United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

UNITED NATIONS

Additional Efforts 

Needed to Increase 

U.S. Employment at 

UN Agencies 

September 2006 

 

GAO-06-988 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

UNITED NATIONS

Additional Efforts Needed to Increase 

Highlights of GAO-06-988, a report to U.S. Employment at UN Agencies 

congressional requesters 

The U.S. Congress continues to 

be concerned about the 

underrepresentation of U.S. 

professionals in some UN 

organizations and that 

insufficient progress has been 

made to improve U.S. 

representation. In 2001, GAO 

reported that several UN agencies

fell short of their targets for U.S. 

representation and had not 

developed strategies to employ 

more Americans. This report 

reviews (1) U.S. representation 

status and employment trends at 

five UN agencies, (2) factors 

affecting these agencies’ ability to 

meet employment targets, and (3) 

the U.S. Department of State’s 

(State) efforts to improve U.S. 

representation and additional 

steps that can be taken. We 

reviewed five UN agencies that 

together comprise about 50 

percent of total UN organizations’ 

professional staff. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of State provide more 

UN employment information on 

State Web sites; expand 

recruiting to reach qualified 

Americans; and evaluate the costs 

and benefits of maintaining a 

roster of qualified U.S. candidates 

for high priority positions, and of 

funding entry-level professional 

staff where Americans are

underrepresented. In commenting 

on a draft of this report, State 

said it concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

The United States is underrepresented at three of the five United Nations 

(UN) agencies we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed 

to meet employment targets. The three agencies where the United States is

underrepresented are the International Atomic Energy Agency; UN 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; and the Office of the UN 

High Commissioner for Refugees. U.S. citizens are equitably represented at 

the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its target range. The UN

Development Program has not established a target for U.S. representation, 

although U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of its professional positions. 

Given projected staff levels, retirements, and separations, IAEA, UNESCO, 

and UNHCR would need to increase hiring of Americans to meet their 

minimum targets for U.S. representation in 2010. 

While the five UN agencies face some common barriers to recruiting and 

retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also face their own 

distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges are outside of the 

U.S. government’s control. The common barriers include nontransparent 

human resource practices, limited external hiring, lengthy hiring processes, 

comparatively low or unclear compensation, required mobility, and limited 

U.S. government support. UN agencies also face distinct challenges. For 

example, at the Secretariat, candidates serving in professional UN positions 

funded by their governments are more likely to be hired than those who take 

the entry-level exam; however, the United States has not funded such 

positions. Also, IAEA has difficulty recruiting U.S. employees because the 

number of U.S. nuclear specialists is decreasing. 

Since 2001, State has increased its efforts to achieve equitable U.S. 

representation at UN agencies, and additional options exist. State has 

targeted efforts to recruit U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking UN 

positions, and although it is difficult to link State’s efforts to UN hiring 

decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has improved or displayed 

no trend in the five UN agencies. U.S. representation in entry-level positions, 

however, has declined or did not reflect a trend in four of the five UN 

agencies despite State’s increased efforts. Additional steps include 

maintaining a roster of qualified U.S. candidates, expanding marketing and 

outreach activities, increasing UN employment information on U.S. agency

Web sites, and assessing the costs and benefits of sponsoring entry-level 

employees at UN agencies. 

Estimated Number of U.S. Citizens to be Hired to Meet Geographic Targets 

UN agency 

Average number of 

total staff hired into 

geographic positions 

each year, 2001-2005

Average number of 

U.S. citizens hired into 

geographic positions 

each year, 2001-2005 

Minimum average number 

of U.S. citizens to be

hired each year to reach 

geographic target in 2010 

IAEA 77 6 16

UNESCO 55 4.5 6

UNHCR 148 10 25

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO hiring data. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-988.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5

U.S. Is Underrepresented in Three of Five UN Agencies and

Increased Hiring of Americans Is Necessary to Meet 

Employment Targets 8 

While Common Barriers to Increasing U.S. Representation Exist, 

UN Agencies Also Face Distinct Employment Challenges 12 

State Has Increased Efforts to Promote U.S. Representation, but 

Additional Options Exist to Target Professional Positions 25 

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41 

Appendix II Distribution of U.S. Citizens Employed in 

Professional Positions at Five UN Agencies 47 

Appendix III Trends of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional 

Positions at Five UN Agencies 51 

Appendix IV Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and 

External Hires 55 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of State 56 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59 

 

Page i GAO-06-988 United Nations
Tables 

Table 1: U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies, 2005 8 

Table 2: Trends in U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies 

(covering geographic positions at the Secretariat, IAEA, 

and UNESCO and regular positions at UNHCR and UNDP) 9 

Table 3: Estimated Numbers of U.S. Citizens to Be Hired to Meet 

Geographic and Other Targets for 2006 to 2010 11 

Table 4: Average Number of JPOs or Associate Experts Sponsored 

by Leading Contributors to These Programs, 2001-2005 35 

Table 5: Cost and Retention Rate of JPOs and Associate Experts 36 

Table 6: Composition of Professional Positions at the Three UN 

Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005 47 

Table 7: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Three 

UN Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005 48 

Table 8: Composition of Professional Positions at the Two UN 

Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005 48 

Table 9: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Two 

UN Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005 49 

Table 10: Policy-making and Senior-level Positions at Three UN 

Agencies, 2005 50 

Table 11: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External 

Hires at Five UN Agencies Provided for the Purposes of 

This Report 55 

Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Vacancies Filled by Promotions, Internal

Candidates, and External Candidates, 2004 and 2005 Data

Combined 14

Figure 2: UN Secretariat National Competitive Recruitment Exam: 

Four-Year Average of All Nationalities and for Americans 

for Each Stage of the Exam (2001-2004) 18 

Figure 3: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policy-making 

Positions at Five UN Agencies as a Percentage of Agency 

Professional Senior and Policy-making Positions, 2001-

2005 26

Figure 4: U.S. Representation in Entry-level Professional Positions 

as a Percentage of Agency Entry-level Positions at Five 

UN Agencies, 2001-2005 31 

Figure 5: Trends of U.S. Citizen Representation, by Grade, in 

Professional Positions in Five UN Agencies 52 

Page ii GAO-06-988 United Nations
Abbreviations 

ALD assignment of limited duration 

APSIA Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs 

CFE cost free expert 

DPKO United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

FTA fixed-term temporary assistance 

FTE fixed-term extra-budgetary 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IO Department of State Bureau of International Organization 

 Affairs 

JPO Junior Professional Officer 

MST monthly short term 

NCRE National Competitive Recruitment Exam 

PRM Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 

Migration 

UNDP United Nations Development Program 

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

 Organization 

UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees 

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 iii GAO-06-988 United Nations
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 6, 2006 

Congressional Requesters: 

The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the 

underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some United 

Nations (UN) organizations and that insufficient progress has been made 

to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, we reported1

 that several UN 

organizations continued to fall short of their own targets for American 

representation2

 and had not developed action plans or strategies for 

achieving equitable U.S. representation within a specified time frame. In 

addition, the U.S. Department of State (State) has annually reported to 

Congress that Americans have been underrepresented at a number of UN 

organizations.

3

 The equitable representation of Americans at UN

organizations is a priority to Congress in part because the United States is 

the largest financial contributor to most of these organizations. Moreover, 

according to State, Americans bring desirable skills, values, and 

experience that can have a significant impact on UN organizations’ 

operational effectiveness. 

The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the 

underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some United 

Nations (UN) organizations and that insufficient progress has been made 

to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, we reported1

 that several UN 

organizations continued to fall short of their own targets for American 

representation2

 and had not developed action plans or strategies for 

achieving equitable U.S. representation within a specified time frame. In 

addition, the U.S. Department of State (State) has annually reported to 

Congress that Americans have been underrepresented at a number of UN 

organizations.

3

 The equitable representation of Americans at UN

organizations is a priority to Congress in part because the United States is 

the largest financial contributor to most of these organizations. Moreover, 

according to State, Americans bring desirable skills, values, and 

experience that can have a significant impact on UN organizations’ 

operational effectiveness. 

To address these concerns, this report reviews (1) U.S. representation 

status and employment trends at five UN organizations, (2) factors 

affecting these organizations’ ability to meet U.S. representation targets, 

and (3) State’s current efforts to improve U.S. representation and 

additional steps that can be taken.

To address these concerns, this report reviews (1) U.S. representation 

status and employment trends at five UN organizations, (2) factors 

affecting these organizations’ ability to meet U.S. representation targets, 

and (3) State’s current efforts to improve U.S. representation and 

additional steps that can be taken.

To determine the United States’ representation status, identify the trends 

in the number of professional positions held by U. S. citizens, and 

calculate hiring projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001 

through 2005 that we obtained from five UN organizations: the United 

To determine the United States’ representation status, identify the trends 

in the number of professional positions held by U. S. citizens, and 

calculate hiring projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001 

through 2005 that we obtained from five UN organizations: the United 

 1

GAO, United Nations: Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation, 

GAO-01-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2001). 

2

The Secretariat and several UN organizations have quantitative formulas that establish 

targets for equitable geographical representation for designated professional and seniorlevel positions. Other agencies have negotiated informal targets with the United States. 

Some agencies, however, do not maintain any targets at all. 

3

In 1991, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report annually on 

whether UN organizations with geographic targets were meeting their targets for 

Americans and whether these organizations were making good faith efforts to hire more 

Americans. 

Page 1 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Nations Secretariat4

 and the United Nations Development Program5

(UNDP) in New York; the International Atomic Energy Agency6

 (IAEA) in 

Vienna; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization7

 (UNESCO) in Paris; and the Office of the United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees8

 (UNHCR) in Geneva. Technically, the 

IAEA is an independent international organization that has a relationship 

agreement with the UN. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the 

IAEA as a UN agency, or organization. Throughout this report, UNDP data 

includes three UNDP suborganizations: UN Development Fund for 

Women, UN Volunteers, and UN Capital Development Fund. Two 

organizations have formal geographic targets: the Secretariat and 

UNESCO. The remaining three UN organizations do not. IAEA informally 

calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its geographic 

representation is less than half of its percent contribution to the budget. 

Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR and the United 

States have agreed to an informal target. UNDP has no targets. We 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

review. We also met with human resources officials from these five 

organizations to discuss various aspects of the data. We selected these 

agencies because they represent a range of UN agencies with different 

funding mechanisms and methods for calculating geographic 

representation. These five agencies together comprise approximately 50

percent of total UN organizations’ professional staff.9

 To assess factors 

affecting these organizations’ ability to meet the targets, we reviewed UN 

 4

The United Nations was founded in 1945, and the UN Secretariat, headed by the SecretaryGeneral, carries out the day-to-day work of the organization. According to the UN Charter,

the four purposes of the organization are to maintain international peace and security;

develop friendly relations among nations; cooperate in solving international problems and 

in promoting respect for human rights; and be a center for harmonizing the acts of nations.

5

UNDP was formed in 1965 and is the UN’s global development network. UNDP works with 

countries to develop solutions to global and national development challenges. 

6

IAEA was established in 1957, and works with its member states and other partners to 

promote safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear technologies. IAEA’s mission focuses on safety

and security, science and technology, and safeguards and verification. 

7

UNESCO was founded in 1945 with the purpose of contributing to peace and security by 

promoting nations’ collaboration through education, science, and culture to further respect

for justice, the rule of law, and human rights. 

8

UNHCR was established in 1950 with the mandate of leading and coordinating 

international efforts to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems. The organization’s

central purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. 

9

As of December 31, 2004. 

Page 2 GAO-06-988 United Nations
agency documents and interviewed UN human resources officials, over 

100 Americans employed at the five UN agencies, and U.S. officials. To 

assess the strategies used by State to improve U.S. representation, we 

reviewed State documents and interviewed State officials and 

representatives of U.S. agencies that participated in inter agency task force 

meetings on UN employment or that receive vacancy announcements. We 

conducted our work from July 2005 through July 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains a 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

The United States is underrepresented in three of the five UN agencies we 

reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed to meet agreedupon employment targets. Based on UN agencies’ formal or informal 

targets for equitable geographic representation, U.S. citizens are 

underrepresented at IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR, and equitably 

represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its 

target range. UNDP has not established a target for U.S. representation, 

although U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of the agency’s professional 

positions. Given projected staff levels, retirements, and separations for 

2006 to 2010, the Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR would need to

hire more Americans than they have hired in recent years to meet their 

minimum targets for equitable U.S. representation in 2010. 

Results in Brief 

While the UN agencies we reviewed face some common barriers to 

recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also

face distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges are outside 

the U.S. government’s control. Six barriers common to UN agencies we 

reviewed include nontransparent human resource practices; a limited 

number of positions open to external candidates; lengthy hiring processes; 

comparatively low or unclear compensation; required staff mobility and 

rotation policies; and limited U.S. government support during Americans’ 

efforts to obtain, or be promoted at, a UN job. These barriers combine 

with distinct agency-specific factors to impede recruitment and retention.

For example, candidates serving in professional positions funded by their 

member governments are more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than 

those who take the Secretariat’s entry-level exam; however, the United 

States has not funded such positions at the Secretariat. IAEA has difficulty 

attracting U.S. employees because the pool of American nuclear 

specialists is decreasing. At UNESCO, U.S. representation is low, in part, 

because the United States was not a member for 19 years. When the 

United States withdrew its membership in 1984, Americans comprised 9.6 

percent of UNESCO’s professional staff; when it rejoined in 2003, 

Page 3 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Americans comprised only 2.9 percent. UNHCR has difficulty retaining 

staff, particularly at the mid-career level, because it has more hardship 

duty stations than any other agency. Despite the agency’s efforts to 

increase the hiring of Americans, attrition keeps overall U.S. 

representation below the agreed-to target. Finally, while common barriers 

are the leading factors affecting U.S. representation at UNDP, the agency 

is also seeking to increase the hiring of senior staff from southern (mostly 

developing) countries, which could limit employment opportunities for 

U.S. citizens. 

Since 2001 the Department of State has increased its efforts to support the 

goal of achieving equitable U.S. representation at UN organizations, and 

additional options exist to target professional positions. State has targeted 

efforts to recruit American candidates for senior and policymaking UN 

positions and, although it is difficult to directly link State’s efforts to UN 

hiring decisions, U.S. representation in senior and policymaking positions 

has either improved or did not reflect a trend in each of the five UN 

agencies we reviewed. State also has undertaken several efforts to 

improve overall U.S. representation, including adding staff to its UN 

employment office and increasing coordination with other U.S. agencies 

that work with UN organizations. For positions below the senior level, 

State focuses on “getting the word out” by, for example, disseminating 

information on UN vacancies through its Web site, attending career fairs 

and conferences, and other means. Despite these efforts, U.S. 

representation in entry-level positions has declined or did not display a 

trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed. Additional steps to 

target potential pools of candidates for professional positions include: 

maintaining a roster of qualified American candidates; expanding 

marketing and outreach activities; increasing UN employment information 

on U.S. agency Web sites; and conducting an assessment of the costs and

benefits of sponsoring Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are entrylevel employees that are financially supported by their home government. 

To improve U.S. efforts to increase the employment of Americans at UN 

agencies, we are making several recommendations. We recommend that 

the Secretary of State (1) provide more consistent and comprehensive 

information about UN employment on the State and U.S. mission Web 

sites and work with U.S. agencies to expand the UN employment 

information on their Web sites; (2) expand targeted recruiting and 

outreach to more strategically reach populations of Americans that may be 

qualified for and interested in entry- and mid-level UN positions; and (3) 

conduct an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of maintaining 

a roster of qualified candidates for professional and senior positions 

Page 4 GAO-06-988 United Nations
determined to be a high priority for U.S. interests and an evaluation of 

funding JPOs, or other gratis personnel, where Americans are 

underrepresented or could become underrepresented. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, State concurred with and agreed 

to implement all of our recommendations. We received technical 

comments from State, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP, which we 

have incorporated as appropriate. 

The United Nations is comprised of six principal bodies: the General 

Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship 

Council, International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The United 

Nations system also encompasses funds and programs, such as UNDP, and 

specialized agencies, such as UNESCO. These funds, programs, and 

specialized agencies have their own governing bodies and budgets, but 

follow the guidelines of the UN charter. Article 101 of the UN Charter calls

for staff to be recruited on the basis of “the highest standards of efficiency, 

competence, and integrity” as well as from “as wide a geographical basis 

as possible.” Each UN agency also has its own personnel policies, 

procedures, and staff rules. The Secretariat and several specialized 

agencies have quantitative formulas that establish targets for equitable

geographical representation in designated professional positions. Other 

agencies have negotiated informal targets with the United States, while 

some agencies do not have formal or informal targets. 

Background 

Agencies with formal quantitative targets for equitable representation do 

not apply these targets to all professional positions. Instead, these 

organizations set aside positions that are subject to geographic 

representation from among the professional and senior positions 

performing core agency functions, funded from regular budget resources. 

Positions that are exempted from being counted geographically include

linguist and peacekeeping positions, and those funded by extra-budgetary 

resources. In addition, UN agencies employ staff in short-term positions 

that also are not geographically counted. Nongeographic staff members 

include employees tied to specific projects (L-staff), employees in 

assignments of limited duration (ALD) contracted for 4 years or less, 

temporary employees contracted for less than 1 year, and gratis personnel, 

such as JPOs, who are funded by member states. In addition, these 

organizations utilize various nonstaff positions, such as contractors and 

consultants. 

Page 5 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Of the five agencies we reviewed, three—the Secretariat, IAEA, and 

UNESCO—have designated positions subject to geographic distribution. 

The Secretariat and UNESCO have established formulas to determine 

member states’ targets for equitable representation, which consider three 

factors: membership status,10 financial contribution,11 and population size.12

IAEA informally calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its 

geographic representation is less than half of its percent contribution to 

the budget. Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR has 

not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to geographic 

representation, but has agreed to an informal target for equitable U.S. 

representation. UNDP generally follows the principle of equitable 

geographic representation, but has not adopted formal or informal targets. 

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

leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in UN 

organizations. In doing so, State cooperates with at least 17 federal 

agencies that have interests in specific UN organizations. A 1970 executive

order assigns the Secretary of State responsibility for leading and 

coordinating the federal government’s efforts to increase and improve U.S. 

participation in international organizations through transfers and details

for federal employees.13 The order further calls for each agency in the 

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

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

(2) providing international organizations with detailed assessments of the 

qualifications of employees being considered for specific positions. In 

addition, under legislation enacted in 1991,14 the Secretary of State is 

required to report to Congress on whether each international organization 

 10Membership status refers to the right of each member state to a number of positions. For

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

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

population and small UN assessment, which could receive only one position if a minimum

number of positions were not set. 

11Member state contributions are the common factor used by UN organizations to 

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

factor in a state’s membership in the organization. 

12Population size is used to ensure that member states are represented in keeping with their 

respective demographic profiles. 

13Exec. Order No. 11,552, 35 Fed. Reg. 13,569 (Aug. 24, 1970). 

1422 U.S.C. 276c-4. 

Page 6 GAO-06-988 United Nations
with a geographic distribution formula is making “good faith steps to 

increase the staffing of United States citizens and has met its geographic 

distribution formula.” State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs 

is responsible for implementing these requirements.15 While State is 

responsible for promoting and seeking to increase U.S. representation in 

the UN, the UN entities themselves are ultimately responsible for hiring 

their employees and achieving equitable representation. 

We previously reviewed U.S. representation in UN organizations and found 

that, between 1992 and 2001, Americans were not equitably represented in

the UN system, given the agencies’ own targets.16 In addition, the UN 

agencies lacked long-range workforce planning strategies to improve the 

geographic distribution imbalance. We also reported that State’s efforts to 

improve U.S. representation in the UN system did not reflect its high 

priority status, particularly relative to other member countries. We 

recommended that the Secretary of State (1) develop a comprehensive 

strategy that specifies performance goals and time frames for achieving 

equitable representation of Americans in the UN System and include 

efforts to foster interagency coordination, (2) work with human resources 

directors of UN organizations to develop plans and strategies for achieving

equitable geographic representation within specified time frames, and (3) 

provide copies of State’s annual report to Congress on UN progress to the 

heads of UN organizations for appropriate attention and action. State has 

subsequently implemented these recommendations, including adding a 

performance indicator on the UN’s employment of Americans to its 

performance and accountability documents.17 We also recommended that

State develop guidelines defining its goal of obtaining an equitable share of 

senior-level and policy-making positions for U.S. citizens and that it use 

these guidelines to assess whether the United States is equitably 

represented in high-level positions in UN organizations. State did not agree 

with this final recommendation and has not implemented it. 

 15State also reports about UN organizations it deems to be of high interest to the United 

States. 

16GAO-01-839. 

17State began reporting on this indicator in its Fiscal Year 2002 Performance and

Accountability Report. 

Page 7 GAO-06-988 United Nations
U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three of the five UN agencies we 

reviewed: IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. Given projected staff levels, 

retirements, and separations for 2006-2010, these agencies need to hire 

more Americans than they have in recent years to meet their minimum 

targets for equitable U.S. representation in 2010. 

Relative to UN agencies’ formal or informal targets for equitable 

geographic representation, U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three of 

the five agencies we reviewed—IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. U.S. citizens 

are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though at the lower end of 

its target range, while the fifth agency—UNDP—has not established a 

target for U.S. representation. U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of UNDP’s 

professional positions. Table 1 provides information on U.S. 

representation at the five UN agencies as of 2005.

U.S. Is 

Underrepresented in 

Three of Five UN 

Agencies and 

Increased Hiring of 

Americans Is 

Necessary to Meet 

Employment Targets 

U.S. Citizens Are 

Underrepresented Relative 

to Targets at Three UN 

Agencies

Table 1: U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies, 2005 

UN agency 

Percentage of total 

geographic

positions targeted

for U.S. citizensa

Percentage of

geographic

positions filled by

U.S. citizensa

Percentage of

nongeographic

positions filled by

U.S. citizensb

Secretariat 11.5%-15.6% 12.1% 9.5%

IAEA 12.9% 11.5% 17.1%

UNESCO 6.2%-10.2% 4.1% 1.9%

UNHCR 13% 8.0% 11.1%

UNDP Not applicable 10.8% 12.6%

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP data. 

Note: Geographic targets are an average of 2004 and 2005 data. All other percentages are based on

2005 data for all the agencies. 

a

UNHCR and UNDP do not have geographic positions; however, UNHCR has agreed to an informal 

13 percent target with the U.S. government. For these agencies, we calculated the percentage of 

regular professional positions filled by U.S. citizens, which includes staff under contracts of longer 

fixed term (100-series contracts in UNHCR and 100- and 200-series contracts in UNDP). 

Page 8 GAO-06-988 United Nations
b

For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, nongeographic positions include regular professional 

positions not subject to geographic distribution, temporary positions, JPOs, and consultants and 

contractors. UNESCO was unable to provide nationality data for its 572 consultants and contractors, 

which comprise nearly two thirds of UNESCO’s nongeographic staff; hence the U.S. percentage of 

nongeographic positions does not reflect U.S. citizen employment in this category. For UNHCR and 

UNDP, nongeographic positions are all other, nonregular professional staff, which includes temporary 

staff (limited fixed term at UNHCR and assignments of limited duration at UNDP), JPOs, and 

consultants and contractors. Data provided by the agencies did not differentiate between support and 

professional level positions for consultants and contractors. 

Table 1 also shows that the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in 

nongeographic positions (or nonregular positions in the case of UNHCR 

and UNDP) is higher at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP and lower at the 

Secretariat and UNESCO compared to the percentage of geographic (or 

regular) positions held by U.S. citizens. The most notable difference is at

the IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in 

nongeographic positions is considerably higher than the percentage

employed in geographic positions due to the high percentage of 

temporary,18 JPO, and consultant and contractor positions held by 

Americans. (See app. II for details on the composition of Americans in 

geographic and nongeographic positions.) 

As shown in table 2, U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions in 

“all grades” between 2001 and 2005 has been declining at UNHCR and 

displays no clear trend in “all grades” at the other four UN agencies. 

Table 2: Trends in U.S. Representation at Five UN Agencies (covering geographic positions at the Secretariat, IAEA, and

UNESCO and regular positions at UNHCR and UNDP) 

Trend from 2001-2005 

UN agency 

U.S. equitably

represented based on

agreed-upon targetsa

U.S. citizens in all 

professional grade 

levels 

U.S. citizens in policymaking and seniorlevel positionsbU.S. citizens in

entry-level 

positionsc

U.S. citizens in

mid-level 

positionsd

Secretariat Yes No trend No trend No trend No trend 

IAEA No No trend Increasing Decreasing No trend 

UNESCO No No trend No trend Increasing No trend 

UNHCR No Decreasing No trend Decreasing Decreasing 

UNDP Not applicable No trend Increasing Decreasing No trend 

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP data. 

 18Temporary positions at IAEA include staff on the following contracts: fixed-term 

temporary assistance (FTA), fixed-term extra-budgetary (FTE), monthly short term (MST),

and cost-free experts (CFE), the latter which are financed by member state governments. 

Page 9 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Notes: 

Trends in U.S. citizen representation refer to the number of U.S. citizens employed as a percentage 

of agency employment, in the respective grade, over the period 2001 to 2005. Increases or 

decreases are determined by decidedly positive or negative average changes over the period. For 

additional details on our methodology, see appendix I. See appendix III for graphic illustration of the 

trends presented in table 2. 

For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, the trend analysis is for U.S. citizens in geographic

positions from 2001 to 2005. For UNHCR and UNDP, the trend analysis, also for 2001 to 2005, is for 

U.S. citizens in regular professional positions since these agencies do not have geographic positions. 

Regular professional positions for UNHCR and UNDP include staff under contracts of longer fixedterm (100-series contracts for UNHCR and 100-and 200-series contracts for UNDP).

a

The three agencies with geographic targets are the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO. UNHCR does 

not have geographic positions, although it has agreed to an informal target. 

b

Senior-level positions represent UN position levels D1 and D2, roughly equivalent to U.S. 

government Senior Executive Service. Policy-making positions represent UN position levels of 

Deputy or Assistant Director General at IAEA and UNESCO and Under or Assistant Secretary

General at the Secretariat, UNHCR, and UNDP. 

c

Represents UN position levels P1 to P3, roughly equivalent to U.S. government grade levels 9 to

12/13. 

d

Represents UN position levels P4 to P5, roughly equivalent to U.S. government grade levels 13 to 

15. 

U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions increased at

two agencies -–IAEA and UNDP—and displayed no overall trend at the 

Secretariat, UNESCO and UNHCR over the full five years. At the 

Secretariat, although no trend is indicated, U.S. representation has been 

decreasing in policy-making and senior-level positions since 2002. At 

UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect a trend, but the overall

percentage of Americans increased in 2005, reflecting increased recruiting 

efforts after the United States rejoined UNESCO in 2003.19 At UNHCR, the 

representation of U.S. citizens in these positions grew steadily from 2001 

through 2004, but declined in 2005. Regarding entry-level positions, U.S. 

representation in these positions increased at UNESCO, decreased at 

IAEA, UNHCR and UNDP, and showed no trend at the Secretariat. (See 

app. III for more detailed information on the trends in geographic 

employment.) 

 19Between 2003 and 2005, UNESCO increased the number of U.S. nationals employed in 

geographic positions from 21 to 30 professionals, an increase of over 40 percent. 

Page 10 GAO-06-988 United Nations
We estimate that each of the four agencies with geographic targets—the 

Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR—would need to hire U.S. 

citizens in greater numbers than they have in recent years to achieve their 

minimum targets by 2010, given projected staff levels, retirements, and 

separations; otherwise, with the exception of UNESCO,20 U.S. geographic

representation will decline further. As shown in table 3, IAEA and UNHCR 

would need to more than double their current average hiring rate to 

achieve targets for U.S. representation. The Secretariat could continue to 

meet its minimum geographic target for U.S. citizens if it increased its 

annual hiring of U.S. citizens from 20 to 23. UNESCO could achieve its 

minimum geographic target by increasing its current hiring average of 4.5

Americans to 6 Americans. Although the fifth agency, UNDP, does not 

have a target, it would have to increase its annual hiring average of U.S. 

citizens from 17.5 to 26 in order to maintain its current ratio of U.S. regular 

professional staff to total agency regular professional staff. 

Increased Hiring of 

Americans Needed to Meet 

Several UN Agencies’ 

Minimum Targets 

Table 3: Estimated Numbers of U.S. Citizens to Be Hired to Meet Geographic and Other Targets for 2006 to 2010

UN agency 

Average annual 

number of total staff 

hired into geographic

positions each year, 

2001-2005a

Average number of

U.S. citizens hired

into geographic 

positions each year, 

2001-2005a

Percentage of total 

geographic

positions targeted

for U.S. citizensb

Minimum average 

number of U.S. 

citizens to be hired 

each year, 2006-2010, 

to reach geographic 

target in 2010 

Resulting geographic

representation in 

2010 if agency 

follows 2001-2005 

hiring average for 

U.S. citizens

Secretariat 170 20 11.5%-15.6% 23 10.9%

IAEA 77 6 12.9% 16 7.1%

UNESCO 55 4.5 6.2%-10.2% 6 5.1%

UNHCRC148 10 13% 25 7.9%

UNDP 153 17.5 Not applicable 26 8.6%

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP data. 

a

For UNHCR and UNDP, which do not have geographic positions, we calculated the average number

of regular professional U.S. staff hired each year, (2001 to 2005), including separations and 

retirements. Regular professional includes staff under contracts of longer fixed term (100-series 

contracts in UNHCR and 100- and 200-series contracts in UNDP). 

b

For UNHCR, we used the informal target of 13 percent for U.S. citizens, agreed upon by UNHCR

and the U.S. government. For UNDP, we used the target of 11.1 percent, the average U.S. 

employment from 2001 through 2005. 

 20If UNESCO continues to hire at the same rate that it has in the past, U.S. representation

would increase from its current level of 4.1 percent to 5.1 percent in 2010. 

Page 11 GAO-06-988 United Nations
c

The minimum average number of U.S. citizens to be hired each year, 25, is based on a zero percent 

rate of growth of staff, which UNHCR officials indicated was appropriate for 2006 to 2010. From 2001

to 2005, UNHCR’s staff grew at an average annual rate of 6 percent. Under this assumption, the 

minimum number of U.S. citizens to be hired annually would increase to 40. 

If current hiring levels are continued through 2010, two of the five 

agencies—IAEA and UNHCR—would fall substantially below their 

minimum targets. In only one agency—UNESCO—would the percentage 

of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens increase under current hiring 

levels due in part, to the recent increased hiring of U.S. citizens. (See app. I 

for a discussion of our hiring projection methodology.)21

A combination of barriers, including some common factors as well as 

agency-specific factors, adversely affects recruitment and retention of 

professional staff, including Americans, at each of the five UN agencies. 

Barriers common to most UN agencies we reviewed include 

nontransparent human resource practices, a limited number of positions 

open to external candidates, lengthy hiring processes, comparatively low 

or unclear compensation, required mobility and rotation, and limited U.S. 

government support. These barriers combine with distinct agency-specific 

factors to impede recruitment and retention. For example, candidates 

serving in professional UN positions funded by their member governments 

are more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those who take the

Secretariat’s entry-level exam; however, the United States has not funded 

such positions at the Secretariat. IAEA has difficulty attracting U.S. 

employees because the pool of American nuclear specialists is decreasing.

At UNESCO, U.S. representation is below the negotiated target, in part, 

because the United States was not a member for 19 years. UNHCR has 

difficulty retaining staff, particularly at the mid-career level, because it has 

more hardship duty stations than any other agency. UNDP faces several 

barriers that are also present at other UN agencies, such as limited U.S. 

government support, and is also seeking to increase the hiring of senior 

staff from developing countries. 

While Common 

Barriers to Increasing 

U.S. Representation 

Exist, UN Agencies 

Also Face Distinct 

Employment 

Challenges 

 21We performed sensitivity analyses by varying the staff growth and separation rates. We

found that minor changes did not produce major differences in the results.

Page 12 GAO-06-988 United Nations
We identified six barriers that commonly affect U.S. representation in the 

UN agencies we reviewed, although often to differing degrees. 

• Nontransparent Human Resource Practices: According to Americans 

employed at UN organizations, a key barrier to American representation 

across the five UN agencies we reviewed was the lack of transparent 

human resource management practices. For example, some UN managers 

circumvent the competitive hiring process by employing individuals on 

short-term contracts—positions that are not vetted through the regular, 

competitive process—for long-term needs. In addition, some Americans at 

each of the agencies, except IAEA, said that “cronyism” exists and that 

certain individuals only hire their fellow nationals. Others said that the 

perception of U.S. overrepresentation22 hinders managers from hiring or 

promoting U.S. citizens regardless of their skills. In response, UN human 

resource officials expressed concern about U.S. employees’ perception of 

“cronyism” and lack of transparent practices. UN human resource officials 

said that hiring processes include rigorous reviews involving the personnel 

division; managers; and appointment, promotion and review boards. 

However, the UN Secretary-General also acknowledged in a report to the 

General Assembly that management systems, including human resources, 

lacked transparency.23

Common Barriers 

Adversely Affect U.S. 

Representation at Several 

UN Agencies 

• Limited External Opportunities: Recruiting U.S. candidates is difficult 

because agencies offer a limited number of posts to external candidates. 

Each of the organizations we reviewed, except IAEA, advertises 

professional, or P-level, vacancies to current employees before advertising

them externally in order to provide career paths for their staff and to 

motivate staff. Furthermore, the definition of external candidates used at 

the Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR is quite broad and may 

include current staff with temporary appointments, JPOs, former staff, or 

staff in other agencies in the UN Common System. In reviewing hiring 

data, we found that three of the five agencies—UNESCO, UNHCR and 

UNDP—filled 50 percent or more of new appointments by promotions or 

other internal candidates rather than by hiring external candidates. (See 

fig. 1. For definitions of promotion, internal hire, and external hire, see 

app. IV.) 

 22Americans comprised the largest number of geographic professionals at every agency we

reviewed, except UNESCO, where they ranked fourth. 

23UN General Assembly, 60th Session. Investing in the United Nations for a Stronger

Organization Worldwide: Report of the Secretary-General (A/60/692). 7 March 2006. 

Page 13 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Figure 1: Number of Vacancies Filled by Promotions, Internal Candidates, and External Candidates, 2004 and 2005 Data

Combined 

Source: GAO analysis of UN agencies’ data.

UN Secretariat

International

Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA)

United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural

Organisation (UNESCO)

Vacancies filled by promotion

Vacancies filled by internal candidates

Vacancies filled by external candidates

United Nations Office of the

High Commissioner

for Refugees (UNHCR)

United Nations

Development

Program (UNDP)

47

149 31 195

148

95

71

33

104 284

160

693 180

1369

Note: UNHCR figure based on 2003 to 2004 data.

IAEA fills a large percentage of its positions with external candidates 

because, in addition to not giving internal candidates hiring preference, 

the agency employs the majority of its staff members for 7 years or less. 

Although the data indicate that the Secretariat hires a significant 

percentage of external candidates, the Secretariat’s definition of “external 

candidates,” as describe above, includes staff on temporary contracts and

individuals who have previous experience working at the agency. 

• Lengthy Hiring Process: For positions that are advertised externally, the 

agencies’ lengthy hiring processes can deter candidates from accepting UN

employment. For example, a report from the Secretary General

24 states 

that the average hiring process is too slow, taking 174 days from the time a 

vacancy announcement is issued to the time a candidate is selected, 

causing some qualified applicants to accept jobs elsewhere. One American 

at UNESCO noted that his hiring process took about 9 months, while 

another said it took about 1 year. At UNHCR, even its “fast-track” system 

used to staff emergency situations takes five months, on average. Many

Americans that we interviewed concurred with the report’s sentiment, 

saying that it is difficult to plan a job move when there is a long delay 

between submitting an application and receiving an offer. In March 2006,

the Secretary General proposed cutting the average recruitment time in 

half. 

 24UN General Assembly, 60th Session (A/60/692). 

Page 14 GAO-06-988 United Nations
• Comparatively Low or Unclear Compensation: Comparatively low 

salaries and benefits that were not clearly explained were among the most 

frequently mentioned deterrents to UN employment for Americans. 

American employees we interviewed noted that UN salaries, particularly 

for senior and technical posts, are not comparable with U.S. government 

and private sector employment. The International Civil Service 

Commission25 also reported that remuneration across the UN common 

system26 is not competitive in the international labor market.27 When 

candidates consider current UN salaries in tandem with UN employee 

benefits, such as possible reimbursement for U.S. taxes and school tuition 

allowances through college, UN compensation may be more attractive.

However, U.S. citizens employed at IAEA and UNESCO said that their 

agency did not clearly explain the benefits, or explained them only after 

the candidate accepted a position. Incomplete or late information hampers 

a candidate’s ability to decide in a timely manner whether a UN position is 

in his or her best interest. 

In addition, difficulty securing spousal employment can decrease family 

income and may also affect American recruitment since many U.S. families 

have two wage earners. At many overseas UN duty stations, work permits 

can be difficult to obtain, the local economy may offer few employment 

opportunities, and knowledge of the local language may be required. In 

addition, Americans with whom we spoke said that an unemployed spouse 

might not be happy as such, and might prefer to return to the United States 

where he or she can continue a career. U.S. employees at IAEA (located in

Vienna) noted that difficulty in securing spousal employment is a 

significant problem for recruiting and retaining U.S. professionals at their 

agency. 

 25The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) is an independent expert body 

established by the UN General Assembly. Its mandate is to regulate and coordinate the

conditions of service of staff in the UN common system, while promoting and maintaining

high standards in the international civil service. 

26The UN common system represents common standards, methods, and arrangements

applied to salaries, allowances, and benefits for the staff of the United Nations and those 

specialized agencies that have entered into a relationship with it. The common system is 

designed to avoid serious discrepancies in terms and conditions of employment, to avoid 

competition in recruitment of personnel, and to facilitate the inter change of personnel. 

27UN General Assembly, 60th Session. Report of the International Civil Service 

Commission for the year 2005. Supplement No. 30 (A/60/30). 12 August 2005. Official 

Record. 

Page 15 GAO-06-988 United Nations
• Required Mobility or Rotation: UNHCR and UNDP require their staff to 

change posts at least every 3 to 6 years with the expectation that staff 

serve the larger portion of their career in the field; the UN Secretariat and 

UNESCO are implementing similar policies. While IAEA does not require 

its employees to change posts, it generally only hires employees for 7 

years or less. Such policies dissuade some Americans from accepting or 

staying in a UN position because of the disruptions to personal or family 

life such frequent moves can cause.

• Limited U.S. Government Support: At four of the five agencies we 

reviewed, all except IAEA, a number of American employees said that they

did not receive U.S. government support during their efforts to obtain a 

UN job or to be promoted at the job they held. The U.S. government 

currently supports candidates applying for director-level, or higher, posts, 

and puts less emphasis on supporting candidates seeking lower-level 

professional posts. State said that only on an exceptional basis is 

assistance given in support of promotions because the U.S.’s general 

policy is not to intervene in internal UN matters, such as promotions. State 

said the UN’s “code of conduct”28 makes it clear that it is improper for 

international civil servants to lobby or seek support from governments to 

obtain advancement for themselves and that governments should not 

accede to such requests nor intervene in such matters. Although UN 

employees are international civil servants directly hired by UN agencies, 

some countries facilitate the recruitment of their nationals by referring 

qualified candidates, conducting recruitment missions, and sponsoring 

JPOs or Associate Experts.29

 28United Nations Secretariat, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, Status, Basic Rights and Duties

of United Nations Staff Members (ST/SGB/2002/13) 1 November 2002. 

29Associate Experts, also known as Junior Professional Officers (JPO) at other UN

agencies, are entry-level employees that are financially supported by their home country. 

The sponsoring country may select candidates for the positions they fund, though the UN

agency has the final decisions as to which candidate actually is hired. The standard length 

of Associate Expert and JPO appointments vary by donor, however, most serve from 1 to 3 

years. 

Page 16 GAO-06-988 United Nations
At the entry level, hiring for professional positions is limited to an average 

of 2 percent of individuals invited to take the Secretariat’s National 

Competitive Recruitment Exam (NCRE), while in contrast, the Secretariat 

hired an average of 65 percent of Associate Experts sponsored by their 

national government; however, the U.S. government has not sponsored 

any Associate Experts at the Secretariat between 2001 and 2005.30 In 

addition, a lack of career development opportunities affects retention. 

Our review of the Secretariat’s data shows individuals who take the 

NCRE31 have a lower probability of being hired than do Associate Experts 

sponsored by their national government at the end of their tenure. Of the 

3,398 individuals invited to take the NCRE each year, the UN Secretariat 

hired an average of 71 individuals, or 2 percent, per year from 2001 

through 2004. Though U.S. citizens fare slightly better than the general 

population (the Secretariat hires an average of 4 percent of Americans 

invited to take the exam), the UN Secretariat hires just an average of 7 

Americans through the NCRE each year. Employees hired from the exam 

fill geographic posts and count toward country representation. Human 

resource officials noted that individuals who are hired through the exam 

process may be on the roster for 1 year or more before being hired. Figure

2 shows the number of applicants between 2001 and 2004 at various stages 

of the exam from all nationalities and from the United States, respectively.

UN Secretariat: Lower 

Probability of Employment 

for Young Professionals 

Taking the Recruitment 

Exam than Those 

Participating in CountrySponsored Program 

Exam Applicants Less Likely to 

Be Hired than Associate 

Experts at the Entry Level 

 30NCRE hiring data are averaged from 2001 through 2004. Associate Expert retention data 

are averaged from 2001 through 2003. The average percent of Associate Experts retained 

from 1990 through 2003 is 58 percent.

31To meet its geographic targets, the UN Secretariat recruits employees for its entry-level 

(grades P1 through P3), geographically-designated posts through the NCRE. The 

Secretariat invites citizens of member states that are underrepresented or at risk of

becoming underrepresented to submit exam applications. A certain number of individuals

who meet all application requirements are invited to take the exam and then must pass 

both written and oral portions. However, for each country, a maximum number of 50

individuals may take the exam per occupational group. If the number of applicants exceeds

50, only the most qualified (as determined by the UN) will be allowed to take the exam. 

Successful individuals are then put on a roster; not all will actually be hired. 

Page 17 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Figure 2: UN Secretariat National Competitive Recruitment Exam: Four-Year Average of All Nationalities and for Americans 

for Each Stage of the Exam (2001-2004) 

Source: GAO analysis of UN Secretariat data.

Applicants Applicants

3,398

71

2,155

181 148

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Americans

17 16

7

119

184

0

40

80

120

160

200

Invited to 

take the 

exam

Took the 

written 

exam

Took the 

oral

exam

Invited to Hired 

take the 

exam

Took the 

written 

exam

Took the 

oral

exam

Passed both 

written and 

oral exam

Passed both 

written and 

oral exam

Hired 

All nationalities

Note: The number hired from any year could increase, because candidates who pass the exam can 

remain on the Secretariat’s roster until their country is equitably represented, though most are offered 

posts in the first 1 or 2 years. The Secretariat provided preliminary data for 2005, but it is incomplete 

because the hiring process is ongoing for these applicants. 

In contrast, the Secretariat hires an average of 83 individuals each year 

who have finished their tenure as Associate Experts. Given that donor 

countries together sponsor an average of 128 associate experts each year,

65 percent, on average, have been hired when they finish their tenure. 

However, individuals hired at the end of their Associate Expert service 

may or may not fill geographic posts. An average of 16 countries32

sponsor33 young professionals in this program each year. The United States 

has not sponsored any Associate Experts at the Secretariat since at least 

2001; therefore, no Americans have been hired in this manner between 

then and July 2006. 

 32The leading supporters of Associate Experts at the Secretariat, on average from 2001 to 

2005 are: Italy, Germany, Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Japan. See

table 4. 

33According to the Secretariat, the cost for sponsoring an Associate Expert can vary

substantially given the individual and the duty station, ranging from approximately 

$100,000 to $200,000. 

Page 18 GAO-06-988 United Nations
The lack of career and promotion opportunities is one of the two most 

“demotivating” factors for UN employees, according to a 2005 survey of 

5,320 UN staff.34 Fifteen of the 19 American employees we interviewed at 

the UN Secretariat also cited a lack of career development opportunities 

as a factor negatively affecting U.S. retention. Staff also mentioned that 

contract distinctions limit career development, as individuals with shortduration contracts have difficulty obtaining regular posts. Peacekeepers, 

for example, work under an assignment of limited duration that can last up 

to 4 years. Although they have actual experience working for the 

Secretariat, they are considered external candidates and cannot apply as 

an internal candidate. Moreover, their time working in field posts does not 

count toward promotion eligibility. In recognition of this seeming inequity, 

the Secretary General has proposed instituting a single contract type to 

expand career opportunities. 

Lack of Career Development 

Opportunities Decreases 

Retention 

IAEA: Decreasing Pool of 

American Candidates 

Limits U.S. Representation 

Continuing U.S. underrepresentation at IAEA has been described by U.S. 

government officials as a “supply-side issue,” with the pool of American 

candidates with the necessary education and experience decreasing, as 

nuclear specialists are aging and few young people have entered that field.

For those candidates that are qualified, IAEA may not be a particularly 

attractive place to work owing to its rotation policy. 

IAEA’s Director General reported that the recruitment of staff, particularly

in the scientific and technical areas, is becoming increasingly difficult 

because the nuclear workforce is aging and retiring.35 Similarly, a 

discussion paper from DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory36 stated 

that American experts in the nuclear industry are aging and retiring while 

Pool of Qualified American 

Applicants Decreasing 

 34This survey is cited in the following document, UN General Assembly, 60th Session

(A/60/692). 

35Established to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health, 

and prosperity throughout the world, IAEA’s work requires much of its professional staff to 

be skilled in highly technical areas such as nuclear engineering and physics. IAEA’s 

demand for qualified applicants will increase over the next 7 years as staff members retire

and 60 percent of the posts subject to geographic distribution become vacant. 

36White Paper: Obstacles to Recruiting U.S. Citizens for IAEA Safeguards Positions. 

Prepared by the International Safeguards Project Office, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 

April 2005, updated December 2005. 

Page 19 GAO-06-988 United Nations
fewer U.S. citizens are seeking relevant technical degrees.37 For example, 

according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nearly half of nuclear industry 

employees are over age 47 and less than 8 percent of such employees are 

younger than age 32. The institute states further that over the next 5 years

nuclear companies may lose an estimated 23,000 workers, representing 40 

percent of all jobs in the sector. IAEA, as with all UN agencies, has a 

mandatory retirement age of 62, and according to State officials, the 

agency generally will not consider applicants above age 57 because they 

will not be able to complete the average 5-year contract. IAEA said it 

prefers to hire staff who can fulfill the normal five-year appointment but 

recently hired a staff member who would reach the mandatory retirement 

age in two years. Disqualifying nuclear specialists over age 57 dramatically 

limits the already small pool of qualified Americans able to work at IAEA. 

For candidates who are qualified, IAEA may not be an attractive place to 

work owing to its rotation policy, particularly given that the agency tends 

to hire individuals at the mid-career level. American employees and U.S. 

and UN officials we interviewed cited IAEA’s 7-year rotation policy as a 

disincentive to recruiting and retaining staff. The agency usually offers 

international professionals a 3-year contract that can be extended up to 7 

years.38 While IAEA is forthright about not being a “career” agency, the 

prospect of working only 3 to 7 years dissuades some Americans who are 

unsure if they can find meaningful employment at the end of their IAEA 

tenure. According to U.S. government officials who recruit candidates for 

IAEA, working at IAEA for a relatively short amount of time is not worth 

the risk to Americans already well-established in their careers. While the 

U.S. government guarantees its civil servants reemployment rights after 

working with an international organization, federally contracted national

laboratories have inconsistent reemployment policies, which can be 

negotiated on an individual basis. Private sector firms may not offer any 

expectation of reemployment. U.S. government agencies who do rehire 

employees may not make use of the IAEA experience or may offer a salary 

Rotation Makes IAEA 

Employment Less Attractive 

 37Experts in the nuclear power field report that the growth of nuclear capacity slowed 

greatly in the 1980s and 1990s due, in part, to safety problems, the inability to dispose of 

nuclear waste, the uncontrolled proliferation of fissile materials, and the lack of economic 

competitiveness. As such, the demand for—and therefore the training of—nuclear 

specialists decreased. 

38According to IAEA officials, at any point in time, about 39 percent of the staff is granted

long-term contracts and stay for more than 7 years. The Director General decides every 

long-term contract based on the program’s need, diversity issues, and the person’s age and

potential for growth. 

Page 20 GAO-06-988 United Nations
that does not compensate for the intervening years of work experience,

according to U.S. officials. Moreover, regarding retirement, some 

Americans working at IAEA told us that U.S. government agencies do not

count their years at IAEA toward their years in U.S. government service. In

addition, individuals may have to give up their U.S. security clearance to 

work at IAEA, which can take more than a year to reinstate. 

UNESCO: Long U.S. 

Absence Contributed to 

Low Representation 

The United States’ 19-year withdrawal from UNESCO contributed to its 

current underrepresentation. Increasing American representation in the 

future may be complicated by budget restrictions. 

The number of Americans employed at UNESCO declined during the 19

years that the United States was not a member. In 1984, the United 

States—accompanied by the United Kingdom in 1985—withdrew from the 

organization over concerns about the agency’s management and other 

issues. During the intervening years, in part because funding decreased 

considerably with the withdrawal of these two countries, UNESCO’s staff 

decreased in size by about one-third. When the United States left UNESCO 

in 1984, Americans comprised 9.6 percent of the organization’s geographic 

professional staff. When it rejoined in 2003, Americans comprised only 2.9 

percent. By 2005 that number had increased to 4.1 percent—the third 

largest group of nationals UNESCO employed, although still below the 

minimum geographic target. Although UNESCO did employ American 

citizens during that time, it was not held to any geographic target for 

Americans because the United States was not a member. 

Nineteen-Year Absence 

Decreased the Number of 

Americans Employed at 

UNESCO 

UNESCO must hire Americans in greater numbers to meet its minimum 

target for U.S. representation, which may be difficult in part because 

UNESCO may have limited hiring in the future. Vacancies available to 

external candidates may decrease given current budget restrictions, as 

UNESCO has applied a zero-nominal-growth policy to its regular budget. 

The organization thus plans to limit hiring for regular budget positions—

which include all geographic positions—to filling vacancies created by 

retirement and other attrition.39

Hiring Freeze Limits 

Opportunities 

 39As an exception, UNESCO advertises D-level positions at headquarters internally and

externally, concurrently. 

Page 21 GAO-06-988 United Nations
The difficult conditions that accompany much of UNHCR’s work, coupled 

with the requirement to change duty stations every 4 years, causes 

attrition at the mid-career levels. Moreover, various human resource 

peculiarities, including the predominance of indefinite contracts and staffin-between-assignments, complicate the staffing process. 

UNHCR’s requirement that employees change duty stations every 4 years 

was one of the most frequently cited barriers to retaining staff among the 

American employees we interviewed. UNHCR’s mission to safeguard the 

rights and well-being of refugees necessitates work in hardship and highrisk locations. As such, UNHCR has twice as many hardship duty stations 

as any other UN agency. At least one-third of its international professional 

staff works in posts where, in some cases, their family may not be allowed

to accompany them. To alleviate the burden of serving in hardship posts, 

the majority of international professionals are expected to rotate between 

different categories of duty stations. However, a UN Joint Inspection Unit

report found that the staffing system may not always allow staff to rotate 

out of the more difficult locations.40 For example, employees who serve in 

hardship locations, especially in Africa, are less likely to rotate to 

headquarters and other nonhardship locations than other staff. Aside from 

possibly having to serve in hardship locations, moving frequently creates 

an unstable environment for staff and their families. UNHCR officials 

acknowledged that the organization faces a challenge in balancing its 

staff’s personal and career goals with UNHCR’s operational requirements. 

Several U.S. government officials noted that attrition among Americans 

has counteracted efforts UNHCR has made to hire U.S. citizens. For 

example, in 2004 and 2005, UNHCR hired 24 Americans, but in the same 

years 14 Americans left the agency, leaving a net gain of only 10 U.S. 

citizens. 

UNHCR’s policy to fill vacancies first with internal candidates coupled 

with the reality that most employees have indefinite contracts limits its 

external hiring, particularly given its number of staff-in-betweenassignments. Given that UNHCR’s workforce requirements regularly 

expand and contract, the agency typically has a number of staff-inbetween-assignments for whom it does not have assignments 

corresponding to their grades and skills. As of July 2006, UNHCR had 135 

such staff. However, human resource officials said that some individuals 

UNHCR: Difficult Working 

Conditions and Rigid 

Human Resource Policies 

Hamper Retention and 

Recruitment 

Required Mobility through 

Hardship Posts Causes 

Attrition 

Inflexible Human Resource 

System Limits Opportunities 

for External Hiring 

 40U.N. Joint Inspection Unit. Review of Management and Administration in the Office of 

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (JUI/REP/2004/4). Geneva, 2004. 

Page 22 GAO-06-988 United Nations
have remained in between assignments for an extended period of time—

some as long as 2 years. Because all staff-in-between-assignments have 

indefinite, rather than fixed-term, contracts,41 management has difficulty 

terminating those that refuse assignments or who lack needed skills, and 

the agency gives these staff placement preference over hiring external 

candidates. The priority given to placing staff-in-between-assignments 

limits the type of open external recruitment needed to ensure that UNHCR 

maintains an optimally skilled, dynamic, competitive, and gender-balanced 

workforce. In November 2003, to ensure that UNHCR adequately meets its 

workforce requirements, management created a policy to terminate the 

indefinite appointments of staff members who remained without a post for 

a protracted period. UNHCR human resource officials said that new rules 

entering into force in September 2006 are intended to reduce the 

protracted period from 12-18 months to 6 months. As of July 2006, UNHCR 

had terminated one staff who had remained in between assignments for an 

excessive period of time. 

Despite high mid-level attrition, UNHCR currently limits recruitment to 

entry level positions, filling posts with candidates who must now pass an 

entry exam. Before introducing the exam in 2004, employees in JPO 

positions were allowed to apply to posts as an internal candidate. 

However, individuals that have served as JPOs or in other temporary 

assignments now must pass the entry exam and be added to the roster of 

qualified candidates before being eligible to apply for regular staff 

positions. U.S. citizens employed at UNHCR expressed strong concern 

about this policy because UNHCR recently hired 67 percent of Americans 

at the end of their JPO service into an agency position. Having to take a

test may increase the time it takes to get a post, as the exam is only given

once a year, and could decrease JPO retention. 

UNHCR positions offered to external candidates will be further limited 

due to budgetary restrictions. As with UNESCO, UNHCR is planning to 

freeze hiring from the regular budget this year in order to limit the growth 

of the organization and realign the size of the workforce with the budget. 

One official estimated that there will be about 30 percent less recruitment 

this year because of the hiring freeze.

 41By the end of 2004, 83 percent of UNHCR’s regular professional staff held indefinite 

appointments. As of January 2006, 94 percent of staff at the P-4 and P-5 levels held 

indefinite appointments.

Page 23 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Several barriers to increasing U.S. representation that are also present at 

other UN agencies are the leading factors at UNDP, according to American 

employees and other officials with whom we spoke. For example, many 

American UNDP employees told us that they did not receive support from 

the U.S. government during their hiring process or the course of their 

careers. Several of these employees stated that their discussions with us 

were the first time they had been contacted by U.S. government officials 

during their UNDP careers, and that both they and the U.S. mission would

benefit from increased communication. U.S. staff also discussed UNDP’s 

nontransparent hiring and personnel management policies, and the limited

opportunities for external candidates, as barriers for increasing U.S. 

representation.42 In addition, UNDP’s Executive Board has traditionally 

managed the organization with the understanding that its staff be equally 

represented from northern (mostly developed) and southern (mostly 

developing) countries, and has recently focused on improving the northsouth balance of staff at management levels by increasing the hiring of 

candidates from southern countries. While this is a worthy goal, some 

American staff at UNDP commented that the organization’s recent 

attention to increasing the hiring of senior staff from southern countries 

could increase the difficulty for American candidates seeking these 

positions. A senior UNDP official stated that he did not see the increased 

hiring of U.S. nationals (to maintain current representation levels) as a 

realistic and attainable target, given the above focus as well as profile, 

donor, program country, gender, and diversity considerations. 

UNDP: While Several 

Common Factors Are the 

Leading Barriers, UNDP Is 

Also Seeking to Improve 

the North-South Balance of 

Senior Staff 

 42A senior UNDP official said that UNDP recently reviewed its selection and placement 

process to address the issue of transparency and the majority of UNDP staff commented

favorably on the transparency principles being met. However, UNDP declined to provide us

with this review, as it is an internal working document that includes other sensitive 

information. 

Page 24 GAO-06-988 United Nations
State targets its recruitment efforts for senior and policy-making UN 

positions, and, although it is difficult to directly link State’s efforts to UN 

hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has either 

improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies we reviewed. State 

also has increased its efforts to improve overall U.S. representation, 

including adding staff to its UN employment office and increasing 

coordination with other U.S. agencies; however, despite these efforts, U.S. 

representation in entry-level positions has declined or did not reflect a

trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed. Additional steps to 

target potential pools of candidates for these positions include maintaining 

a roster of qualified American candidates; expanding marketing and 

outreach activities; and conducting an assessment of the costs and 

benefits of sponsoring JPOs. 

In 2001, we reported that State focused its recruiting efforts for U.S. 

citizen employment at UN agencies on senior-level and policy-making 

positions, and State officials told us that this focus has continued. 

Although it is difficult to directly link State’s efforts to UN hiring decisions, 

the percentage of U.S. representation in senior and policy-making 

positions either increased or did not display a trend at each of the five UN

agencies we reviewed between 2001 and 2005 (see fig. 3). 

State Has Increased 

Efforts to Promote 

U.S. Representation, 

but Additional 

Options Exist to 

Target Professional 

Positions 

State Recruiting Efforts 

Focus on Senior Positions, 

and U.S. Representation in 

These Positions Improved 

or Showed No Trend 

Page 25 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Figure 3: U.S. Representation in Senior and Policy-making Positions at Five UN 

Agencies as a Percentage of Agency Professional Senior and Policy-making

Positions, 2001-2005 

Percentage of agency total

Year

Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP.

0

5

10

15

20

UNDP

UNHCR

UNESCO

IAEA

Secretariat

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Note: For the Secretariat, UNESCO, and IAEA, we used positions subject to geographic distribution. 

For UNHCR and UNDP, we used regular professional positions. 

At all five UN agencies, the percentage of Americans employed in senior 

and policymaking positions was higher in 2005 than in 2001, but the trends 

and magnitude varied somewhat across the agencies, as figure 3 shows. 

The U.S. share of senior and policy-making positions has increased at 

IAEA and UNDP. The U.S. share of these positions at the other three UN 

agencies displayed no trend over the period. At the Secretariat, the U.S. 

share of senior and policymaking positions was slightly higher in 2005 than

in 2001, although the number and percentage of Americans in these 

positions has decreased since 2002. At UNHCR, the number and 

percentage of U.S. citizens in these positions grew between 2001 and 2004, 

but declined in 2005. At UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect

a trend, but the percentage of Americans increased in 2005. Overall, 

Americans hold over 10 percent of senior and policymaking positions at 

four of the five agencies we reviewed. (App. III contains more detailed 

information on U.S. citizens employed in all professional positions, by 

grade, at the five UN agencies.) 

Page 26 GAO-06-988 United Nations
A U.S. mission official told us that the mission focuses its efforts on 

vacancies for critical senior jobs because of the influence that these 

positions have within the organization. If an American makes the short list 

for one of these positions, the U.S. Ambassador or another high-ranking 

U.S. mission official contacts the UN agency on behalf of that candidate. 

Officials at one of the U.S. missions we visited told us that the ambassador 

called UN agency officials on behalf of American candidates almost 

weekly. Several senior UN agency positions have recently been filled by 

Americans, including the UN Under-Secretary-General for Management 

and the Executive Director of UNICEF. UNESCO also recently hired U.S.

citizens for the positions of Assistant Director-General for Education and 

the Deputy Assistant Director-General for External Relations. 

As a part of this effort to recruit for high-level positions, State’s UN 

employment office added a senior advisor in 2004 focused on identifying

and recruiting American candidates for senior-level positions at UN 

organizations. This official works closely with the U.S. missions and U.S. 

agencies to identify senior-level UN vacancies and assist in the recruitment 

and support of Americans as candidates for these positions. The advisor 

also focuses on UN senior-level positions that may soon become vacant,

including positions currently held by Americans, as well as by other 

nationals. Officials from one U.S. mission told us that it is critical to find 

out about vacancies before they become open because of the lead time 

needed to find qualified candidates. For those positions determined to be 

of particular interest to the United States, the senior advisor works with 

mission and agency counterparts to identify appropriate candidates to 

apply for the position when it becomes vacant. 

State Has Increased 

Activities to Support 

Greater U.S. 

Representation, but the 

Employment of Americans 

in Entry-level Positions 

Declined or Displayed No 

Trend in Four Agencies 

Since 2001, State has devoted additional resources and has undertaken 

several new initiatives in its role as the lead U.S. agency for supporting and 

promoting the employment of Americans in UN organizations, including 

adding staff to its UN employment office. State also has begun sharing its 

U.S. representation reports with UN officials. Additionally, State has 

increased coordination with other U.S. agencies. However, despite these 

efforts, U.S. representation in entry-level positions has declined or did not 

display a trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed. 

Page 27 GAO-06-988 United Nations
In 2001, State had two staff members working in its UN employment 

office, and since that time has increased the number of staff positions to 

five, plus a sixth person who works part-time on UN employment issues.43

The new staff positions include the official focused on senior-level 

positions at UN organizations referred to earlier. According to State, the 

other staff in this office recruit candidates for professional positions at 

career fairs and in other venues; however, a large portion of their work 

focuses on providing information to potential applicants and 

disseminating information on UN vacancies and opportunities. A key part 

of this effort is the publication and distribution of a biweekly list of UN 

vacancy announcements. State officials publish these announcements on 

the department’s UN employment Web site and also distribute the 

vacancies to agency contacts.44 With this list, potential applicants are able 

to view externally advertised professional and senior level vacancies 

throughout the UN system in one location. Additionally, State recently 

coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management to add a link to its 

UN employment Web site from the USAJOBS Web site. State’s Web site 

also includes a brochure with general information on UN employment 

opportunities and requirements, and a fact sheet requesting that 

candidates who have made a short list for a UN position contact the 

department for information and assistance. State’s UN employment office

staff also attend career fairs and other outreach activities at universities 

and professional associations to discuss UN employment opportunities. 

For example, State officials reported that they attended 15 events in 2005,

including a nuclear technology expo and a conference on women in 

international security. 

State Increased Resources for 

Disseminating UN Vacancy 

Information 

State also has increased outreach for the Secretariat’s annual National 

Competitive Recruitment Exam for entry-level candidates by advertising 

for the exam in selected newspapers. The number of Americans invited to

take the exam increased from 40 in 2001 to 277 in 2004. According to State

and UN officials, in 2005, State placed one-day advertisements publicizing 

application procedures for the exam in five newspapers across the 

country.45

 43One of the five staffers told us that she spends about 60 percent of her time on UN

employment issues. The other four staff work on these issues full time. 

44http://www.state.gov/p/io/empl/. 

45State placed advertisements in the Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, New York 

Times, USA Today, and Washington Post. 

Page 28 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Another of State’s responsibilities is to collect U.S. employment data from 

UN agencies and compile these data in annual reports to Congress. These 

reports include State’s assessment of U.S. representation at select UN 

organizations and these organizations’ efforts to hire more Americans. 

State now provides these reports to UN agencies, as we recommended in 

2001, and does so by sending them to U.S. missions, which share them 

with UN officials. U.S. mission officials told us that they periodically meet

with UN officials to discuss U.S. representation and upcoming vacancies. 

For example, officials from the U.S. mission in Geneva regularly meet with 

UNHCR’s Director of Human Resources to discuss efforts to increase U.S. 

representation. One outcome of these efforts was that, in 2005, UNHCR 

representatives conducted a recruiting mission to the United States, 

visiting five graduate schools. In addition, the U.S. mission in Vienna meets 

with IAEA’s director of human resources on a biweekly basis to discuss 

U.S. staffing issues. 

U.S. Missions Share U.S. 

Representation Reports and 

Discuss Openings with UN 

Officials 

In 2003, State established an inter agency task force to address the low 

representation of Americans in international organizations. According to

State, the initial meeting was intended as a first step to coordinate and reenergize efforts to identify Americans for international organization staff 

positions. Since then, task force members have met annually to discuss 

U.S. employment issues. Task force participants told us that at these 

meetings, State officials reported on their outreach activities and 

encouraged agencies to promote the employment of Americans at UN 

organizations. One of the topics discussed by task force members was how

to increase support for details and transfers of U.S. agency employees to 

UN organizations. In May 2006, the Secretary of State sent letters to the 

heads of 23 Federal agencies urging that they review their policies for 

transferring and detailing employees to international organizations to 

ensure that these mechanisms are positively and actively promoted.46

Transferring and detailing federal employees to UN organizations for 

fixed-term assignments could allow Americans to gain UN experience 

while providing UN organizations with technical and managerial 

State Increased Coordination 

with U.S. Agencies 

 46Executive Order 11552, issued in 1970, mandates that federal agencies shall assist and 

encourage details and transfers of their employees to international organizations and that

State shall lead and coordinate these efforts. The order also specifies that international 

organization vacancies should be brought to the attention of well-qualified federal 

employees and that upon the return of an employee to his agency, the agency shall give due

consideration to the experience the employee may have gained during the detail or 

transfer. 

Page 29 GAO-06-988 United Nations
expertise.47 While the Secretary’s letters may help to spur U.S. agencies to 

clarify their support for these initiatives, agency officials told us that their

offices lack the resources for staff details, which involve paying the salary

of the detailed staff as well as “backfilling” that person’s position by 

adding a replacement.48

State also periodically meets one-on-one with U.S. agencies to discuss in 

more detail strategies for increasing U.S. representation at specific 

organizations. A State official told us that State’s UN employment office 

holds a few of these one-on-one meetings per year. For example, in 2005, 

State met with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss U.S. 

underrepresentation at the International Civil Aviation Organization. State 

also participated in a network of agencies and National Laboratories that 

work with IAEA, which has discussed ideas to address declining U.S. 

representation at that agency.49 The U.S. mission in Vienna conducts 

periodic video-conference meetings with State, other U.S. agencies, and 

the U.S. national laboratories to discuss upcoming IAEA vacancies and 

identify U.S. candidates for these positions. 

Despite the new and continuing activities undertaken by State, U.S. 

representation in entry-level positions50 declined or displayed no trend in 

four of the five agencies we reviewed. U.S. representation in these 

positions declined at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP. The representation of 

Americans in entry-level positions at the Secretariat displayed no trend 

during the time period. At UNESCO, U.S. representation increased from 

1.3 percent in 2003 to 2.7 percent in 2004, reflecting the time period when 

the United States rejoined the organization (See fig. 4). 

U.S. Entry-level Representation 

Declined or Displayed No 

Trend in Four of Five UN 

Agencies 

 47State reported that in fiscal year 2004, 168 federal employees from 16 agencies served on

transfer or detail to UN agencies. Of the 84 employees detailed to UN agencies, the vast 

majority were from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Disease 

Control and Prevention, on assignment at the World Health Organization. 

48Transferred employees are paid by the UN organization, while detailed employees would 

remain on the U.S. agency’s payroll. 

49In addition to State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs, participants in this 

network include the U.S. Mission in Vienna, State’s Bureau for International Security and

Nonproliferation, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the

Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories. 

50We define entry-level UN positions as positions in the P1 to P3 grade levels. 

Page 30 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Figure 4: U.S. Representation in Entry-level Professional Positions as a Percentage

of Agency Entry-level Positions at Five UN Agencies, 2001-2005 

0

5

10

15

20

UNDP

UNHCR

UNESCO

IAEA

Secretariat

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percentage of agency total

Year

Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP.

Note: For the Secretariat, UNESCO, and IAEA we used positions subject to geographical distribution. 

For UNHCR and UNDP, we used professional positions. 

Additional Steps to Target 

Professional Positions 

Exist 

We identified several additional steps to target U.S. representation in 

professional positions. These steps include maintaining a roster of 

qualified candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities, 

increasing and improving UN employment information on U.S. agency 

Web sites, and analyzing the costs and benefits of sponsoring JPOs. 

In 2001, we reported that State had ended its practice of actively recruiting 

Americans for UN employment in professional positions. As an example, 

we noted that State had previously maintained a roster of qualified 

American candidates for professional and technical positions, but 

discontinued its use of this roster. State officials told us that the office has 

not maintained a professional roster, or the prescreening of candidates, 

despite its recent increase in staff resources, because maintaining such a 

roster had been resource intensive and because the office does not 

actively recruit for UN professional positions at the entry- and mid-levels.

However, State acknowledged that utilizing new technologies, such as 

developing a Web-based roster, may reduce the time and cost of updating 

Roster of Qualified Americans 

Not Maintained 

Page 31 GAO-06-988 United Nations
a roster. A State official added that it is difficult to make a direct causal 

link between current or proposed efforts by the department and the 

number of Americans ultimately hired by the UN because of the many 

factors at work that State cannot control. 

Other U.S. government and UN officials told us that some other countries 

maintain rosters of prescreened, qualified candidates for UN positions and 

that this practice is an effective strategy for promoting their nationals. For 

example, some countries prescreen candidates for positions at the UN 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and thus are able to 

provide names of well-qualified applicants when openings arise that need 

to be filled quickly. An official also emphasized that peacekeeping in 

particular is a “growth area,” and the Secretary-General recently reported 

that the Peacekeeping budget has increased from $1.25 billion to more 

than $5 billion between 1996 and 2005. As discussed earlier, peacekeeping 

positions are not counted toward geographic representation targets and 

thus the increased hiring of Americans in these positions would not 

directly improve the United States’ representation status. However, these

positions, along with other nongeographic positions, do provide an entry 

point into the UN system. 

Although State has increased staff resources in its UN employment office, 

it has not taken steps that could further expand the audience for its 

outreach efforts. For example, State has increased its coordination with 

other U.S. agencies on UN employment issues and distributes the biweekly 

vacancy announcements to agency contacts. However, some U.S. agency 

officials that receive these vacancy announcements told us that they 

lacked the authority to distribute the vacancies beyond their particular 

office or division. For example, one official commented that the vacancies

were distributed within his nine-person office, but the office is not able to

distribute the vacancies throughout the agency. An official from another 

agency commented that State has not established the appropriate contacts

to facilitate agency-wide distribution of UN vacancies, and that the limited 

dissemination has neutralized the impact of this effort. Several interagency task force participants also stated that no specific follow-up 

activities were discussed or planned between the annual meetings, and 

they could not point to any tangible results or outcomes resulting from the 

task force meetings. 

Recruiting and Outreach 

Efforts Do Not Reach Some 

Potential Applicants 

As discussed earlier, State officials attend career fairs and other 

conferences to discuss UN employment opportunities with attendees, but 

they have not taken advantage of some opportunities to expand the 

audience for their outreach activities. For example, State does not work 

Page 32 GAO-06-988 United Nations
with the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs 

(APSIA), which has 19 U.S. member schools.51 A representative of APSIA 

told us that the association does not receive vacancy announcements or 

have contact with State on UN employment opportunities but would 

welcome the opportunity to do so. Although State employees have 

attended Peace Corps career fairs to discuss UN employment, officials 

told us that State does not advertise in other outlets that reach the 

population of current and returned Peace Corps volunteers, such as the 

Peace Corps jobs hotline newsletter or the National Peace Corps 

Association’s52 quarterly magazine, Worldview. 

By contrast, a State official told us that the department’s Office of 

Recruitment, Examination and Employment53—which recruits candidates 

for the U.S. Foreign Service Exam—has worked with an advertising firm 

to develop a marketing strategy and campaigns focused on targeted pools

of candidates for this exam. This official said that State has had a major 

emphasis on increasing the diversity of applicants for the U.S. Foreign 

Service, and its marketing campaigns have targeted schools with diverse 

student bodies and diversity-focused professional associations. State’s 

recruiting office also has established an e-mail subscription service on its 

Web site that allows individuals to sign up to receive e-mail updates 

pertaining to their specific areas of interest. A State recruiting official 

commented that targeted campaigns are more effective than general 

vacancy announcements or print advertisements, and that the e-mail 

subscription service has been worth the cost of implementation. The 

official said that the cost of maintaining this service, for which she stated 

100,000 people have signed up thus far, is about $44,000 per year. 

State’s UN vacancy list and its UN employment Web site also have 

limitations. For example, the list of vacancies is not organized by 

occupation, or even organization, and readers must search the entire list

for openings in their areas of interest. Further, State’s UN employment 

Web site has limited information on other UN employment programs and 

does not link to U.S. agencies that provide more specific information, such 

as the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory Web site. 

State, U.S. Mission, and Agency 

Web Sites Have Limited 

Information on UN 

Employment Opportunities 

 51APSIA also has 11 foreign schools as members.

52The National Peace Corps Association is a nonprofit organization of returned Peace 

Corps volunteers, former staff, and friends that works to foster peace through service, 

education, and advocacy. 

53State’s Office of Recruitment does not recruit Americans for UN positions. 

Page 33 GAO-06-988 United Nations
In addition, the Web site provides limited information or tools to clarify 

common questions, such as those pertaining to compensation and 

benefits. For example, the Web site does not provide a means for 

applicants to obtain more specific information on their expected total 

compensation, including benefits and U.S. income tax. As mentioned 

earlier, some American staff in UN agencies told us that in considering 

whether to apply for a UN position, information on benefits was not clear. 

Incomplete or late information hampers a candidate’s ability to decide in a 

timely manner whether a UN position is in his or her best interest. 

Including State, we reviewed 22 U.S. mission and U.S. agency Web sites, 

and they revealed varying, and in many cases limited, information on UN 

employment opportunities. Overall, nine of the 22 U.S. Mission and agency 

Web sites we reviewed did not have links to UN employment 

opportunities, and only seven had links to UN recruiting Web sites. In 

addition, only six of the Web sites provided links to State’s webpage on

UN employment opportunities. Only three of the Web sites had 

information on details and transfers, six had information on JPO or 

Associate Expert programs, and 13 had no link to information on UN 

internships. Nearly 60 percent of the missions and agencies provided some 

information or links to information on salaries and benefits. 

The U.S. government currently sponsors JPOs at two of the five UN 

agencies that we reviewed, but has not assessed the overall costs and 

benefits of supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S. 

representation across UN agencies.54 Among the five agencies, State has 

funded a long-standing JPO program only at UNHCR, sponsoring an 

average of 15 JPOs per year between 2001 and 2005. According to State

officials, the JPO program at UNHCR is funded by State’s Bureau of 

Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM),55 which has a separate budget 

from State’s UN employment office in the International Organization (IO) 

Affairs Bureau. State officials told us that the Department’s IO Bureau 

U.S. Government Has Not 

Assessed the Costs and 

Benefits of Sponsoring JPOs 

Across UN System 

 54JPO or Associate Expert positions are funded by member states for 2 or 3 years and 

provide opportunities for young professionals to gain experience in UN organizations. 

While, upon completion of the programs, these young professionals are not guaranteed 

employment at the agency and must apply for positions through the regular process, UN 

officials stated that the JPO experience provides applicants an advantage over their

competitors. For four of the five agencies we reviewed, JPOs and Associate Experts must 

apply for regular positions as external candidates. At UNDP, JPOs may apply as an internal

candidate if they apply before the end of their tenure. 

55According to PRM officials, the bureau has funded 98 JPOs at UNHCR since 1984. 

Page 34 GAO-06-988 United Nations
does not fund JPOs or Associate Experts at any UN agencies, including the

Secretariat, which hires an average of 65 percent of Associate Experts 

following the completion of their programs. The other JPO sponsorship 

program among the five agencies we reviewed is run by the Department of 

Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, which has supported two JPOs 

at IAEA since 2004.56 Table 4 provides data on the average number of JPOs 

and Associate Experts sponsored by the United States and by leading 

contributors to JPO programs at the five UN agencies we reviewed. 

Table 4: Average Number of JPOs or Associate Experts Sponsored by Leading

Contributors to These Programs, 2001-2005

Name of 

program

(Secretariat)

Associate 

Expert

(UNDP)

JPO

(UNHCR)

JPO

(UNESCO) 

Associate 

Expert 

(IAEA)

JPO

Average 

yearly total 

for all five 

agencies

All donors 128 217 95 52 6 498

Japan 7 32 11 14 0 64

Italy 28 10 7 7 1 54

Denmark 11 26 10 3 0 49

Netherlands 14 15 7 3 0 40

Germany 18 12 3 5 1 39

France 12 16 8 3 1 39

Sweden 9 18 8 3 0 38

Finland 8 11 4 3 0 25

Norway 3 9 6 3 0 21

Spain 3 13 1 0 0 17

USA 0 0 15 0 1 16

Belgium 4 7 2 1 0 15

Switzerland 4 6 2 0 0 12

Canada 0 8 2 0 0 10

Source: GAO analysis of data from UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP. 

Note: The totals for each agency may not match the sum of the listed donors because not all donors 

are included in this table. We included countries that sponsored 10 or more JPOs across the five UN 

agencies. Also, the totals for each row do not necessarily add up to the sum of each cell in the row 

due to rounding.

 56According to officials, Brookhaven and State’s Bureau for International Security and NonProliferation also fund Cost-Free Experts at IAEA. These are technical specialists who 

work on short-term projects at IAEA for periods of 1 to 3 years. 

Page 35 GAO-06-988 United Nations
For four of the five agencies we reviewed,57 the percentage of individuals 

that were hired for regular positions upon completion of the JPO program 

ranged from 34 to 65 percent. In some cases, former JPOs were offered 

regular positions and did not accept them, or took positions in other UN 

organizations, according to officials with whom we spoke. The estimated

annual cost for these positions to the sponsoring government ranges from 

$100,000 to $140,000 at the five UN agencies.58 (See table 5.) This cost can 

include salary, benefits, and moving expenses. 

Table 5: Cost and Retention Rate of JPOs and Associate Experts 

 (Secretariat)

Associate 

Experts

(IAEA) 

JPO

(UNESCO) 

Associate 

Expert 

(UNHCR)

JPO

(UNDP)

JPO

Estimated cost per 

JPO/Associate 

Expert per Year

a

$140,000 $100,000 $104,000 $125,000 $130,000

Retention rate 65%bNAc34%d52%e43%f

Source: GAO analysis of data from the UN Secretariat, UNDP, UNHCR,UNESCO and IAEA. 

a

Yearly cost for a JPO/Associate Expert at each agency varies depending on the individual’s 

qualifications, duty station, and other factors. 

b

Retention rate for Associate Experts who served in 2001 through 2003. The average retention rate

between 1990 and 2003 is approximately 58 percent

c

IAEA did not provide retention rates.

d

Retention rate of Associate Experts who completed their contract between January 2001 and 

December 2005. Twenty percent were retained on fixed-term contracts; 14 percent were retained on

other types of contracts. 

e

Retention rate of JPOs and former JPOs retained for UNHCR posts through the Appointments and 

Promotions Board from 1996 to 2005. Retention rate of American JPOs who served at UNHCR 

between 2001 and 2005 is 67 percent; it increases to 71 percent if employment at other UN agencies 

is included. 

f

Retention rate for JPOs who finished their service between 2001 and 2003. Retention is defined as

JPOs being given a contract of at least 6 months somewhere in the UN-system. 

A PRM official told us that the goals of its JPO program at UNHCR are 

both to help the organization accomplish its mission in the field and to 

help Americans gain employment at the agency. This official stated that of

the 24 American JPOs who completed their service at UNHCR between 

 57IAEA did not provide JPO retention rate data. 

58As with other UN employees, compensation for JPOs is determined on an individual basis

and takes into consideration marital status, number of children, duty station, and several

other factors. 

Page 36 GAO-06-988 United Nations
2002 and 2005, 16 (or 67 percent) were hired back by the agency, and 1 

was hired by UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. This 

official also told us that because the JPO program is actively used by other 

countries as a means of getting their nationals into the organization, not 

supporting JPOs at UNHCR would put the United States at a disadvantage. 

As shown above, funding JPOs has a cost that must be considered together 

with other funding priorities. PRM and IO have acted independently in 

their determinations of whether or not to fund JPOs, with the overall

result that State has funded an average of 15 JPOs at one UN agency and

none at any of the other agencies. State has not conducted an assessment 

to determine which UN agencies the United States should prioritize in 

terms of increasing U.S. employment by funding JPOs. Such an assessment 

would also involve weighing the trade-offs between funding JPOs and 

other agency programs. 

Achieving equitable U.S. representation will be an increasingly difficult 

hurdle to overcome at UN organizations. Four of the five UN organizations

we reviewed, all except UNESCO, will have to hire Americans in 

increasing numbers merely to maintain the current levels of U.S. 

representation. Failure to increase such hiring will lead the four UN 

organizations with geographic targets to fall below or stay below the 

minimum thresholds set for U.S. employment. 

Conclusions 

As the lead department in charge of U.S. government efforts to promote 

equitable American representation at the UN, the Department of State will 

continue to face a number of barriers to increasing the employment of 

Americans at these organizations, most of which are outside the U.S. 

government’s control. For example, lengthy hiring processes and 

mandatory rotation policies can deter qualified Americans from applying 

for or remaining in UN positions. 

Nonetheless, if increasing the number of U.S. citizens employed at UN 

organizations remains a high priority for State, it is important that the 

department facilitate a continuing supply of qualified applicants for UN 

professional positions at all levels. State focuses much of its recruiting 

efforts on senior and policy-making positions, and U.S. citizens hold over 

ten percent of these positions at four of the five agencies we reviewed. 

While State increased its resources and activities in recent years to 

support increased U.S. representation overall, additional actions to 

facilitate the employment of Americans in entry- and mid-level 

Page 37 GAO-06-988 United Nations
professional positions are needed to overcome declining U.S. employment 

in these positions and meet employment targets. 

Because equitable representation of Americans employed at UN 

organizations has been a high priority for U.S. interests, we recommend 

that the Secretary of State take the following three actions: 

• provide more consistent and comprehensive information about UN 

employment on the State and U.S. mission Web sites and work with U.S. 

agencies to expand the UN employment information on their Web sites. 

This could include identifying options for developing a benefits calculator 

that would enable applicants to better estimate their potential total 

compensation based on their individual circumstances; 

• expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more strategically reach 

populations of Americans that may be qualified for and interested in entryand mid-level UN positions; and 

• conduct an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of: 

• maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for professional and senior 

positions determined to be a high priority for U.S. interests; 

• funding Junior Professional Officers, or other gratis personnel, where 

Americans are underrepresented or in danger of becoming 

underrepresented. 

We received comments from State, which are reprinted in appendix V. 

State concurred with and agreed to implement all of our 

recommendations. State said it attaches high priority to increasing the 

number of Americans at all professional levels in the United Nations and 

other international organizations. We received technical comments from 

State, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP, which we have incorporated 

as appropriate. 

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

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

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

congressional committees. We also will provide copies of this report to the 

Secretary of State; the United Nations Secretariat; the International 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 38 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Atomic Energy Agency; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Organization; the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner 

for Refugees; and the United Nations Development Program. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will 

be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-9601. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix V.

Thomas Melito, Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

Page 39 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Congressional Requesters

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde 

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Lantos 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on International Relations 

United States House of Representatives 

Page 40 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 41 GAO-06-988

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In this report we reviewed (1) U.S. representation status and employment 

trends at five United Nations (UN) organizations, (2) factors affecting 

these organizations’ ability to meet U.S. representation targets, and (3) the 

U.S. Department of State’s current efforts to improve U.S. representation

and additional steps that could be taken. 

We reviewed five UN organizations: the UN Secretariat; International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees (UNHCR); and UN Development Program (UNDP).1

Technically, the IAEA is an independent international organization that 

has a relationship agreement with the UN. For the purposes of this report, 

we refer to the IAEA as a UN agency or organization. We selected these 

agencies based on a range of factors such as: funding mechanisms 

(including agencies funded through assessed contributions as well as 

those funded primarily through voluntary contributions); methods for 

calculating geographic representation status (including agencies using 

formal geographic distribution formulas and those without formal targets 

for U.S. representation); agency size; agency location (including U.S.-

based and overseas-based organizations); and agencies with varying levels 

of U.S. employment. These five agencies together comprise approximately 

50 percent of total UN organizations’ professional staff. 

To determine the U.S. representation status, identify the trends in the 

number of professional positions held by U.S. citizens, and calculate hiring 

projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001 through 2005 that we 

obtained from the five UN organizations. Data generally refer to end of the 

calendar year, except for the Secretariat, which is for the year ending June 

30. We had extensive communications with staff from each organization’s 

personnel and budget departments to clarify details regarding the data. We 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

review. 

To determine U.S. representation at the three U.N. agencies with 

geographic targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), we calculated 

the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in geographic positions and 

compared this percentage with the agency’s target. We calculated the 

Methodology for 

Reviewing U.S. 

Representation Status and 

Employment Trends at 

Five UN Organizations 

Calculating U.S. 

Representation Levels and 

Trends 

 1

Throughout this report, UNDP data includes three UNDP suborganizations: UN 

Development Fund for Women, UN Volunteers, and UN Capital Development Fund. 

United Nations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

geographic target for the Secretariat and UNESCO as a percentage range,

in which the minimum and maximum number of national staff, as provided 

by the agency, is divided by the actual (full-time equivalent) geographic 

staff in the agency. The two agencies—the Secretariat and UNESCO—that 

set geographic targets consider three key factors to varying degrees in 

establishing the targets: membership status,2

 financial contribution,3 and 

population size.4

 The Secretariat and UNESCO both use formulas for 

calculating geographic targets that take into account all three factors. For 

the Secretariat, the factors are 55 percent for contribution, 40 percent for 

membership, and 5 percent for population. UNESCO’s formula consists of 

a membership factor of 65 percent, a contribution factor of 30 percent, and 

a population factor of 5 percent. IAEA informally calculates a member 

state to be underrepresented if its geographic representation is less than 

half of its percent contribution to the budget. Using this method, we 

calculated a U.S. target. 

The remaining two agencies—UNHCR and UNDP—have not adopted 

formal geographic representation targets. However, UNHCR has 

established an informal target with the United States. To determine U.S. 

representation at UNHCR in comparison to this target, we calculated the 

percentage of regular professional positions (100-series contracts) filled by 

U.S citizens. Similarly, at UNDP, we calculated U.S. representation as a 

percentage of regular professional positions (100 and 200-series contracts) 

filled by U.S. citizens.5

For all five UN organizations, we also calculated U.S. citizen 

representation at each grade—policy-making and senior level (such as 

USG/ASG, D1/D2), mid-level (P4/P5), and entry level (P1-P3)—as well as 

for all grades combined. U.S. grade level employment representation is 

 2

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

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

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

population and small UN assessment, which could receive only one position if a minimum

number of positions were not set. 

3

Member state contributions are the common factor used by UN organizations to determine 

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

state’s membership in the organization. 

4

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

respective demographic profiles. 

5

At UNDP, 100-series contracts are issued for core functions. They are fixed-term 

contracts. The 200-series contracts are used for project posts. 

Page 42 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

calculated by dividing the number of U.S. staff at that grade level by the 

organization’s total employment for the corresponding grade level. We

also calculated U.S. citizen representation in nongeographic positions (for

the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), and in the nonregular professional 

positions (UNHCR and UNDP)6

 as a percentage of nongeographic (or 

nonregular) employment, respectively in these positions. 

To determine whether there was a trend in U.S. representation between 

2001 and 2005, we determined whether or not the slope of the best fitting

line through these points would have a computed confidence level of 90 

percent or more. If there is a trend, the sign of the slope (i.e., the 

coefficient) determines whether the trend is increasing or decreasing. A 

designation of no trend means that the confidence level does not reach 90 

percent; however, the percentage representation of U.S. citizens may have

fluctuated during the period. We cannot say these trends are statistically 

significant because of the small number of observations, the fact that these 

numbers are the actual population and not a sample, and because these 

numbers are not independent over time. Thus the 90 percent computation 

is not an objective criterion indicating statistical significance.

Our methodology assumed a gradual approach to the target. We calculated 

the minimum average number of U.S. citizens that each agency would 

need to hire each year between 2006 and 2010 to reach their respective

percentage targets in 2010. The 2005 U.S. staff percentage representation 

was the starting point and an annual percentage increment (or decrement) 

was added to reach the minimum target in 2010. We then projected the 

required number of U.S. staff for each year as that year’s percentage target

multiplied by the projected size of the total staff for that year. The 

estimated number of U.S. staff in the agency in each year, before 

additional hiring of Americans, was based on the prior year’s employment, 

less the projected retirements and separations for that year. If the 

projected number of Americans required to meet that year’s target is 

greater than the estimated number of Americans in the agency, based on 

the prior year’s employment and given departures in that year, then the 

Calculating Hiring 

Projections 

 6

For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, nongeographic positions include regular 

professional positions not subject to geographic distribution, temporary positions, JPOs,

and consultants and contractors. For UNHCR and UNDP, nongeographic positions are all 

other, nonregular professional staff, which includes temporary staff (limited fixed term at 

UNHCR and assignments of limited duration at UNDP), JPOs, and consultants and

contractors. 

Page 43 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

number of Americans the agency has to hire is positive; otherwise, it is 

zero. Summing each year’s number of Americans required to be hired to 

achieve each year’s target, and then dividing by 5, yielded the minimum 

average number of U.S. citizens that the agency would have to hire to 

achieve the 2010 target.

We made three assumptions to calculate the hiring projections. First, for 

the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, we based our 2006 to 2010 staff 

projections on the recent growth rate (2001 through 2005) of each agency’s 

staff. We calculated the future staff growth rate based on an ordinary least

squares growth rate of staff during 2001 through 2005. UNHCR provided us 

with an official agency projected growth rate of zero percent, and UNDP 

provided a 6 percent growth rate that we used in our analysis. Second, we 

projected staff separations for 2006 through 2010 based on an average of 

the separation data that the agencies provided for 2001 through 2005. 

Third, we projected U.S. staff separations for 2006 through 2010 based on 

the average of U.S. staff separations to total staff separations during 2001 

through 2005. We did not project future retirements because each agency

provided their official retirement projections for total staff and for 

Americans. In addition, we performed sensitivity analyses by varying the 

staff growth and separation rates. We found that minor changes did not 

produce major differences in the results. 

To review the factors affecting organizations’ ability to meet the 

employment targets, we reviewed UN agency documents and interviewed 

UN human resources officials, over 100 Americans employed at the five

UN agencies, and U.S. officials. At each of the five agencies covered in our 

review, we met with human resources officials to discuss efforts taken to 

achieve equitable U.S. representation, the agency’s hiring process, 

personnel policies and procedures, types of contracts and positions, and 

factors affecting U.S. representation. These officials also provided 

documents with further explanations of agency human resources policies 

and practices. We also met with State and U.S. mission officials and 

officials from other U.S. agencies that interact with the five UN agencies to 

discuss their views on factors impacting U.S. employment at these 

agencies. 

Methodology for 

Reviewing Factors 

Affecting UN 

Organizations’ Ability To

Meet U.S. Representation 

Targets 

Page 44 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In addition, we received the views of a total of 112 Americans7 employed 

across the five agencies on various UN employment issues. We gathered 

information from these employees through individual interviews, 

interviews in a small-group setting, or through group discussions. We also

received written comments from some American employees. We met with 

employees in a range of grade levels (G, P, D, and ASG), contract types 

(such as temporary, assignment-of-limited-duration, fixed-term, indefinite, 

permanent), and with varying levels of experience at the agency. We did 

not select representative samples of American employees at any agency. 

Some individuals invited to participate in our review were unable to due to 

scheduling conflicts; some did not respond to our invitation. The American 

employees we interviewed as a percent of the total number of Americans 

employed varied at each agency. We asked each employee common openended questions about their background and experience, the hiring 

process, the extent of U.S. government assistance they received, and 

factors affecting U.S. representation.

Using the information gathered from the American employees, we coded 

comments about the factors affecting American recruitment and retention

at the UN agencies into about 30 categories. As in any exercise of this type, 

the categories developed can vary when produced by different analysts. To

address this issue, two independent GAO analysts reviewed and verified 

categorization of comments for each agency and suggested new 

categories. We then rectified differences. We then compiled a summary of 

factors across the five agencies and ranked them by the frequency they 

were mentioned. Another independent GAO analyst then reviewed and 

verified the summary compiled of all agency comments. We selected the 

factors affecting U.S. representation discussed in the body of this review 

by analyzing this ranked list in conjunction with information we gathered

from UN and U.S. officials and our analysis of UN employment data. 

 7

Specifically, we gathered information from 19 Americans employed at the UN Secretariat, 

28 at IAEA, 15 at UNESCO, 32 at UNHCR, and 18 at UNDP. 

Page 45 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To assess strategies that the Department of State is using to improve U.S. 

representation and additional efforts that could be taken, we reviewed 

documents and interviewed officials from State’s UN employment office. 

We discussed activities that State has taken since our 2001 report on U.S. 

representation at UN organizations, in response to recommendations 

made in that report, and reviewed State’s documentation of these 

activities. We also reviewed other State documents, including its annual 

reports to Congress, U.S. Representation in United Nations Agencies and 

Efforts Made to Employ U.S. Citizens. In addition, we reviewed State’s 

performance and accountability plans and reports, including State’s fiscal 

year 2007 performance summary and the Bureau of International 

Organization Affairs fiscal year 2007 performance plan. In addition to 

meeting with State officials, we also met with U.S. agency officials that 

have participated in State’s inter agency task force on UN employment or 

received UN vacancy announcements from State, as well as other U.S. 

agency officials. In these meetings, we discussed the activities and 

outcomes of the task force and these officials’ views on efforts to increase

the UN employment of Americans. We also discussed U.S. strategies and 

efforts for increasing U.S. representation with UN personnel officials and 

American employees of UN organizations. We also analyzed 22 U.S. agency

and U.S. mission Web sites to review information that they made available 

on UN employment opportunities. 

We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., New York; Geneva, 

Switzerland; Vienna, Austria; and Paris, France, from August 2005 to July

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Methodology for 

Reviewing the U.S. State 

Department’s Current 

Efforts to Improve U.S. 

Representation and 

Additional Efforts That 

Could Be Taken 

Page 46 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix II: Distributi

Emplo

UN Age

on of U.S. Citizens

yed in Professional Positions at Five

ncies 

Page 47 GAO-06-988

Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five 

UN Agencies 

This appendix provides information on the number and percentage of U.S.

citizens employed in professional positions at the five UN agencies we 

reviewed. For the three agencies that have geographic targets, we provide 

information on the number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in 

geographic positions as well as in nongeographic positions. For the 2 

agencies that do not have geographic targets, we provide information on 

the number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in regular and all 

other professional positions. 

At two of the three UN agencies (the Secretariat and UNESCO) with 

geographic targets, the percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. 

citizens is slightly higher than the percentage of nongeographic positions 

filled by U.S. citizens. The variation is more significant at IAEA where U.S. 

citizens fill 11.5 percent of the geographic positions and 17.1 percent of the 

nongeographic positions. Table 6 shows the number and percentage of 

U.S. citizens employed in geographic and nongeographic positions at the 

three UN agencies with geographic targets. 

Percentage of U.S. Citizens 

in Geographic and 

Nongeographic Positions 

Is Almost Equal 

Table 6: Composition of Professional Positions at the Three UN Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005 

Secretariat IAEA UNESCO

Professional 

positions

Total number 

of staff in

these 

positions

Number and 

percentage

of these 

positions

filled by U.S. 

citizens 

Total number 

of staff in

these 

positions

Number and 

percentage

 of these 

positions filled

by U.S. 

citizens

Total number 

of staff in

these 

positions

Number and 

percentage 

of these 

positions filled 

by U.S.

citizens

Geographic 

positions 2,581 312 (12.1%) 764 88 (11.5%) 739 30 (4.1%)

Nongeographic 

positionsa

5,837 557 (9.5%) 421 72 (17.1%) 898 17 (1.9%)

Total positions 8,418 869 (10.3%) 1,185 160 (13.5%) 1,637 47 (2.9%)a

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data.

a

Nongeographic positions include nongeographic regular professionals, temporary staff, JPOs, and 

consultants and contractors. The agency total professional staff for UNESCO, 1,638, includes all 

professional staff indicated; however, UNESCO was unable to provide nationality data for its 

contractors and consultants. Therefore, the U.S. percentage of nongeographic positions does not 

include U.S. citizens employed as contractors and consultants. 

Table 7 shows that, on average at the three UN agencies with geographic 

positions and targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), the 

percentage of U.S. citizens employed in all professional positions was 

fairly evenly divided between geographic positions (51.6 percent) and 

nongeographic positions (48.4 percent). However, the representation of 

United Nations
Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

U.S. citizens in geographic and nongeographic positions was close to the 

average only at IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens was 55 and 45 

percent, respectively. 

Table 7: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Three UN Agencies with Geographic Positions, 2005 

Secretariat IAEA UNESCO

Professional 

positions

Percentage of

total staff in these 

positions

Percentage

of total 

U.S. staff in

these 

positions

Percentage of 

total staff in 

these 

positions

Percentage

of total 

U.S. staff in

these 

positions

Percentage

of total staff 

in these 

positions

Percentage

of total U.S.

staff in

these 

positions

Average 

percentage

of U.S. staff 

in these 

positions

Geographic 

positions 30.7% 35.9% 64.5% 55% 45.1% 63.8% 51.6%

Nongeographic

positions 69.3% 64.1% 35.5% 45% 54.9% 36.2% 48.4%

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data. 

As shown in table 8, in the two agencies without geographic positions, 

UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of regular professional positions filled 

by U.S. citizens is lower than the percentage of “all other” professional 

positions filled by U.S. citizens. 1

Table 8: Composition of Professional Positions at the Two UN Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005 

UNHCR UNDP 

Professional 

positions

Total number 

 of staff in these 

positions

Number and 

percentage of these 

positions filled by U.S. 

citizens

Total number 

 of staff in these 

positions

Number and 

percentage of these 

positions filled by U.S. 

citizens

Regular professional 

positions 1,495 119 (8.0%) 1,336 144 (10.8%)

All other professional 

positionsa

314 35 (11.1%) 996 125 (12.6%)

Total professional 

staff 1,809 154 (8.5%) 2,332 269 (11.5%)

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAE, and UNESCO data. 

 1

“All other” professional positions is analogous to nongeographic in that “all other” and 

“nongeographic” both include temporary staff, JPOs, and consultants and contractors.

However, nongeographic positions do include some regular professional positions for the 3

geographic agencies. 

Page 48 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

a

All other professional staff includes: temporary staff (limited fixed-term professionals at UNHCR and

assignments of limited duration at UNDP), JPOs, and consultants and contractors. While data 

provided by the agencies did not differentiate between support and professional level positions for 

consultants and contractors, UNDP indicated that 80 percent of these positions (known as Special 

Short-Term Assignments or SSAs) are for temporary support functions. There were 635 SSAs at 

UNDP in 2005.

As shown in table 9, at UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of U.S. citizens 

in regular professional positions (staff under contracts of longer fixed 

terms) averaged 65.4 percent of the total U.S. professional staff compared 

with 34.6 percent for U.S. representation in all other, or more temporary, 

professional positions. That is, there are relatively more Americans in 

regular professional positions, 65.4 percent, than there are Americans in 

all other professional positions, 34.6 percent. 

Table 9: Percentages of Staff in Professional Positions at the Two UN Agencies without Geographic Positions, 2005 

UNHCR UNDP

Professional 

positions

Percentage of

 total staff in 

these positions 

Percentage of total 

U.S. staff in these 

positions

Percentage of 

total staff in 

these positions

Percentage of

total U.S. staff in 

these positions 

Average 

percentage of

U.S. staff in

these positions

Regular 

professional 

positions 82.6% 77.3% 57.3% 53.5% 65.4%

All other 

professional 

positions 17.4% 22.7% 42.7% 46.5% 34.6%

Source: GAO analysis of UNHCR and UNDP data.

Page 49 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

At IAEA and UNESCO, over 80 percent of the policy-making and seniorlevel positions are geographic. However, these positions are more evenly

divided at the Secretariat, with 54 percent subject to geographic 

designation and 46 percent not subject to geographic designation. (See 

table 10).2

Table 10: Policy-making and Senior-level Positions at Three UN Agencies, 2005 

Americans Held 

Geographic and 

Nongeographic Policymaking and Senior Level 

Positions at Three UN 

Agencies

Policy-making and senior level positions

Total number

Percentage

of total 

number of 

positions

Number of 

positions

held by U.S.

citizens

Percentage

of positions

held by U.S.

citizens

Secretariat 

Geographic positions 330 54% 46 14%

Nongeographic

positions 276 46% 24 9%

IAEA 

Geographic positions 42 93% 5 12%

Nongeographic

positions 3 7% 0 0%

UNESCO 

Geographic Positions 91 81% 4 4%

Nongeographic

Positions 21 19% 1 5%

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO data. 

 2

The 24 high-level nongeographic positions that Americans held at the Secretariat in 2005

included 2 policy-making and 22 senior-level positions. Significantly, the number of 

nongeographic policy-making positions held by U.S. citizens declined at the Secretariat 

from 7 positions in 2001 to 2 in 2005, while the number of geographic policy-making 

positions held by U.S. citizens has remained constant at 3. During this time, there was 

virtually no change in the number of geographic policy-making positions at the Secretariat, 

but the number of nongeographic policy-making positions increased by 12 between 2004 

and 2005. 

Page 50 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five Appendix III: Tr

UN Age ends of U.S. Citizens ncies 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five 

UN Agencies 

In “all grades,” U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions at the 

Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO and in regular professional positions at 

UNDP displays no trend at the 90 percent confidence level. However, at 

UNHCR, U.S. representation decreased in regular professional positions. 

Figure 5 shows the trends in U.S. representation, by grade, at each agency. 

Page 51 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

Figure 5: Trends of U.S. Citizen Representation, by Grade, in Professional Positions

in Five UN Agencies 

0

5

10

15

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

5

10

15

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

UN Secretariat

Percentage of agency grade level total

Year

U.S. minimum geographic

target 2004-05 average:

11.5% of total 

geographic staff

UNHCR

Percentage of agency grade level total

Year

Employment target: 13%

All grades

P2/P3

P4/P5

USG/ASG, D1/D2

USG/ASG, D1/D2

P4/P5a

All gradesa

P1-P3a

Page 52 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

0

5

10

15

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

5

10

15

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0

5

10

15

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

UNDP

IAEA

Percentage of agency grade level total

Year

Target: 13%

2001-05 average

Percentage of agency grade level total

Year

All grades

P1-P3a

P4/P5

DG/DDG, D1/D2a

P1-P3a

DG/DDG, D1/D2a

UNESCO

Percentage of agency grade level total

Year

U.S. minimum geographic

target 2004-05 average:

6.2% of total 

geographic staff

All grades

P1-P3a

P4/P5

DDG/ADG, D1/D2

USG/ASG, D1/D2a

P4/P5

Source: GAO analysis of Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP data.

All grades

P1-P3a

a

Confidence level 90 percent or higher. 

Page 53 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens 

Employed in Professional Positions at Five

UN Agencies 

Notes: 

For the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, the trend analysis is for U.S. citizens in geographic

positions, 2001 through 2005; the trend analysis covers 2001 through 2005 for UNHCR and UNDP 

and is for U.S. citizens in regular professional positions since these agencies do not have geographic 

positions. Regular professional positions for UNHCR and UNDP include staff under contracts of

longer fixed-term (100-series contracts for UNHCR and 100- and 200-series for UNDP). 

Senior-level positions represent UN position levels D1 and D2, roughly equivalent to U.S. government

Senior Executive Service. Policy-making positions represent UN position levels of Deputy or Assistant

Director General at IAEA and UNESCO and Under or Assistant Secretary General at the Secretariat,

UNHCR, and UNDP. UN position levels P1 to P3 are roughly equivalent to U.S. government grade

levels 9 to 12/13. UN position levels, P4 and P5 are roughly equivalent to US government grade 

levels 13 and 15.

As shown in figure 5, U.S. citizen representation in policy making and 

senior level positions increased at IAEA and UNDP and increased in entry 

level positions at UNESCO. However, U.S. citizen representation in entry

level positions decreased at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP. In addition, U.S. 

citizen representation decreased in mid-level positions at UNHCR, as well 

as over “all grades.” The 90 percent confidence interval does not imply 

statistical significance. Refer to our methodology for calculating trends in

app. I. 

Page 54 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix IV: Definitions of Promotion, Appendix IV Internal Hires, and External Hires : Definitions of Promotion, 

Internal Hires, and External Hires 

Table 11 provides further information on the terms promotion, internal 

hire, and external hire, as provided by each of the five UN agencies we 

reviewed for the purposes of this report. 

Table 11: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External Hires at Five UN Agencies Provided for the Purposes of This 

Report 

Secretariat IAEA UNESCO UNHCR UNDP

Promotion 

All promotions are 

internal. (See below.) 

Changes in grade for staff 

holding fixed-term and longterm contracts resulting from 

competitive vacancy notice 

action. Merit promotions and 

reclassification of posts are 

not competitive and are not 

included in figure 1. 

Appointment to a higher 

grade post after competition; 

reclassification of post and 

promotion in a linked grade 

post whereby the incumbent 

of a P1/P2 post moves from 

the P1 grade to the P2 are 

not competitive and are not 

included in figure 1. 

Official appointment to 

a higher grade post. 

Assignment at a higher 

level post (after 

competitive selection) 

and/or demonstrated 

performance at the 

higher level based on 

time in grade. 

Internal 

Staff currently serving 

under a 100-series 

appointment, 

recruited after a 

competitive 

examination or after 

the advice of a 

Secretariat joint body. 

Staff whose 

appointment is limited 

to service in a 

particular department 

are not considered 

internal. 

Staff holding a contract with 

the IAEA at the time of their 

application. 

Staff members with an 

indeterminate or fixed-term 

contracts (excluding 

Associate Experts) and 

temporary appointments. 

Recruitment into the 

international 

professional category 

of persons who are 

already UNHCR staff 

appointed on regular 

posts and with regular 

contracts, including 

general service staff 

and National 

Professional Officers. 

Staff who have had 

previous UNDP 

assignments (i.e., ALD). 

Includes UNDP 

International 

Professional Staff 100- 

and 200- Rule Series, or 

staff who have been in 

the UN Common 

System prior to joining 

UNDP. 

External 

All appointments are 

external and all

external posts are 

advertised. Includes 

those who have 

previous experience 

working at the 

Secretariat. 

Staff not holding a contract 

with the IAEA at the time of 

their application, including 

former staff members. 

All other candidates, 

including those from the UN 

system not mentioned 

above, are external. 

Recruitment into the 

international 

professional category 

of persons who may 

have had prior working

experience with

UNHCR (e.g., JPOs) 

but who were not 

appointed on a regular 

post through the 

established 

appointment and 

postings procedures. 

Staff who are not 

internal are considered 

external, for the 

purposes of GAO

reporting on UNDP 

appointments. 

Source: GAO compilation of information from the UN Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR and UNDP. 

Page 55 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V of State : Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 56 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 57 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 58 GAO-06-988 United Nations
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Page 59 GAO-06-988 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

In addition to the person named above Cheryl Goodman, Assistant 

Director; Jeremy Latimer; Miriam Carroll; Roberta Steinman; Barbara 

Shields; and Joe Carney made key contributions to this report. Martin De 

Alteriis, Bruce Kutnick, Anna Maria Ortiz, and Mark Speight provided 

 technical assistance. 

United Nations

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320364) 
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