, a country’s grade 

level employment is divided by the organization’s total employment for the 

corresponding grade level. For the Secretariat and WHO, the organization’s 

grade level employment number is scaled up by the ratio of base number 

employment to actual total employment for each year. Thus, grade level 

employment percentages are constructed in a comparable fashion to actual 

total representation percentages and target range percentages.

We compared U.S. representation in senior-level and policymaking 

positions with those of four major contributors—Japan, Germany, France, 

and the United Kingdom. For the period of 1998 to 2000, we calculate the 

average ratio of each country's percentage representation of these highlevel positions to the country's annual average assessment at the four U.N. 

organizations with formal geographic targets. The resulting number can be 

interpreted as the country's percentage representation at senior-level and 

policymaking positions per 1 percent of its assessment. For illustrative 

purposes, consider table 10 in appendix II describing representation at 

senior-level and policymaking positions at FAO. U.S. representation in 

these high-level positions is 9.4 percent, and its average assessment is 25 

percent. Dividing 9.4 by 25 results in 0.38 percent, the U.S. representation 

of high-level positions per 1 percent of U.S. assessment. In a similar 

fashion, 0.14 percent is the Japanese representation per 1 percent of its 

assessment, and 1.48 percent is the French representation per 1 percent of 

its assessment. The average representation for the four selected countries 

is 0.76 percent per 1-percent assessment.

In table 4, in the report we multiplied this four-country average 

representation by the U.S. assessment to derive a hypothetical comparative 

representation level, under the assumption that U.S. representation in 
Appendix VIII

Methodology

Page 103 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

senior-level and policymaking positions was proportionate to the average 

of these four major contributors. For example, if the United States, given 

its 25-percent assessment at FAO, were to have representation 

proportionate to the 0.76 average ratio for the four selected countries, then 

its representation would be 19.1 percent.

To describe U.S. representation over time, both the actual number and 

relative number of American staff in each organization are presented. For 

example, see figures 4 and 5 in appendix II, which describe U.S. 

representation at the U.N. Secretariat. A relative number, a ratio of the 

number of total country staff employed expressed as a percentage of the 

organization's total staff, allows the reader to examine the change in 

country staff size over time while taking into consideration the change in 

the total organization staff size. However, because of different means of 

measuring an organization's total staff size, care should be taken when 

interpreting this information.

For U.N. organizations that use a base number rather than the actual 

number of filled staff positions, there may be a significant difference in 

national representation trends and the trend of total national employment 

as a percentage of total actual organization employment. In some 

situations, as described below for WHO, one trend may be positive and the 

other negative. For example, annual U.S. representation at WHO during 

1998 to 2000 can be interpreted as follows: As shown in figure 10 in 

appendix II, the gap between U.S. employment and the lower target range, 

which is calculated using a base number, is narrowing which indicates an 

improvement in U.S. representation. During this period, U.S. employment 

grew at an annual rate of 1.8 percent,3

 while the WHO employment base 

number remained constant at 1,450. Thus, U.S. representation increased 

relative to its target range. However, during this period total actual 

employment at WHO grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent. Employment of 

non-Americans increased at a faster rate than for Americans. The 

percentage of Americans actually employed declined. However, based on

3

Annual average growth rates are calculated using ordinary least square regressions of the 

logarithm of employment figures.
Appendix VIII

Methodology

Page 104 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

the representation methodology employed by WHO, U.S. representation is 

shown as increasing.4

The criteria to judge whether a country is underrepresented, 

overrepresented, or equitably represented at an organization are to 

compare the actual number of nationals employed to the target range 

numbers. That is the approach used for organizations with formal targets 

in the first of each U.N. organization’s figures for U.S. representation in 

appendix II. The second figure for each organization in appendix II and all 

of the figures in appendix IV use a percentage measure to compare actual 

country employment with representation targets. Except for FAO, which 

uses a position-weighted percentage to calculate target ranges and actual 

representation, our percentage approach is not the official method used by 

the U.N. organizations. Our approach enables one to compare a country’s 

total employment as well as grade level employment with representation 

target ranges.

The use of a base number rather than actual employment figures to 

calculate target ranges tends to reduce the number of countries that are 

classified as overrepresented. The base number includes actual filled 

positions and vacancies. Since the annual base numbers for the Secretariat 

and WHO are greater than each organization’s respective actual number 

employed,5

 the upper target figure is larger than would be derived if the 

actual employment number were used in the target range formula. For 

example, the Secretariat’s target range for the United States in 2000 is 424 

to 314 when a base number employment figure of 2,600 is used. If the 

actual employment number of 2,389 were to have been used in the target 

range formula, the target range would have been 390 to 289. In this case, 

the United States still would have been equitably represented. However, if 

actual employment numbers had been used in the target range formula, 

4

The U.N. Secretariat used a constant base number of 2,600 when calculating representation 

targets for 1998 to 2000. Although the numerical trend rate of U.S. representation differs 

depending on whether it is measured against the Secretariat's declining total actual 

employment rate (-0.8 percent) or a constant base number, the overall trend of declining 

U.S. representation remains. In contrast to the situation in WHO, this occurs because the 

declining annual rate of U.S. employment (-4.6 percent) exceeds either measure of overall 

Secretariat employment trend changes.

5

The base number used by WHO averaged 32 percent more than actual total employment 

during 1998 to 2000. In 1998, the Secretariat lowered its base number from 2,700 to 2,600. 

The base number averaged 8 percent more than actual total employment during 1998 to 

2000.
Appendix VIII

Methodology

Page 105 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Canada and the United Kingdom would have been classified as 

overrepresented. The larger, upper target may partially explain why the 

Secretariat and WHO have fewer overrepresented countries than FAO or 

ILO (see apps. III and V).
Page 106 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix IX

Comments From the U.S. Department of StateApendxiIX

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix IX

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

State

Page 107 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IX

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

State

Page 108 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

GAO Comments The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter 

dated July 19, 2001.

1. While State commented that it places a high priority on efforts to 

ensure the United States is represented, at all levels, in U.N. 

organizations, we found that its actions to achieve equitable 

representation do not reflect this stated priority. For example, as 

discussed in this report, State has reduced many of its recruitment 

efforts without assessing how these reductions will affect recruitment 

and does not have recruiting or action plans in place to support U.N. 

employment of Americans. 

2. State disagreed with our recommendation to develop guidelines that 

define its goal for obtaining an equitable share of senior-level and 

policymaking positions for Americans and use these guidelines to help 

assess whether the United States is equitably represented. State said it 

should not develop separate guidelines for defining its goal of obtaining 

an equitable share of Americans in these high-level positions but rather 

that it should focus on equitable representation at all levels. While we 

agree that State should be concerned about achieving equitable 

employment for Americans at all levels in U.N. organizations, we 

believe it is important to emphasize achieving an equitable share of 

high-level positions. We further believe that without guidelines 

defining equitable share, State lacks a mechanism for assessing 

whether its top recruitment priority—equitable representation of 

Americans in high-level positions—is being achieved.
Page 109 GAO-01-839 Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation

Appendix X

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiX

GAO Contact Phyllis Anderson (202) 512-7364

Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Joy Labez, Jeremy Latimer, Bruce 

Kutnick, Janey Cohen, Mark Speight, Mary Moutsos, and Rick Barrett made 

key contributions to this report.

(320013) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00