DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE

Foreign Language 

Proficiency Has 

Improved, but Efforts 

to Reduce Gaps Need 

Evaluation

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2017

GAO-17-318

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-318, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2017

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Foreign Language Proficiency Has Improved, but 

Efforts to Reduce Gaps Need Evaluation

What GAO Found

As of September 2016, 23 percent of overseas language-designated positions 

(LDP) were filled by Foreign Service officers (FSO) who did not meet the

positions’ language proficiency requirements. While this represents an 8-

percentage-point improvement from 2008, the Department of State (State) still 

faces significant language proficiency gaps (see fig.). Regionally, the greatest 

gaps were in the Near East (37 percent), Africa (34 percent), and South and 

Central Asia (31 percent). According to FSOs we interviewed, language

proficiency gaps have, in some cases, affected State’s ability to properly 

adjudicate visa applications; effectively communicate with foreign audiences, 

address security concerns, and perform other critical diplomatic duties.

Percentagesof Overseas Language-Designated Positions Filled by Officers Who Did Not Meet 

Proficiency Requirements as of September 2016, by Region

State reviews overseas posts’ language needs every 3 years, but the extent to 

which the reviews’ outcomes address these needs is unclear. State’s policies 

indicate that operational need should determine the designation of positions as 

LDPs and required proficiency levels. However, views expressed by geographic 

bureau officials and FSOs whom GAO met at overseas posts suggest that other 

factors, such as staffing and cost concerns, influence State’s decisions about 

LDP designations and proficiency requirements. State Human Resources

officials noted that State is taking steps to better align its LDP policies with its 

operational needs. 

State has implemented most actions described in its 2011 “Strategic Plan for 

Foreign Language Capabilities” but has not evaluated the effects of these 

actions on language proficiency at overseas posts. According to State’s 

evaluation policy, the department is committed to using performance 

management, including evaluation, to achieve the most effective foreign policy 

outcomes and greater accountability. Actions State has implemented under the 

plan include reviewing the language requirements of overseas posts every 3 

years; offering recruitment incentives for personnel with proficiency in critically 

important languages; providing language incentive pay only for languages that 

reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities; and using technology to 

strengthen and develop new approaches for language training and to 

complement FSOs’ language skills. However, more than 5 years after it began 

implementing its strategic plan, State has not systematically evaluated the 

results of these efforts. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which 

these efforts contribute to progress in increasing language proficiency worldwide 

and reducing proficiency gaps.

Why GAO Did This Study

Proficiency in foreign languages is a 

key skill for U.S. diplomats to advance 

U.S. interests overseas. GAO has 

issued several reports highlighting 

State’s persistent foreign language 

shortfalls. In 2009, GAO recommended

that State, to address these shortfalls,

develop a strategic plan linking all of its 

efforts to meet its foreign language 

requirements. In response, in 2011 

State issued its “Strategic Plan for 

Foreign Language Capabilities.”

GAO was asked to build on its 

previous reviews of State’s foreign 

language capabilities. In this report, 

GAO examines (1) the extent to which 

State is meeting its foreign language 

proficiency requirements for overseas 

posts as well as the effects of 

language proficiency and any gaps in 

State’s ability to perform diplomatic 

duties, (2) State’s process for 

identifying overseas posts’ language 

proficiency needs and the extent to 

which the process addresses these 

reported needs, and (3) efforts State 

has taken to enhance foreign language 

proficiency and any effects of those 

efforts. GAO analyzed data on State’s 

overseas language-designated 

positions; reviewed State strategic 

planning and policy documents; 

interviewed State officials; and visited 

overseas posts in China, Egypt, Korea,

Mexico, and Russia.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of State evaluate the effectiveness of 

efforts implemented under the

“Strategic Plan for Foreign Language 

Capabilities.” State agreed with our 

recommendation.

View GAO-17-318. For more information, 

contact Michael Courts at (202) 512-8980 or 

CourtsM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-17-318 Department of State

Letter 1

Background 3

State Has Improved Foreign Language Proficiency but Faces 

Gaps in Key Languages and Regions That May Adversely 

Affect Diplomatic Operations 8

State Reviews Language Proficiency Requirements Every 3 

Years, but Extent to Which This Process Addresses Posts’ 

Reported Needs Is Unclear 17

State Is Implementing Efforts Outlined in Foreign Language 

Strategic Plan but Has Not Evaluated Their Effectiveness 25

Conclusions 32

Recommendation for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments 32

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34

Appendix II Department of State Criteria for 2017 Language-Designated 

Position Review 37

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 39

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: Foreign Language Proficiency Level and Language 

Capability Requirements 7

Table 2: Overseas Language-Designated Positions Staffed by 

Foreign Service Officers Who Did or Did Not Meet 

Language Proficiency Requirements, as of September 

2016 and October 2008 9

Table 3: Reported Positive Effects of Language Proficiency and 

Negative Effects of Proficiency Gaps on Foreign Service 

Officers’ Performance of Diplomatic Functions 14

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-318 Department of State

Table 4: State Department Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language 

Capabilities—Objectives, Goals, and Performance 

Measures 26

Figures

Figure 1: State Department Geographic Bureaus’ Areas of 

Responsibility and Numbers of Overseas LanguageDesignated and Foreign Service Positions, as of 

September 2016 5

Figure 2: Percentages of Overseas Language-Designated 

Positions Filled by Foreign Service Officers Who Did Not 

Meet Proficiency Requirements, by Priority Language, as 

of September 2016 11

Figure 3: Numbers of Overseas Language-Designated Positions 

Filled by Foreign Service Officers Who Met Proficiency 

Requirements, Filled by Foreign Service Officers Who 

Did Not Meet the Requirements, and Vacant as of 

September 2016, by Geographic Bureau 12

Figure 4: State’s Triennial Language-Designated Position Review 

Process 19
Page iii GAO-17-318 Department of State

Abbreviations

AF Bureau of African Affairs

EAP Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

EUR Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

FAM Foreign Affairs Manual

FSI Foreign Service Institute

FSO Foreign Service officer

LDP language-designated position

LE staff locally employed staff

LIP Language Incentive Pay

LTAM Language Training and Assignment Model 

M/DGHR Bureau of Human Resources

NEA Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

OIG State’s Office of Inspector General

RLP Recruitment Language Program 

RSO regional security officer

State Department of State

SCA Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs

WHA Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-318 Department of State

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 22, 2017

The Honorable Brian Schatz

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 

Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar

United States Senate

Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. Foreign Service 

officers (FSO) to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests 

overseas. Effective diplomacy requires the ability to communicate clearly 

and persuasively with host-country interlocutors and local populations in 

their languages. In 2016, the Department of State (State), which has 

primary responsibility for U.S. diplomacy, required foreign language 

proficiency for 44 percent of its 10,111 overseas FSO positions. 

According to State’s fiscal years 2016-2020 Five Year Workforce and 

Leadership Succession Plan, one of the department’s workforce priorities 

is to strengthen employees’ language skills. Over the years, we have 

issued several reports highlighting State’s persistent shortages of staff 

with critical foreign language skills.1 Most recently, in 2009, we reported 

that almost one-third of officers in language-designated positions (LDP) in 

2008 did not meet the positions’ proficiency requirements, despite a 

number of State initiatives to improve foreign language capabilities.2 In 

our 2009 report, we recommended that State develop a comprehensive 

strategic plan that links all of its efforts to meet its foreign language 

requirements. In response, in 2011 State issued its “Strategic Plan for 

Foreign-Language Capabilities.”

Building on our previous reports about State’s foreign language 

capabilities, this report examines (1) the extent to which State is meeting 

its foreign language proficiency requirements for overseas posts as well 

 1GAO, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign 

Language Shortfalls, GAO-09-955 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2009); GAO, Department 

of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address 

Gaps, GAO-06-894 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006).

2GAO-09-955.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-318 Department of State

as the effects of language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to 

perform diplomatic duties, (2) State’s process for identifying overseas 

posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to which the process 

addresses posts’ reported needs, and (3) efforts State has taken to 

enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of those efforts.3

To examine the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language 

requirements as well as the potential effects of language proficiency and 

any gaps, we analyzed data provided by State that listed all overseas 

LDPs and the language skills of the incumbents filling the positions as of 

September 30, 2016. We interviewed State officials responsible for the 

collection of LDP data and determined the data to be reliable for our 

reporting purposes and analysis. To examine State’s process for 

identifying overseas posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to 

which the process addresses posts’ reported needs, we reviewed State 

human resource documents, such as memorandums and cables, as well 

as previous GAO and State Inspector General reports. To examine 

actions State has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency, we 

reviewed State’s human resource documents, including the 2011

“Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities” and the 2016-2020 

workforce plan. We compared steps State has taken to the objectives 

described in the “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities” and 

assessed whether they have been evaluated in accordance with State’s 

Evaluation Policy and federal internal control standards.4 In addition, we 

interviewed officials from State’s Bureaus of Human Resources 

(M/DGHR) and Consular Affairs, six geographic bureaus, and the Foreign 

Service Institute (FSI). We also interviewed State officials at posts in 

China, Egypt, Korea, Mexico, and Russia.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

 3In this report, “overseas posts” refers to both U.S. embassy and U.S. consulate locations 

outside the United States. 

4GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 3 GAO-17-318 Department of State

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a detailed 

explanation of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

To ensure that its diplomatic corps can communicate in the languages of 

host countries, State requires that FSOs assigned to LDPs at overseas 

posts meet minimum specified competency levels for both speaking and 

reading. As of September 30, 2016, State had 4,461 overseas positions 

worldwide that required language proficiency and 872 overseas positions 

where proficiency was preferred but not required, known as languagepreferred positions.5

State categorizes foreign languages according to the time required for a 

native English speaker to learn them:

• Category I—World languages (e.g., French and Spanish)

• Category II—Difficult world languages (e.g., German)

• Category III—Hard languages (e.g., Russian and Urdu)

• Category IV—Super-hard languages (e.g., Arabic and Chinese)

According to State documents, the time it takes to achieve general 

proficiency depends on the difficulty of the language. World languages 

require 24 to 30 weeks, difficult world languages require 36 weeks, hard 

languages require 44 weeks, and super-hard languages require 88 weeks 

to achieve general proficiency.

State groups countries of the world into areas of responsibility under six 

geographic bureaus:

• Bureau of African Affairs (AF)

• Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP)

• Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR)

• Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA)

• Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA)

• Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA)

 5As of September 2016, 324 of the 4,461 overseas were dual LDPs—that is, positions 

with a primary and a secondary language designation. According to State officials, FSOs 

can meet the language requirement for these positions by achieving proficiencyin either 

the primary or the secondary language.

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-318 Department of State

The number of overseas LDPs varies significantly by bureau, with the 

highest number (1,491) at WHA posts and the lowest (233) at SCA posts. 

Most LDPs requiring category I and II languages are at AF, EUR, and 

WHA posts, while most LDPs requiring category III and IV languages are 

in EAP, EUR, NEA, and SCA. Three of the four super-hard languages 

(Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) are spoken in the countries in EAP’s 

area of responsibility; the remaining super-hard language (Arabic) is 

widely spoken throughout the NEA area. The percentages of Foreign 

Service positions that are LDPs also vary by geographic bureau, with the 

highest percentage under WHA.

Figure 1 shows the geographic bureaus’ areas of responsibility and 

numbers of LDPs relative to the numbers of Foreign Service positions.
Page 5 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Figure 1: State Department Geographic Bureaus’ Areas of Responsibility and Numbers of Overseas Language-Designated 

and Foreign Service Positions, as of September 2016
Page 6 GAO-17-318 Department of State

State uses the foreign language proficiency scale established by the 

federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an individual’s 

language skills.6 The scale has six levels, from 0 to 5—with 0 indicating 

no practical capability in the language and 5 indicating highly articulate,

well-educated, native-speaker proficiency—to identify a language 

learner’s ability to speak, read, listen, and write in another language.7

General professional proficiency in speaking and reading—3/3 

(speaking/reading)—is the minimum level required for most Foreign 

Service generalist LDPs. According to State’s fiscal years 2016-2020 Five 

Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan, this level of proficiency 

provides officers with the ability to participate in most formal and informal 

discussions of practical, social, and professional topics. Some entry-level 

Foreign Service generalist and most Foreign Service specialist LDPs are 

designated at or below the 2/2 level.8 Table 1 shows the language skill 

requirements for each proficiency level.

 6The Interagency Language Roundtable is an unfunded federal interagency organization

that coordinates and shares information about language-related activities at the federal 

level.

7The scale allows for half steps for cases in which an individual demonstrates proficiency 

beyond a given level but has not reached proficiency at the next level. For example, a 3+ 

speaking would indicate that an individual has achieved speaking proficiency higher than 

3 but has not reached a proficiency of 4.

8FSOs include both generalists and specialists. According to State’s Guide to the Foreign 

Service Selection Process, Foreign Service generalists enter in one of five career tracks—

consular, economic, management, political, or public diplomacy—with no specific 

requirement for education or experience. Foreign Service specialists provide technical 

support or administrative services in 20 job fields that are grouped into eight categories, 

including administration, Construction Engineering, Facility Management, Information 

Technology, International Information and English Language Programs, Medical and 

Health, Office Management, and Security.
Page 7 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Table 1: Foreign Language Proficiency Level and Language Capability Requirements

Proficiency level Language capability requirements 

0 – None No practical capability in the language. 

1 – Elementary Sufficient capability to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel 

requirements. 

2 – Limited working Sufficient capability to meet routine social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal 

with concrete topics in past, present, and future tense. 

3 – General professional Able to use the language with sufficient ability to participate in most formal and informal 

discussion on practical, social, and professional topics. Can conceptualize and hypothesize. 

4 – Advanced professional Able to use the language fluently and accurately in all levels normally pertinent to 

professional needs. Has range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, and 

counseling. 

5 – Functionally native Able to use the language at a functional level equivalent to that of a highly articulate, welleducated native speaker. 

Source: Summary compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable document. | GAO-17-318

The difference between the second and third proficiency levels—the 

ability to interact effectively with native speakers—is significant in terms of 

training costs and productivity for certain languages. For example, State 

provides about 44 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of a language 

classified as super-hard, such as Arabic, up to the second level. Moving 

to a level-3 proficiency usually requires another 44 weeks of training, 

which is generally conducted at field schools overseas. In contrast, State 

provides 24 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of most “world” 

languages to a level 3.

State primarily uses language training—typically at the FSI—to meet its 

foreign language requirements. FSI’s School of Language Studies offers 

training in about 70 languages. State also offers full-time advanced 

training in super-hard languages at a few overseas locations, including 

Beijing, China; Seoul, South Korea; and Taipei, Taiwan, among other 

locations. In addition, overseas posts offer part-time language training 

through post language programs, and FSI offers distance learning 

courses to officers overseas.
Page 8 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Since October 2008, State has reduced the number of LDPs staffed by 

FSOs who do not meet language requirements by 8 percentage points, 

from 31 to 23 percent. However, State continues to face notable shortfalls 

in meeting its foreign language requirements for overseas LDPs that may 

adversely affect diplomatic operations. State officials we met with in 

Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts identified various challenges 

that may affect State’s ability to address its foreign language shortfalls. 

Additionally, according to FSOs we interviewed, both language 

proficiency and gaps in proficiency have, in some cases, affected State’s 

ability to, for example, properly adjudicate visa applications, effectively 

communicate with foreign audiences, and perform other critical diplomatic 

duties.

The percentage of overseas LDPs staffed by FSOs who did not meet the 

positions’ language proficiency requirements has decreased since 

October 2008 (see table 2). As of September 30, 2016, 23 percent of 

overseas LDPs were staffed by FSOs who did not meet both the 

speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions; 

According to State officials, State granted language waivers to most of 

these FSOs.9 In contrast, as of October 2008, 31 percent of FSOs in 

overseas LDPs did not meet these requirements.10

 9A foreign language waiver may be requested when an FSO is assigned to an LDP and 

does not meet the LDP’s foreign language proficiency requirements.Once granted, the 

waiver is valid for the duration of the FSO’s tour. According to State, the foreign language 

waiver documents the language ability, if any, of the FSO and how State will mitigate any 

challenges resulting from the FSO’s lack of foreign language proficiency. In 2015, State 

granted a total of 384 full and partial foreign language waivers for the year. 

10See GAO-09-955.

State Has Improved 

Foreign Language 

Proficiency but Faces 

Gaps in Key 

Languages and 

Regions That May 

Adversely Affect 

Diplomatic 

Operations

State Has Made Some 

Progress in Improving 

Foreign Language 

Proficiency since 2008
Page 9 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Table 2: Overseas Language-Designated Positions Staffed by Foreign Service Officers Who Did or Did Not Meet Language 

Proficiency Requirements, as of September 2016 and October 2008

Date Total LDPs

Total

staffed LDPs

Staffed language-designated positionsa

Percentage of LDPs staffed by 

FSOs who met requirements

Percentage of LDPs staffed by FSOs 

who did not meet requirements

September 2016 4,461 4,002b 77 23

October 2008 3,599 3,265c 69 31

Legend: LDP = language-designated position, FSO = Foreign Service officer

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of State data. | GAO-17-318

a

Percentages show n exclude vacant positions.

b

As of September 2016, 459 LDPs w ere vacant.

c

As of October 2008, 334 LDPs w ere vacant.

However, the proficiency shortfall widens when unstaffed positions are 

included. As of September 2016, 69 percent (3,077 of 4,461) of overseas 

LDPs were staffed by FSOs who met both the speaking and the reading 

requirements, while 31 percent (1,384 of 4,461) of LDPs either were 

staffed by FSOs who did not meet the positions’ requirements or 

remained vacant.11 State officials noted that, among other factors, the 

overall increase of LDPs from 2008 through 2016 contributed to the slow 

progress in improving the rate of LDPs filled by FSOs who meet the 

positions’ requirements.12 State officials also noted that many of the new 

LDPs require proficiency in hard or super-hard languages, which entails 

44 to 88 weeks of training. The officials further stated that, given the 

absence of an existing cadre of foreign-language speakers who can be 

staffed to LDPs, many positions may go unstaffed.13

 11In October 2008, 63 percent of overseas LDPs (2,260 of 3,599) were staffed by FSOs 

who met both the speaking and the reading requirements, while 37 percent (1,339 of 

3,599) of LDPs either were staffed by FSOs who did not meet the positions’ speaking and 

reading requirements or remained vacant

12According to State data, LDPs increased by 862 positions from October 2008 to 

September 2016.

13According to State M/DGHR officials, the most significant factor contributing to gaps in 

filling LDPs with qualified officers, as well as filling vacant LDPs, is the lack of full funding 

for the training float. A training “float” is an informal term to describe having additional 

staff on hand to cover the workload given a percentage of staff not present because of 

training or transition. M/DGHR officials added that State has made several budgetary 

requests over the years to increase the training float, but they have not been fully funded. 
Page 10 GAO-17-318 Department of State

While language proficiency gaps vary among posts, State faces some of 

its largest proficiency gaps in several priority languages. According to 

State M/DGHR officials, State designates languages as priority for 

various reasons. For example, Mandarin Chinese, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, 

Hindi, Urdu, Korean, and Arabic—languages spoken in China, Iran, India, 

Korea, and throughout the Near East—are priority languages. State 

defines priority languages as languages that are of critical importance to 

U.S. foreign policy, are experiencing severe shortages or staffing gaps, or 

present specific challenges in recruiting and training. In addition, officials 

from State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs identified Mandarin Chinese and 

Spanish, among others, as priority languages, citing the need for 

language-qualified entry-level professionals to provide consular services 

in countries where these languages are spoken as well as reduced entrylevel hiring and resultant staffing gaps in LDPs worldwide.14

As figure 2 shows, as of September 2016, the largest proficiency gaps for 

priority languages were in Arabic, Dari, Farsi, and Urdu. According to 

State data, 36 percent of LDPs requiring Arabic (106 of 291 LDPs), 53 

percent of LDPs requiring Dari (9 of 17 LDPs), 36 percent of LDPs 

requiring Farsi (9 of 26 LDPs), and 44 percent of LDPs requiring Urdu (12 

of 27 LDPs) were staffed by FSOs who did not meet the proficiency 

requirements for the positions.15

 14State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs identified Arabic, French, Mandarin Chinese, 

Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish as the six priority languages for the bureau.

15State does not include LDP vacancies when calculating language proficiency gaps. As 

of September 2016, 80 Arabic LDPs, 5 Dari LDPs, 7 Farsi LDPs, and 4 Urdu LDPs

remained vacant.

State Faces Significant 

Proficiency Gaps in

Priority Languages and 

Regions That Are of 

Critical Importance to U.S. 

Foreign Policy
Page 11 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Figure 2: Percentages of Overseas Language-Designated Positions Filled by Foreign Service Officers Who Did Not Meet 

Proficiency Requirements, by Priority Language, as of September 2016

Note: Each priority language in this graphic has at least one Dual-Language Designated Position 

(LDP). Dual-LDPs are positions w ith a primary and secondary language designation. There are 264 

Dual-LDPs out of 2,223 LDPs in priority languages included in this analysis. For the purpose of this 

analysis, if the Foreign Service officer did not meet the speaking and reading requirements for either 

the primary or secondary designated languages, the positions’ primary language w as used to 

calculate the percentage of LDPs that did not meet language requirements.

State continues to face proficiency gaps worldwide, most notably in 

priority languages categorized as hard or super-hard. Some of the most 

significant gaps are found in NEA, AF, and SCA (see fig. 3). In NEA, 144 

of 392 LDPs (37 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the 

positions’ proficiency requirements; 88 LDPs were vacant. In AF, 118 of 

349 LDPs (34 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the 

positions’ proficiency requirements; 38 LDPs were vacant. In SCA, 66 of 

210 LDPs (31 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the 

positions’ proficiency requirements; 23 LDPs were vacant.
Page 12 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Figure 3: Numbers of Overseas Language-Designated Positions Filled by Foreign 

Service Officers Who Met Proficiency Requirements, Filled by Foreign Service 

Officers Who Did Not Meet the Requirements, and Vacant as of September 2016, by 

Geographic Bureau

State officials we interviewed said that several challenges, including some 

that are unrelated to language proficiency, may affect the department’s 

ability to staff LDPs with officers who meet both the speaking and reading 

requirements for the positions. According to these officials, language 

proficiency shortfalls are partially attributable to the following factors:

• Long training periods. Training to achieve general proficiency in 

hard and super-hard languages can take up to 2 years. According to 

State officials, this may result in a position going unfilled, given the 

absence of an existing cadre of foreign-language speakers who can 

be staffed to LDPs. FSOs we spoke with stated that the length of time 

it takes to achieve a 3/3—the minimum standard for general 

proficiency—in a hard or super-hard language may discourage some 

officers from applying for positions that require proficiency in these 

State Officials Identified 

Challenges That May 

Affect State’s Ability to 

Address Language 

Shortfalls
Page 13 GAO-17-318 Department of State

languages. According to State, for an FSO with no previous language 

experience, achieving a 3/3 generally takes 44 weeks of study for a 

hard language and 88 weeks for a super-hard language.

• Heritage-speaker restrictions. Because of security concerns, in 

certain instances State does not allow Chinese or Russian “heritage 

speakers” to serve in their ancestral countries if they have relatives 

there. In addition, according to State officials, Egypt does not grant 

diplomatic status to Americans with dual citizenship or who have a 

claim to Egyptian citizenship, which limits State’s ability to staff LDPs 

in Egypt with FSOs who speak Arabic. According to a State official, 

heritage speakers can leverage their native level of proficiency to 

better understand subtle language cues that may be missed by nonnative speakers. For example, State officials in China and Korea 

stated that to effectively monitor social media requires someone to be 

a near-native speaker in order to understand language tone and 

nuance.

• Restrictions on tour frequency and length. According to State 

officials, State does not encourage FSOs to serve consecutive tours 

in the same country and generally limits each tour to a maximum of 2 

or 3 years. In a country that we visited, an official told us that State’s 

current system actively discourages FSOs from serving multiple tours 

in the same country because of concerns that the FSOs may lose 

objectivity or begin to view issues from the host country’s, rather than 

the U.S. government’s, perspective. In addition, according to State 

officials, there has been an increase in 1-year tours in countries where 

hard and super-hard languages are spoken. Given that language 

training can take up to 2 years for hard and super-hard languages, 

FSOs may not be willing to undergo such extensive training for a 1-

year position.

• Tour curtailments and staff rotations. According to some State 

officials, constant movement of staff—often because of officers’ 

curtailing their tours to attend family or medical issues or rotating to 

another location after they have reached the maximum allowed term 

in a given post—contributes to LDPs’ remaining vacant or being 

staffed with personnel who do not meet the positions’ language 

requirements. For example, a regional security officer (RSO) at a post 

we visited stated that although multiple RSOs at that post had ended 

their tours and left their positions, no replacement RSOs had met the 

positions’ foreign language proficiency requirements. As a result, 

several LDPs remained unfilled, and the remaining RSOs had to 

make up for the shortfall in staff. Additionally, according to State 

officials, certain LDPs in Iraq and Afghanistan that are deemed “no-
Page 14 GAO-17-318 Department of State

gap posts” must be filled by available FSOs regardless of whether 

they meet the proficiency requirements.

Current and former FSOs, including ambassadors, whom we interviewed, 

reported positive and negative effects, respectively, of language 

proficiency and of proficiency gaps on officers’ ability to perform critical 

diplomatic functions (see table 3). State documents also report such 

effects.

Table 3: Reported Positive Effects of Language Proficiency and Negative Effects of Proficiency Gaps on Foreign Service 

Officers’ Performance of Diplomatic Functions

Positive effects of language proficiency Negative effects of language proficiency gaps

Consular operations

Language proficiency enables consular officers to obtain 

information required to appropriately adjudicate visas and 

perform other consular functions. The following are examples:

• One Foreign Service officer (FSO) reported that, during a 

visa interview in China, the applicant’s responses raised 

questions about his credibility. The consular officer further 

investigated the case by reviewing the website of the 

applicant’s employer. While the English language version 

was nondescript, the Chinese version indicated that the 

company was involved in antistealth technology and 

ballistic missile development and that, pursuant to section 

212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the applicant 

might not be eligible for a visa. Because of the officer’s 

language proficiency, he determined it was appropriate to 

deny the applicant a visa, and he found other applicants in 

the same group who were also ineligible under the law.

• Consular officers at one post we visited reported 

instances in which visa paperwork for applicants appeared 

to be in order (e.g., showed previous international travel) 

but in-person interviewing in the local language uncovered 

visa fraud, including a sex-worker ring involved in human 

trafficking.

• Consular officers working in the American Citizens 

Services unit at one post we visited said that language 

proficiency enables them to assist American citizens who 

have emergency situations, such as medical crises, and 

need language-proficient officers at embassies and 

consulates to communicate on their behalf with local 

institutions, such as hospitals and police stations.

Miscommunication and misunderstandings during consular interviews 

can contribute to a degradation of customer service and incorrect visa 

adjudication decisions. The following are examples:

• Consular officers at two posts we visited said that they had 

witnessed cases in which visas had been incorrectly granted or 

denied because officers had not understood applicants’ 

responses.

• A senior FSO at one post we visited reported that consular 

officers who do not meet the language requirement do not work 

as efficiently as their language-proficient colleagues. Because 

they cannot speak as quickly, ask open-ended questions, 

understand nuanced responses, or multitask (e.g., take 

fingerprints and notes and ask questions at the same time), 

officers who are not language proficient fall behind in processing 

visas.

Foreign Language 

Proficiency Can Positively 

Affect Various Aspects of 

U.S. Foreign Service, 

while Proficiency Gaps 

Have Negative Effects
Page 15 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Positive effects of language proficiency Negative effects of language proficiency gaps

Security

Language proficiency enables security officers to identify and 

respond to potential threats and security incidents. The 

following is an example:

• Officers cited cases in which security officers’ language 

skills enabled them to communicate and coordinate with 

local authorities regarding security incidents. For example, 

a diplomat trying to enter the embassy in Moscow after 

hours was stopped by, and became involved in, an 

altercation with Russian security forces posted outside the 

embassy. However, the language proficiency of the 

security officers at the embassy enabled them to 

effectively communicate with the Russian security and 

police forces, who only spoke Russian, to file a police 

report and address the situation.

Lack of foreign language skills limits security officers’ situational 

awareness and ability to efficiently and effectively address security 

incidents and communicate with local security forces. The following 

are examples:

• The December 2012 report by the Accountability Review Board 

that State convened to investigate the attacks on the mission in 

Benghazi, Libya, stated that the lack of Arabic skills among most 

American personnel assigned to Benghazi and the lack of a 

dedicated, locally employed staff interpreter and sufficient local 

staff served as a barrier to effective communication and 

situational awareness at the mission. The report recommended, 

among other things, that State enhance its ongoing efforts to 

significantly upgrade its language capacity, particularly for Arabic, 

among American employees, including U.S. security personnel.

• Security officers at a post where a super-hard language is spoken 

told us that difficulty in communicating with the local guard force 

limits their ability to protect and secure the embassy.

• A security officer in a Spanish-speaking country said that, while 

his language skills are adequate for day-to-day functions, he 

needs greater proficiency and more job-specific Spanish to deal 

with life-and-death and emergency situations.

Public diplomacy

Language proficiency assists public diplomacy officers in 

communicating U.S. foreign policy and other messages to 

foreign audiences, including host-country interlocutors and 

local populations. The following is an example:

• Officers cited cases in which language skills helped them 

to effectively communicate with protestors who were 

critical of U.S policy. For example, a delegation of FSOs 

traveling from Moscow, Russia, to give a speech on U.S. 

policy was greeted by a group of journalists and protesters 

outside the speaking venue. The protesters alleged that 

the U.S. embassy was actively trying to undermine the 

Russian government. One of the FSOs in the group spoke 

Russian and was able to address the journalists’ and 

protesters’ questions, allowing the U.S. delegation to 

correctly explain the U.S. government’s intentions and 

deescalate the situation. 

Insufficient foreign language skills limit officers from effectively 

communicating with foreign audiences. The following are examples:

• An FSO reported that press officers’ inability to speak Arabic 

limits their ability to develop relationships with Egyptian journalists 

and understand local talk shows or newscasts, thus limiting the 

amount of information they are able to obtain.

• An FSO reported that when the embassy in Cairo hosted a 

Ramadan cultural event, American FSOs were generally not able 

to communicate with the Egyptian attendees, including 

government officials and local media contacts, because of the 

FSOs’ inadequate Arabic proficiency.
Page 16 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Positive effects of language proficiency Negative effects of language proficiency gaps

Political and economic affairs

Language proficiency assists economic and political officers in 

understanding countries’ political and economic policies and 

plans; reviewing news stories and articles as well as 

information on social media; obtaining a broader range of 

contacts with nongovernmental organizations, government 

institutions, and academic entities; and effectively negotiating 

treaties, among other activities. The following are examples:

• Economic affairs.An FSO said that, when economic 

officers in China reviewed a Chinese economic plan, their 

language skills enabled them to detect subtle but 

important nuances in the plan that provided insight into 

the Chinese government’s commitment to market reform.

In another example, an economic officer reported that, 

during meetings regarding U.S.-China cybersecurity 

issues, a diplomat with level-3+ proficiency engaged in an 

all-night negotiation session with Chinese officials to 

explain the U.S. position and finalize documents on the 

outcomes of the bilateral collaboration. The economic 

officer involved in the discussions said that he could not 

have achieved that outcome with his level-3 proficiency.

• Political affairs. When the embassy in Moscow received 

a diplomatic message from the Russian government 

regarding a military cooperation program, a languageproficient officer at the embassy was able to accurately 

translate the sensitive document and convey the tone and 

nuances of the message to the White House. In another 

example, post officers’ language proficiency skills in 

Mandarin Chinese enabled them to obtain information 

from their Chinese counterparts about China’s reactions 

and position in response to a round of North Korean 

nuclear missile tests before this information was made 

public. As a result, the post was able to promptly report 

China’s position to the White House.

Lack of foreign language proficiency skills limits officers’ range of 

contacts as well as their understanding of communications during 

meetings with foreign government officials, in turn limiting the depth of 

posts’ political and economic reporting. The following are examples:

• Economic affairs. A manager in the economic section of one of 

the posts we visited said that the section had a trade officer who 

did not meet the language proficiency requirement. As a result, 

the officer was only able to cover essential meetings and to focus 

only on high-level issues rather than specialized subject areas.

• Political affairs. An officer who lacked language proficiency sent 

an e-mail in English to a foreign ministry, which his manager said 

would delay the ministry’s response and lead to a smaller 

audience at the ministry.

Development of relationships with foreign counterparts

FSOs said that foreign language proficiency facilitates greater 

cooperation, enhanced communication, appreciation, rapport 

and respect, and better access and helps them build and 

improve relationships with their host-country contacts.

Lack of foreign language proficiency can adversely affect U.S. 

relationships with foreign counterparts. The following is an example:

• A senior economic officer at a post we visited reported an 

instance in which a foreign ministry was dissatisfied by an aspect 

of a speech given in English by the U.S. Ambassador, which was 

not accurately translated by the local press. When a senior official 

at the foreign ministry contacted his American counterpart, the 

American official lacked the language proficiency to directly 

resolve the misunderstanding.
Page 17 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Positive effects of language proficiency Negative effects of language proficiency gaps

Management

Language proficiency assists management officers in 

negotiating with local service providers and landlords and 

reviewing bills for goods and services the post has acquired to 

help ensure that U.S. resources are being used appropriately. 

The following is an example:

• An FSO reported that, when the Russian currency 

collapsed, a management officer used Russian language 

skills to research the legal requirements and policies on 

compensation for locally employed staff. 

Lack of foreign language skills can limit management officers’ ability to 

effectively review financial documents, such as leases and contracts 

in written foreign languages, and thus to prevent misuse of U.S. 

government resources.

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with overseas FSOs and Department of State documents. | GAO-17-318

To mitigate the impact of language proficiency gaps, post officials told us 

that in some instances they leverage the foreign language skills of locally 

employed staff (LE staff). According to post officials, FSOs may ask LE 

staff to draft or translate e-mails, schedule meetings, and translate during 

meetings, among other tasks. However, post officials said that there are 

limitations to using LE staff. For example, FSOs said that they cannot rely 

on LE staff for language support when discussing politically sensitive 

issues and that using LE staff as translators is less desirable than having 

a firsthand conversation with an external contact. In addition to using LE 

staff, officers also rely on professional translators and interpreters for 

language assistance.

Post Officials Reported 

Using Locally Employed 

Staff to Help Mitigate 

Language Proficiency 

Gaps in Some Instances

State Reviews 

Language Proficiency 

Requirements Every 

3 Years, but Extent to 

Which This Process 

Addresses Posts’ 

Reported Needs Is 

Unclear
Page 18 GAO-17-318 Department of State

According to State officials, State conducts a review of all LDPs every 3 

years to reevaluate posts’ language needs. State officials in Washington, 

D.C., described this triennial review as a post-driven exercise, stating that 

each post is best positioned to understand its language needs. According 

to a State memo, the triennial review is the foundation for applying foreign 

language designations and establishing State’s language policies.

In April 2010, in response to a recommendation in our 2009 report,16

State’s Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human 

Resources implemented an updated LDP review process to occur every 3 

years, replacing a previously annual cycle. According to State documents, 

the updated process requires State’s geographic bureaus; Bureaus of 

Diplomatic Security, Consular Affairs, and International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs; and worldwide missions to review all LDPs 

assigned to their area of responsibility, regardless of the bidding cycle, on 

a 3-year basis.17 According to State officials, the 3-year timeframe allows 

State to strategically plan for, and project, future LDP needs in an effort to 

minimize the overall number of LDPs that remain vacant or unstaffed. 

Figure 4 shows the triennial LDP review process.

 16 GAO-09-955.

17According to State officials, an overseas post can also request adjustments to LDPs 

apart from the Triennial LDP Review. To do so, a post e-mails the request to its 

geographic bureau’s executive director, including a justification for adding or removing an 

LDP position. According to an FSO we spoke with at one regional bureau, the regional 

bureaus do not discourage requests for additional LDPs, but removing an existing LDP 

requires a strong justification. The executive director of the bureau will then prepare a 

memo to State’s Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human 

Resources requesting a change to a language designation.

State Determines 

Language Proficiency 

Requirements Primarily 

through Triennial Review 

of Existing LDPs
Page 19 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Figure 4: State’s Triennial Language-Designated Position Review Process

While State’s triennial review process is intended to address the language 

needs of its overseas posts, FSOs we interviewed expressed varying 

views on the extent to which the outcomes of the process meet posts’ 

reported needs. State’s policies indicate that operational need should 

determine designation of positions as LDPs and required proficiency 

levels. However, views expressed by geographic bureau officials and 

FSOs we met with at overseas posts suggest that State officials also 

consider other factors, such as staffing concerns, when making LDP 

decisions. In addition, some State officials said that the triennial reviews 

lack rigor, which may result in posts’ maintaining preexisting LDP 

numbers and levels without having adequately identified the current 

language needs of each position. Furthermore, in 2013, the State Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) identified various deficiencies with the triennial 

review process.18 For example, the OIG found that State’s oversight of 

 18Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, 

Review of the Process for Establishing Language Designated Positions, ISP-I-13-24 

(Office of Inspections, April 2013). 

Extent to Which Outcomes 

of State’s Triennial Review 

Address Posts’ Reported 

Language Proficiency 

Needs Is Unclear
Page 20 GAO-17-318 Department of State

LDPs is insufficient to identify over- or underdesignation of language 

requirements.

While State’s process for designating LDPs is intended to address the 

language needs of its overseas posts, FSOs we interviewed expressed 

varying views on the extent to which the designations resulting from the 

triennial reviews meet their posts’ needs. Some post managers we 

interviewed said that their post or embassy section generally has the 

appropriate number of LDPs at adequate proficiency levels to meet 

diplomatic goals. However, some of these officials also said that, while 

the current proficiency level requirements are adequate, higher 

proficiency levels would be preferable. For example, consular section 

managers in countries where a hard or super-hard language is spoken 

said that while a speaking and reading proficiency of 2/1 or 2/0 is 

currently required for most of their consular employees, a higher 

proficiency level, such as a 3/3, would be preferable. State officials in 

headquarters explained that the language proficiency level set for entrylevel consular positions in hard and super-hard languages is due to 

department policy with regard to training limitations for entry-level 

officers.19 One consular chief said that the section “gets by with what it 

has,” while another said that assistance from LE staff helps to fill the 

language gap. One post security manager said that the year of language 

training that security officers generally receive to operate in a country with 

a super-hard language provides only a “survival” level of proficiency and 

does not prepare them to function on a professional level.

While State requires a proficiency level of 3/3 in speaking and reading for 

most Foreign Service generalist LDPs, post managers as well as junior 

FSOs said that greater proficiency would better equip them to 

communicate and negotiate with foreign counterparts and advance U.S. 

diplomatic goals. One public diplomacy manager said that, in an ideal, 

resource-neutral environment, he would like all of his public affairs 

officers to have a 4/4 level of proficiency. One political officer with 3/3 

proficiency said she struggles to understand some of what is said during 

meetings and that a higher level of proficiency would be more appropriate 

for the needs of the job. Post officers said that high proficiency levels, for 

 19State headquarters officials noted that the department limits the amount of time entrylevel officers may spend in training to ensure they gain sufficient evaluative experience 

before tenure review. As a result, LDPs for entry-level consular positions in hard and 

super-hard languages carry a maximum requirement of 2/2 for hard languages or 2/1 or 

2/0 for super-hard languages.

Post Officials’ Views Varied on 

Whether Designations 

Resulting from Triennial 

Reviews Meet Posts’ 

Language Needs
Page 21 GAO-17-318 Department of State

example, higher than 3, enable officers to detect nuance and subtle cues 

in conversations, build greater rapport, have more contacts and access to 

foreign audiences, participate in more unscripted conversations, and 

answer questions “off the cuff.” FSOs also suggested that certain political, 

economic, public affairs, and consular officer functions, in particular, could 

benefit from higher proficiency levels. However, post officials recognized 

that there are tradeoffs associated with requiring higher levels, including 

longer training and higher costs.

In addition, post officials indicated that current language designations do 

not always reflect the needs of their positions or embassy sections. An 

economic section chief said that while her position is not an LDP, she 

believes it should be. Some post managers, including two RSOs in LDPs, 

said that they felt they were able to successfully perform their duties 

without being language proficient. One post official said that language 

proficiency was not critical to the execution of his duties because he 

spends most of his time in the embassy supervising American staff and 

interacting with English-speaking counterparts and can obtain any 

needed translation assistance from LE staff. Some post officers 

recommended reducing the required proficiency levels for certain 

positions that entail limited interaction with foreign counterparts, such as 

human resource positions focused on management of U.S. staff.

Although State’s policies indicate that operational need is the determining 

criterion for designating a position as an LDP, officials we spoke with 

cited other factors that may influence LDP designations. According to 

State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), State should designate positions 

as requiring language proficiency only when it is essential to enhancing 

U.S. effectiveness abroad.20 According to the FAM, factors that posts 

should consider when assessing their LDP needs include the necessity of 

using the language to successfully execute the requirements of the 

position, the importance host-nation interlocutors attach to U.S. diplomats’ 

ability to speak the language, and the English language capabilities of the 

embassy’s LE staff (see app. II for a full list of the FAM criteria). However, 

geographic bureau officials and post managers told us that they also 

consider factors such as staffing and cost concerns when designating 

LDPs and determining proficiency requirements.

 20See 13 FAM 221.2.a.

State Officials Identified 

Factors besides Language 

Need That Influence LDP 

Designations
Page 22 GAO-17-318 Department of State

• Staffing concerns. While State’s guidance states that the department 

must identify its language needs irrespective of the number of likely 

bidders, embassy section heads at the posts we visited said staffing 

concerns affect their decisions about designating positions as LDPs 

and requiring certain proficiency levels.21 For example, embassy 

managers in countries where super-hard or hard languages, such as 

Arabic and Russian, are spoken said that certain positions have been 

designated as not requiring language proficiency or designated at a 

lower proficiency level to increase the likelihood of filling the positions. 

Managers also said that, while they would prefer to require higher 

levels of language proficiency, they sometimes require lower levels to 

avoid delaying the arrival of FSOs at posts who would otherwise have 

to spend longer periods in language training. Some State geographic 

bureau officials spoke of significant tension between quickly filling a 

vacant position with an officer who lacks language skills versus 

waiting to fill the position with an officer who is trained and fully 

proficient. Our interviews with State officials suggest that such staffing 

concerns particularly affect the EAP, NEA, and SCA bureaus. One 

geographic bureau official said that the bureau had lowered reading 

requirements for LDPs at one of its posts because of difficulties in 

filling the positions. Further, according to a 2014 State memorandum, 

the Office of Overseas Building Operations does not support LDPs for 

any of its employees, citing a critical staffing shortage.22 Moreover, a 

December 2010 memorandum from State’s M/DGHR acknowledged 

that the designation of LDPs is often influenced by staffing realities 

and stated that posts usually adjust language levels down on the 

basis of the likelihood of finding language-qualified bidders.

• Cost concerns. While guidance from State’s M/DGHR, including 

memorandums issued in December 2010 and April 2016, states that 

the department should assess its language needs in a “resource 

neutral” environment, geographic bureau and post officials said that 

the LDP review process is tempered by cost considerations. For 

example, a management official at a post where a super-hard 

language is spoken said that the substantial amount of time and 

money needed to train FSOs in hard and super-hard languages 

 21The process of assigning FSOs to their positions typically begins when they receive a 

list of upcoming vacancies for which they may compete. FSOs then submit a list of 

positions for which they want to be considered to State M/DGHR.

22During the 2014 triennial LDP review, State’s M/DGHR overrode the recommendations 

of the Office of Overseas Building Operations and designated some of its positions as 

LDPs. 
Page 23 GAO-17-318 Department of State

influences decisions regarding numbers of LDPs and proficiency 

levels requested. According to a 2013 State OIG report, the State OIG 

estimates that training students to the 3/3 level in easier world 

languages such as Spanish can cost $105,000; training in hard 

languages such as Russian can cost $180,000; and training in superhard languages such as Chinese and Arabic can cost up to $480,000 

per student. Students learning super-hard languages to the 3/3 level 

generally spend 1 year domestically at the FSI and then a second 

year at an overseas training facility.23

While, according to State officials, posts drive the LDP review process 

because they are best positioned to know their language needs, officials 

we interviewed—including officials at overseas posts—offered differing 

perspectives on whether posts’ assessment of these needs are 

sufficiently rigorous. Some post managers said that shifting the review 

from an annual to a triennial process represented an improvement, 

because the prior annual reviews were not taken seriously, and the 3-

year cycle has allowed State to be more strategic in planning and 

allocating resources. Some post officials also said that the 3-year cycle is 

more structured and that the multiple levels of review and input have 

brought greater stability and consistency to posts’ request for LDPs.

However, other officials at posts we visited said that State’s language 

designation process is insufficiently rigorous and systematic, describing it 

as ad hoc. Some of the geographic bureau and post officials we met with 

were unaware of State’s criteria for establishing LDP designations as 

outlined in the FAM. Remarks by some officials also suggest that posts 

tend to base LDP decisions on preexisting LDP numbers and levels. For 

example, some embassy managers said that they generally review the 

existing LDP numbers and levels and make minor adjustments. In 

addition, some geographic bureau officials said that they provide limited 

substantive review of posts’ submissions of LDP numbers and levels.

Further, comments from post officials suggest that posts have generally 

applied a “blanket” approach in determining LDP proficiency 

 23The OIG’s estimates were developed based on the FSI weekly tuition rate, the standard 

number of weeks for 3/3 training, the salary of a midlevel FSO , benefits based on 

Congressional Budget Office figures, and per diem based on 14 FAM 575.3 and Federal 

Travel Regulations. Cost estimates for super-hard languages were developed using the 

above methodology for the domestic portion of training and data provided by Embassy 

Beijing and NEA and data in State’s standard overseas support cost model for the 

overseas portion of language training.

Some State Officials 

Suggested the Triennial 

Review Process Lacks Rigor 

and Oversight
Page 24 GAO-17-318 Department of State

requirements, despite State guidance that instructs posts to conduct more 

targeted assessments of their needs. State cables providing posts with 

guidance for the 2017 and 2014 LDP reviews stated that posts should not 

automatically assume that a 3/3 proficiency level is required for every 

LDP in a particular section or embassy and instructed posts to examine 

the specific language needs for each position. Post managers and staff 

we interviewed also said that language needs vary by position and 

portfolio within an embassy section. However, according to State data, 

most generalist LDPs are designated at a 3/3 level.

In a 2013 report examining State’s LDP review process, the State OIG 

identified deficiencies in State’s process for developing language 

requirements.24 For example, the report noted that State’s oversight of 

LDPs is insufficient to identify over- or underdesignation of language 

requirements and that State does not review embassies’ and geographic 

bureaus’ language requirements “to facilitate consistent application of 

language designation criteria and appropriate distribution given U.S. 

policy priorities.” The report indicates that the lack of high-level review 

has led to anomalies, such as widely varying proficiency requirements for 

officers performing similar functions at different missions. Specifically, the 

OIG reported that State designated certain positions as LDPs for some 

European posts, such as France and Italy, but did not designate similar 

positions as LDPs in Haiti, Thailand, and Indonesia, where working 

conditions are more difficult and English language speakers are fewer. In 

response to an OIG recommendation to address this issue, State’s 

M/DGHR provided criteria to the geographic bureaus to use in the 2014 

LDP review when determining whether language ability is necessary to 

advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. In October 2016, State 

headquarters sent out a cable to all posts, providing them with an 

updated set of criteria to be used in the 2017 LDP review.

We discussed the concerns expressed by FSOs concerning the LDP 

process with State’s M/DGHR. State M/DGHR officials responded that the 

department has undertaken initiatives to align LDP levels more closely 

with policy and operational requirements and intends to incorporate these 

initiatives into its 2017 triennial LDP review process. For example, 

according to State M/DGHR officials, M/DGHR has encouraged a 

dialogue between the bureaus and their posts to ensure that their LDP 

 24Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, 

Review of the Process for Establishing Language Designated Positions. 
Page 25 GAO-17-318 Department of State

submissions reflect operational requirements and policy priorities and has 

sent official messages to all posts and bureaus on the process and the 

need for rigorous review. The officials also noted that State’s M/DGHR

has asked participants to designate their requests for LDPs as high, 

medium, and low priority, to encourage rigor in considering the real needs 

of posts and to avoid any implication that all LDPs are of equal 

importance.

State’s 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities” (foreign 

language strategic plan), which it issued partly in response to a

recommendation in our 2009 report, outlines a number of efforts intended 

to meet its current and projected needs for foreign language proficiency.25

The strategic plan sets a goal of increasing the percentage of LDPs filled 

by fully qualified employees by an annual rate of 3 to 5 percent26 and 

estimates that 90 percent of LDPs will be filled by fully qualified 

employees by 2016 or 2017.27 The strategic plan presents these efforts in 

connection with six broad objectives.28 Some of the listed efforts, such as 

 25Our 2009 report concluded that State’s approach to addressing its foreign language 

proficiency requirements did not reflect a comprehensive strategic approach and 

recommended that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive strategic plan linking

all of State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements.See GAO-09-955.

26For this purpose, State defines “fully qualified employees” as employees who have 

tested at or above the designated speaking and reading proficiency levels within the past 

5 years. 

27As of September 2016, 69 percent of all overseas LDPs were staffed by officers who 

met the positions’ speaking and reading requirements.

28State’s foreign language strategic plan refers to these objectives as issues.

State Is Implementing 

Efforts Outlined in 

Foreign Language 

Strategic Plan but 

Has Not Evaluated 

Their Effectiveness

State’s Foreign Language 

Strategic Plan Outlines 

Efforts to Address 

Language Proficiency 

Requirements
Page 26 GAO-17-318 Department of State

the Recruitment Language Program (RLP)29 and the Language Incentive 

Pay (LIP) program,30 predate the development of the strategic plan.

As table 5 shows, in addition to outlining the efforts that State planned to 

implement for each of the six objectives, the foreign language strategic 

plan also identifies goals and performance measures associated with the 

objectives.

Table 4: State Department Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities—Objectives, Goals, and Performance Measures

Objective Goals and performance measures

1) Expand the training complement.

The plan states that the slow progress in improving the rate of positions filled with 

fully qualified language officers is largely due to growth in total State Department 

(State) positions and that designation of many new and existing positions as 

language-designated positions (LDP) has diluted the effect of increased hiring 

and training. Essentially, rapidly expanding operational needs have reduced the 

personnel available for training relative to the number of positions for which 

language is required.

According to the plan, because State’s ability to 

increase its training complement is dependent on 

the budget process, performance measures for 

this issue were not included in the plan. 

2) Improve State’s language designation process.

The plan states that the process for determining which positions should be 

language designated and at what level of proficiency has traditionally relied on 

individual post management with little input from Washington bureaus. The lack of 

bureau-level oversight and consistent, agreed-on criteria has resulted in 

inconsistency in LDP designation. However, changes to the LDP generally do not 

occur consistently. Developing a strategy for improving the language-designation 

process will allow for more predictability of assignment needs and provide more 

time for planning.

Goal: Better define language requirements, 

establishing standards and updating methodology 

for designating overseas positions that require 

language proficiency.

Performance measures:

• Criteria for LDP designation developed, 

approved, shared with all bureaus and posts.

• Triennial review instituted and monitored by 

geographic functional, and human resources 

bureaus.

 29 Initiated in fiscal year 2004 as the Critical Needs Language Program, and renamed in 

2011 as RLP, the program aims to expand the number of candidates entering the Foreign 

Service with proficiency in languages in which State has current or projected deficits. The 

RLP rewards candidates who have proficiency in a high-priority foreign language with 

extra points for higher placement on the Foreign Service register. The program gives .25 

points for a one-tour commitment at the entry level and .38 points for a two-tour 

commitment (one at entry level and one at midlevel). 

30Initiated in fiscal year 2000, the LIP provides monetary incentives for achieving 

proficiency in designated hard and super-hard “incentive” languages. The list of incentive 

languages may be revised from time to time to reflect State’s changing needs. To be 

eligible for this incentive pay, an FSO is required to achieve a certain level of language 

proficiency that ranges from 2/ 2 to 3/3 in speaking and reading and must be serving at a 

post where the incentive language is primarily spoken.
Page 27 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Objective Goals and performance measures

3) Develop a modeling tool to help define options for meeting future 

language needs.

According to the plan, State completed a prototype language training and 

assignment model (LTAM) to meet future language needs. Currently, the model 

can estimate the language training complement that will be required for the 

department to fill all of its current and projected LDPs with language-qualified 

employees; in the future, the model will enable State to assess more accurately 

the impact of assignment policies on the ability to fill LDPs with qualified officers 

as well as estimate the time required to meet specific LDP fill-rate targets.

Goal: Develop and implement the capacity to 

define options for addressing language trends and 

staffing and training needs.

Performance measures:

• LTAM is fully operational and validated.

• LTAM is used to help identify languages for 

the Recruitment Language Program (RLP) 

(i.e., languages for which State would gain a 

marked benefit from hiring employees with 

preemployment language skills).

• Results of training surveys are used to adjust 

training provided to future students.

4) Recruit personnel with foreign language proficiency.

According to the plan, beginning in late 2003, State launched an aggressive effort 

to recruit Foreign Service applicants who already spoke critically needed, highpriority foreign languages. The plan states that the RLP rewarded candidates who 

demonstrated proficiency in these languages.

Goal: Update the RLP and review it every 3 years, 

subsequent to the triennial LDP review.

Performance measure: Updated RLP is 

implemented.

5) Make incentives more effective, and maximize the impact of language 

and assignment polices.

According to the plan, State has various mechanisms, requirements, and 

incentives in place to ensure that it has a strong contingent of foreign-language 

speakers. The plan states that the department recruits for qualified speakers of 

certain priority languages. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 requires that Foreign 

Service generalists gain proficiency in a foreign language to receive tenure and 

remain in the Foreign Service. Members of the Foreign Service must have a 3/3 

score in at least one language to become a member of the Senior Foreign 

Service. Provide financial incentives through the LIP program and the pilot 

Asymmetric LIP program, which allows the speaking and reading requirements to 

be set at different levels; and provide further encouragements to learn, maintain, 

use, and reuse a foreign language in multiple assignments.

Goals: Focus incentives to increase the absolute 

number of foreign-policy priority language 

speakers; concentrate Language Incentive Pay 

(LIP) resources on languages of most importance 

to foreign-policy goals; and find additional ways to 

increase repeated use of language skills. Ensure 

that language and assignment policies maximize 

the number of LDPs filled with qualified staff.

Performance measures:

• Increase in the number of people who speak 

currently designated priority languages.

• Evaluation of the Asymmetric LIP pilot 

program.

• Review of the LIP program and establishment 

of criteria for LIP languages and a mechanism 

for LIP review.

• Increase in rate of filling LDPs with languagequalified employees
Page 28 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Objective Goals and performance measures

6) Strengthen and develop new approaches for language training.

The plan stipulates that “State must provide world-class, highly effective training 

to our employees to support them in acquiring and maintaining foreign language 

proficiency... State must continue to develop and update distance learning 

products, and as resources are available, purchase or develop tools that can be 

used on a variety of home computers or even mobile devices to support our 

employees whenever and wherever they are able to study.”

Goal: Adapt Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 

language training to changing student populations, 

technology, adult learning, and venues.

Performance measures:

• Percentage of students who reach their LDP 

in the standard training time. FSI’s School of 

Language Studies will periodically examine 

completion statistics to understand when 

changing a language’s standard training 

length may be necessary due to the changing 

needs of a shifting population of students.

• Number of students participating in part-time 

distance learning, early morning, and post 

language programs, resources permitting.

• In addition to FSI’s Annual Impact Survey and 

Annual Leadership Impact Survey results, 

develop other evaluation tools to provide 

information on effectiveness of training.

Source: Department of State, “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities” (Washington, D.C.: 2011) | GAO-17-318

According to information that State provided, State has taken steps to 

implement efforts addressing most of the six broad objectives identified in 

the foreign language strategic plan but has made limited progress in 

addressing others. According to information provided by State’s M/DGHR, 

as of October 2016, budgetary and operational pressures had precluded 

an expansion of the training complement (objective 1), and the prototype 

language training and assignment model described in the strategic plan 

remains under development (objective 3). However, State is 

implementing the following efforts to address the other four objectives:

• LDP reviews (objective 2). To improve the department’s language 

designation process, as discussed earlier, in 2010 State changed the 

frequency of the LDP review process from annual to triennial and has 

initiated its third triennial LDP review process, which it expects to 

complete in 2017.

• RLP (objective 4). Initiated in fiscal year 2004, the RLP aims to 

expand the number of candidates entering the Foreign Service with 

proficiency in languages in which State has current or projected 

deficits. To enhance the RLP, according to a State document, State 

has updated the list of recruitment languages to reflect those that are 

of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy, those in which posts are 

experiencing severe shortages or staffing gaps, and those that 

present specific recruiting and training challenges. According to State 

State Has Taken Steps to 

Implement Most Efforts 

Identified in the Foreign 

Language Strategic Plan
Page 29 GAO-17-318 Department of State

data, the percentage of entry-level officers hired through the RLP has 

varied from a peak of 40 percent (221 of 547 officers) in fiscal year 

2011 to 5 percent (16 of 353 officers) in fiscal year 2016.

• LIP program (objective 5). To make language incentives more 

effective and maximize the impact of language and assignment 

policies, according to State’s M/DGHR, State reviewed the LIP in 

2012, the first such review in over a decade, to clarify and streamline 

the program by aligning the designated languages (i.e., those eligible 

for incentives) with the department’s current needs and incentivizing 

employees to use and maintain proficiency in those languages. As a 

result of the review, State reduced the number of incentive languages 

from 52 to 34 to reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities. 

Also, according to information provided by State’s M/DGHR, FSI 

adjusts course offerings in priority languages, including some that are 

included in the LIP program, as needed, to address the department’s 

strategic planning and performance goals. According to State data, 

between 2010 and 2016 a total of 11,477 FSOs received LIP, 

amounting to $77.6 million.

• Foreign language proficiency requirement (objective 5). One of 

the mechanisms State uses to ensure a strong contingent of foreign 

language speakers is the inclusion of sustained professional language 

proficiency in the promotion precepts for Foreign Service generalists. 

According to FSOs and other officials we spoke with, this policy may 

be creating an incentive for FSOs to learn “world” languages, such as 

Spanish, which generally take 6 months to reach a 3/3, instead of 

super-hard languages, which take 2 years to reach the same level of 

proficiency. According to a 2013 State OIG report, promotion and 

tenure policies tied to language skills influence the number and level 

of LDP designations. An official from the OIG who worked on the 2013 

report explained that the promotion policy may also contribute to the 

discrepancy in the numbers of LDPs with proficiency in world and 

super-hard languages as well as shortfalls in language-proficient 

FSOs to fill LDPs in certain priority languages.31 Some FSOs told us 

that taking 2 years to learn a super-hard language makes them less 

competitive for promotion, expressing a perception that State’s 

promotion system undervalues language training.32 However, State’s 

M/DGHR said that overall, the promotion system does not 

 31Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, 

Review of the Process for Establishing Language Designated Positions. 

32We reported similar views expressed by FSOs in 2009. See GAO-09-955.
Page 30 GAO-17-318 Department of State

disadvantage FSOs who study hard or super-hard languages because 

time spent in language training extends their years of promotion 

eligibility. We discussed this issue with State’s M/DGHR and inquired 

whether a review of this policy had been conducted to determine its 

potential impact on learning super-hard languages. In response, State 

informed us that the language proficiency requirement for promotion, 

along with other related policies, is currently under review.

• Language-related technology (objective 6). We found that State’s 

FSI has implemented various language-related technologies to 

improve the language acquisition process, such as the Smart 

Notebook, which offers language instruction via the Internet, as well 

as language learning applications and technology-enabled 

classrooms with screen-sharing applications. FSI staff said that 

technology has improved the language acquisition process by 

allowing students to engage in lifelike scenarios in the classroom 

while learning a language, giving students access to lessons that 

were previously available only in language labs, and accommodating 

students’ schedules and needs. In addition, State officials told us that 

they are using technology to complement language skills at the 

operational level. For example, the embassy in China identified 48 

positions for which it could adjust the speaking and reading level from 

a 3/3 to a 3+/2, in part because the “advent [in recent years] of 

sophisticated translation technologies enables officers to access 

information from written materials in multiple ways and on a scale 

never before possible.” A senior FSO in Mexico indicated that both 

reading and speaking are important but that the reading requirement 

could possibly be lowered, since translation technology can be used 

to assist with reading. FSOs in countries we visited generally 

indicated that they use online translation tools to translate documents. 

However, some FSOs reported that they could not rely exclusively on 

the translation provided by the online tool because it is generally not 

entirely accurate. Some said they use it as an initial step in translating 

documents, while others said they use it to translate documents only 

for their own use or when they need an immediate translation.

More than 5 years after State developed and began implementing its 

foreign language strategic plan, we found no evidence that State had 

conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of all the actions 

identified in the plan to determine their effects on language proficiency 

gaps. According to State’s evaluation policy, the department is committed 

to using performance management best practices, including evaluation, to 

achieve the most effective U.S. foreign policy outcomes and greater 

accountability. State’s evaluation policy defines evaluation as the 

State Has Not Evaluated 

Effects of Efforts 

Implemented under the 

Foreign Language 

Strategic Plan
Page 31 GAO-17-318 Department of State

systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics 

and outcomes of programs, management processes, and delivery 

systems as a basis for judgments, to improve effectiveness and inform 

decision makers about current and future activities.33 Also, according to 

federal internal control standards, internal controls should provide 

reasonable assurance that the objectives of an agency are being 

achieved to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, 

including the use of the agency’s resources.34 We asked State’s M/DGHR

office whether it had conducted any evaluations of the effects of these 

efforts, including the RLP and the LIP program, on language proficiency. 

M/DGHR officials responded that they were unaware of any such 

evaluations but noted that the relatively small number of personnel 

involved in the programs made it difficult to conduct quantitative 

assessments. However, State officials indicated that after completion of 

the ongoing triennial LDP review, the Language Policy Working Group 

would review both RLP and LIP, but they did not provide details on the 

nature of the planned review.

State reports annually to Congress on the levels of foreign language 

proficiency at overseas posts. In addition, State provides updates on 

foreign language proficiency gaps and efforts to address them in its 

annually updated Five Year Workforce Leadership and Succession Plan. 

The workforce plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2020 includes updates 

on the number of LDPs staffed worldwide; challenges in filling LDPs; and 

efforts outlined in, or implemented in response to, the foreign language 

strategic plan. For example, the workforce plan highlights the use of 

recruitment incentive languages to provide extra points on the hiring 

register of FSO candidates who speak and read proficiently in these 

languages and pass the assessment process, which increases their 

chance of entering the Foreign Service. However, our examination of 

these documents found no evidence that State has conducted a 

systematic and comprehensive evaluation of efforts to address each of 

the objectives in the strategic plan. Without systematic and 

comprehensive evaluations, consistent with State evaluation policy and 

federal internal control standards, State is unable to determine the effects 

of the efforts outlined in the strategic plan in addressing language 

 33State, Department of State Evaluation Policy, 

http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/evaluation/2015/236970.htm (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 

2015).

34See GAO-14-704G.
Page 32 GAO-17-318 Department of State

proficiency shortfalls, particularly in hard and super-hard languages, and 

to take corrective actions.

Since 2008, State has increased its levels of foreign language proficiency 

at overseas posts, strengthening its overall capacity to advance U.S. 

foreign policy and economic interests worldwide. Nonetheless, significant 

proficiency gaps in priority languages such as Arabic and Chinese may

adversely affect State’s ability to fulfill its diplomatic responsibilities in 

regions of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy. Although State has 

implemented efforts to enhance foreign language proficiency, as outlined 

in its 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities,” it has not 

conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of these efforts’ 

effectiveness. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which 

these efforts have contributed to progress in increasing language 

proficiency worldwide and has limited information on which to base future 

investments of its resources. Accordingly, State cannot determine 

whether adjustments to the plan are needed to enhance State’s capacity 

to address increasingly complex economic and national security 

challenges overseas.

To strengthen State’s ability to address persistent gaps in foreign 

language proficiency at overseas posts and make informed future 

resource investments, we recommend that the Secretary of State 

evaluate the effectiveness of efforts implemented under the “Strategic 

Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities.”

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to State. We 

received written comments from State, which are reprinted in appendix III. 

State agreed with our recommendation and indicated that “the 

Department will develop a process to evaluate implementation of the 

2011 Strategic Plan and future plans. The Department will report on 

results of the evaluation within one year.” State also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated throughout the report, as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 
Page 33 GAO-17-318 Department of State

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

(202) 512-8980, or CourtsM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

Michael J. Courts

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-17-318 Department of State

In this report, we examine (1) the extent to which the Department of State 

(State) is meeting its foreign language proficiency requirements for 

overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any 

gaps in State’s ability to perform diplomatic duties, (2) State’s process for 

identifying overseas posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to 

which the process addresses these reported needs, and (3) efforts State 

has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of 

those efforts.

To address these objectives, we analyzed data and reviewed documents 

provided by State, including relevant provisions of the Foreign Affairs 

Manual. We interviewed officers from State’s Bureaus of African Affairs, 

Consular Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, East Asian and Pacific 

Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, and Human Resources in Washington, D.C., as well 

as officials from the Foreign Service Institute in Arlington, Virginia. In 

addition, we interviewed officials at the U.S. embassies in Beijing, China; 

Cairo, Egypt; Seoul, South Korea; Mexico City, Mexico; and Moscow, 

Russia. We selected these countries to examine language issues related 

to Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Korean, Spanish, and Russian. Our criteria 

for selecting these countries included (1) countries in which priority 

languages, as identified by State, are spoken;1 (2) the number of 

language-designated positions (LDP) in selected countries, including 

countries with a relatively low and high number of LDPs; (3) gaps in filling 

LDPs; (4) the difficulty of the languages spoken in selected countries; and 

(5) the diplomatic and economic significance of selected countries to the 

United States. While overseas, we met with embassy officials, including 

senior and junior-level Foreign Service officers within the embassies’ 

consular, economic, political, public affairs, security, and management 

sections.

To examine the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language 

requirements, we obtained data from State’s Global Employee 

Management System database on all overseas LDPs and the language 

 1For the purposes of this review, State defines “priority” languages as languages that are 

of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy, are experiencing severe shortages or staffing 

gaps, or present specific challenges in recruiting and training.State’s department-wide, 

current list of priority languages includes Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Dari, Hindi, Pashto, 

Farsi, Korean, and Urdu. In addition to these priority languages, State’s Bureau of 

Consular Affairs has its own bureau-specific priority languages that are based on its 

number of language-designated consular positions. The bureau has six priority languages, 

including Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, French, Russian, and Portuguese.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-17-318 Department of State

skills of the incumbents filling the positions as of September 30, 2016. We 

compared the incumbents’ reading and speaking scores with the reading 

and speaking levels required for the positions and determined that an 

incumbent met the requirements for the position only if his or her scores 

equaled or exceeded both the speaking and reading requirements. A 

limited number of positions are designated in two languages. We 

determined that the officer met the requirements of such positions if he or 

she met both the speaking and reading requirements for at least one of 

the designated languages. We also interviewed State officials responsible 

for compiling and maintaining these data and determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for identifying the number of LDPs filled by officers 

who met the requirements of the position. To assess the effects of 

language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to perform its 

diplomatic duties, we reviewed previous GAO reports as well as the 

December 2012 Accountability Review Board report on the attacks on the 

mission in Benghazi, Libya. We interviewed State officials in Washington, 

D.C., and at the overseas posts we visited. We also met with former 

senior State officials, including ambassadors and a former Director 

General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, to gain 

their insights on the consequences of language shortfalls at overseas 

missions. In addition, we conducted a literature review on the effects of 

language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to perform its 

diplomatic duties.

To examine State’s process for identifying overseas posts’ language 

proficiency requirements and the extent to which the process addresses 

these reported needs, we reviewed previous GAO reports and State 

documents, such as memorandums and cables on the languagedesignation process. We also reviewed State’s Office of Inspector 

General’s (OIG) 2013 review of State’s process for establishing LDPs and 

interviewed State OIG officials.2 In addition, we interviewed State officials 

in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.

To examine efforts State has taken to enhance foreign language 

proficiency and any effects of those actions, we reviewed State planning 

documents, including the State Department’s “Strategic Plan for Foreign 

Language Capabilities,” dated March 7, 2011, as well as the 2015 and 

2016 versions of its Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession 

 2Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, 

Review of the Process for Establishing Language Designated Positions, ISP-I-13-24 

(Arlington, VA: Office of Inspections, April 2013). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Plan. We obtained information from State on steps it has taken to address 

key issues in the 2011 strategic plan. We compared steps State has 

taken to the objectives described in the “Strategic Plan for ForeignLanguage Capabilities” and assessed whether they have been evaluated 

in accordance with State’s Evaluation Policy and federal internal control 

standards.3 We also reviewed State’s Report on Foreign Language 

Proficiency for Fiscal Year 2015 and its promotion policies. In addition, we 

interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 3GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Appendix II: Department of State Criteria for 

2017 Language-Designated Position Review

Page 37 GAO-17-318 Department of State

According to the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Affairs Manual 

(FAM 221.2), operational need is the determining criterion for languagedesignated positions (LDP) , where language proficiency is essential, 

rather than merely helpful or convenient, to enhancing U.S. effectiveness 

abroad. The FAM also outlines the following criteria for consideration by 

responsible offices in designating LDPs:

• the necessity of using the language to execute successfully the 

requirements of the position;

• the frequency of daily use of the language;

• the fluency level of that engagement;

• the official designation of the language as the national language(s);

• the importance host-nation interlocutors attach to our speaking their 

language;

• the prevalence of another language a significant segment of the 

population speaks;

• the general level of English language penetration;

• the English language capabilities of the embassy’s locally employed 

staff in the relevant section;

• the professionalism and availability of interpretation/translation 

services;

• the prevalence of corruption and the need for language proficiency to 

ensure necessary oversight;

• the importance of being able to speak certain language(s) in public or 

at representational events;

• the availability of media in the language(s); the importance of 

monitoring social media in the local language;

• the level of literacy in the country; the prevalence of documents 

published in the language;

• whether speaking or reading the language, or both, would notably 

increase the efficiency and scope of the employee’s tasks or work 

portfolio;

• the variety of interactions required for the job (speeches, formal 

demarches, receptions, visa interviews, travel and engagement with 

population in rural communities, key segments of society, or minority 

groups);

Appendix II: Department of State Criteria for 

2017 Language-Designated Position Review
Appendix II: Department of State Criteria for 

2017 Language-Designated Position Review

Page 38 GAO-17-318 Department of State

• the importance of building a cadre of speakers of the language within 

the Foreign Service: Does the department need to develop employees 

for future assignment at higher levels of responsibility with these 

language skills? and

• the necessity for employees who occupy positions in sections (for 

example, security or management) where the need for foreign 

language skills is so innate to the job (e.g., the work involves regular 

contact with foreign nationals in the local native language) that the 

post needs at least one or more LDP per section.

According to an October 2016 State cable, an additional primary criterion, 

beyond the criteria referenced in 13 FAM 221.2, is the importance of 

understanding the language to manage one’s personal security. The 

State cable also notes other factors that should be considered in the LDP 

review process, including the following:

• In identifying LDPs, bureaus are encouraged to keep in mind that 

designations may vary from the usual S [speaking]-3/R[reading]-3 

level, including asymmetric designations in which a mandated 

speaking proficiency may be higher than the reading proficiency (e.g., 

S-3/R-2, S-2/R-1, or even S-2/R-0).

• Bureaus should consider an asymmetric language designation and 

how it might affect employee productivity, personal security, and 

overall resource management.

• Bureau requests for modifications to the career development plan and 

language incentive pay are under consideration. Missions are 

encouraged to set LDP levels for speaking and reading based on the 

level of language proficiency skills needed to do the work.

• If job requirements call for either of two languages, bureaus should 

consider dual designations, with the preferred language listed first.

• If language proficiency is preferred but not essential, the position 

should be marked with speaking and reading requirements of 0/0 to 

designate it as a language-preferred position. This designation will 

help identify future resource needs and indicate when first- and 

second-tour language training could be beneficial.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 39 GAO-17-318 Department of State

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 40 GAO-17-318 Department of State
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-17-318 Department of State

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

In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant 

Director), Francisco M. Enriquez (Analyst-in-Charge), Juan Pablo AvilaTournut, Mark Dowling, Justin Fisher, Emily Gupta, and Reid Lowe made 

key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff

Acknowledgments

(100617)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.