Series

January 1999 Major Management

Challenges and Pro

Risks

Department of State

GAO/OCG-99-12

Washington, D.C. 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

January 1999

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

This report addresses the major performance an

management challenges that have hampered the

effectiveness of the Department of State in carry

its mission. The key to meeting these challenges 

State to adopt good management practices and c

the weaknesses in its information and financial

management systems. GAO outlines actions that 

taken or initiated to address the challenges it fac

further actions that are needed.

The Department has made progress in addressin

of the challenges GAO has identified. State is now 

substantial resources to developing a strategy to 

its information technology capacity and security 

as its financial management systems. In fact, Sta

received an unqualified opinion on its most rece

financial statements. It has also developed a pla

strategy to improve embassy security. This is im

because the Department faces significant challe

particularly in (1) providing security for its over

operations and employees and (2) consolidating 

foreign affairs activities as directed by the Cong

Sustained top-level management attention to the

challenges is critical. Given the nature and exten

challenges facing the Department, it will take tim

assess the impact of these efforts.
This report is part of a special series entitled the

Performance and Accountability Series: Major

Management Challenges and Program Risks. Th

contains separate reports on 20 agencies—one o

the cabinet departments and on most major inde

agencies as well as the U. S. Postal Service. The 

also includes a governmentwide report that draw

the agency-specific reports to identify the perfor

and management challenges requiring attention 

the federal government. As a companion volume 

series, GAO is issuing an update to those governm

operations and programs that its work has ident

“high risk” because of their greater vulnerabilitie

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. High-r

government operations are also identified and d

in detail in the appropriate performance and

accountability series agency reports.

The performance and accountability series was 

the request of the Majority Leader of the House 

Representatives, Dick Armey; the Chairman of t

Government Reform Committee, Dan Burton; th

Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John 

the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Gove

Affairs, Fred Thompson; the Chairman of the Se

Budget Committee, Pete Domenici; and Senator 

Craig. The series was subsequently cosponsored 

Ranking Minority Member of the House Governm

Reform Committee, Henry A. Waxman; the Rank

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Governmen

Management, Information and Technology, Hou

Page 2 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Government Reform Committee, Dennis J. Kucin

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; and Senator Carl L

Copies of this report series are being sent to the

President, the congressional leadership, all othe

Members of the Congress, the Director of the Of

Management and Budget, the Secretary of State, 

heads of other major departments and agencies.

David M. Walker

Comptroller General of

the United States

Page 3 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Overview 

Major

Performance and

Management

Issues

Related GAO

Products

Performance and

Accountability

Series

Page 4 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Page 5 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
As the lead agency for the conduct 

affairs, the Department of State has

enormous responsibilities as it wor

shape a more secure, prosperous, a

democratic world for the benefit of 

American people. A substantial amo

State’s nearly $2.7 billion annual bu

the administration of foreign affairs 

on what could be called “business” 

that support its broad mission. The

Department has a worldwide netwo

operations to maintain its headquar

more than 250 overseas posts, as w

about 35 other U.S. agencies that op

overseas. State provides security fo

thousands of U.S. personnel and fac

abroad. In addition, State operates 

of communications facilities around 

globe that are critical to its foreign 

mission.

In carrying out its important missio

Department of State faces a numbe

significant performance and manag

challenges that, if not met, could af

ability to function effectively in the 

century. These challenges are not s

They cover a wide spectrum of Stat

operations and responsibilities arou

world.

Page 6 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
The Challenges

Enhancing the

Management of

Security Programs

for Overseas

Personnel and

Property

In the wake of the bombing of the U

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, t

Congress provided State $1.45 billio

emergency funding in the Omnibus

Consolidated and Emergency Supp

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

(P.L. 105-277) to enhance security a

the world. This includes funds for a

immediate response to the bombing

medical treatment, counterterrorism

programs and rewards, and econom

assistance, as well as funds to rebu

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I

addition, State will likely request se

billion dollars in funds for new capi

construction in the upcoming years

will face several management chall

administering an expanded security

construction program, including wh

can bring on board the appropriate 

of staff to plan and manage a large 

of overseas construction projects.

Improving

Information and

Financial

Management

Systems

We have reported that the Departm

State relied on outdated and unsecu

information and financial managem

systems that are vulnerable to Year 

Page 7 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
problems and security breaches. St

estimated in 1997 that it would nee

$2.7 billion over 5 years to achieve 

modernized global infrastructure. H

this estimate was not prepared thro

rigorous analytical process called f

federal guidance designed to contro

and improve efficiency. State has si

steps to improve its information sec

adopted an improved approach to

addressing its Year 2000 problems. 

also begun to incorporate a compre

capital planning and investment pro

its information technology (IT) inve

However, State needs to ensure tha

remediates on a timely basis its

mission-critical systems.

In the financial management area, S

received, for the first time, an unqu

opinion on its fiscal year 1997 finan

statements. This achievement provi

with a foundation from which it can 

toward being able to more routinely 

the timely and reliable financial info

that is critical to making sound dec

that promote effective and efficient 

federal funds. To reach this goal, St

to continue to bring its systems into 

compliance with federal accounting 

information management requirem

Page 8 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
State also must work on solving rel

internal control weaknesses if it is t

adequately protect its assets and ha

reliable data for cost-based decision

reporting, and performance manage

Effectively Managing

the Visa Process

State processes more than 8 million

immigrant and nonimmigrant visa

applications annually. State’s own i

assessments have categorized this p

being materially deficient due to un

computer systems needs, insufficie

overseas, and inadequate interagen

coordination, which have weakene

management controls. To reduce th

program’s vulnerability to fraud, St

put a number of controls in place to 

unqualified individuals from receivi

including a special computerized lo

name-checking capability and an

anti-terrorism tip-off program.

Effectively

Reorganizing

Foreign Affairs

Agencies

In a major effort to improve the effi

and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aff

operations, the Congress directed t

abolishment of the U.S. Information 

(USIA) and the U.S. Arms Control an

Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and th

of those functions into State. A key 

Page 9 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
whether State can integrate these a

a manner that reduces overall costs 

enhancing capability.

Progress and

Next Steps

State is making progress in address

issues. For example, it is devoting

substantial resources toward formu

strategy and establishing priorities 

enhancing overseas security. It has

established a new Bureau of Inform

Resource Management to focus exc

on IT requirements and received an

unqualified opinion on its financial

statements; implemented a new ove

support services system to better a

costs among various user agencies; 

machine-readable visa systems to r

possibility of fraud and abuse; and

established a task force to address 

consolidation issues. State has also

completed strategic and annual per

plans under the Government Perfor

and Results Act of 1993. In addition

has assembled a new management 

direct many of these initiatives.

These are clearly steps in the right 

However, more needs to be done to 

well-tuned platform for conducting 

affairs. Achieving this goal will requ

Page 10 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
State Department to make a strong

commitment to management impro

modernization, and “cost-based”

decisionmaking. A prerequisite to

management improvement is a bett

financial management system that p

accurate and more timely informati

Results Act process can serve as an

important tool to help State overco

problems and issues we have cited 

identify opportunities to improve th

efficiency of its business operation

measure performance.

Page 11 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Issues

The Department of State is vested w

wide range of responsibilities, inclu

formulating U.S. policy on diverse

international issues, coordinating a

supporting U.S. agencies’ programs 

activities overseas, influencing othe

countries to adopt policies and prac

consistent with U.S. interests, assis

businesses overseas, providing serv

U.S. citizens abroad, and issuing pa

and visas. To carry out its responsib

State has about 23,000 employees. I

maintains more than 13,000 oversea

buildings and other facilities that ar

support its operations and the oper

several thousand employees of othe

government agencies overseas. Stat

budget for the administration of for

affairs totaled $2.77 billion in fiscal 

and is funded at $2.68 billion in fisc

year 1999.1

 State’s annual budget fo

administration of foreign affairs sup

headquarters and other domestic of

embassies, and consulates at more 

overseas posts.

In our past and ongoing work, we, h

identified several problems with St

management and performance. Thi

1

State also received $1.45 billion in emergency funds 

security under the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropri

Page 12 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
summarizes our recent and ongoing 

concerning the challenges and issu

faces in providing enhanced overse

security, upgrading its information 

strengthening financial and accoun

controls, enhancing controls over t

issuance of visas, integrating other 

affairs agencies’ functions into the

Department, and improving its stra

performance planning.

Enhancing the

Management of

Security

Programs for

Overseas

Personnel and

Property

The need to adequately protect emp

and their families overseas may ver

the single most important managem

currently facing the State Departme

acts of terrorism in Kenya and Tanz

claimed more than 260 lives and inj

thousands in August 1998. Worldwi

several embassies found themselve

shut down or unable to provide nor

services because of threatening situ

The monetary requirements for und

security enhancements will be sign

will the management and technolog

challenges. The $1.45 billion that St

received in emergency funding will 

to rebuild the embassies in Kenya a

Tanzania, relocate other embassies

improve security for other facilities 

U.S. personnel worldwide. State rep

Page 13 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
it has completed security surveys o

posts and formulated 6 internal wo

groups to direct and track program

implementation. One initiative will 

the accounting system to accumula

spending data on areas such as equ

acquisition and construction. State 

identifying the management infrast

upgrades and modifications that wi

required, including contract specifi

office space needed, and new perso

recruitment.

State is also assessing its longer ter

security enhancement needs, and

preliminary estimates indicate that 

billion dollars may be requested for

additional embassy construction. A 

facing State is whether it will have 

capacity to implement a major secu

construction program. In the early 

reported that State encountered sev

management problems in using the 

$1.47 billion in funds that were app

diplomatic security construction pr

during fiscal years 1986-95. These

management problems were related 

inadequate staffing, poor program p

difficulties in site acquisition, chang

security requirements, and inadequ

contractor performance. All of thes

Page 14 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
contributed to significant delays an

increases in the majority of State’s

construction projects. For example

inadequate coordination within Sta

determining building requirements

contributed to millions of dollars in 

increases in a project in Pretoria, S

Africa. A lack of agreement within S

potential building sites delayed pro

Bogota, Colombia, and Tunis, Tunis

several years and substantially incr

costs. State has undertaken a numb

efforts to improve construction pro

including the development of a 5-ye

program planning process laying ou

construction funding requirements 

programs to review design schemes 

of cost-effectiveness and to reduce 

number of changes in project scope 

schedule during project execution.

Nevertheless, the scope of the prob

encountered indicated that State ha

systemic weaknesses in its program

management.

In view of State’s prior experiences 

difficulties in implementing the sec

construction program, several ques

issues need to be addressed as part 

today’s efforts to formulate strategi

enhancing security.

Page 15 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
• What would be the total costs to br

overseas posts into compliance wit

security standards?

• What actions would State need to t

ensure it has the management capa

implement a large-scale constructio

program?

• Are there adequate control mechan

ensure efficient and effective use o

emergency funds and any subseque

funding for overseas security?

One issue that should be considere

addressing future security requirem

the sheer number of U.S. employee

overseas. The security burden is dir

associated with the size of the over

workforce. In our work on oversea

issues in the mid-1990s, we noted th

U.S. government (excluding militar

operational commands) employed a 

nearly 38,000 personnel overseas—

evenly between U.S. direct hire emp

and foreign national employees. An

important trend has been the increa

number of overseas U.S. direct hire

non-foreign affairs agencies. A broa

examination of how the U.S. govern

carries out its overseas role and rel

missions may now be needed in vie

increased security threats. State ne

Page 16 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
take the lead in working with other 

operating overseas to examine thei

overseas staffing requirements and 

alternatives to stationing American

overseas.

Key Contact Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Improving

Information

Management

Systems

State’s information resource manag

(IRM) infrastructure has historically 

inadequate to support the Departm

foreign policy and administrative fu

State officials have recognized that

deficiencies exist. The Department 

spending hundreds of millions of do

each year on information resource

management, including $100 million 

$150 million to modernize its IT har

and software systems, remediate Ye

problems, implement a comprehen

information security program, and 

its overall IT capability. These initia

received top-level management sup

recent months as evidenced by the

Page 17 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
appointment of a permanent Chief

Information Officer (CIO), and a dep

for architecture and planning, the c

a Deputy CIO position for the Year 2

and the assignment of information 

security issues to the Deputy CIO fo

Operations. Safeguarding State’s IT

investments will require sustained

management commitment and prop

execution to provide adequate assu

that critical operations and assets a

protected from disruption, loss, and

inappropriate disclosure and that th

investments in modernization will l

effective information systems.

In 1997, State introduced a long-ran

to upgrade and operate its IT infrast

at an estimated cost of $2.7 billion o

5 years. This estimate was very spe

because not all costs required to co

the plan were included, such as con

operating costs, and some costs ha

changed, such as bandwidth require

and capital replacement needs. Fur

these plans were developed withou

benefit of full implementation of th

planning and investment process ca

by federal guidance. This guidance 

Page 18 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
in law,2 GAO documents,3 and instru

from the Office of Management and 

(OMB)4

 that were developed to help 

avoid costly IT modernization mista

To address these shortcomings, we

recommended that State make the 

implementation of an IT planning an

investment process a top priority. T

should include preparing a validate

architecture to help guide the mode

establishing a fully functioning tech

review board, revising State’s long-

plans and cost estimates, and ident

potential cost savings and efficienc

expected from the modernization e

State’s CIO recently has taken a num

steps to implement our recommend

These include drafting an IRM vision 

that will serve as a basis for revisin

strategic and tactical plans, and rel

estimates; finalizing a high-level IT

architecture; implementing a

departmentwide capital planning pr

conformance with new OMB A-11 gu

2

The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L. 104-13, 109 

and the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act (P.L. 104-106, 110 Sta

3

Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating 

Agencies’ IT Investment Decisionmaking (GAO/AIMD

February 1997).

4

Capital Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: OMB

Page 19 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
and reconstituting the technical rev

board.

State has been slow in addressing Y

issues. Failure to address Year 2000

deficiencies could have a significan

on State’s ability to perform key fun

including identifying visa applicant

may pose a threat to the nation’s se

sending and receiving vital commun

establishing secure information sys

providing efficient, flexible, and tim

national security reporting; and pro

U.S. business opportunities abroad

We reported in August 1998 that if S

continued its current approach, wh

lacked a mission-based perspective

risk spending time and resources fi

systems that have little bearing on i

mission. We recommended that Sta

reassess its systems using a mission

approach and ensure that systems i

as supporting critical business func

receive priority attention and resou

also recommended that State ensur

contingency planning efforts focus 

business functions and supporting 

and that interfaces with other entiti

identified and corrected. State gene

agreed with these recommendation

Page 20 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
since prioritized its mission-critical

applications and adopted an improv

approach.

In its November 1998 quarterly repo

categorized State as a “tier 1” agenc

meaning that State was not making 

progress. However, recent data sug

State is beginning to make progress 

remediating systems that have been

determined to be mission-critical. S

remediated 32 percent of its 38

noncompliant mission-critical appli

as of January 1999. It expects that 9

will be implemented by March 31, 1

of the remaining three systems are 

to be ready in April 1999 and the las

is expected in August 1999.

Our 1997 evaluation of State’s infor

security program showed that it lac

elements such as routine assessmen

risk, complete written policies, and

procedures for testing system contr

tests showed that State’s unclassifi

sensitive systems, and the informat

contained within them, are vulnera

unauthorized access. Also, the Dep

December 1997 report on internal c

prepared under the Federal Manage

Financial Integrity Act of 1982, and 

Page 21 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Inspector General’s audit report on 

1997 consolidated financial stateme

cited the information system securi

material weakness. Such vulnerabil

could be exploited by individuals o

organizations seeking to damage St

operations, commit terrorism, or ob

financial data.

We recommended that State implem

number of corrective measures, inc

establishing a central information s

unit and adopting risk-based IT secu

management techniques. State conc

with the majority of our recommen

and has taken steps to improve info

security, such as establishing a cen

security unit and Department-level

information systems security office

preparing new management guidan

security, and increasing IT security

awareness activities.

5

Audit of U.S. Department of State’s 1997 Consolidat

Statements, Office of Inspector General Audit Report 

(Washington, D.C., Nov. 10, 1998).

Page 22 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Key Contacts Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director

Governmentwide and Defense Info

 Systems

Accounting and Information Manag

 Division

(202) 512-6240

brockj.aimd@gao.gov

Improving

Financial

Management

Systems

One of State’s long-standing shortc

has been the absence of an effectiv

financial management system that c

managers in making “cost-based” d

Recently, and for the first time, the

Department of State received an un

audit opinion on its Departmentwid

financial statements for fiscal year 

achievement represents a good step 

and provides the Department a foun

on which to build the capacity to pr

on a more routine basis, the accura

timely financial management inform

critical to making sound decisions t

promote effective and efficient use 

Page 23 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
funds. However, State must fulfill th

expanded OMB governmentwide rep

requirements for fiscal year 1998 fin

statements and provide audited sta

to OMB by March 1, 1999.

In its efforts to improve the Departm

overall financial management opera

point that accurate and timely infor

easily accessible, enabling manager

“cost-based” decisions on a routine 

State must continue its efforts to st

its financial management system. F

example, in the recently issued aud

on State’s fiscal year 1997 financial

statements, the Department’s Inspe

General disclosed that State’s syste

out of compliance with certain requ

including some requirements of the 

Financial Management Improvemen

1996. The Inspector General report

(1) the Department’s existing finan

management systems did not subst

comply with the financial managem

system requirements designed to en

all automated information systems 

appropriately safeguarded; (2) the

Department had not established a c

contingency/business recovery plan 

financial system; and (3) several

inadequacies in the Department’s in

Page 24 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
controls, including inaccurate unliq

obligations, unreconciled general le

balances, and financial statement b

derived from other than the genera

still needed to be corrected. The In

General concluded that the problem

identified in the report reduced the

Department’s ability to produce acc

consistent, and timely financial man

information and therefore diminish

ability to carry out its fiduciary

responsibility.

In response to the audit findings, St

indicated that it is in the process of

establishing a contract to study the 

compliance with the Federal Finan

Management Improvement Act. Sta

use the results of the study to prepa

remediation plan as required by the 

Department also stated that additio

reports and procedures are being p

place to address the internal contro

weaknesses identified during the m

recent audit. State recently noted th

efforts underway to improve its fina

management systems, including up

its central financial management sy

having one system for regional disb

and accounts reporting, and develo

standard financial capabilities for it

Page 25 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
overseas posts. In its 1997 Federal M

Financial Integrity Act report, State 

that it has corrected material weak

the areas of receivables and travel a

To better manage and allocate over

support costs, State has also implem

the International Cooperative Admi

Support Services (ICASS) system. Un

greater responsibility and authority 

managing resources and making de

about administrative support servic

with other agencies located at diplo

missions have been delegated to th

overseas posts. The stakes are high

ICASS reports indicate that shared

administrative costs are about $640 

annually. ICASS has been separately 

and received a clean opinion. ICASS 

generating new and more reliable c

the key question that remains to be

answered is whether State can effe

use the system to consolidate resou

reduce overseas support costs.

Page 26 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Key Contacts Lisa G. Jacobson

Director, Defense Financial Audits

Accounting and Information Manag

 Division

(202) 512-9095

jacobsonl.aimd@gao.gov

Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Effectively

Managing the Visa

Process

The Immigration and Naturalization 

(INS) estimated that as of October 1

5 million illegal aliens were residing 

United States. While not the primar

of illegal immigration, visa fraud is 

significant matter of concern. State

consular officers at overseas posts 

responsible for providing expeditio

processing for qualified applicants. 

same time, they must prevent the e

those who are a danger to U.S. secu

interests or are likely to remain in t

States illegally. Last year, over 7 mi

aliens applied for nonimmigrant vis

640,000 foreigners immigrated to th

States. Visa processing is a particul

Page 27 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
problem for some overseas location

volume and/or security concerns ar

State has introduced new technolog

equipment, and controls designed t

visa processing and reduce the inci

fraud. State notes that progress has 

made in several areas, including ins

of machine-readable visa systems a

visa-issuing posts; online connectiv

Washington, D.C., databases; and

implementation of a first phase of a 

data-share program. Many improve

were made possible through State’s

temporary authority to retain fees c

foreigners applying for nonimmigra

Those fees generated millions of do

enabling the Department of State to 

border security technology and to p

salaries of nearly 2,000 employees.

State will need to remain vigilant in 

number of areas to further reduce t

vulnerability of the visa system to f

abuse. These issues include (1) crit

staffing gaps in overseas consular p

(2) limitations in consular automate

systems; (3) restrictions in the exch

intelligence information with INS an

law enforcement agencies; and

(4) weaknesses in the integrity of im

Page 28 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
and nonimmigrant documentation, 

the computerized systems used to p

them. The Department must also co

efforts to encourage consular sectio

implement best practices designed 

streamline and rationalize the visa w

Potential best practices include usi

agents for initial processing, establi

appointment systems to control wo

and allowing the payment of visa fe

bank or other financial institution. I

the increased international terroris

continued attention to State’s progr

addressing these issues will be need

Key Contact Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Effectively

Reorganizing

Foreign Affairs

Agencies

The long-planned reorganization of 

government’s foreign affairs agenci

under way. In April 1997, the White 

announced a plan to put matters of

international arms control, public d

and other functions within a “reinve

State Department. In October 1998, 

Page 29 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Congress authorized the reorganiza

which abolished USIA and ACDA and

consolidated and integrated those f

into State. The reorganization is int

reinvigorate the foreign affairs func

the United States within the State

Department. About 3,000 employee

and USIA will be integrated into Stat

Potential areas identified for integr

among the three agencies include le

affairs, congressional liaison, press 

public affairs, and management. Ce

management functions that are to b

integrated include IRM, overseas fac

operations, logistics, diplomatic sec

financial management, and human

resources. State has recently submi

report to the Congress describing it

reorganization strategy.

State has indicated that during the t

costs would likely increase because 

need to implement system conversi

transfers; in the longer term, overal

and costs may decrease. State faces 

challenges in achieving the objectiv

reorganization. One major challeng

technological difficulty of uniting th

agencies, including integrating sepa

electronic mail and computer syste

Overall issues include whether the

Page 30 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
reorganization will actually produc

identifiable efficiencies and improv

performance in foreign affairs prog

As our prior work has indicated, ma

areas targeted for management

consolidation need substantial refo

Key Contact Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Strengthening

Strategic and

Performance

Planning

State needs to strengthen its strateg

performance planning as part of its 

efforts to improve management. In 

strategic plan for foreign affairs, Sta

formulated 16 foreign policy goals t

a wide spectrum of U.S. national

interests—national security, econo

prosperity, American citizens and U

borders, law enforcement, democra

humanitarian response, and global 

Our review of that plan and the

Department’s annual performance p

1999 indicated that State’s plans ha

strong points but often fell short of 

the requirements of the Results Act

Page 31 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
One area of concern was that State

strategic plan addressed neither the

potential impact of the consolidatio

foreign affairs agencies on its syste

the potential for other agencies to h

functions duplicative of State’s. We 

found that State’s functional bureau

responsibility with multiple U.S. ag

various overlapping issues, includin

and export policy and international 

functions. The strategic plan also d

address the deficiencies in State’s f

accounting and information system

only in general terms that several y

be required to develop performance

measures and related databases to 

sufficient information on the achiev

goals.

Our review of State’s performance p

revealed similar deficiencies, but al

encouraging points as well. For exa

State’s performance plan generally 

clear and reasonable strategies and 

the areas of improving U.S. citizens

and border security, and promoting

democracy. In contrast, State’s plan 

present a clear picture of its metho

meet strategic and performance goa

areas of furthering economic prosp

preventing international crime, and

Page 32 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
enhancing humanitarian assistance

the performance plan did not clearl

the Department’s intended perform

was vague about how State will coo

with other agencies. Further, State’

performance plan did not provide s

confidence that the Department’s

performance information will be cr

did not address how the known def

in State’s financial and information 

will affect performance measureme

response to our work, State is attem

improve its planning by developing 

and more objective performance m

linked to performance goals and ide

partnerships with other agencies or

governments to address crosscuttin

Key Contact Benjamin F. Nelson, Director

International Relations and Trade I

National Security and International

 Affairs Division

(202) 512-4128

nelsonb.nsiad@gao.gov

Page 33 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Overseas Security

and Presence

Overseas Presence: Staffing at U.S.

Diplomatic Posts (GAO/NSIAD-95-50FS, 

1994).

State Department: Overseas Staffin

Not Linked to Policy Priorities

(GAO/NSIAD-94-228, Sept. 20, 1994).

State Department: Management We

in the Security Construction Progra

(GAO/NSIAD-92-2, Nov. 29, 1991).

Information

Management

Department of State IRM: Moderniza

Program at Risk Absent Full Implem

of Key Best Practices (GAO/NSIAD-98-2

Sept. 29, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State

Department Needs to Make Fundam

Improvements to Its Year 2000 Prog

(GAO/AIMD-98-162, Aug. 28, 1998).

Computer Security: Pervasive, Serio

Weaknesses Jeopardize State Depa

Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-145, May 18, 

Visa Processing State Department: Tourist Visa Pro

Backlogs Persist at U.S. Consulates

(GAO/NSIAD-98-69, Mar. 13, 1998).

Page 34 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
State Department: Efforts to Reduc

Fraud (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-167, May 20, 19

Foreign Affairs

Organization and

Management

Foreign Affairs Management: Major

Challenges Facing the Department 

(GAO/T-NSIAD-98-251, Sept. 17, 1998).

International Affairs: Activities of D

Agencies (GAO/T-NSIAD-98-174, June 4, 

International Affairs Budget: Frame

Assessing Relevance, Priority, and 

(GAO/T-NSIAD-98-18, Oct. 30, 1997).

Foreign Affairs: Perspective on For

Affairs Programs and Structures

(GAO/NSIAD-97-6, Nov. 8, 1996).

State Department: Options for Addr

Possible Budget Reductions (GAO/NS

Aug. 29, 1996).

Strategic and

Performance

Planning

The Results Act: Observations on th

Department of State’s Fiscal Year 1

Annual Performance Plan (GAO/NSIA

June 17, 1998).

Page 35 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Managing for Results: Agencies’ An

Performance Plans Can Help Addre

Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/

Jan. 30, 1998).

Page 36 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: A Governmentwide Perspect

(GAO/OCG-99-1)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Agriculture

(GAO/OCG-99-2)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Commerce

(GAO/OCG-99-3)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Defense (GAO

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Education

(GAO/OCG-99-5)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Energy (GAO/O

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Health and Hu

Services (GAO/OCG-99-7)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Housing and U

Development (GAO/OCG-99-8)

Page 37 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of the Interior

(GAO/OCG-99-9)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Justice (GAO/O

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Labor (GAO/OC

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of State (GAO/OCG

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Transportatio

(GAO/OCG-99-13)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of the Treasury

(GAO/OCG-99-14)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Department of Veterans Affa

(GAO/OCG-99-15)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Agency for International Dev

(GAO/OCG-99-16)

Page 38 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Environmental Protection Ag

(GAO/OCG-99-17)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: National Aeronautics and Sp

Administration (GAO/OCG-99-18)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Nuclear Regulatory Commis

(GAO/OCG-99-19)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: Social Security Administratio

(GAO/OCG-99-20)

Major Management Challenges and 

Risks: U.S. Postal Service (GAO/OCG-

High-Risk Series: An Update (GAO/H

The entire series of 21 performa

accountability reports and the h

series update can be ordered by 

the order number GAO/OCG-99-22SE

Page 39 GAO/OCG-99-12 Department of Sta
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and 

is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

should be sent to the following addres

accompanied by a check or money ord

out to the Superintendent of Documen

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credi

are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or m

copies to be mailed to a single address 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th & G Sts

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling

(202) 512-6000 or by using fax numbe

(202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-253

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly a

reports and testimony. To receive fac

copies of the daily list or any list from 

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 us

touchtone phone. A recorded menu w

information on how to obtain these lis

For information on how to access GAO 

on the INTERNET, send an e-mail mes

"info" in the body to: info@www.gao.g

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home 

http://www.gao.gov
g 

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Postage & F

GAO

Permit No