GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Testimony

Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

2:30 p.m., EDT

Tuesday, 

June 22, 1999

UNITED NATIONS

Observations on Reform 

Initiatives

Statement of Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director, 

International Relations and Trade Issues, National Security 

and International Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the status of initiatives intended to 

reform the United Nations. Reform, according to the U.N. 

Secretary-General, means embracing fundamental measures that 

strengthen the organization and its efficiency. Among these measures are 

initiatives demanded by member states, such as increased accountability 

and budget restraint. Other measures include initiatives the 

Secretary-General announced in 1997.1

 To help Congress assess what 

progress has been made in reforming the United Nations, you asked us to 

examine U.N. efforts intended to (1) unify and focus its organizational 

structure; (2) control its budget and institute new budget procedures;

(3) improve oversight, program monitoring, and evaluation; and (4) 

improve its human resources management. This testimony represents our 

preliminary assessment. As requested, we will provide you a 

comprehensive report later this year.

My testimony is based on publicly available U.N. documents as well as 

documents available only to member delegations and our prior work on 

U.N. activities, such as our recent report on procurement reform.2

 We also 

reviewed working files and records obtained from U.N. officials and 

documents obtained from the Department of State and the U.S. Mission to 

the United Nations. In addition, we held discussions with numerous U.N. 

officials, including the Deputy Secretary General and several assistant 

secretaries-general.

To provide context for my observations, I will first provide a brief 

background on the conditions that led to the reform measures and 

initiatives. 

Background For the past 25 years, U.N. member states and others have made attempts 

to reform the United Nations, citing problems such as bureaucratic rigidity, 

poor program performance, duplication and rivalry across its many 

programs, and its high cost. A specific concern of member states, 

particularly the major donors, was the constantly growing budget of the 

1

Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform , A/51/950 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, 

July 14, 1997); letter dated 17 March 1997 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the 

General Assembly.

2

United Nations: Progress of Procurement Reform (GAO/NSIAD-99-71, Apr. 15, 1999).

Letr
Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Secretariat and the seeming inability to restrain costs. Demands were 

made that U.N. member states adopt procedures to control the budget, and, 

in 1986, the U.N. General Assembly adopted consensus budgeting—a 

process for reaching broad agreement without calling for a vote. The 

United States supported this measure as a step toward ensuring that 

sufficient attention would be paid to the views of the major contributors in 

the development of the budget. Member states demanded other initiatives 

to increase financial discipline, such as the adoption of results-based 

budgeting and sunset provisions on new U.N. programs. In the early 

1990s,the United States and other member states identified the lack of 

effective internal oversight at the United Nations as a major problem. They 

cited concerns about administrative waste and inefficiency. The 

Secretariat itself identified a crisis in the U.N.’s procurement system that 

raised serious concerns about financial controls. The U.N. Office of 

Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was created in 1994 in response to 

concerns such as these. At the same time, member states also demanded 

systems that could evaluate and monitor the relevance and effectiveness of 

U.N. programs so they could decide which programs to retain. 

In 1994, the Secretary-General reported that the U.N.’s management of 

human resources was in crisis. The organization was faced with new 

challenges, and its human resources management had failed to adequately 

respond. Among the concerns of the Secretariat were a performance 

appraisal system that did not rate staff fairly or consistently, the lack of a 

code of conduct that clearly laid out staff rights and consequences for 

misconduct, and the inability to plan its human resource needs.

These problems and the demands for change by member states culminated 

in reform initiatives announced in 1997 by the Secretary-General. 

According to the Secretary-General, the United Nations had become 

fragmented, rigid, and, in some areas, irrelevant. The United Nations had 

also created duplicative bodies, rather than instituting effective 

management structures. To build a cohesive organization that acted with a 

unity of purpose and deployed its resources strategically, the 

Secretary-General incorporated many of the earlier demands for reform 

into his initiatives, as well as other initiatives to restructure the United 

Nations.

Summary The Secretary General has said, and I agree, that reform is a process and 

not an event. Based on our preliminary assessment, we believe that the 

Secretary-General has undertaken a serious effort to reform the United 

Letr
Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Nations to improve its relevance to member states and enhance its 

operational efficiency. Although clear progress has been made in some 

areas, the initiatives we examined have not been fully implemented.

Progress has been made in unifying and focusing the organizational 

structure of the U.N. Secretariat, and the programs that are part of the 

United Nations proper, to make the Secretariat a more cohesive 

management unit. The Secretary-General appointed a deputy 

secretary-general to function as the chief operating officer and to 

strengthen internal coordination. A senior management group, composed 

of the under secretaries-general and the heads of those programs that 

report to the Secretary-General, was also created. This group meets 

weekly to ensure U.N. actions are unified and focused on the same 

objectives. In sharp contrast with the past, where under secretaries 

operated with great autonomy, this new structure provides regular 

opportunities to communicate, coordinate, and focus the work of U.N. 

departments, offices, and programs on common objectives. While we 

believe this new structure, now about 2 years old, is a positive move, the 

proof of its success will be measured in the field, where programs are 

actually implemented. Because we are still in the preliminary phase of our 

evaluation, we have not yet tested the new structure’s actual impact on 

improving program delivery and effectiveness. Also, I should add that this 

new structure does not include the specialized agencies, such as the Food 

and Agricultural Organization, the International Labor Organization, and 

the World Health Organization, and consequently, the long-standing 

concerns about overlap, duplication, and coordination within the U.N. 

system as a whole are not being addressed by this organizational 

restructuring.

While budgets have been level for the past two bienniums, our assessment 

thus far indicates that no fundamental changes have been made to the 

budgeting process to control the growth of the regular budget. The process 

for developing budgets is largely unchanged, and, adopting regular budgets 

by member state consensus does not assure control of budget growth, as 

initially hoped. For example, in developing the budget for 2000-2001 the 

United States and Japan, which provide over 45 percent of the U.N.’s 

financial support, objected that the preliminary budget ceiling was set too 

high. However, no vote was taken to record their dissent, and the measure 

passed by consensus. Also, the largest donors do not have permanent 

seats on the Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Administrative 

Questions, where they could most effectively advocate budget restraint. 

Moreover, although the Secretariat supports implementing results-based 
Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

budgeting and sunset provisions, initiatives intended to bring more 

discipline to the budgetary process, these measures have not been adopted. 

Nonetheless, some progress has been made. The Secretariat has instituted 

a program intended to cut costs and increase efficiencies. It has thus far 

reported over $13 million in savings by introducing more than 600 

efficiency projects.

An area where important improvements have been made is in the oversight 

of U.N. programs and activities; however, even here the effort should not be 

considered complete. Through the efforts of Congress, the executive 

branch, and other U.N. member states, the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight 

Services was created in 1994. As we reported to you in 1997, OIOS has 

established itself as the internal oversight mechanism for the U.N. 

Secretary-General3

 and, based on our continuing work at the United 

Nations, this office appears to have become an institutional part of the 

United Nations. OIOS has clearly enhanced and strengthened the audit, 

inspection, and investigations functions at the United Nations. However, 

progress has been much slower in developing and implementing a 

monitoring and evaluation system to measure and report on program 

performance and effectiveness that would help member states make 

program decisions.

To begin addressing what the U.N. Secretariat considered a crisis in its 

human resources management, it recently introduced several initiatives 

and adopted a strategy to carry them out. These initiatives include a new 

performance appraisal system, adoption of a staff code of conduct, and 

actions to begin human resources planning. However, these initiatives 

have not yet been fully implemented, and some problems have developed 

in their implementation. For example, after the new merit-based appraisal 

system, introduced in 1996, was applied during the most recent rating 

period, the Secretary-General asked three departments to revise the ratings 

because they were too high and were out of line with the rest of the 

Secretariat. Also, the code of conduct, adopted in December 1998, does not 

provide the Secretariat with clear procedures for applying related 

disciplinary measures for systematic management problems, negligence, 

and gross negligence. Additionally, while the Secretariat has begun using 

an automated database as the basis for its human resources planning, the 

information system is unable to account for and track all staff working for 

the U.N. Secretariat.

3

United Nations: Status of Internal Oversight Services (GAO/NSIAD-97-59, Apr. 9. 1997).
Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

With that brief summary, I would like to discuss each of these reforms in 

greater detail.

Organizational 

Restructuring

To begin unifying and focusing the United Nations, the Secretary-General 

announced a major reorganization in 1997 and since that time, has taken 

action to implement the changes. In particular, 

• a deputy secretary-general was appointed to essentially perform the 

functions of a chief operating officer and ensure coordinated U.N. 

operations;

• a senior management group was established to set overall policy 

direction;

• four executive committees were formed to implement the policies and 

ensure that the actions were coordinated among the U.N. organizations; 

• the U.N. Development Assistance Framework was implemented to 

coordinate the U.N.’s development efforts in the field; 

• various departments and offices were restructured and consolidated to 

strengthen and focus the U.N.’s response to humanitarian emergencies; 

and 

• human rights activities were consolidated, and steps were taken to 

strengthen human rights activities and integrate them into the overall 

activities of the organization.

Deputy Secretary-General 

and the Senior Management 

Group

As an integral part of building a cohesive and unified management 

structure, the Secretary-General asked the General Assembly to approve 

the position of deputy secretary-general, whose job would be to strengthen 

coordination, collaboration, and uniformity of focus in U.N. operations. 

The General Assembly approved the position in December 1997, and the 

Secretary-General appointed an experienced diplomat as Deputy 

Secretary-General in January 1998. Since then, the Deputy 

Secretary-General has worked on many of the day-to-day operational issues 

to ensure that U.N. activities are unified. The Deputy Secretary-General 

chairs the senior management group in the Secretary General’s absence 

and has also worked on ensuring a consistent U.N. response to personnel 

reforms and a coordinated approach to U.N. activities, such as in 

Afghanistan.

The Secretary-General also established a senior management group, 

composed of all the under secretaries-general and the heads of the U.N. 

funds and programs, to provide unified and clear leadership for the 
Page 6 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

organization. (See app. I for a list of the members of the senior 

management group.) According to the Under Secretary-General for 

Internal Oversight, through the leadership of this group, communication 

and coordination among U.N. organizations has improved. The senior 

management group meets weekly with the Secretary-General to discuss 

U.N. operations and agree on unified actions and policy direction. Full 

attendance almost always occurs (sometimes by videoconference) because 

important decisions for the United Nations as a whole are made, and the 

senior managers all have a stake in these decisions. Previously, the heads 

of the funds and programs and other senior managers had no regular 

mechanism to coordinate overall U.N. activities; some met with each other 

only once a year at the General Assembly. 

According to the Deputy Secretary-General, the senior management group 

discusses all major issues affecting the United Nations and agrees on a 

common strategy for them. For example, decisions such as how the United 

Nations would develop a unified response to the crisis in Kosovo and how 

to implement personnel reforms consistently across the organization have 

been discussed and agreed upon. In deciding on its responses to the 

unfolding events in Kosovo, the High Commissioner for Refugees regularly 

reports to the group and describes her field visits. Since the Emergency 

Relief Coordinator is also one of the group’s members, a unified U.N. 

response has been planned. As such, it was has been agreed that the High 

Commissioner’s office will lead the U.N.’s immediate response to the 

humanitarian crisis in Kosovo with help from the Emergency Relief 

Coordinator. According to the Deputy Secretary-General, the work of the 

executive committees provides a good indicator of how well the senior 

management group is working because the executive committees plan and 

implement programs in accord with the direction set by the senior 

management group.

Executive Committees Four new executive committees—(1) peace and security, (2) humanitarian 

affairs, (3) economic and social affairs, and (4) development operations—

were established to plan and implement focused and unified U.N. action as 

agreed to by the senior management group. The Secretary-General placed 

U.N. departments, offices, and the programs and funds into appropriate 

groups; named a convenor of each committee from the senior management 

group; and expected the committees to coordinate, plan, and implement 

U.N. activities as teams. (App. II compares the U.N. organization before and 

after these reforms.) According to senior U.N. officials, the concept of the 

senior management group and executive committees grew out of 
Page 7 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

recognition that the U.N. system was too vertical, with each organization 

operating in a stovepipe fashion, reporting only to the Secretary-General 

and, in some cases, their governing committees. There was also frustration 

that some programs, with their own sources of funding, did not consider 

systemwide U.N. programming a priority.

All executive committees have been meeting regularly since late 1997. For 

example, as of April 1999, the economic and social affairs committee had 

met formally 15 times. According to members of these committees, the 

under secretaries-general and heads of offices frequently attend the 

meetings because they all have a stake in shaping overall U.N. 

programming in their areas. Some examples of the committees’ work 

include the following:

• The Executive Committee for Peace and Security developed a unified 

plan for the referendum in East Timor, involving the Departments of 

Peacekeeping Operations and Political Affairs, the Human Rights 

Coordinator, and other committee members.

• The Executive Committee for Humanitarian Affairs developed a unified 

U.N. response to Hurricane Mitch and negotiated U.N. access to areas 

controlled by the Union for the Total Independence of Angola, on behalf 

of all committee members including the High Commissioner for 

Refugees, the U.N. Development Program, and the U.N. Children’s Fund.

• The Executive Committee for Economic and Social Affairs developed an 

online statistical database of all activities undertaken by 12 of its 

members, which can sort the activities by issue, type of activity (such as 

a conference or publication), location, and date.

• The Executive Committee for Development Operations has begun 

implementing the U.N. Development Assistance Framework after 

completing pilot tests in 18 countries. (The framework is more fully 

described below.)

U.N. Development 

Assistance Framework

To better coordinate the efforts of U.N. organizations and build an 

integrated program for its development activities, the United Nations is 

implementing the U.N. Development Assistance Framework in countries 

where it provides assistance. One view of the framework is that it 

translates a country's need for development assistance into a coordinated 

operational plan of action among U.N. agencies. The framework document 

is prepared jointly by a team composed of all U.N. organizations in a 

country. The team agrees upon and specifies U.N. objectives; strategies of 

cooperation; projects to be undertaken; and proposals for follow-up, 
Page 8 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

monitoring, and evaluation. In August 1997, a pilot phase was initiated to 

test the framework in 18 countries. In May 1998, an assessment of the pilot 

phase was started, with all the principal framework organizations in 

attendance. In April 1999, the United Nations approved the guidelines for 

preparing and implementing the framework, and the General Assembly 

passed a resolution recognizing the move to full implementation.4

 As of 

April 1999, final frameworks had been completed in 11 countries, with

6 frameworks co-signed by the World Bank.5

While progress has been made in implementing the framework, the critical 

question is whether participating U.N. organizations will work together. At 

the assessment workshop in September 1998, it was noted that a cultural 

change is required for the framework to succeed. This necessitates 

commitment at all levels of the U.N. system. The experience in Guatemala 

illustrates the issue. Seventeen U.N. system organizations have activities in 

Guatemala, with a portfolio of about $400 million and a total staff of about 

800 local and international workers. The U.N. organizations and the World 

Bank participated in developing the framework and identifying priority 

objectives with the Guatemalan government. A shared information 

database with indicators was also developed, and lead agencies were given 

specific tasks. However, according to the U.N. country team’s report to the 

U.N. Economic and Social Council, the headquarters of each U.N. agency 

set the tone for cooperation. The message from headquarters to the field 

was that individual agency results were more important than overall U.N. 

system results. Our own reports have found similar problems in U.N. 

cooperation. Our 1998 evaluation of the Joint U.N. Program on the Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome found that 

U.N. agencies in the field had difficulty working together and coordinating 

their activities.6

 Concerns about a joint program led to lack of commitment 

to working together on the part of some agency officials.

4

Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/53/192 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Feb. 25, 

1999).

5

The World Bank has introduced the Comprehensive Development Framework to involve all aid donors 

in planning assistance activities within a country. The U.N. Development Assistance Framework and 

the Bank’s Comprehensive Development Framework are intended to be complementary.

6

HIV/AIDS: USAID and U.N. Response to the Epidemic in the Developing World (GAO/NSIAD-98-202, 

July 27, 1998).
Page 9 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Restructuring Humanitarian 

Affairs

In March 1998, the United Nations began reorganizing Secretariat units to 

launch coherent and coordinated humanitarian operations. The 

Department of Humanitarian Affairs was dissolved and replaced with the 

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, headed by the 

Emergency Relief Coordinator. The office’s role was narrowed to focus on 

three core functions: (1) policy planning and development, (2) advocacy 

(including fund-raising), and (3) coordination of humanitarian emergency 

response. Other emergency-related activities were redistributed within the 

U.N. system. For example, demining activities were transferred to the 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and demobilization of 

combatants was transferred to the U.N. Development Program. In 

addition, the Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator was reorganized 

and its staff was reduced from 250 to 137 professionals. According to a 

Department of State official, this change represented the most visible and 

positive indication of reform, as the previous directorate was overstaffed 

and lacked leadership.

As part of the restructuring of humanitarian affairs, the United Nations 

initiated the Strategic Framework concept. The framework is intended to 

unify the actions of U.N. agencies in countries that are in conflict or have 

just completed peace agreements. To date, the Strategic Framework has 

been employed only in Afghanistan, but the United Nations plans to utilize 

the approach in Sierra Leone. According to Department of State officials, 

the Strategic Framework faces challenges of coordination similar to the 

U.N. Development Assistance Framework. A U.N. report on the experience 

in Afghanistan has not been completed.

Human Rights In his reform proposals, the Secretary-General committed to strengthening 

the U.N.’s human rights programs and fully integrating them into the 

organization’s activities. As a first step, representatives from the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights were placed on all four executive 

committees. According to a senior official in the New York Human Rights 

Office, the High Commissioner has taken advantage of this opportunity and 

made human rights activities a part of all programs. For example, the High 

Commissioner provided input into the formulation of guidelines for the 

development assistance framework. Human rights activities are now a 

component of each framework and are included in country programs such 

as Guatemala, Malawi, and Mozambique in the form of specific training and 

outreach programs on human rights. According to U.N. officials, the 

elevation of human rights as an issue and its inclusion into these programs 

represents a marked change from less than 2 years ago. 
Page 10 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

The United Nations has taken other steps to strengthen human rights 

activities, such as 

• consolidating the Center for Human Rights into the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights and restructuring the Office by 

reducing the number of divisions from five to three,

• upgrading the head of the High Commissioner’s office in New York to 

the level of director and adding five staff,

• conducting an analysis of technical assistance related to human rights 

provided by U.N. agencies in order to formulate proposals for their 

improvement, and

• working to establish a human rights data bank to disseminate 

information and analysis.

Despite the gains made in reforming the U.N.’s human rights program, 

challenges persist. For example, including human rights as a basic 

consideration in U.N. activities is not supported by all countries. 

According to a Department of State official, human rights issues are highly 

political for member states, and U.N. agency officials are often hesitant to 

raise these issues with member governments out of fear of jeopardizing 

their access in the country and damaging their particular program. 

Reforms related to increasing the efficiency of the human rights entities 

have also not progressed. According to State Department officials, the 

High Commissioner has not reduced the duplication and overlap in human 

rights reporting by the 11 treaty bodies and 37 Special Rapporteurs because 

member states control the requirements and have not agreed to changes.7

Budget Control and 

Results-Based 

Budgeting

Although the United Nations has maintained level budgets for the past two 

bienniums, our preliminary assessment indicates that no fundamental 

changes have been made to the budgeting process to control the growth of 

the regular budget—an area of long-standing concern of your Committee. 

Under procedures adopted by the General Assembly in 1986, the U.N.’s 

7

Several U.N. human rights treaties, aimed at providing increased protection to vulnerable groups, have 

been adopted and come into force upon ratification by the requisite number of States parties, such as 

the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) and the 

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). 

The implementation of these core human rights treaties is monitored by committees, or “treaty 

monitoring bodies.” The Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council have 

established a number of extra-conventional procedures and mechanisms that have been entrusted to 

Special Rapporteurs or experts. Their mandates are to examine, monitor, and publicly report on human 

rights situations in specific countries or on major human rights violations worldwide.
Page 11 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

regular budget is approved by consensus.8 Under consensus budgeting, the 

Secretary-General submits to the General Assembly a budget outline that 

contains a preliminary estimate of funding requirements. The Advisory 

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reviews the 

proposed funding requirements. A larger administrative committee, the 

Fifth Committee, then tries to obtain the broadest possible agreement 

among members in approving a level for the Secretary-General to use in 

preparing the budget.

The process does not appear to have assured that the views of the major 

donors have been sufficiently considered thus far in formulating the 

2000-2001 budget. In 1998, the General Assembly approved a preliminary 

budgeting level equivalent to $2.655 billion for the 2000-2001 biennium, in 

comparison to the estimated $2.527 billion for 1998-99 budget. Any 

member state can request a vote in the General Assembly if it dissents, thus 

breaking the consensus on the preliminary level.9

 The United States and 

Japan, which together pay about 45 percent of the regular budget, did not 

agree. However, neither member requested a vote. Consequently, the level 

was formally approved by consensus, even though the two largest donors 

dissented. State officials predicted that the actual budget—developed later 

in the year—would be lower than the preliminary estimate. State officials 

said they would consider requesting a vote if the final budget level was 

considered to be too high.

Another aspect of controlling the level of the budget involves the work of 

the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. 

Although the advisory committee plays a crucial role in determining the 

regular budget level, member states that pay the largest share of the budget 

do not have permanent seats on the committee. For example, the United 

States, Japan, Germany, France, and Italy combined are assessed about

67 percent of the regular budget, but none has a permanent seat on this key 

financial committee.10 The committee’s role is to review the budgets and 

finances of the United Nations and make recommendations to the General 

8

Review of the Efficiency of the Administrative and Financial Functioning of the United Nations, GA 

Res. 41/213 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations Dec. 19, 1986).

9

Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly (A/520/Rev.15) (New York, N.Y.; United Nations, Dec. 

31, 1984)

10France, Italy, and Japan are current members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and 

Budgetary Questions. The 16 members of the committee are elected by the General Assembly and serve 

3 year terms. The rules of procedure of the Committee are confidential.
Page 12 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Assembly on budget levels and other financial issues. According to State 

Department officials, the committee is particularly influential because its 

members have the most knowledge of and expertise about the U.N. budget 

process. 

You requested that we examine whether the regular U.N. budget for 1998-99 

will have zero nominal growth. At this point, it is uncertain whether there 

will be zero nominal growth in the 1998-99 budget compared to the prior 

biennium, although the Secretariat estimates that the final budget amount 

for 1998-99 will be lower than the final amount for 1996-97. However, the 

uncertainty comes about because in comparing budgets, the amount for 

1998-99 needs to be adjusted to reflect new accounting procedures used in 

determining the budget levels.11 To make a valid comparison with the 

1996-97 biennium, the costs of jointly funded activities would need to be 

included in the 1998-99 budget.

Another indicator of budget restraint is holding spending to the level 

initially approved. For the 1996-97 biennium, U.N. budget expenditures 

were about $61 million less than the initially approved budget. However, 

expenditures were lower than forecast because the strong U.S. dollar 

resulted in currency exchange gains of about $49 million and the United 

Nations hired fewer staff than it had budgeted for, saving an additional

$34 million. Some savings were used to pay for the costs for special 

political missions, such as the mission in Guatemala.12 The United Nations 

will likely maintain a budget level at or below the approved level for the 

1998-99 biennium. The United Nations estimates that it will spend about 

$6 million less than the initially approved budget. However, savings of 

more than $56 million from a strong U.S. dollar, lower-than-expected staff 

costs, and a lower-than-expected inflation rate are expected to provide the 

Secretariat a cushion.13

11Under the accounting change adopted in 1998-99, net budgeting is used. Member states are assessed 

only their share of costs payable for jointly funded activities. Programme Budget for the Biennium 

1998-1999, First Performance Report, A/53/693 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Nov. 23, 1998).

12Programme Budget for the Biennium 1996-1997, Second Performance Report, A/C.5/52/32 (New York, 

N.Y.: United Nations, Dec. 11, 1997).

13The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions has considered ways to stabilize 

the budget from currency fluctuations, neither creating a windfall when the dollar is strong nor a deficit 

when the dollar is weak. To accomplish this, a separate account needed to be established, and this 

action was not supported by member states. 
Page 13 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Results-based Budgeting 

and Sunset Provisions

The Secretary General recommended a shift to performance, or 

results-based budgeting, to focus the organization more on accountability 

for achieving results rather than completing tasks. Although strongly 

supported by the United States and other major donors, this measure was 

not adopted because some members, mainly developing countries, did not 

support it. Results-based budgeting requires program managers to identify 

indicators for judging the substantive impact of their programs and justify 

their programs’ effectiveness based on these results. According to senior 

U.N. and U.S. officials, implementing this system would require “a major 

cultural shift” among members and U.N. managers and a valid system for 

evaluating program effectiveness. At the General Assembly’s request, the 

Secretary-General has produced several reports in support of this 

initiative14 and provided prototypes of a results-based budget for sections 

of the Secretariat.15 Although the General Assembly has considered these 

reports, it has not adopted the initiative.

The Secretary-General’s initiatives also called for new program mandates 

to include specific time limits, or “sunset” provisions. Sunset provisions 

would require the General Assembly to renew programs periodically, based 

on an evaluation of their effectiveness. As with results-based budgeting, 

this initiative was supported by the United States and other major donors, 

but some member states, particularly developing countries, did not support 

it. Many of these members are reluctant to approve an initiative that they 

perceive could threaten the continuation of programs they deem important.

Initiatives to Reduce 

Overhead Costs

As part of the overall effort to improve U.N. operations, the 

Secretary-General proposed to reduce overhead costs from 38 percent of 

the U.N. regular budget to 25 percent and set a savings goal of $200 million. 

These savings would be placed in a development account. Projects to 

eliminate duplication and waste were to generate these savings. The 

Secretariat has initiated over 600 such projects, some of which have 

resulted in considerable savings. The Secretariat has not released an 

estimate of the total savings generated by efficiency projects, but officials 

believe the goal of saving $200 million is optimistic. Thus far, the 

14See, for example, Report of the Secretary General: Addendum Results-based Budgeting, A/51/950/Add. 

6 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Nov. 12, 1997).

15United Nations Reform: Measures and Proposals, A/53/500/Add. 1 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, 

Oct. 15, 1998).
Page 14 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Secretariat reports that $13 million from these projects, primarily from 

consolidation of services and departments, has been put into a 

development account. Examples of some efficiency projects undertaken 

with estimated savings are

• abolishing the High-level Board on Sustainable Development, which 

saved an estimated 362,000;

• shifting from subsidizing food services to a profit-sharing arrangement 

with contractors, which generates at least $500,000 in income annually;

• chartering air service for police monitors rather than purchasing 

individual tickets, which saved an estimated $1 million in 1997; and

• consolidating mainframe computer operations, which saves an 

estimated $1.2 million annually.

Oversight, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation

At the insistence of member states, the United Nations took steps to 

improve internal oversight of its programs by establishing OIOS. Since 

then, the United Nations has improved oversight, and accountability is 

being taken more seriously. For example, in 1997, we reported to you that 

OIOS had resolved its start-up and operational problems in an 

organizational environment that had previously operated without effective 

internal oversight mechanisms for almost half a century.16 We noted, 

however, that OIOS is not required to and does not submit all reports to the 

Secretary-General and the General Assembly, and we suggested that it 

clarify its criteria for which reports it will submit. In response, the Under 

Secretary-General for Internal Oversight said he would publish the titles of 

all reports in the annual report. Since then, he has done so. As of April 

1999, OIOS had completed 64 reports that were available to all member 

states. Some have been hard-hitting reports. One found serious 

deficiencies, improprieties, and weaknesses in management control in the 

U.N. operation in Angola that may have fostered fraud and financial 

abuse.17 Another report found that a senior U.N. official had used his 

position to commit 59 separate instances of fraud to steal large amounts of 

the organization’s project funds, without triggering internal alarms.18 As of 

16United Nations: Status of Internal Oversight Services .

17Report of the Secretary-General on the Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services: Note by 

the Secretary-General, A/52/881 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Apr. 28, 1998). 

18Allegations of Theft of Funds by a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Staff 

Member: Note by the Secretary-General, A/5381 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Jan. 28, 1999).
Page 15 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

June 1998, OIOS had issued 4,042 recommendations for management 

improvement or action to address misconduct. The Secretariat had 

implemented 73 percent of these recommendations, according to OIOS 

records. We have not analyzed the recommendations or the actions taken 

to implement them.

An indication that oversight and accountability are being taken more 

seriously is the consistent number of waste, fraud, and abuse reports made 

to OIOS’ investigations section. Between 1994, when OIOS was 

established, and December 1998, the investigations section received 

846 reports. In 1994, it received 110 reports and since then has received at 

least 165 reports a year. According to the head of OIOS’ investigations unit, 

595 investigations have been completed, and action has been taken on 

every report in which a corrective personnel measure or disciplinary action 

was recommended. Also, unit managers have increasingly asked OIOS to 

conduct investigations within their units because they know they have a 

problem and need advice on how to deal with it, according to the Under 

Secretary-General for OIOS. 

 Monitoring An adequate system of monitoring program performance is essential in 

ensuring greater accountability. However, not much progress has been 

made in improving the Secretariat’s system for monitoring programs. 

Although many U.N. offices and departments now provide on-line data 

about program outputs, such as the number of conferences held, member 

states find this data to be of limited value because it does not indicate 

whether the program is accomplishing its mandate. For example, the 

performance report on crime control states that 78 programs on planning, 

crime prevention, and collaborative effort have been implemented. The 

narrative explains that an implementation rate of 77 percent was achieved, 

including over 70 advisory missions to member states. However, there are 

no indicators or assessment of what was achieved in planning and crime 

prevention or on these advisory missions or how they helped the 

beneficiaries. For years, the U.N. Committee for Programme and 

Coordination has recognized the limitations of this system and has 

recommended improvements. In 1998, the Committee concluded there was 

a need to monitor and evaluate the quality of performance and 

recommended that the Secretary-General propose ways in which the
Page 16 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

quality of mandated programs and activities could be better assessed and 

reported to member states.19

Evaluation Currently, the United Nations does not have an adequate system for 

evaluating the effectiveness of its programs, including a standard 

methodology that uses performance indicators and would support 

results-based budgeting. Although many U.N. departments and offices 

have their own evaluation units and they conduct various types of 

evaluations, ranging from efficiency reviews to self-evaluations to lessons 

learned, they do not have standard methodology guidelines or criteria.20 

According to the Director of OIOS’ Central Evaluation Unit, evaluation 

guidelines on methodology are being drafted but do not focus on program 

effectiveness.21 Evaluation emphasis is moving away from determining 

program effectiveness in meeting goals and objectives to management and 

problem-solving reviews, according to this official.22

Despite the emphasis on broad-based management reviews, developing an 

adequate system for determining program effectiveness is important for 

member states. The U.N. Committee for Programme and Coordination 

recently stressed that evaluation should be based on standards that enable 

member states to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. It 

further stressed that evaluation standards and analysis should utilize 

performance indicators.23 According to the Under Secretary-General for 

OIOS and other U.N. officials, the United Nations still has a long way to go 

in developing a framework to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs. 

The Secretary-General also agreed that evaluations of U.N. programs have 

19Report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination on the first part of its thirty-eighth session, 

A/53/16, part 1 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Jul. 8, 1998); Report of the Secretary-General: 

Methodology for Monitoring and Reporting the Programme Performance of the United Nations, 

A/46/173 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, May 14, 1991).

20Strengthening the Role of Evaluation Findings in Programme Design, Delivery and Policy Directives,

A/53/90 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Mar. 25, 1998).

21Existing U.N. monitoring and evaluation guidelines do not provide methodologic guidance but state 

that each major activity should be the subject of a critical assessment every 4 years that examines both 

the efficiency of the activity and its effectiveness. The guidelines also note that findings should be 

based on evidence, including records of opinions of independent experts and the views of clients and 

users. 

22Strengthening the Role of Evaluation Findings in Programe Design, Delivery and Policy Directives, 

A/49/99 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Mar. 23, 1994).

23Report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination on the work of its thirty-eighth session.
Page 17 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

been primarily management oriented and have not addressed the question 

of the continuing validity of the programs themselves.24

Human Resources 

Management

The Secretariat has begun to reform its human resources management, 

introducing initiatives such as a new merit-based staff appraisal system and 

a code of conduct and beginning to plan for its human resources needs. 

The Secretariat also developed a comprehensive plan for reforming its 

management of human resources and laid out a strategy for implementing 

it.25 According to U.N. officials, the success of their plan will require the 

full cooperation of managers and staff and the support of member states. 

Currently, however, the initiatives we examined have not been fully 

implemented, and there have been problems in carrying them out.

For example, for the year 1996, the United Nations introduced a 

merit-based performance appraisal system. The appraisal requires the 

rater and the ratee to agree on goals that the ratee will achieve during the 

rating period and to specify measurable criteria or indicators of success in 

reaching these goals. The ratee is rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 

“does not meet performance expectations” to “consistently exceeds 

performance expectations.” The guidelines state that the rating system is 

not intended to impose a mandatory bell curve. However, the guidelines 

also state that when staff are honestly and appropriately appraised, about

5 percent will have the highest and lowest rating.

The Secretariat used its performance appraisal system for a third time in 

its 1998 annual assessment cycle. About 8,000 of the 14,000 staff directly 

supervised under U.N. authority were covered by the appraisal system, 

according to U.N. human resources officials. Out of the 8,000 staff 

participating in the 1998 appraisal cycle, U.N. officials stated that fewer 

than 10 individuals had received the bottom rating, the consequences of 

which could be dismissal for poor performance. Three departments were 

judged to have inflated ratings, and the Secretary-General sent letters to 

the managers of these departments, telling them to ensure the ratings were 

consistent with the rest of the Secretariat. The Secretariat did not provide 

24Report of the Secretary-General on the Activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

25Human Resources Management Reform: Report of the Secretary-General, A/53/414 (New York, N.Y.: 

United Nations, Oct. 13, 1998).
Page 18 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

us with summary statistics for the 1998 performance appraisal cycle, 

stating that the results are under review.

One problem with the current performance appraisal system is that 

organizational skills are not clearly defined and benchmarks for 

determining performance on those skills are lacking. In October 1998, the 

Secretary-General reported that a statement of core and managerial 

competencies was still under development and that it would become a base 

for building other human resource systems, including performance 

appraisals.26 

Code of Conduct and 

Disciplinary Procedures

In December 1998, the United Nations issued a code of conduct for its 

employees: Status, Basic Rights and Duties of United Nations Staff 

Members. The United Nations used the new code to clarify the 

applicability of the U.N. regulations and rules to all staff under the 

Secretary-General’s authority, including the funds and programs. The code 

established systemwide guidelines for conduct rooted in the U.N. charter. 

The code stated that the paramount considerations for staff employees are 

competence, efficiency, and integrity. Accountability is also of primary 

concern. For example, the code has conflict-of-interest provisions such as 

that staff members shall not be actively associated with the management of 

or hold a financial interest in any profit-making, business, or concern, if 

the staff member or the profit-making business or other concern might 

benefit from such association because of the staff member’s position with 

the United Nations. Staff members at the Assistant Secretary-General level 

and above are also required to file financial disclosure statements. In 

another section of the code, staff are obligated to respond fully to requests 

for information from officials of the United Nations authorized to 

investigate possible misuse of funds, waste, or abuse. Finally, the code 

makes it clear that failure to comply with the code’s obligations and the 

U.N.’s standards of conduct will subject a staff member to disciplinary 

procedures. 

Although the United Nations has adopted a code of conduct, member states 

have questioned the Secretariat's ability to follow up and discipline staff for 

misconduct. Concern about actions such as this have been an issue

26Performance Management: Report of the Secretary-General, A/53/266 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, 

Aug. 14, 1998).
Page 19 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

for years.27 Recently, the U.N. General Assembly requested the 

Secretary-General to submit to it a report on the follow-up of management 

irregularities that caused financial losses to the organization. The 

Secretary-General submitted his report to the General Assembly in March 

1999,28 but the General Assembly considered it incomplete. It did not 

explain what had been done since 1994 to develop procedures to deal with 

cases of fraud and other actions causing financial losses to the 

organization.29

The Secretariat does have procedures for dealing with fraud, including 

summary dismissal. However, according to the Assistant 

Secretary-General for Human Resources, the Secretariat does not have 

clear procedures or policies for dealing with cases such as systematic 

management problems, negligence, and generally poor performance. Its 

record on taking action against individuals falling into these categories has 

been inconsistent. Commenting generally on the situation, an official in the 

Human Resources section said the Secretariat recognizes it has a problem 

in this area and is now acting to address it. 

Human Resources Planning As part of its reform measures, the United Nations has committed to 

long-range human resources planning so it can place the right staff in the 

right place at the right time. As part of this effort, it has been developing an 

automated database that would account for and track staff employed 

worldwide. The automated database is the U.N.’s Information 

Management System (IMIS), which uses satellite relays to link field offices 

with headquarters. The IMIS database contains basic management 

information, such as data on employees, including position, years of 

service, specialization, and payroll information. However, IMIS is not yet

27Alleged Cases of Fraud in the United Nations: Study of the Possibility of the Establishment of a New 

Jurisdictional and Procedural Mechanism or of the Extension of Mandates and Improvement of the 

Functioning of Existing Jurisdictional and Procedural Mechanisms, A/AC.243/1994/L.3 (New York, N.Y.: 

United Nations, Apr. 4, 1994).

28Management Irregularities Causing Financial Losses to the Organization, A/53/849 (New York, N.Y: 

United Nations, Mar. 3, 1999).

29Management Irregularities Causing Financial Losses to the Organization: Report of the Advisory 

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, A/53/954 (New York, N.Y.: United Nations, May 

11, 1999).
Page 20 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

functioning worldwide.30 According to U.N. officials, they still have to 

contact individual field offices and posts to get the number of various 

employees and manually incorporate them into the database at 

headquarters.

Also, as part of the U.N. reform initiatives, the Secretary-General set a goal 

of reducing 1,000 posts paid for under the regular budget. Based on a 

comparison of the number of posts authorized in the 1996-97 and 1998-99 

biennium budgets, 954 posts have been eliminated. The number of posts 

has been reduced from 10,012 to 9,058. According to Secretariat officials, 

no staff were let go as a result of the reduction. As staff retired or 

voluntarily left the organization, their posts became vacant, and many of 

these posts were eliminated. As you requested, we provide additional 

information in appendix III about the number of staff hired by the U.N. 

system.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this completes my prepared 

statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Contact and 

Acknowledgments

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Harold J. 

Johnson at (202) 512-4130. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony included Tet Miyabara, Richard Boudreau, Pat Dickriede, Mike 

Rohrback, Mark Speight, Richard Seldin, and Rona Mendelsohn.

30Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the Increase in Costs of the Integrated 

Management Information System Development Contract: Note by the Secretary-General, A/53/829 

(New York, N.Y.: United Nations, Feb. 16, 1999).
Page 21 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196
Page 22 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Appendix I

Members of the U.N. Senior Management 

Group ApeInxdi

Secretary-General

Deputy Secretary-General

Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs

Under Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs

Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs

Administrator, U.N. Development Program

Under Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs

Under Secretary-General for Administration and Management

Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight

Under Secretary-General for Legal Affairs

Under Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference 

Services

Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Opertions

Chef de Cabinet, Executive Office of the Secretary-General

Under Secretary-General, Executive Director for the U.N. Fund for 

Population Activities

Under Secrertary-General, Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

for Children in Armed Conflict

Under Secretary-General and Director General of the U.N. Office in Geneva

High Commissioner for Refugees

High Commissioner for Human Rights

Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development

Under Secretary-General and Director General of the U.N. Office in Vienna

Under Secretary-General and Director General of the U.N. Office in Nairobi 

and the Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Program

Executive Director, World Food Program
Page 23 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Appendix II

Organization of the United Nations ApeInxdi

SecretaryGeneral

Departments

 Political Affairs

 Peacekeeping

 Disarmament Affairs

 Humanitarian Affairs

 (Emer. Relief Coordinator)

 Office Legal Affairs

 Office at Geneva

 Children in Arm ed Conflict

Programs and Funds

 Developm ent Program

 High Commissioner

 Refugees

 Human Rights

Deputy S.G.

Senior Managem ent Group

Departments 

 Humanitarian Affairs

 (Em ergency Coordinator)

 Political Affairs

 Peacekeeping

 Disarmament Affairs

 Office Legal Affairs

 Office at Geneva

 Children in Arm ed Conflict

Programs and Funds

 Developm ent Program

 High Commissioner

 Refugees

 Human Rights

Departments

 Economic & Social Affairs

Regional Commissions

 Europe

 Latin America/Caribbean

 Africa

 Asia and the Pacific

 W estern Asia

Programs and Funds

 Conference Trade & Dev.

 Environment 

 Centre Human Settlements

 U.N. University

 High Commissioner 

 Refugees

 Human Rights

Progams and Funds

 Developm ent Program

 W orld Food Program

 Children's Fund

 Fund Population Activities

 Drug Control Program

 Human Settlements

 Fund for W omen

 Progam on HIV/AIDS

 Conterence Trade & Dev.

 Fund Agricultural Dev.

High Commissioner 

 Refugees

 Human Rights

Peace and 

Security

Humanitarian 

Affairs

Economic and 

Social

Development 

Operations

Legal Affairs

Management

General Assembly Affairs

Public Inform ation

Internal Oversight

Support 

As of June services

1999

SecretaryGeneral

Legal Political Peacekeeping Humanitarian Development Econ/Soc Policy Public Management 

Affairs Affairs Operations Affairs Support Inform ation Coordination Inform ation

 Africa Latin Am erica Europe Asia/Pacific Western Asia

As of May 

1996

Executive Committees

 Geneva Vienna Nairobi Com missioner Conference Evironment Habitat Drug Commissioner Palestine

 Office O ffice Office Human Rights Trade & Developm ent Program Control Refugees Relief & works

Executive Office Internal Oversight

 Regional Commissions

Source: United Nations documents
Page 24 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Appendix III

Staff of the United Nations System, as of 

December 31,1998 ApIenxdi

Table III.1 provides a snapshot of U.N. staff with an appointment or 

contract of 1 year or more who worked for the U.N. Secretariat, the funds 

and programs, and the Specialized Agencies—commonly referred to as the 

U.N. system—as of December 31, 1998. As of December 31, 1998, staff 

financed from the U.N. Secretariat’s regular budget numbered 7,738 or 15 

percent of system-wide total U.N. staff of 51,832. These numbers reflect 

the actual total of staff on-board, including all U.N. employees with a 

contract of 1 year or longer. This total number differs from the number of 

authorized posts, which may be vacant.

Table III.1: U.N. Staff, as of December 31, 1998

Regular

Budget

Extrabudgetary

Funds Total

U.N. Secretariat

Secretariat 7,738 6,385 14,123

Peacekeeping Missions (Support account) 0 319 319

Secretariat Total 7,738 6,704 14,442

U.N. Development Program 3,631 1,325 4,956

U.N. Fund for Population Activiites 816 74 890

U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees 218 3,827 4,045

U.N. Children’s Fund 1,811 5,193 7,004

U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the 

Near East

97 12 109

U.N. Training Institute 0 16 16

U.N. Office for Project Services 0 1032 1032

U.N. Staff College 0 22 22

U.N. University 2 113 115

International Court of Justice 31 0 31

International Civil Service Commission 0 38 38

International Trade Commission 0 186 186

Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS 151 0 151

World Food Program 0 1,038 1,038

Total for U.N. Subsidiary Bodies 6,759 12,876 19,633

Food and Agricultural Organization 2,768 1,322 4,090

International Civil Aviation Organization 639 74 713

International Fund for Agricultural Development 272 32 304

International Labor Organization 1,560 228 1,788

International Maritime Organization 252 22 274
Appendix III

Staff of the United Nations System, as of 

December 31,1998

Page 25 GAO/T-NSIAD-99-196

Source: United Nations.

Regular

Budget

Extrabudgetary

Funds Total

International Telecommunications

Union

710 27 737

U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization

2,049 256 2,305

U.N. Industrial Development Organization 610 0 610

Universal Postal Union 151 22 173

World Health Organization 2,437 1,178 3,615

World Intellectual Property Organization 683 0 683

World Meteorological Organization 204 45 249

International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) 1,674 542 2,216

Total for U.N. Specialized Agencies 

 and the IAEA

14,009 3,748 17,757

Grand Total U.N. System 28,504 23,328 51,832

(711417) Lret
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made 

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and 

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: 

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00