a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on National Security, Emerging Threats, 

and International Relations, Committee 

on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

May 2006 OVERSEAS 

PRESENCE

Cost Analyses and 

Performance 

Measures Are Needed 

to Demonstrate the 

Full Potential of 

Providing Embassy 

Support Remotely

GAO-06-479
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2006

OVERSEAS PRESENCE 

Cost Analyses and Performance 

Measures Are Needed to Demonstrate the 

Full Potential of Providing Embassy 

Support Remotely 

Highlights of GAO-06-479, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats, and 

International Relations, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-479.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov.

State has a number of regional and domestic offices that provide some

management support remotely to overseas posts in areas such as financial 

management and human resources. For example, State’s Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs provides support to posts in its region through staff 

based in Florida. State announced in October 2005 it would identify and 

remove additional functions that do not need to be performed at post and 

could instead be performed domestically or at regional centers overseas. 

State faces several challenges in trying to expand its use of remote support. 

For example, restrictions on what management functions non-American staff 

can perform might limit the extent to which services can be provided 

remotely. In addition, current funding arrangements for various regional 

bureaus and posts might limit opportunities for remote support to be offered 

from one region to another, while posts’ reluctance to change is a further 

constraint. State is assessing whether certain regulations could be waived or 

changed and how institutional challenges might be overcome. 

There are several potential advantages to providing administrative support 

to posts from remote locations, and several concerns. For example, one 

U.S.-based officer provides financial management support to multiple 

overseas posts, eliminating the need for an American financial management 

officer at each post served, which, according to State, could result in cost 

savings. Officials at posts we visited reported they were generally satisfied 

with the level of support and customer service at a regional or domestic 

service center, though some noted concerns. However, at the time of our 

review, State had neither analyzed the potential cost savings associated with 

providing remote support nor systematically assessed the quality of support 

provided. In addition, many officials in Washington and overseas were

unaware of the full breadth of support offered by regional service centers. 

The Regional Service Center in Florida and Supported Posts 

Sources: GAO, and Map Art.

Supporting regional service center

Supported post

San Jose

Bridgetown

St. George’s Curacao

Kingston

Port of Spain

Santo Domingo

Port-Au-Prince

Havana

Belize City

Nassau

Quito

Guayaquil

Georgetown

Paramaribo

CARIBBEAN SEA

Ft. Lauderdale

Hamilton

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

The President has emphasized the

importance of safety, efficiency, 

and accountability in U.S. 

government staffing overseas by

designating the achievement of a

rightsized overseas presence as a 

part of the President’s 

Management Agenda. One of the 

elements of rightsizing involves 

relocating certain administrative

support functions from overseas 

posts to the United States or 

regional centers overseas, which

can provide cheaper, safer, or more

effective support. This report (1)

reviews State’s efforts in providing

administrative support from

remote locations, (2) identifies the 

challenges it faces in doing so, and 

(3) outlines the potential 

advantages and concerns

associated with providing support 

remotely. 

What GAO Recommends

We recommend that the Secretary 

of State (1) identify and analyze the 

various costs associated with 

providing support remotely, (2) 

develop systematic performance

measures and formal feedback

mechanisms to measure the quality

and customer satisfaction of

support services provided

remotely, and (3) use the cost 

analyses and feedback to make

decisions on supporting embassy 

operations. State generally 

concurred with our report and 

indicated that it is taking steps to

implement all of our

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

A Number of State Bureaus Provide Embassy Support Remotely, 

with More Efforts Planned 7

State Department Faces Challenges in Its Plans to Increase Embassy 

Support from Remote Locations 16

Providing Support Remotely Offers Potential Advantages, but Cost 

Analyses and Performance Measures Are Needed 20

Conclusions 29

Recommendations 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State 35

GAO Comments 39

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Tables Table 1: Support Offered by Regional Service Centers 9

Table 2: Characteristics of Posts Receiving Remote Support 10

Table 3: Select Functions that Can Be Provided Remotely 15

Figure Figure 1: Several Remote Support Partnerships in East Asia and the 

Pacific 12
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Abbreviations

FAH Foreign Affairs Handbook

ICASS International Cooperative Administrative Support Services

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PMA President’s Management Agenda

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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-06-479 Remote Support Services

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 2, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, 

and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Department of State (State) operates more than 260 embassies, 

consulates, and other posts in about 180 countries and employs more than 

11,000 Foreign Service officers and over 35,000 Foreign Service nationals. 

Operating under a decades-old management model, most of these posts are 

still directly responsible for carrying out the majority of the administrative 

functions, such as processing vouchers for payment, necessary for their 

day-to-day operations. The President has emphasized the importance of 

safety, efficiency, and accountability in U.S. government staffing overseas 

by designating the achievement of a rightsized overseas presence as part of 

the President’s Management Agenda.

1

 One of the elements of rightsizing is 

to relocate certain administrative support functions from overseas posts to 

the United States or to regional service centers overseas, which can reduce 

costs, improve services, and lessen the overall U.S. government footprint.

On January 18, 2006, the Secretary of State announced her vision for the 

future of the Department of State, including plans for the global 

repositioning of the United States’ official overseas presence. These plans, 

which include moving hundreds of positions to critical posts in regions 

such as Africa, South and East Asia, and the Middle East, call for new 

thinking on how State conducts its overseas operations. In particular, State 

intends to increasingly provide support functions remotely, as is presently 

done through regional service centers in Frankfurt, Germany, and Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida, which provide management support to overseas posts 

in areas such as human resources and financial management. 

1

Office of Management and Budget, President’s Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002

(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). The President’s Management Agenda is a set of 

management initiatives designed to make government more citizen-centered, effective, and 

efficient. Rightsizing is a concept that refers to having the right amount of staff at overseas 

posts with the necessary resources and expertise to accomplish U.S. policy objectives.
Page 2 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Over the past several years, we have provided the Subcommittee with 

reports and testimonies to assist in the oversight of staffing and operations 

at U.S. posts overseas. In order to ensure that the U.S. government’s goals 

in rightsizing its overseas presence are being met, you requested that we 

review actions to expand the use of support from remote locations; the 

progress that the U.S. government is making on rightsizing, including 

activities of the Office of Rightsizing within State; and the implementation 

of measures to reduce the duplication of support functions between State 

and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This report 

(1) reviews State’s efforts to provide administrative support from remote 

locations, (2) identifies the challenges it faces in doing so, and (3) outlines 

the potential advantages and concerns associated with providing support 

remotely. Later in 2006, we will report on the activities of the Office of 

Rightsizing and the implementation of measures to consolidate State and 

USAID support activities at overseas posts. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed State’s documents on its initiatives 

to provide support remotely and the foreign affairs regulations for carrying 

out administrative functions overseas. We spoke with officials at State’s 

regional and functional bureaus in Washington, D.C., and met with senior 

management and regional staff at the Florida Regional Center in Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida, and the Financial Services Center in Charleston, South 

Carolina. We also met with senior management, regional staff, and locally 

employed staff that provide remote support from the Regional Support 

Center in Frankfurt, Germany. We met with ambassadors, deputy chiefs of 

mission, management officers, and other U.S. embassy staff, including 

locally employed staff, at four posts that receive remote support. We chose 

the posts located at Belize City, Belize; Helsinki, Finland; Nassau, Bahamas; 

and Valetta, Malta, because they represent a sample of both small and 

medium-sized posts that receive remote support. We also visited Mexico 

City to talk with embassy officials about how the U.S. mission to Mexico 

has been rightsized and how the embassy provides support to consulates 

throughout the country. In addition, we met with officials in Paris, France, 

to discuss the financial support that locally employed staff provide to posts 

in Africa. Also, we conducted telephone interviews with management staff 

at 20 overseas posts regarding their reporting on rightsizing efforts to 

Washington and, when applicable, regarding remote support they receive. 

Lastly, we reviewed post profiles and cost data associated with the 

placement of American personnel overseas. We performed our work from 

June 2005 until April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. (For a detailed discussion of our scope and 

methodology, see app. I.)
Page 3 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Results in Brief State has a number of regional and domestic offices that provide some 

management support remotely to overseas posts in areas such as financial 

management and human resources, and it plans to increase the use of 

remote administrative support provided to overseas posts. For example, 

State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs provides direct support to 16 

small posts in its region through routine visits by staff based in a domestic 

regional service center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, while State’s Bureau of 

European and Eurasian Affairs provides consultative support through 

occasional post visits from staff on an as-needed basis from an overseas 

regional center in Frankfurt, Germany. Moreover, the Bureau of Resource 

Management provides a number of financial services, from its location in 

Charleston, South Carolina, to posts worldwide. Additionally, in late 2005, 

State announced that it would identify and remove functions that do not 

need to be performed at post and could instead be performed by personnel 

based in the United States or at regional offices overseas from seven posts 

in dangerous locations, where it is crucial to have as few personnel as 

possible due to security concerns. State also plans to eventually remove 

such functions from other overseas posts. 

State faces several challenges in trying to expand its use of remote support. 

In particular, restrictions on what management functions non-American 

staff can perform might limit the extent to which services can be provided 

remotely, as could a regulation that requires original invoices for payment. 

In addition, current funding arrangements for the various regional bureaus 

and posts might limit opportunities for remote support to be offered from 

one region to another, while a reluctance to change further constrains 

opportunities to expand remote support. State is currently assessing 

whether or not certain regulations could be waived or changed and how 

institutional challenges might be overcome.

There are several potential advantages to providing administrative support 

to posts from remote locations—including cost savings, enhanced security 

for American personnel, and improved quality of administrative support—

as well as several outstanding concerns, according to officials whom we 

spoke with both in Washington and overseas. For example, one officer 

located in the United States currently provides financial management 

support to multiple posts in the Western Hemisphere, thereby eliminating 

the need for an American financial management officer at each individual 

post served. Officials said that eliminating the need for American officers 

overseas could result in cost savings. In addition, according to State 

officials, potential cost benefits and other efficiencies might result from 
Page 4 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

making greater use of regional service centers overseas and by 

empowering locally employed staff to perform support functions 

traditionally carried out by U.S. officers overseas. Officials at the posts we 

visited said they were generally satisfied with the level of support and 

customer service received from a regional or domestic service center. 

However, they expressed some concerns relating to the quality of remote 

support, particularly regarding the timeliness of regional officers’ 

responses to post issues. State has not conducted analyses of the potential 

cost savings associated with providing remote support and has not used 

systematic performance measures and customer feedback mechanisms to 

assess the quality of support provided. In addition, many officials both in 

Washington and overseas are unaware of the full breadth of support offered 

by regional service centers and said they would be more willing to use them 

if the cost and quality of available services was documented. State officials 

in Washington agreed that tools, such as customer service feedback, would 

be useful in marketing remote support; and, during the course of our work, 

one regional bureau has begun to develop them.

As State implements its plan for expanding remote support, it would be 

useful for State to concurrently assess the advantages and address the 

concerns of providing embassy support from remote locations, including 

the potential impacts on cost, service delivery, and security for American 

personnel. Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the 

following three actions: 

• Identify and analyze the various costs associated with providing support 

at individual posts versus at regional service centers in the United States 

or overseas;

• Develop systematic performance measures and feedback mechanisms 

to measure the quality and customer satisfaction of support services 

provided remotely; and

• Use the cost analyses and feedback on quality and customer satisfaction 

to

• inform post management of which services could be offered 

remotely, the various costs involved, and the quality of services 

offered;

• consider ways to improve the quality of remote support, when 

necessary; and
Page 5 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

• determine whether additional posts, including posts that are 

requesting new U.S. officer positions in management functions, 

might be logical candidates for receiving remote support.

We also encourage State to continue reviewing challenges to providing 

support remotely and finding ways to overcome them.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State for comment. 

State generally concurred with the report’s substance and findings and 

indicated that it is taking steps to implement all of our recommendations. 

State also provided technical comments, which have been incorporated 

throughout the report, where appropriate.

Background Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es 

Salaam, Tanzania, a number of reviews called for the reassessment of 

overseas staffing levels and suggested a series of actions to adjust the 

overseas presence, including relocating some functions to the United 

States and to regional centers, where feasible.2

 The White House, Congress, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and GAO have emphasized 

rightsizing as vital to ensuring that the overseas presence is at an optimal 

and efficient level to carry out foreign policy objectives.3

 GAO’s rightsizing 

framework, which has been adopted by OMB and State, consists of three 

factors—mission, security, and cost—that should be weighed when making 

rightsizing decisions. In addition, the President’s Management Agenda

(PMA) has identified rightsizing as one of the administration’s priorities. 

One way to provide efficient administrative support to overseas posts is by 

consolidating and centralizing service delivery within a geographic area 

2

These reviews include, Department of State, America’s Overseas Presence in the 21st

Century, the Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (Washington, D.C.: November 

1999) and Department of State, Report of the Accountability Review Boards: Bombings of 

the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Washington, D.C.: 

January 1999).

3

We have defined rightsizing as aligning the number and location of staff assigned overseas 

with foreign policy priorities and security and other constraints. It may result in the addition 

or reduction of staff, or a change in the mix of staff at a given embassy or consulate 

overseas. A number of our reports have focused on rightsizing and include GAO, Overseas 

Presence: More Work Needed on Embassy Rightsizing, GAO-02-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

27, 2001); GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff Levels Can 

Support Rightsizing Initiatives, GAO-02-780 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2002); and GAO, 

Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Framework Can Be Applied at U.S. Diplomatic Posts in 

Developing Countries, GAO-03-396 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2003).
Page 6 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

through regional service centers located overseas and within the United 

States.4

 Two objectives of regional service centers, which address the three 

factors of the rightsizing framework, are to improve administrative support 

to overseas posts (mission) and to reduce staffing overseas whenever 

possible (cost and security). 

Within the State Department a number of bureaus and offices are 

responsible for the administration and oversight of regional operations 

overseas. The Under Secretary for Management is responsible for 

implementing the PMA initiatives and, in particular, working with the White 

House and OMB on the initiative focused on rightsizing the U.S. 

government’s overseas presence. The congressionally mandated Office of 

Rightsizing5

 leads State’s efforts to develop mechanisms to better 

coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment of U.S. government 

personnel overseas. In addition, the Office of Global Support Services and 

Innovation in the Bureau of Administration coordinates State’s efforts to 

improve the delivery of support services to all overseas posts. This office 

partners with service providers at posts and State’s various regional6

 and 

functional bureaus to move support work to safer and lower-cost regional 

and central locations. 

The operation of U.S. embassies and consulates overseas requires basic 

administrative support services for overseas personnel, such as financial 

management and personnel services. At the post level, the management 

section, which is normally headed by a management counselor or 

management officer, is responsible for carrying out the administrative 

functions at a post. The typical management section of an embassy consists 

of several U.S. Foreign Service officers who are in charge of financial 

management, human resources, information management, and general 

4

Providing administrative support to overseas posts by consolidating and centralizing 

service delivery within a geographic area through regional service centers is also referred to 

as regionalization.

5

In the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act (P.L. 108-199), Congress mandated the 

establishment of an Office on Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence to be 

established within the Department of State. The office was directed to lead State’s effort to 

develop internal and interagency mechanisms to better coordinate, rationalize, and manage 

the deployment of U.S. government personnel overseas, under Chief of Mission authority.

6

State has six regional bureaus, each of which is responsible for working with posts in a 

specific geographic region of the world. State’s regional bureaus include the Bureaus of 

African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near Eastern 

Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs. 
Page 7 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

services. They are assisted by locally employed staff7 who serve as voucher 

examiners, cashiers, and financial and personnel assistants and specialists. 

Smaller posts have not historically had full management sections with 

trained, experienced U.S. citizen officers filling each of the management 

positions, such as a financial management officer or human resources 

officer.8

 Therefore, many times these posts rely on remote support from the 

United States or a regional service center to obtain administrative support. 

A Number of State 

Bureaus Provide 

Embassy Support 

Remotely, with More 

Efforts Planned 

State has a number of overseas regional bureaus that provide management 

support remotely in a variety of ways. State’s functional bureaus also 

provide remote support. As a part of its rightsizing efforts, State developed 

plans to regionalize support by identifying all nonlocation-specific 

functions9

 and removing them from overseas posts, starting with critical 

danger posts, where it is crucial to have as few personnel as possible due to 

security concerns. 

State’s Regional Bureaus 

Offer Remote Support in a 

Variety of Ways

Two regional bureaus provide remote support from a regional service 

center staffed with a cadre of management staff assigned to various posts. 

Other regional bureaus assign management staff at larger posts to assist 

neighboring posts that lack the management staff necessary to carry out all 

of the post’s administrative functions. 

Two Regional Bureaus Have 

Regional Service Centers

State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs and the Bureau of European 

and Eurasian Affairs offer a variety of personnel and other administrative 

support services remotely to their posts through regional service centers. 

Both regional service centers—the Florida Regional Center in Fort 

7

Locally employed staff includes any staff hired by the embassy on the host country’s local 

economy. Foreign service nationals are considered locally employed staff.

8

A financial management officer acts as a certifying officer for U.S. government agencies 

and provides a full range of financial services, including development of budgets and 

financial plans, control of obligations and expenditures, and preparation and audit of 

payment vouchers. A human resources officer supervises post human resources staff and 

ensures effective post operations in several functions, including labor relations, recruitment 

and staffing, compensation and benefits, performance management and appraisal, training, 

policy development, job classification, and career counseling.

9

Nonlocation-specific functions are management functions that can be performed from a 

regional center or at a central location within the United States rather than at an overseas 

post. 
Page 8 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Lauderdale, Florida, and the Regional Support Center in Frankfurt, 

Germany—have a director who oversees operations and reports to the 

executive director of each respective regional bureau in Washington, D.C. 

Both centers’ buildings also house various other regional support activities 

that are managed by the respective functional bureaus, such as a regional 

procurement office that provides purchasing and contracting services to 

posts. 

• The Florida Regional Center provides financial management and human 

resources support to about 16 posts located in Latin America and the 

Caribbean. The posts that receive remote support in these functions do 

not have a full-time, American financial management officer or human 

resources officer; rather, the U.S. post management officer at these 

posts serves multiple roles10 and spends a certain percentage of his or 

her time on various management activities, including the certification of 

vouchers and some personnel functions, with assistance from locally 

employed staff. However, the management officers might not be able to 

provide enough personnel or financial support due to their lack of 

experience or training in the function as well as time constraints, 

according to officials at the posts we visited. To compensate for these 

limitations, a regional human resources or financial management 

officer, based in Fort Lauderdale, visits each post for which he or she is 

responsible on an agreed schedule that is outlined in a memorandum of 

agreement between the post and the Florida center. For example, during 

a typical visit, a regional human resources officer ensures that the post 

is in compliance with local labor laws and regulations, evaluates post 

personnel operations and practices, addresses employee morale issues, 

conducts salary and benefits surveys, provides guidance on post training 

needs, and performs a host of other higher level human resources 

duties, as necessary. A regional financial management officer’s 

responsibilities include reviewing post management practices to 

prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement; conducting spot reviews of 

vouchers, purchase orders, and petty cash transactions; and providing 

assistance in post budget and financial plans. The Florida center also 

has one regional information management officer involved in a pilot 

program to provide support to two posts that do not have a permanent 

10A management officer in small overseas posts may be designated with a wider variety of 

responsibilities than a management officer at a larger post. For example, the management 

officer in Belize City is partially responsible for the post’s budget and fiscal, consular, human 

resources, medical, and other services.
Page 9 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

information management officers assigned, as well as three information 

management specialists and two office management specialists that 

provide additional support to posts throughout the region, when 

necessary. 

• The Regional Support Center in Frankfurt, Germany, provides 

management assistance in financial management and human resources 

to about 40 posts throughout Europe and Eurasia; however, it does this 

on a more consultative, as-needed basis than the Florida center. The 

Frankfurt center’s focus is to promote self-reliance in the full range of 

financial and personnel activities at European and Eurasian posts. It 

provides management oversight to posts and assists staff in developing 

various managerial skills through oversight visits and training. Many of 

the posts the center serves do not have full-time human resources 

officers or financial management officers, and a number of them are 

staffed by junior or first-tour management officers who need occasional 

assistance or training in core management functions. Regional support 

is provided through occasional post visits from regional officers and 

senior, locally employed staff located at the Frankfurt office, as well as 

through training provided at the Frankfurt center. 

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the number of regional management staff, 

the number of posts they cover, and the types of support they provide from 

Fort Lauderdale and Frankfurt. 

Table 1: Support Offered by Regional Service Centers 

Source: Department of State.

a

Three American direct hire and three locally employed staff.

b

Two American direct hire and one locally employed staff.

Type of support provided by regional managers

Florida Regional Center, Fort 

Lauderdale

Regional Support Center, Frankfurt, 

Germany

Primary service provider for the 

function at post; post visits six times 

per year.

Consultative support, training, 

guidance, and oversight; post visits 

once or twice per year depending on 

post needs.

Number of regional officers/Number of posts

supported by function

Financial management Two officers/6 Posts Six officersa/30 Posts

Human resources Four officers/16 Posts Three officersb/32 Posts

Information management One officer/2 Posts Zero officers/0 Posts
Page 10 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Table 2 provides data on the four posts that we visited that receive financial 

and personnel support from a regional service center in Fort Lauderdale or 

Frankfurt and the various characteristics of those posts, including the total 

number of staff, the number of local staff that carry out financial and 

personnel functions, the posts’ budgets, and the number of annual visits 

received from a regional manager. Fort Lauderdale and Frankfurt currently 

provide administrative support remotely to small and medium-sized posts, 

which in some instances removes the need for an American officer to carry 

out those support functions at post. 

Table 2: Characteristics of Posts Receiving Remote Support 

Source: Department of State, as of March 2006.

Some Regional Bureaus Use 

Other Methods of Remote 

Support

State’s other regional bureaus use mechanisms other than regional centers 

to support posts’ administrative needs remotely. In particular, the Bureaus 

of African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, 

Western Hemisphere Affairs, and South and Central Asian Affairs use 

partnering arrangements to provide remote support from larger posts or 

Overseas post

Belize City, 

Belize

Nassau, 

Bahamas

Helsinki, 

Finland

Valletta, 

Malta

Staffing at post

Total staff at post (all agencies) 121 236 134 99

 Americans 33 177 58 32

 Locals, Non-Americans 88 59 76 67

American officers in functions at posts

Human resources 0 0 0 0

Financial management 0 0 0 0

Locally employed staff at functions in posts

Human resources 2 2 2 1

Financial management 4 6 4 3

Post administration

Total budget size of post, 2006 $3.7 million $16.4 million $9.3 million $3.8 million

Number of vouchers processed, 2005 3,200 4,305 5,000 1,550

Regional support

Regional service center Fort Lauderdale Frankfurt

Visits in financial management/year 6 6 1 1

Visits in human resources/year 6 6 1 1
Page 11 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

embassies to small or medium-sized posts that do not have resident 

American human resources or financial management officers. For example, 

because Embassy Phnom Penh does not have a resident human resources 

officer, the management staff at Embassy Bangkok provides support by 

reviewing human resources operations and providing ad hoc advisory 

assistance at least twice per year. In Mexico, the Embassy in Mexico City 

provides financial management support to about nine consulates 

throughout the country that do not have resident financial management 

officers. In addition, the Bureau of African Affairs employs staff in Paris to 

provide financial support to posts in Africa. Some posts have a support 

agreement that outlines how many visits will be made and what functions 

will be carried out under such partnering arrangements.

Officials from the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in Washington 

said that posts in Asia use partnering because geographic distances and 

language and cultural differences between posts in some areas make it 

difficult to devise a regional service center that, like those in Frankfurt and 

Fort Lauderdale, meets all posts needs. Furthermore, officials said the 

regional bureau currently lacks the funding to establish a regional service 

center with a new building and additional management staff. See figure 1 

for a map of several remote support partnerships in East Asia and the 

Pacific.
Page 12 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Figure 1: Several Remote Support Partnerships in East Asia and the Pacific

In addition, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs has embarked on an effort 

to make extensive use of remote support provided from the United States 

due to the extreme security threat faced at new embassies, particularly in 

Ulaanbaatar

Seoul

Phnom

Penh

Vientiane Rangoon

Bangkok

Singapore

Jakarta

Dili

Bandar Seri

Begawan

Manila

Koror Kolonia

Majuro

Canberra

Port

Moresby

Suva

Apia

Wellington

PACIFIC

INDIAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

Supporting embassy

Supported post

Sources: GAO, and Map Art.
Page 13 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Baghdad, Iraq.11 For example, an official from the Bureau of Near Eastern 

Affairs told us that State plans to provide increased financial management 

support to the embassy in Baghdad from centralized operations in 

Charleston, South Carolina, rather than performing all financial 

management operations at post. However, he pointed out that it would take 

significant time and money before the bureau could remove all 

nonlocation-specific functions from critical danger posts, as outlined in 

State’s 2006 operational plan.

State’s Functional Bureaus 

Also Provide Remote 

Support

Several functional bureaus within State provide remote support in financial 

management, information management, procurement, security, courier, 

medical, and other functions. Some of these operations are offered 

centrally from locations within the United States and others at overseas 

locations such as the regional center in Frankfurt. One example of a 

domestic support operation is the Global Financial Services Center within 

the Bureau of Resource Management, which has a central location in 

Charleston, South Carolina, and receives support from offices in Bangkok, 

Thailand, and Paris, France. The center is responsible for disbursement, 

payroll, accounting, cashier monitoring and training, customer support, 

and other financial management support for posts around the world. 

Additional examples of remote support from functional bureaus include 

the following:

• The Bureau for Information and Resource Management sponsors 

Regional Information Management Centers, which provide 

telecommunications, network, systems, engineering, installation, and 

maintenance support to overseas posts from a number of locations. 

• The Bureau of Administration operates the Regional Procurement 

Support Office, which provides contract and procurement services and 

provides goods and services to posts throughout the world, for a certain 

fee. 

11In addition, State created the Model for Overseas Management Support within the Bureau 

of Administration to ease the burden of administrative support on overseas posts in 

dangerous environments. The model was initially designed to meet the challenges of 

supporting the numerous demands for establishing and maintaining support services to 

Embassy Baghdad, and State plans to expand the model concept to other dangerous posts in 

the Middle East. 
Page 14 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

• State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security provides regional engineering 

support and diplomatic courier operations to posts overseas. 

• State also has various regional medical offices throughout the world 

that are administered by the Office of Medical Services. 

State Developed an 

Operational Plan for 

Rightsizing

State’s fiscal year 2006 operational plan, Organizing for Transformational 

Diplomacy: Rightsizing and Regionalization,12 identifies post functions 

that can be performed remotely. The plan focuses on first removing 

nonlocation-specific functions—or functions that could potentially be 

removed from posts and carried out either from the U.S. or a regional 

center—from critical danger missions,13 where State officials said it is 

crucial to have as few personnel at posts as possible due to security 

concerns. The plan envisions eventually removing those functions from all 

overseas posts. Officials from the Office of Global Support Services and 

Innovation identified 78 nonlocation-specific functions and, in December 

2005, State selected 16 of these functions that it planned to provide to 

critical danger posts from remote locations, according to officials. For a list 

of some of the nonlocation-specific functions that can be provided 

remotely, see table 3.

12Department of State, Organizing for Transformation Diplomacy: Rightsizing and 

Regionalization FY 2006 Operational Plan (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2005).

13State Department has identified Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi 

Arabia, and Sudan as the most critical danger posts that will be initially affected by State’s 

operational plan focusing on nonlocation-specific functions. However, plans for operations 

in Iraq, also considered a critical danger post, are proceeding separately.
Page 15 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Table 3: Select Functions that Can Be Provided Remotely

Source: Department of State.

State’s operational plan includes goals and timelines for action. As of April 

2006, State indicated that a number of initiatives to remove nonlocationspecific functions were under way in a number of posts; however, it is too 

early to asses State’s progress in implementing the plan.

In December 2005, State’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) recognized 

State’s operational plan as a good start and recommended that the Under 

Secretary for Management produce a Departmentwide master plan for 

formally accrediting regional centers. This recommended plan would 

include long-term capital construction requirements for housing and office 

space, standardized service expectations, and management structures that 

ensure accountability to serviced bureaus and posts.14 As of March 2006, 

officials from the Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Administration 

said they were beginning to address the IG’s findings. 

While officials from the executive offices of some of the regional bureaus 

told us that State’s operational plan is on the right track, they cautioned 

that the implementation of the plan must take into consideration the 

various realities faced by posts in different regions of the world. For 

example, an official of the Bureau of African Affairs told us that many posts 

in Africa lack the technological capabilities to be able to utilize remote 

support, which requires more processes to be done electronically. He 

Nonlocation-specific function Activity

Human resources management services Orientation and in-processing 

Local staff job evaluations

Training Distance learning applications

Procurement services Purchase order processing

Contracting

Financial management services Voucher examination and certification

Budget submissions and report preparation

Travel Services Travel request processing

Travel order preparation

14Department of State, Memorandum Report, Rightsizing the U.S. Government Presence 

Overseas: A Progress Report, (ISP-I-06-11, Washington, D.C.: December 2005).
Page 16 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

cautioned that certain posts would need to obtain better bandwidth 

connectivity to handle online financial management transactions. In 

addition, officials from the bureau did not believe that the three African 

posts identified as critical danger posts would meet the strategy’s March 

2006 timeline to receive nonlocation-specific services remotely. Officials 

from the Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, 

Western Hemisphere Affairs, and East Asia and Pacific Affairs agreed that 

there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to providing support remotely. An 

official from the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs added that if more 

nonlocation-specific functions are moved from posts to remote locations, 

regional bureaus would have to release or shift many local staff that 

currently carry out those functions at posts and hire additional Americans 

in the United States or staff at regional service centers overseas. 

Officials in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs also pointed out that 

the various administrative bureaus within State, to which the workload 

related to remote support might be assigned, may not yet have the capacity 

to handle the additional work. For example, they said that the Bureau of 

Resource Management had not yet reported that it is ready to provide 

additional remote support in the area of financial management. However, 

according to the officials, the Bureau of Information Resource 

Management is an example of a functional bureau that is committed to 

maximizing the way in which it provides information technology services 

to overseas posts and it is standardizing its regional information 

management centers.

State Department 

Faces Challenges in Its 

Plans to Increase 

Embassy Support from 

Remote Locations

State is currently looking to move forward with its fiscal year 2006 

operational plan for remote support; however, it faces several challenges 

that could hinder its further expansion of remote support services. In 

particular, limits on what management functions non-American staff 

perform might limit the extent to which services can be provided remotely. 

In addition, one regulation requires original invoices for payment, which 

could hinder additional remote support provided electronically. Also, 

current funding arrangements for the various regional bureaus and posts 

might limit opportunities for remote support to be offered from one region 

to another. Finally, a reluctance to change further constrains opportunities 

to expand remote support. 
Page 17 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Limits on Non-American 

Staff Responsibilities Might 

Hinder Remote Support

Officials at the posts we visited told us that empowering local staff could 

play a significant role in expanding remote support; however, such staff are 

limited in the types of support that they may provide. For example, while 

several officials stressed that there are certain tasks that, for reasons of 

national security, must be carried out overseas by security-cleared 

American citizens, some tasks, such as certifying vouchers, may be done by 

non-American staff. In fact, according to the Foreign Affairs Handbook 

(FAH), direct-hire, locally employed staff members who meet certain 

professional qualification criteria and have proven records of integrity and 

consistent superior performance may be designated to certify vouchers as 

Alternate Certifying Officers.15 Several officials at the Florida center said 

that allowing such staff to certify with oversight from a regional officer 

could remove the need for American officers at some posts. However, we 

found a lack of clarity regarding this issue at several posts. In particular, 

several officials whom we spoke with in Washington and overseas either 

were unaware that non-American staff could certify vouchers or said there 

were limitations on which types of vouchers or what maximum monetary 

value those staff may be designated to certify. 

Additionally, State officials told us that other tasks, such as procurement, 

could also be carried out by non-American staff with oversight from an 

American regional officer if current regulations limiting their authority 

were changed.16 State is exploring this issue through a pilot program at 

Embassy Brussels to implement contracting authority for locally engaged 

staff. If successful and expanded, the program could free up American 

officers for essential operational and management controls activities, or 

potentially eliminate some American positions at posts, according to 

officials in Washington. Officials in Washington and at posts we visited said 

that State should reexamine its policies and determine, based on a riskbenefit analysis, what additional powers or responsibilities could be given 

to local, non-American staff, and then communicate that to posts.

154 FAH-3 H-065.2-2.

16Department of State Acquisition Regulation at 601.603-3 (c) provides that only U.S. 

government direct-hire employees who are U.S. citizens shall be appointed as contracting 

officers. The regulation specifically provides that personal services contractors, foreign 

service nationals, and third country nationals are not eligible for appointment as State 

contracting officers. See 6 Foreign Affairs Manual, appendix E.
Page 18 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Existing Regulation Could 

Hinder Use of Technologies 

in Providing Remote 

Support

State officials noted that, with the right technological applications, some 

administrative functions, such as the entire payment process, could be 

performed from a remote location with minimal involvement from posts. 

However, State faces challenges in making this transition due to a 

regulation that requires original invoices in processing payments.17 State 

recognizes that leveraging today’s Web-based technologies and global 

business practices is essential to carrying out administrative functions 

remotely, and it reports that it is working aggressively with embassies and 

agencies to use technology and improved management methods to 

eliminate the nonessential U.S. government presence overseas.18 In 

addition, the Under Secretary for Management asked posts to move ahead 

with efforts to provide additional support remotely and to identify any legal 

or regulatory barriers, according to State officials. For example, State has 

waived the regulation requiring an original invoice in order to allow a pilot 

post being served by the regional center in Frankfurt to e-mail or fax 

vouchers, invoices, and other supporting documentation to Frankfurt for 

certification of payment and submission to the Global Financial Services 

Center for disbursement. However, this pilot is not yet under way due to 

resistance from officials who believe that there should be a financial 

management officer at every post, according to State officials in 

Washington. In addition, the pilot post—Nicosia, Cyprus—lacked the 

bandwidth capabilities necessary for the electronic transactions at the time 

of our study, according to officials.

Funding Structures 

Complicate Remote Support 

Efforts

Current State bureau funding structures might limit the application of 

remote services. Since regional centers are currently funded primarily by 

their respective regional bureaus, it is commonly believed that it is difficult 

for posts to cross bureau lines to obtain regional services, according to 

officials from the regional bureaus in Washington. This makes it difficult, 

for example, for the Florida Regional Center to provide services to a post 

not covered by the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Another 

example is the Bureau of African Affairs’ employment of staff in Paris to 

provide financial support to posts in Africa. The bureau believes these 

employees are ideally suited for this work because of their financial 

management expertise, their French-speaking skills that are necessary to 

174 FAH-3 H-422.6 requires that payment be made on original invoices only.

18Quarterly Report by the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Presence Overseas 

(2005/III).
Page 19 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

serve many African posts, and their access to transportation links to Africa. 

We asked if these staff could also serve some North African posts, which 

are even closer geographically to Paris and where French is also widely 

spoken. But we were told that this is not currently possible, largely because 

the posts in North Africa are not within the Africa Bureau, and funding 

structures to cross regional bureaus have not yet been established. State’s 

IG recently pointed out that a Departmentwide plan clarifying the 

resources and funding structures for regional centers would add needed 

coherence to State’s rightsizing efforts.19

Several examples demonstrate that State is trying to address the issues 

involved with financing remote support. For example, the International 

Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS)20 Executive Board 

approved a proposal to initiate the charging of customer agencies for 

regional services and to enable posts to utilize regional center services 

outside their regional bureau. Furthermore, remote services are already 

beginning to cross regional boundaries. For example, the Florida Regional 

Center recently added to its portfolio Hamilton, Bermuda, a post that 

belongs to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, because the 

Florida center is geographically closer to Hamilton than is the Regional 

Support Center in Frankfurt. This arrangement currently entails the Bureau 

of European and Eurasian Affairs paying for the travel of the regional 

manager to post. 

Reluctance to Change 

Hampers Remote Support 

Efforts

State officials pointed out that management officials at overseas posts 

might be reluctant to accept support remotely rather than having an 

American at post to provide the support. For example, officials at the 

Florida Regional Center have made two proposals to expand the center’s 

support in financial management and human resources and have identified 

posts, with similar characteristics to those currently receiving support (see 

table 2), that would benefit from remote support. One proposal, which calls 

for the empowerment of locally employed staff, backed by oversight from a 

regional manager at the Florida center to certify vouchers, would free up 

the need for a full-time American financial management officer at post. 

19ISP-I-06-11, December 2005.

20ICASS was implemented in 1998 and is a shared administrative support system through 

which government entities at overseas posts obtain and share costs of essential services. 

ICASS is governed by a 14-member board, composed of assistant-secretary level 

representatives of the largest customer U.S. government agencies.
Page 20 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

However, officials in Washington and at some posts we visited overseas 

told us that most posts are reluctant or unwilling to give up their American 

management officers because they prefer to have direct access to them. 

Officials told us that post receptivity to such remote support proposals 

depends on management’s willingness to relinquish some of its current 

positions, as well as the assurance from the regional bureaus in 

Washington, D.C., that the regional service centers would have the 

resources to provide additional support. For example, Haiti was recently 

identified as a post that could utilize financial management support from 

the Florida center but, according to officials from the Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, senior management at the post would not relinquish 

the American staff position. 

In addition, State reports resistance to change from a number of its 

bureaus. For example, officials from the Bureau of Resource Management 

(as well as some officials overseas) believe that having fewer management 

staff at posts overseas could increase internal control vulnerabilities and 

that there should be an American financial management officer at all 

overseas posts. Additionally, in its technical comments on this draft, the 

Office of Global Support Services and Innovation said that, while 

developing the pilot programs to remove nonlocation-specific functions 

from critical danger posts, such as Haiti, the regional bureaus were 

reluctant to impose this experiment on posts already under such stress. 

This reluctance, along with State’s desire to expand remote support to the 

largest possible number of posts, has led State to consider all posts, not just 

critical danger posts, for implementation of such pilot programs, according 

to the office.

Providing Support 

Remotely Offers 

Potential Advantages, 

but Cost Analyses and 

Performance Measures 

Are Needed

According to State officials, there are several potential advantages to 

providing administrative support to posts from remote locations rather 

than at individual posts, including potential cost savings, enhanced security 

for American personnel, and improved quality of administrative support. 

However, at the time of our review, State had not conducted analyses of the 

cost advantages associated with providing administrative support remotely 

rather than at posts and had no systematic performance measures and 

feedback mechanisms in place to assess the quality of support provided. 
Page 21 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Support Provided from 

Remote Locations Could 

Offer Advantages in 

Mission, Cost, and Security

We have identified several examples to demonstrate the potential 

advantages, in terms of financial benefits, enhanced security for American 

personnel, and improved quality of administrative support, of posts 

receiving support remotely. The first example demonstrates the advantages 

of providing remote support from a regional service center located in the 

United States. The second example depicts the advantages associated with 

providing support from a regional service center located overseas. Finally, 

the third example illustrates the advantages associated with locally 

employed staff providing remote support to posts. There are also several 

issues of concern relating to remote support, namely the quality of services, 

though these issues require further analysis.

Providing Support from the 

United States

According to officials at the Florida center, assigning certain duties to 

regional officers based in the United States is one way to save money while 

retaining the expertise of a foreign service officer. Officials told us there 

are cost savings associated with having one regional officer perform the 

duties of several officers who would otherwise be assigned to posts. 

Officials told us that eliminating the need for American officers overseas 

could result in cost savings after factoring in offsetting costs, such as costs 

for travel and technology enhancements, to accommodate the change. For 

example, each overseas position costs approximately $400,000, according 

to an average computed by State’s Bureau of Resource Management for 

fiscal year 2007. This amount includes salary, benefits, and support costs 

plus a number of costs that apply only to officials overseas, such as housing 

allowances; educational allowances for their children; and additional pay, 

such as danger pay, depending on which region of the world the officer is 

located. It also includes costs for providing a secure building for the 

officers to work in overseas. By assigning regional officers in the United 

States, State could avoid such costs, which do not apply to personnel 

stationed domestically. Although officials have not conducted a formal cost 

comparison to assess the size of the potential savings, they believe the 

potential savings could be in the millions of dollars.

For example, in 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas, requested a 

full-time American financial management officer at post to handle its 

financial management workload, according to the post management 

officer. To avoid the additional costs associated with posting a financial 

management officer in Nassau, officials from the Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs said the bureau instead assigned a regional officer from 

the Florida Regional Center to assist the Nassau post management officer 

who handles a variety of financial management responsibilities, such as 
Page 22 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

certifying vouchers. The total cost for the Florida-based regional officer 

would be his salary and benefits plus travel costs of about $60,000, 

according to the center’s officials, which includes travel to Nassau and 

three other posts also served by that officer.

In addition to cost efficiencies, officials said the Florida Regional Center’s 

model of support would enhance security, while the quality of support 

would not suffer from the change. Officials told us that U.S. officials, in 

general, are much safer living and working in the United State than at 

overseas posts. In addition, staff at both posts we visited said that the 

support the posts received from the Florida Regional Center was generally 

satisfactory and meeting post needs. One management officer said that the 

regional managers were highly experienced and competent in their 

functional areas, which led to a high level of quality support. 

Officials at the Florida Regional Center added that, in cases where a 

regional center is located within the United States, civil servants or retired 

employees could also be used as a cost-effective way of providing remote 

support, when feasible. Another potential advantage of assigning civil 

service or retired employees to provide remote support would be 

continuity, as they would not be required to transfer every 2 to 3 years as 

foreign service officers do. 

Providing Support from an 

Overseas Regional Center

According to officials in Washington and overseas, potential advantages 

also could arise from providing support remotely from a regional service 

center overseas. For example, approximately 20 posts in Europe and 

Eurasia have requests in their Mission Performance Plans21 for an 

American financial management officer at post, according to the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Global Financial Services. To eventually avoid 

assigning such new staff to posts overseas, State is piloting a project to 

determine whether it can remotely certify vouchers in Frankfurt by using 

scanned rather than original documents. Center officials said that there 

would be a savings in cost and space and gains in security at those posts 

where this concept of remote certification removes the need for an 

American financial management officer position overseas. For example, 

while some posts in Europe and Eurasia do not have facilities that meet 

21A Mission Performance Plan is one of State’s planning tools. These plans require, among 

other things, every chief of mission to outline current rightsizing objectives and 

accomplishments, including plans to use regionalized services and programs when 

practicable.
Page 23 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

security standards, the Regional Support Center in Frankfurt is located in a 

safe facility that meets security standards, including 100-foot setback 

between office facilities and uncontrolled areas, and controlled access at 

the perimeter of the compound. Also, officials said that posts could receive 

highly skilled and experienced financial oversight from the center. Officials 

acknowledged that it is costly to operate from the Frankfurt facility 

because of local wage rates and the cost of living allowance for U.S. staff. 

However, they believe that high operating costs would likely be outweighed 

by a combination of factors, including the potential efficiencies achieved at 

posts served by the regional facility and the eventual reduction in staff 

needed at posts overseas due to the remote support offered from 

Frankfurt. However, center officials said they had not performed cost 

analyses to demonstrate if servicing posts from Frankfurt was cost 

effective, and they agree that such analysis would be useful. 

Providing Support Using NonAmerican Staff Rather than 

Americans 

State officials told us that using non-American staff to provide remote 

support offers several advantages. For example, State uses these staff in 

the Foreign Service National Executive Corps and Paris Rovers Programs. 

• The Foreign Service National Executive Corps, one method of providing 

remote support, is used by the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs 

to leverage in-house resources to benefit smaller missions throughout 

the world, according to officials at the Frankfurt center. Corps members 

are locally employed staff, from a variety of posts throughout the 

various regional bureaus, who are highly experienced in various 

administrative functions and can assist, train, and mentor staff at posts 

in areas such as facilities maintenance, financial management, general 

services (such as procurement), human resources, and information 

management. State officials told us that, by using the corps members to 

provide remote support, State has avoided the assignment of additional 

American officers overseas. 

• The Paris Rovers Program, another means of providing remote support 

by using non-American staff, is cost-efficient and effective, according to 

officials from the Bureau of African Affairs. The program operates with 

six locally employed staff—five of whom are based in Paris—serving as 

financial management experts for about 44 posts in Africa, many of 

which either have first-tour financial management officers or no fulltime American financial management officers. The rovers are experts in 

post budget needs and cashier problems and spend much of their time 

providing on-the-job training to staff at posts, as well as occasionally 

filling post staffing gaps. According to bureau officials, by educating 
Page 24 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

first-tour officers in the use and management of appropriated funds and 

reviewing financial management reports, the Paris rovers provide 

needed financial management internal control oversight, which likely 

reduces financial losses to the bureau. 

In addition, bureau officials said they are committed to not sending an 

American to post when there is no need to do so, due to the security risk 

levels of many posts in Africa. Recently, several posts in Africa, including 

Bangui in the Central African Republic, have requested American financial 

management officers, according to an official from the Bureau for African 

Affairs. To avoid hiring a financial management officer for Bangui, the 

bureau added Embassy Bangui to the Paris Rovers Program. 

Although the bureau has not determined the full potential of the program, 

its initial data demonstrate that the operation is cost-effective. According 

to bureau officials, the total cost of the six employee rover program in 2005 

was about $934,000, including employee salaries and travel costs. The 

Bureau of African Affairs prepared an estimate, at our request, of what it 

would cost to provide financial services without the Paris-based rover 

operation. The bureau estimated that it would have to spend over one 

million dollars to fund three additional U.S. officer positions and three parttime employees, slightly more than the cost of the Paris operation. Officials 

agreed that a more detailed cost analysis could demonstrate if the program 

is clearly cost-effective and therefore should be expanded to cover 

additional posts. 

In Addition to Advantages of 

Remote Support, Several 

Concerns Exist

Despite overall satisfaction with regional support, management officers 

and locally employed staff at the posts we visited mentioned a few issues of 

concern relating to the quality of remote support, including timeliness and 

the distribution of assistance. One management officer said that it once 

took 4 weeks for his regional financial management officer to respond to 

him on a certain issue, by which time the issue was no longer relevant. 

Another management officer agreed that posts are subject to regional 

officers’ availability, and when an officer is not at a post, an issue may take 

too long to resolve. Officials at regional centers told us that the quality of 

partnering support was not as good as the service provided by a regional 

center. One management officer told us that an officer with regional 

responsibilities who is located at a post will likely prioritize the home post’s 

issues over the needs of other supported posts. In addition, State’s recent 

IG inspections found substandard regional support at smaller posts in 

Africa where partnering is used, and often recommended updating the 

memorandum of understanding to delineate regional support 
Page 25 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

expectations.22 However, at the time of our review, State did not have 

performance data for remote support. An official from the Bureau of 

European and Eurasian Affairs told us that, absent performance measures 

and feedback tools to ensure costumer satisfaction, accountability, and 

adequate internal controls, customer service could decrease when a 

service provider is located outside of the post. 

In addition, an official from the Global Financial Services Center in 

Charleston and other officials overseas reported concerns that fewer onthe-ground American management staff could increase internal control 

vulnerabilities. For example, some officials believe that there needs to be 

an American financial management officer at every overseas post to 

prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds. According to GAO’s 

Internal Control Management Evaluation Tool,23 government agencies 

should formulate an approach for risk management and decide upon the 

internal control activities required to mitigate risks that could impede the 

efficient and effective achievement of objectives. The approach should be 

modified to fit the circumstances, conditions, and risks relevant to the 

situation of each agency and should also consider the type of mission being 

performed and the cost/benefit aspect of a particular control item. In this 

example, State would weigh the potential internal control risks of allowing 

non-American staff to certify vouchers and carry out other financial 

management activities against the costs of having an American at every 

post to carry out such functions. 

Cost Analyses and 

Performance Measures Are 

Needed

At the time of our review, State had not conducted analyses of the costs 

associated with providing administrative support at posts versus providing 

it remotely. In addition, State lacked systematic performance measures and 

feedback mechanisms to assess the quality of support provided. Further, 

officials whom we interviewed from several posts were not aware of the 

types of remote support that could be made available to them and said they 

would be more willing to use it if the cost and quality of available services 

was documented.

22State OIG Memorandum Report, “Rightsizing the U.S. Government Presence Overseas: A 

Progress Report.” (ISP-I-06-11, December 2005). 

23GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, 

D.C.: August 2001). 
Page 26 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Cost Analysis Would Be Useful in 

Determining Whether to Provide 

Support Remotely

At the time of our review, State had not conducted cost analyses to show 

potential cost efficiencies, such as those outlined in the examples 

described earlier, of providing support to overseas posts remotely. Officials 

we talked to in Washington, at the regional centers, and at some posts we 

visited said that cost analyses would be useful in deciding how to provide 

support remotely. For example, the Deputy Director of the Florida Regional 

Center told us that there had been no analysis on how much money has 

been saved by serving posts from the Florida center rather than having 

management officials at the posts, and he said that such a study would be 

useful, not only for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, but also for 

other regional bureaus when they consider using regional centers to 

provide remote support. 

Cost analyses were not incorporated into State’s 2006 operational plan for 

rightsizing.24 The plan recognizes that additional resources, such as 

facilities and staff, would be needed to implement the plan. However, it 

does not address any of the cost savings or efficiencies that could be 

achieved by providing remote support from regional centers or the United 

States and whether the savings would exceed the cost of additional 

resources. 

A cost analysis would include the various costs and alternatives associated 

with providing remote support through regional service centers in the 

United States or overseas. Such cost components would include the 

various direct and other personnel and support costs associated with 

providing support at a post. It would weigh these costs against costs 

required to facilitate remote support, such as travel expenses; costs for 

technology enhancements, such as improved bandwidth connectivity; costs 

for new or expanded facilities and other related expenses to accommodate 

increased staff at existing or new regional centers; costs for changes in 

local staffing or staffing in the United States; and other costs. 

Performance Measures and 

Feedback Mechanisms Needed 

The concerns with remote support described earlier—particularly relating 

to quality of services—underscore what officials indicated at both regional 

24The Office of Rightsizing commissioned a consulting firm to study remote support efforts. 

RGS Associates, Inc., conducted a review of State’s efforts to provide support remotely and 

indicated the need for more efficient and standardized remote support efforts. The study 

included cost analyses and recommended the standardization of remote support efforts 

based on a corporate model, according to officials from that office. However, an official 

from the office told us the study was met with resistance by State officials because it was a 

business model and did not reflect an accurate depiction of State operations. 
Page 27 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

centers and all four serviced posts that we visited, which is, that 

performance measures and customer feedback processes would be useful 

and beneficial in rating the current level of customer support and 

oversight.25 Officials also said that performance measures and customer 

feedback processes would be essential for making decisions about 

expanding remote support. Officials from State’s Office of Rightsizing said 

that, before agreeing to any change, posts would first want proof that 

remote support provides the same level of customer service as support 

provided at posts. For example, the Executive Director of the Bureau of 

Near Eastern Affairs said that the bureau would be willing to use remote 

support from regional centers, such as the Regional Support Center in 

Frankfurt, if the cost was reasonable and the quality and reliability of 

service was demonstrated to be high. He said that, to convince decisionmakers about the quality of remote support, all regional centers need to 

have standards of performance with metrics and data to demonstrate that 

offering services regionally or centrally, rather than at individual posts, 

results in adequate service and internal controls. An official from the 

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs said one performance metric 

could be the amount of time it takes for a voucher to be processed. One 

post management officer suggested that a performance measure, such as a 

required weekly telephone call to a serviced post by the regional officer, 

would be another way support could potentially be improved from the 

Florida center. 

State has recognized the need for performance measures and customer 

feedback mechanisms in its operational plan, but has not yet developed 

them. However, during our review, one regional bureau developed a 

customer service survey. Six months after our visit in June 2005, the Florida 

Regional Center sent customer satisfaction surveys to the posts it provides 

with regional financial management and human resources support. The 

survey asked management officers at posts to note the frequency and 

duration of visits by a regional officer to a post, as well as the frequency of 

communication between the officer and posts, and to rate the level of 

guidance and supervision provided by the officer to the local staff. At the 

time of our review, the Florida center had not yet completed an analysis of 

25At the time of our visits to the centers, the Florida Regional Center and the Regional 

Support Center in Frankfurt measured customer service informally using mechanisms such 

as trip reports and post management input into the regional manager’s employment reviews. 

In addition, regional bureaus that use partnering had only informal mechanisms to show 

whether or not the support provided to serviced posts was satisfactory, according to 

officials. 
Page 28 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

the results of the surveys; however, according to officials at the center, the 

respondents had favorable views of the center’s services. 

Lack of Awareness of Remote 

Support Opportunities Limits 

Their Use 

Various initiatives to provide support remotely are occurring within the 

multiple regional bureaus; however, how they are integrated and 

communicated at a Statewide level is not clear. Several management staff 

at the posts we visited and those we interviewed by telephone were not 

fully aware of all the services they could utilize from a remote location. For 

example, management officers stationed in Asia and Africa said they lack 

information on what types of support could be provided remotely and how 

to access that support. Some officials indicated that it would be helpful for 

them to know the full extent of remote support available, and whether it 

results in cost efficiencies and effective service, in order to make an 

informed decision about whether to utilize it. 

In addition, we found that regional centers were not always fully 

communicating the types of services and support available to posts, either 

within their region or across regional bureaus. The Executive Director of 

the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs said he would consider using regional 

support from Frankfurt if he knew the full range of services that were 

offered there, the quality of customer service, and the potential costs of 

services. State officials at the Regional Support Center in Frankfurt agreed 

that while they do talk to post officials, particularly at management 

conferences, about the regional services that Frankfurt offers, they could 

do a more comprehensive job of documenting and marketing the full range 

of services and expertise provided by regional support center. 

State officials in Washington and overseas told us that communication is 

the key to ensuring that efforts to expand remote support are maximized, 

and that a dialogue has recently begun. In particular, the Office of Global 

Support Services and Innovation and the Office of Rightsizing have set up a 

Regional Initiatives Council to discuss ongoing efforts to provide remote 

support in each regional bureau. According to State officials, recent 

discussions at such meetings have centered on whether or not to set up 

consolidated administrative service centers, called Centers of Excellence, 

within the regional bureaus to provide certain management-related 

functions, such as human resources or travel administration, for posts 

around the world. For example, a dialogue already has begun regarding 

how to use existing resources to provide additional remote support from 

Bangkok for posts in East Asia and the Pacific.
Page 29 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Conclusions By providing administrative support remotely, State has the potential to 

reduce costs and improve customer service. However, State has not 

conducted cost analyses nor established systematic performance measures 

and feedback mechanisms to demonstrate the full potential of providing 

support remotely. Without data depicting the range of implications—

relating to cost, efficiency, security, and quality of services—involved with 

providing and receiving support remotely, decision-makers lack the tools to 

make informed decisions about investing staff and resources at individual 

posts or at regional centers overseas and in the United States. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

As State moves forward with its plan for expanding remote support and 

attempts to overcome institutional resistance to this process, it would be 

useful to concurrently assess and promote the potential full advantages in 

providing embassy support from remote locations, including potential cost 

reductions, improved services, or enhanced security for foreign service 

officers. Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the 

following three actions: 

• Identify and analyze the various costs associated with providing support 

at individual posts versus at regional service centers in the United States 

or overseas;

• Develop systematic performance measures and feedback mechanisms 

to measure the quality and customer satisfaction of support services 

provided remotely; and

• Use the cost analyses and feedback on quality and customer satisfaction 

to

• inform post management of which services could be offered 

remotely, the various costs involved, and the quality of services 

offered;

• consider ways to improve the quality of remote support, when 

necessary; and

• determine whether additional posts, including posts that are 

requesting new U.S. officer positions in management functions, 

might be logical candidates for receiving remote support.
Page 30 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

We also encourage State to continue reviewing challenges to providing 

support remotely and finding ways to overcome them.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State for comment. 

State’s comments, along with our responses to them, can be found in 

appendix II. 

State generally concurred with the report’s substance and findings and 

indicated that it is taking steps to implement all of our recommendations. 

State agreed that a more systematic and rigorous costing model would be 

beneficial in determining whether or not providing support from regional 

centers is cost-effective. State also agreed that systematic performance 

measures and feedback mechanisms are needed to measure the quality of 

and satisfaction with remote support, and State plans to strengthen its 

efforts in this area as part of its plans for providing support remotely. State 

added that the Office of Rightsizing would coordinate the development of a 

customer-focused service standard for regional centers. Lastly, State said 

that it plans to use more consistent and accurate data in making decisions 

to improve its remote support services. 

The department also provided a number of technical comments, which 

have been incorporated throughout the report, where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested Members of Congress, the Library of Congress, and the 

Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 31 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

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

Jess Ford at (202) 512-4268. Other GAO contacts and staff 

acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 32 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To describe the Department of State’s (State) progress in providing 

administrative support from remote locations, we reviewed documents 

from the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of Global Support Services 

and Innovation, including its operational plan for rightsizing and 

regionalization. We spoke with officials at State’s various regional and 

functional bureaus in Washington, D.C., to discuss the efforts each bureau 

has taken to provide administrative support to overseas posts, whether 

from regional service centers overseas, from the United States, or from 

other posts through partnering. To assess regional support provided from 

the United States to overseas posts, we met with senior management and 

regional staff at the Florida Regional Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

and the Global Financial Services Center in Charleston, South Carolina. We 

also met with senior management, regional staff, and locally employed staff 

at the overseas Regional Support Center in Frankfurt, Germany, to review 

remote support provided from an overseas regional service center. We 

focused our efforts on evaluating the various ways in which financial and 

personnel support are provided by the various regional bureaus. We did not 

perform an evaluative audit of the regional support provided by functional 

bureaus, consular affairs, or the Model for Overseas Management initiative 

because those operations either have been recently inspected by the Office 

of the Inspector General or did not fit into the scope of our work. 

To assess some of the regulatory challenges that State faces in expanding 

regional support, we reviewed foreign affairs regulations for carrying out 

administrative functions overseas. This included a review of regulations on 

what functions locally employed staff can carry out in the areas of 

procurement and payments. We also reviewed the regulations pertaining to 

the use of original documentation in processing payments and State’s 

proposal to waive that regulation.

To identify the potential advantages of providing support remotely, we met 

with ambassadors, deputy chiefs of mission, management officers, and 

other U.S. embassy staff, including locally employed staff at various posts 

that receive remote support from either the Florida Regional Center or the 

Frankfurt Regional Support Center. We chose Belize City, Belize, because it 

is a small post supported by the Florida center and Nassau, Bahamas, 

because it is the largest post supported by the center, pertaining to the 

number of staff and size of budget, according to an official at the Florida 

center. We chose Valetta, Malta, because it is a small post support by the 

Frankfurt center, and it recently conducted a rightsizing review, which 

addressed remote support issues. We chose Helsinki, Finland, because it 

represents a medium-sized post supported by the Frankfurt center and 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

because it was originally the post chosen for the pilot project to certify 

vouchers remotely, according to officials in the Bureau of European and 

Eurasian Affairs. We also visited Mexico City to talk to embassy officials 

about how the U.S. mission to Mexico has been rightsized and how the 

embassy provides support to consulates throughout the country. Lastly, in 

order to explore the advantages of using locally employed staff in providing 

remote support, we met with officials in Paris, France, to discuss the 

financial support that locally employed staff provides to posts in Africa. 

Because our interviews were limited to only a few posts that received 

regional support, we did not generalize the results of our interviews to the 

universe of posts receiving regional support. We reviewed the post profiles 

of the four posts we visited to demonstrate the staffing and other 

characteristics of posts currently using regional support and verified the 

data with the post management officers.

We also reviewed cost data from the Bureau of Resource Management and 

the various regional bureaus to estimate the average cost of placing one 

foreign service officer at an overseas post, including personnel and support 

costs, and costs that apply only to officers located overseas. For reporting 

purposes, we rounded the bureau’s estimate of $393,000 to $400,000 for the 

cost of an American officer overseas. We conducted (1) a data reliability 

assessment of the data using sample cost data from the posts we visited; 

(2) interviews with officials from the regional bureaus and the Bureau of 

Resource Management; and (3) discussions with the Office of Rightsizing at 

State and the Office of Management and Budget, and we determined the 

data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. 

In addition, we developed a structured interview instrument and conducted 

telephone interviews with management staff at overseas posts that have 

recently conducted a rightsizing report, which is required by Congress.1

 We 

administered structured interviews between February and March 2006 by 

telephone. We primarily spoke with management counselors or 

management officers at overseas posts. In one case, we spoke with a 

deputy chief of mission at the post. We conducted interviews with 20 of 22 

posts that were tasked to complete the rightsizing review in the fall 2005 

cycle: Asuncion, Baku, Bandar Seri Begawan, Bucharest, Bujumbura, 

Colombo, Harare, Jakarta, Karachi, Kiev, Krakow, Maputo, N’djamena, 

1

The Office of Rightsizing is expected by Congress to oversee the process by which Chiefs of 

Mission conduct 5-year reviews on the staffing of their missions. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Pretoria, Reykjavik, Rome, Santo Domingo, St. Petersburg, Taipei, and 

Tunis. 

The structured interview contained open- and closed-ended questions 

about guidance, timing, the review process, rightsizing considerations, 

headquarters’ involvement and feedback, and the impact of the review on 

the post. The interview instrument included questions regarding whether 

or not post management staff were both aware of and using regional 

support services. We developed the interview questions based on our 

review of rightsizing documentation and discussions with post officials 

during field work in Mexico City and Valletta. We provided an early version 

of the questions to State’s Office of Rightsizing and Office of Global 

Support Services and Innovation for their review and comment, and we 

also pretested the interview with three current management officers to 

ensure that the questions were clear and could be answered. We modified 

the interview questions on the basis of the pretest results and an internal 

expert technical review. We provided the management officers and deputy 

chief of mission with the interview questions in advance to allow them time 

to gather any data or information necessary for the interview. We also 

conducted follow-up discussions with posts as needed. The responses of 

the structured interviews are not intended to be representative of all posts. 

We performed our work from June 2005 until April 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 35 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 36 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 37 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

See comment 3.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 38 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 39 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter 

dated April 13, 2006.

GAO Comments 1. We are conducting a separate review of the consolidation of State and 

USAID support activities at overseas posts. We plan to issue a report on 

our findings later in 2006.

2. We recognized the efforts of the Florida Regional Center to measure 

customer service satisfaction with a survey and state this in our final 

report. We also acknowledged that State has recognized the need for 

performance measures and customer feedback mechanisms in its 

operational plan but has not yet developed them. We encourage State to 

develop performance measures and customer feedback mechanisms in 

its operational plan for all posts providing and receiving remote 

support, and not only for selected posts, such as those that receive 

support from the Florida Regional Center. We encourage State to use 

tools such as the ICASS Service Center annual survey to compare local 

support with remote support and identify areas where remote support 

could be improved. 

3. We agree that the support the embassy in Mexico City provides to nine 

consulates throughout Mexico is a good example of providing support 

remotely, and we added this example in our final report.
Page 40 GAO-06-479 Remote Support Services

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact John Brummet (202) 512-5260

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the person named above, Joseph Carney, Lyric Clark, Martin 

De Alteriis, Ernie Jackson, Andrea Miller, Deborah Owolabi, José M. Peña 

III, and Michelle Richman made key contributions to this report.

(320409)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER