United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

UNITED NATIONS

Management Reforms 

Progressing Slowly 

with Many Awaiting 

General Assembly 

Review 

October 2006 

 

GAO-07-14 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2006

UNITED NATIONS

Management Reforms Progressing 

Slowly with Many Awaiting General 

Assembly Review 

Highlights of GAO-07-14, a report to 

congressional committees 

Despite various reform efforts, 

significant inefficiencies in United

Nations (UN) management

operations persist. In September

2005, heads of UN member states

approved a resolution that called 

for a series of reforms to 

strengthen the organization. As the 

largest financial contributor to the 

UN, the United States has a strong

interest in the progress of UN

reform initiatives.

GAO was asked to (1) identify and 

track the status of UN management

reforms in five key areas and (2) 

identify factors that may affect the

implementation of these reform

initiatives. To address these

objectives, GAO reviewed 

documents proposing UN 

management reform and 

interviewed U.S. and UN officials. 

What GAO Recommends

Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas GAO examined—

management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review 

of programs and activities, and human rights—are either awaiting General 

Assembly review or have been recently approved. In addition, many 

proposed or approved reforms do not have an implementation plan that 

establishes time frames and cost estimates. First, in July 2006, the General 

Assembly approved proposals to improve the management operations of the 

Secretariat, such as upgrading information technology systems and giving

the Secretary-General some flexibility in spending authority. In addition, in 

fall 2006, the General Assembly will review other proposals, such as 

procurement and human resource reforms. Second, implementation of 

proposals to improve the UN’s oversight capabilities, such as strengthening 

the capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and establishing the 

Independent Audit Advisory Committee, are pending General Assembly 

review in fall 2006. Third, the UN established an ethics office with 

temporary staff in January 2006 that has developed an internal timetable for 

implementing key initiatives. However, it is too early to determine whether 

the office will be able to fully carry out its mandate. Fourth, UN member 

states agreed to complete a review of UN programs and activities in 2006,

but progress has been slow and the results and time line for completion 

remain uncertain. Fifth, the General Assembly created a new Human Rights 

Council in April 2006, but significant concerns remain about the council’s 

structure. 

GAO identified several factors that may affect the UN’s ability to fully 

implement management reforms. First, although all UN member states agree 

that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements about the overall 

implications of the reforms could significantly affect their progress. Most 

member states are concerned that some of the reforms could increase the 

authority of the Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus 

decreasing their influence over UN operations. Member states also disagree 

on some of the specifics of the reforms in areas such as the review of 

programs and activities and the role of the Deputy Secretary-General. 

Second, the general absence of an implementation plan for each reform that 

establishes time frames and cost estimates could affect the UN’s ability to 

implement the reform initiatives. Without establishing deadlines or 

determining cost estimates, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for 

completing reform efforts and ensure that financing will be available when 

needed. Third, administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules 

that implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate the process 

of implementing certain human resource reform proposals. For example, 

according to the Secretary-General, the General Assembly established a 

number of conditions for outsourcing that severely restrict the 

circumstances under which it can be contemplated. 

GAO recommends that the

Secretary of State and the U.S. 

Permanent Representative to the 

United Nations work with member

states to encourage the General

Assembly and the SecretaryGeneral to include cost estimates 

and expected time frames for 

implementation and completion for 

each reform as it is approved. GAO 

also recommends that the 

Secretary of State’s annual U.S.

Participation in the United

Nations report to the Congress 

include a section on the status and 

progress of the major UN

management reforms. The

Department of State agreed with

GAO’s findings and 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-14.

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 6

Management Reform Proposals in Five Areas Are Awaiting General 

Assembly Review or Have Been Recently Approved 9 

Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of UN 

Management Reforms 29 

Conclusion 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39 

Appendix II Status of UN Management Reform Initiatives 41 

Appendix III The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure 54 

Appendix IV Information on Assessments and Cost-Benefit 

Analyses 56 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of State 59 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 62 

Related GAO Products 63 

Page i GAO-07-14 United Nations
Tables 

Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One 25 

Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain 

Management Reform Initiatives, as of September 2006 33 

Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives 41 

Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses 56 

Figures 

Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the 

Management Operations of the Secretariat 11 

Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives 15 

Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office 18 

Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities 22 

Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification 24 

Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council 27 

Abbreviations 

ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

 Questions 

GA General Assembly 

G-77 The Group of 77 

OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services 

UN United Nations 

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 ii GAO-07-14 United Nations
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 5, 2006 

The Honorable Norm Coleman 

Chairman 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Henry Hyde 

Chairman 

Committee on International Relations 

House of Representatives 

The United Nations (UN) has undertaken various reform efforts since its 

creation in 1945. In 1997 and 2002, the UN began a series of reforms that 

included proposed changes in human resources, budgeting, and human 

rights programs and activities. In February 2004, we reported that those 

reforms were progressing but that only about 50 percent were in place.1

Despite the UN’s efforts to improve its management processes, several 

independent reports, such as the 2005 Independent Inquiry Committee’s 

investigation of the UN’s Oil for Food program2 and the Gingrich-Mitchell 

task force review in June 2005,3

 found that inefficient UN management 

operations persist. These reports highlighted the immediate need for 

management reform given the growth in complexity and significance of 

UN worldwide operations. In addition, inadequate oversight of the Oil for 

Food program and corruption and mismanagement of UN procurement 

activities have demonstrated the need for reform. 

 1

GAO, United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to 

Measure Impact, GAO-04-339 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004). 

2

In 1996, the UN and Iraq established the Oil for Food program to address Iraq’s 

humanitarian situation after sanctions were imposed in 1990. In April 2004, the UN 

established the Independent Inquiry Committee to investigate the administration and 

management of the UN Oil for Food program. See Independent Inquiry Committee into the

United Nations Oil for Food Program, Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3, 2005) and

The Management of the Oil-for-Food Program (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 7, 2005). 

3

United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform Report of the Task 

Force on the United Nations (Washington, D.C.: June 2005).

Page 1 GAO-07-14 United Nations
In September 2005, heads of member states held a World Summit to 

address, among other issues, long-standing concerns about UN 

management. The outcome document, the resolution approved by all 

member state representatives at the Summit,4

 recognized the urgent need

to improve management processes at the UN and called for the SecretaryGeneral and General Assembly to propose and approve reforms to 

strengthen the organization. 

As the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has 

advocated the need for comprehensive management reform and has a

strong interest in the progress of reform initiatives.5

 In response to your 

request to monitor the progress of management and human rights reform 

initiatives, we (1) identified and tracked the status of UN management 

reform initiatives in five key areas—management operations of the 

Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and activities, 

and human rights and (2) identified factors that may affect the

implementation of these reform initiatives.6

To address our objectives, we reviewed key documents proposing UN 

management and human rights reform and interviewed key officials from 

several UN departments in New York. We reviewed reports and bulletins

published by the UN General Assembly and Secretariat, relevant UN 

resolutions, and related budget documents. The majority of the cost 

estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are preliminary, and detailed

cost estimates are being developed; therefore, we did not analyze the 

assumptions underlying these estimates to determine whether they are 

reasonable and reliable. We met with officials from the General Assembly 

Office of the President, the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the 

Departments of Management and Policy and Planning, the Office of 

Program Planning and Budget, and the Office of Internal Oversight 

 4

2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. 

A/RES/60/1 (2005). 

5

The United States provides 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget (about $836 million for 

the current biennium) and about 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget (about $1.3

billion), more than any other UN member state. The regular budget for the current 

biennium (2006-2007) is about $3.8 billion, and the peacekeeping budget for the fiscal year 

beginning July 2006 is about $4.7 billion. 

6

This report focuses on management reform initiatives of the UN General Assembly and the

UN Secretariat. It does not address the activities of other UN entities, funds, and programs. 

For the purposes of this report, the term “UN” refers to the UN General Assembly and the

UN Secretariat. 

Page 2 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Services (OIOS). We also met with representatives from several member 

states. We discussed the status of UN management reforms with officials 

from the Department of State in Washington, D.C. and New York City. We 

performed our work between January and September 2006 in accordance

with generally accepted U.S. government auditing standards. (App. I 

provides a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.) 

Most of the UN management reforms in the five areas we reviewed—

management operations of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, 

review of programs and activities, and human rights—are either awaiting

General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In addition, 

some proposed or approved reforms do not have an implementation plan 

that establishes time frames and cost estimates. 

Results in Brief 

• To improve the management operations of the Secretariat, in July 2006, 

the General Assembly approved several reforms, such as creating the 

position of a chief information technology officer and upgrading certain

elements of the UN’s computer systems. The General Assembly also 

authorized funding of approximately $700,000 which UN officials plan to 

use for six new temporary procurement positions for 6 months; however, 

according to a senior U.S. official, these temporary resources are not 

sufficient to address the weaknesses in the procurement system. Further, 

the General Assembly is scheduled to review the Secretary-General’s 

proposals in the areas of procurement and human resources in fall 2006. 

Moreover, the UN does not have implementation plans for some reforms in 

this area. 

• Reform proposals to create an independent oversight advisory committee 

that could enhance the UN’s oversight structures and to strengthen the 

capacity of OIOS are awaiting review by the General Assembly in fall 2006. 

In November 2005, the Secretary-General proposed the creation of the 

Independent Audit Advisory Committee and drafted provisional terms of 

reference. The General Assembly approved the creation of the committee 

in December 2005 and requested an external evaluation of the proposed 

terms of reference. In July 2006, the Secretary-General released an 

independent external evaluation that reviewed and proposed revisions to 

the terms of reference for the committee and recommended its 

establishment. The external evaluation also found that OIOS is not able to

function effectively under its current mandate and made 23 

recommendations in nine areas to strengthen its capacity. The external

evaluation recommended shifting several functions in OIOS, including 

investigations, to departments in the Secretariat. However, according to 

some UN and U.S. officials, this shift could significantly diminish the UN’s 

Page 3 GAO-07-14 United Nations
oversight functions by potentially compromising the independence of

investigations. 

• To promote the ethical conduct of its staff, the UN established an ethics 

office with interim staff in January 2006 that has developed an internal 

timetable for implementing key initiatives, but it is too early to determine 

if the office will be able to fully carry out its mandate. The office is 

responsible for (1) administering the UN’s financial disclosure program, 

(2) implementing the new UN whistleblower protection policy, (3) 

providing guidance to staff on ethics issues, and (4) developing ethics 

standards and training. The office is operating with six interim staff and is 

currently in the process of hiring six permanent staff to replace them. 

While the interim staff have been undertaking activities consistent with the 

responsibilities of the office, some experts, including members of a panel 

commissioned by a UN staff union to review the UN’s internal justice 

system, have questioned the sufficiency of the number of assigned staff.

• UN member states agreed to complete a review of UN programs and 

activities in 2006, but progress has been slow because member states 

disagree on its scope and process, and its results and time line for 

completion remain uncertain. In the September 2005 outcome document,

member states requested a review of all UN programs and activities, or 

mandates, created 5 or more years ago. Member states agreed that the

purpose of the review is to strengthen and update UN programs and 

activities to more accurately reflect the current needs of the organization.

In March 2006, the Secretariat identified more than 9,000 total UN 

mandates, but only about 6,900 are older than 5 years and included in the 

review. The General Assembly began its first phase of discussions on the 

review process in November 2005 and its first phase of substantive 

discussions on specific mandates in April 2006. From the outset of the 

review process, member states have disagreed on the process for 

undertaking the review, which mandates could be eliminated or combined, 

and what to do with savings generated by the potential elimination or 

consolidation of mandates. As of September 2006, member states continue

to discuss the mandates and have agreed to set aside 74 completed 

mandates that require no further action, but have not agreed to change, 

eliminate, or retain any other mandates. Given the volume of mandates yet 

to be reviewed and the contentious nature of the process, it is unlikely that

the review will be completed in 2006 as agreed to by member states. 

• In March 2006, the General Assembly created a new Human Rights 

Council, but significant concerns remain about the council’s structure. In 

the 2005 outcome document, UN member states agreed to replace the 

Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council due to longPage 4 GAO-07-14 United Nations
standing concerns about the commission’s credibility. For example, 

members of the commission were elected by regional slates by the 

Economic and Social Council rather than individually by the General 

Assembly, and countries known to be human rights violators consistently 

won membership. UN member states established the new council to 

address these deficiencies and human rights issues more broadly. 

However, the United States and other countries have expressed concerns 

about the newly created council’s structure. The United States advocated 

that members of the council be elected by a two-thirds majority of the 

General Assembly to make it more difficult for countries with questionable

human rights records to gain membership, but the General Assembly voted 

that members would be elected by an absolute majority. Despite 

objections to the council, nongovernmental organizations and other UN 

members have stated that the council is better equipped than the 

commission to address urgent, serious, and long-term human rights 

situations worldwide. For example, the council will implement a new 

mechanism through which all UN members will be subject to periodic 

review of their human rights situations. In addition, the council will hold 

more sessions throughout the year than the commission did and for a 

longer total period of time each year, with meetings held at least three 

times a year for a total of 10 weeks. It is too early to determine the impact

of the new council on the UN and human rights worldwide. 

We identified several factors that may affect the UN’s ability to fully 

implement management reforms. First, although all UN member states 

agree that UN management reforms are needed, disagreements over the 

overall implications of the reforms could significantly affect their progress. 

The Group of 77 (G-77) countries7

 are concerned that some of the reforms 

could increase the authority of the Secretariat at the expense of the 

General Assembly, thus decreasing the member states’ influence over UN 

operations. Member states also disagree on some of the specifics of the 

reforms in areas such as the review of programs and activities and the role 

of the Deputy Secretary-General. Second, the general absence of an 

implementation plan for each reform that establishes time frames and cost 

estimates could affect the UN’s ability to implement the reform initiatives. 

Without establishing deadlines or determining cost estimates, it is difficult

to hold managers accountable for completing reform efforts and ensuring

that financing will be available when needed. Third, administrative 

guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that implement General 

 7

The G-77 is a coalition of developing countries that promotes its members’ collective 

interests. Currently 131 developing countries are members of the G-77. 

Page 5 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Assembly resolutions, could complicate and sometimes restrict the 

process of implementing certain human resource reform proposals, such 

as a staff buyout, field staff realignment, and outsourcing administrative 

services. For example, according to the Secretary-General, the General 

Assembly established a number of conditions for outsourcing that severely 

restrict the circumstances under which it can be contemplated. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent 

Representative to the UN work with other member states to encourage the 

General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include cost estimates and 

expected time frames for implementation and completion for each reform 

as it is approved. We are also recommending that the Secretary of State’s 

annual U.S. Participation in the United Nations report to the Congress 

include a section on the status and progress of the major UN management 

reforms. 

We received written comments from the Department of State that we have

reprinted in appendix V. The Department of State generally agreed with 

our findings and recommendations and commented on ongoing reform 

efforts. The UN did not provide us with written comments. 

Calls to reform the UN began soon after its creation in 1945.8

 Despite 

cycles of reform, UN member states have had concerns about inefficient 

management operations. As one of the 192 member states, the United 

States played a significant role in promoting UN reform, calling for 

financial and administrative changes. The United States, through the 

Department of State and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, continues 

to take measures to advance reform of UN management processes. 

In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary-General proposed two separate sets of 

management reform initiatives in the areas of human resources, budgeting, 

and human rights. In July 1997, the Secretary-General proposed a broad 

reform program to transform the UN into an efficient organization focused 

on achieving results as it carried out its mandates. Although the SecretaryBackground 

 8

The UN comprises (1) the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and

Social Council, and other governing bodies of the 192 member states that set the work 

requirements, or mandates, for UN programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed

by the Secretary-General, which carries out a large part of the mandated work; and (3) the 

funds and programs, such as the UN Development Program, which are authorized by the

General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work.

Page 6 GAO-07-14 United Nations
General does not have direct authority over specialized agencies and many 

funds and programs, the reforms at the Secretariat were intended to serve 

as a model for UN-wide reforms. In May 2000, we reported that while the 

Secretary-General had substantially reorganized the Secretariat’s 

leadership and structure, he had not yet completed reforms in human 

resource management and planning and budgeting.9

 In September 2002, to

encourage the full implementation of the 1997 reforms, the SecretaryGeneral released a second set of reform initiatives with 36 reform actions, 

some expanding on previous reform initiatives introduced in 1997 and 

others reflecting new priorities for the organization. In February 2004, we

reported that 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda and 

38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda were in place.10

In 2004-2005, a series of UN and expert task force reports recommended 

the need for comprehensive reform of UN management and the UN human 

rights apparatus. These studies included a 2004 report of a high-level panel 

convened by the Secretary-General to recommend ways to strengthen the

UN,11 a March 2005 Secretary-General report to the General Assembly,12 a 

June 2005 report by a task force mandated by the U.S. Congress to 

recommend how to improve the effectiveness of the organization,13 as well 

as several reports of the Independent Inquiry Committee established to 

investigate the Oil for Food Program.14

In September 2005, world leaders gathered at the UN World Summit in 

New York City to discuss global issues such as UN reform, development, 

and human rights, as well as actions needed in each of these areas. The 

 9

GAO, United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but Overall

Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/NSIAD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 

2000). 

10GAO-04-339. 

11United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the 

Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (New York, 

N.Y.: 2004). 

12In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, U.N. 

Doc. A/59/2005. 

13United States Institute of Peace, American Interests and UN Reform, Report of the Task 

Force on the United Nations (Washington D.C.: June 2005).

14Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program, 

Interim Report (New York, N.Y.: Feb. 3, 2005) and The Management of the Oil-for-Food 

Program (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 7, 2005).

Page 7 GAO-07-14 United Nations
outcome document from the World Summit,15 endorsed by all members of

the UN, outlines broad UN reform efforts in areas such as oversight and 

accountability, and human rights. The document also called for the 

Secretary-General to submit proposals for implementing reforms to 

improve the management functions of the Secretariat.16

In April 2006, we reported on weaknesses in the UN’s internal oversight 

unit and procurement system, both of which have been identified as 

important areas for reform.17 In the internal oversight area, we found that 

UN funding arrangements adversely affect OIOS’s budgetary independence 

and compromise the office’s ability to audit high-risk areas. For example, 

OIOS depends on the resources of the funds, programs, and other entities 

it audits, and the managers of these programs can deny OIOS permission 

to perform work or not pay OIOS for services. In the procurement area, we 

found that UN procurement resources are vulnerable to fraud, waste, and 

abuse because of weaknesses affecting the control environment. For 

example, the UN has not established a single organizational entity or 

mechanism capable of effectively and comprehensively managing 

procurement. In addition, the UN has not demonstrated a commitment to 

improving the professionalism of its procurement staff in the form of 

training, a career development path, or other key human capital practices 

critical to attracting, developing, and retaining a qualified professional 

workforce. 

The management reform decision-making process at the UN involves 

multiple entities. Member states or the Secretary-General can introduce 

management reform initiatives at the UN. The Secretary-General can 

implement certain management improvements that are within his 

authority. In addition, the Secretary-General submits proposals to the 

General Assembly. In these cases, the Advisory Committee on 

 15G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (2005). 

16The September 2005 outcome document also outlined reforms in other areas, such as

Governance, Security Council and Economic and Social Council reform, General Assembly 

Revitalization, and the establishment of a Peace Building Commission. These reforms are

outside the scope of our review. 

17GAO, United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of Internal 

Auditors, GAO-06-575 (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006), GAO, United Nations: 

Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006), 

and GAO, United Nations: Lessons Learned from Oil for Food Program Indicate the Need

to Strengthen UN Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.

25, 2006). 

Page 8 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ),18 a subsidiary organ of 

the General Assembly, reviews the proposal. The ACABQ then advises and 

reports to the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (the Fifth 

Committee), the General Assembly’s committee for administrative and 

budgetary matters that is composed of all 192 member states. The Fifth 

Committee holds discussions on the proposals and makes its 

recommendation to the General Assembly. The General Assembly makes 

the final decision. For the past 20 years, most decisions in the Fifth 

Committee and in the General Assembly have been made by consensus 

among all the member state representatives. 

The UN has initiated reforms in five key areas: (1) modernizing the 

management operations of the Secretariat, (2) improving oversight, (3) 

promoting ethical conduct, (4) reviewing and updating programs and 

activities, and (5) creating a Human Rights Council. However, most efforts 

are awaiting General Assembly review or have been recently approved. In

addition, many proposed or approved reforms do not have an 

implementation plan that establishes time frames and cost estimates. 

Appendix II summarizes the status of major management reforms. 

Proposals to improve the management operations of the Secretariat have 

either been approved or are awaiting General Assembly review. To 

improve the management operations of the Secretariat, the September 

2005 outcome document requested that the Secretary-General develop 

proposals to ensure that the existing policies, regulations, and rules used 

to manage budgetary, financial, and human resources are aligned with the 

current needs of the UN. In response, the Secretary-General submitted a 

report to the General Assembly in March that included 23 proposals to 

improve the UN’s effectiveness.19 However, the ACABQ recommended that

Management Reform 

Proposals in Five 

Areas Are Awaiting 

General Assembly 

Review or Have Been 

Recently Approved 

Reforms to Improve the 

Management Operations of 

the Secretariat Are 

Awaiting General 

Assembly Review or Have 

Been Recently Approved 

 18The ACABQ consists of 16 individuals from member states appointed by the General 

Assembly. The members of the ACABQ serve in their personal capacity. Two major 

responsibilities of the ACABQ are (1) to examine and report on the budget submitted by 

the Secretary-General to the General Assembly and (2) to advise the General Assembly 

concerning any administrative and budgetary matters. 

19The proposals covered seven areas: human resources, management structure of the

Secretariat, information and communications technology, methods of delivering services 

such as outsourcing and procurement, budget and finance, governance, and change 

management. The governance reforms are beyond the scope of this report. See Investing 

in the United Nations: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide, U.N. Doc. A/60/692. 

Page 9 GAO-07-14 United Nations
the Secretary-General provide more details, including specific costs and 

administrative implications, and time lines for implementation. 

In April 2006, members of the Fifth Committee voted and approved a 

proposal introduced by the G-77 countries that the Secretary-General 

elaborate on the proposals and give concrete examples of how the 

initiatives could correct deficiencies and make the organization’s work 

more effective.20 The vote signified the breakdown of the policy of making 

decisions by consensus, a practice used for 20 years. Further, the United 

States expressed concern that the G-77’s proposal was a way to scale back 

the reforms proposed in the Secretary-General’s March 2006 report. In May 

2006, the General Assembly voted and approved a resolution that 

incorporated the recommendations made by the Fifth Committee.21 See 

figure 1 for key dates for reform initiatives related to improving the 

management operations of the Secretariat. 

 20The proposal was approved with 108 in favor (mainly G-77 countries), 50 against 

(including the United States and other developed countries), and 3 abstaining. 

21G.A. Res. 60/260, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/260 (2006). The resolution 

was approved with 121 in favor (mainly G-77 countries), 50 against (including the United

States and other developed countries), and 2 abstaining. 

Page 10 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Figure 1: Key Dates of Reform Initiatives to Improve the Management Operations of the Secretariat

2005 2006

May 2006: The General 

Assembly approved a

resolution, by a vote of 

121-50, that requests

further detailed 

information from the 

Secretariat regarding 

these proposals.

May-June 2006: The 

Secretary-General 

submitted seven 

detailed reports.

July 2006: The General 

Assembly approved 

certain reforms proposed 

by the Secretariat.

September 2005: At 

the World Summit 

member states

requested that the 

Secretary-General 

develop proposals to 

ensure that the existing 

budgetary, financial, 

and human resource 

policies, regulations, 

and rules are aligned 

with the current and 

future needs of the UN.

March 2006: The 

Secretary-General 

submitted a report to 

the General 

Assembly proposing 

23 measures to 

improve the 

effectiveness of the 

UN.

March-June 2006: ACABQ 

reviewed the SecretaryGeneral’s reform proposals.

April 2006: The Fifth 

Committee approved 

a proposal, by a vote 

of 108-50, requesting 

more information 

from the Secretariat 

regarding these 

proposals. 

Fall 2006: General 

Assembly plans to 

review several 

management 

proposals including 

procurement and 

human resources.

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

J FMAMJ JA S O N DJ F M A M J J A S OND

In response to the General Assembly’s request for more information, the 

Secretariat issued seven detailed reports in May and June 2006 that 

included information on various initiatives, such as information and 

communication technology, financial management practices, and 

procurement reform. In July 2006, member states approved a resolution 

that, according to UN officials and member state representatives, was a 

Page 11 GAO-07-14 United Nations
positive step toward addressing several management reform initiatives.22

The status of several reforms to improve the management operations of 

the Secretariat is as follows: 

• Since the Secretary-General has limited authority to shift resources 

between programs without the approval of the member states, the 

Secretary-General in his March 2006 report noted that more flexibility in 

this area could enable the Secretariat to respond more effectively to the 

changing needs of the organization. In July 2006, the General Assembly 

gave the Secretary-General, on an experimental basis, limited discretion 

over budgetary commitments up to $20 million per biennium.

23 The impact 

of this reform will be reviewed in 2009. 

• According to the Secretary-General, the UN has outdated and fragmented 

information technology systems that have limited capacity for processing 

and sharing data. Moreover, at least six departments have disparate 

information technology units with no integrating mechanism in place. The 

Secretary-General’s March 2006 report recommended the creation of a 

chief information technology officer position to oversee the creation and 

implementation of an information management strategy for the 

Secretariat. In July 2006, the General Assembly agreed to create the 

position of a chief information technology officer and upgrade certain

elements of the UN’s computer systems. In addition, the SecretaryGeneral’s information technology detailed report did not include a 

comprehensive implementation plan for this proposal. According to State 

and UN officials, the Secretary-General plans to submit a comprehensive 

report that includes cost estimates in March 2007.

• GAO and others have reported that UN procurement resources are 

unnecessarily vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. The Secretariat’s June 

2006 procurement report included several proposals that could be 

implemented over an 18-month period to strengthen UN procurement 

practices. However, the report does not specify milestones that need to be 

completed during the 18 months. The General Assembly is expected to 

discuss this report in fall 2006. In the meantime, in July 2006, the General 

Assembly authorized funding of approximately $700,000, which UN 

officials plan to use for six new temporary procurement positions for 6 

months. However, according to a senior U.S. official, these temporary 

posts are not sufficient to address weaknesses in the procurement system, 

 22G.A. Res.60/283, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/283 (2006). 

23The $20 million will be funded by the working capital fund. 

Page 12 GAO-07-14 United Nations
and qualified procurement officers are not likely to accept temporary jobs. 

As of September 2006, one temporary procurement staff member had been 

hired. 

• According to the Secretary-General, staff skills are not aligned with the 

current needs of the organization. The Secretary-General’s March 2006 

report included proposals to improve recruitment processes, facilitate 

staff mobility between headquarters and field offices, and dedicate 

resources to conduct a one-time staff buyout.24 In late September 2006, the 

Secretary-General issued a detailed human resources report.25 The General 

Assembly is expected to discuss the report in fall 2006. 

Some of the proposed or approved reforms to improve the operations of 

the Secretariat do not have an implementation plan that establishes time 

frames and cost estimates. Of the Secretary-General’s seven detailed 

reports issued in May and June 2006, only the proposal for adoption of the 

International Public Sector Accounting Standards includes a detailed 

timetable for implementation. The Secretary-General’s June 2006

procurement report included several proposals that could be implemented 

over an 18-month period, but the report does not include specific 

milestones. 

Reforms proposed to create an independent oversight advisory committee 

and to strengthen the capacity of OIOS are awaiting review by the General 

Assembly in fall 2006. In the outcome document, member states agreed to

consider the creation of an independent oversight advisory committee. In 

November 2005, the Secretary-General proposed the creation of the 

Independent Audit Advisory Committee and drafted provisional terms of 

reference for this entity. In December 2005, the General Assembly 

approved the creation of the committee and requested an external 

evaluation of the proposed terms of reference. In addition, in the 

September 2005 outcome document, member states recognized the urgent

need to strengthen the expertise, capacity, and resources of OIOS’s 

Oversight Reform 

Proposals Awaiting 

General Assembly Review 

in Fall 2006 

 24Under a buyout program, the UN would offer cash incentives for employees to voluntarily 

leave the organization. 

25The UN provided us with a copy of this detailed human resources report after our report 

had gone to press; therefore, we did not have time to analyze and incorporate the 

information. See Investing in People, U.N. Doc. A/61/255. 

Page 13 GAO-07-14 United Nations
auditing and investigative functions26 We and others have reported that 

OIOS’s independence and ability to perform as the principal auditing and 

investigative body of the UN have been hampered by the UN’s funding 

process and lack of resources. Moreover, in the outcome document, 

member states requested an independent external evaluation of the UN’s 

auditing and oversight system. The Secretary-General submitted the 

external evaluation in July 2006.27 See figure 2 for key dates associated 

with oversight reform initiatives. 

 26OIOS was created in 1994 to assist the Secretary-General in fulfilling internal oversight 

responsibilities over UN resources and staff. 

27The independent evaluation was conducted under the direction of a six-member Steering 

Committee that coordinated and supervised the independent contractor and directly 

reported the findings to the Secretary-General. See United Nations: Comprehensive 

Review of Governance and Oversight within the United Nations, Funds, Programmes 

and Specialized Agencies, U.N. Doc. A/60/883, Add. 1 and 2. 

Page 14 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Figure 2: Key Dates for Oversight Reform Initiatives 

2005 2006

J FMAMJ JA S O N DJ F M A M J J A S OND

June 2005: 

Gingrich-Mitchell 

review recommended 

the creation of an 

independent 

oversight committee 

to enhance the 

independence of the 

UN’s oversight 

structures.

Fall 2006: The 

General Assembly 

plans to review the 

Secretariat’s

external 

independent 

evaluation and the 

OIOS report.

July 2006: Secretariat 

issued an external 

independent evaluation 

of the UN’s oversight 

and accountability 

capabilities that 

includes a detailed 

review of OIOS and a

review of the terms of 

reference for the 

Independent Audit 

S Advisory Committee. eptember 2005: The 

Independent Inquiry 

Committee 

recommended the 

creation of an 

independent oversight 

board to improve the 

UN’s oversight 

structures.

September 2005: 

Member states agreed 

to (1) strengthen OIOS’s

expertise, capacity, and 

resources with respect 

to its audit and 

investigative functions

and (2) create an 

independent oversight 

advisory committee to 

enhance the 

independence of the 

UN’s oversight 

structures.

July 2006: OIOS

issued a report that 

includes several 

proposals for 

strengthening the 

office. 

December 2006: 

OIOS plans to 

complete a

review of its

Investigations

Division. 

November 2005: Secretary 

General proposed the creation 

of the Independent Audit 

Advisory Committee and 

drafted provisional terms of 

reference for this entity. 

December 2005: The General 

Assembly approved the 

creation of the Audit Advisory 

Committee but requested an 

external evaluation of the 

proposed terms of reference. 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

The July 2006 external evaluation reviewed the draft terms of reference for 

the Independent Audit Advisory Committee and recommended several 

changes, specifically with respect to the number, appointment criteria, 

terms, and compensation of members of the committee. The external 

independent evaluation also recommended the complete and prompt 

implementation of the committee. In addition, the evaluation 

recommended that the committee be responsible for presenting the budget 

for OIOS to the Fifth Committee, thereby relieving the ACABQ of its 

advisory role in this regard. 

Page 15 GAO-07-14 United Nations
The July 2006 external evaluation included a detailed review of OIOS that 

found that OIOS is not able to function effectively under its current 

mandate and made 23 recommendations in nine areas to strengthen its 

capacity.

28 The external review stated that OIOS’s current structure is 

impeding its independence and reducing its effectiveness.29 It also stated 

that OIOS should focus on internal auditing and recommended shifting 

several OIOS functions, such as investigations, to departments in the 

Secretariat.30 However, various UN and U.S. officials stated that a shift of 

functions such as that proposed in the external review could significantly 

diminish the UN’s oversight functions and the independence of its 

investigations. For example, these officials said that moving investigations 

to the Secretariat could create a potential conflict of interest. However, 

according to UN Secretariat officials, the Secretariat has a positive view of 

the results of the independent external review and supports most of the 

recommendations, and not all UN Secretariat officials view the proposed

recommendation as a way to diminish the UN’s oversight functions or the 

independence of its investigations. In addition, in a report submitted to the 

Secretary-General in July 2006,31 OIOS strongly disagreed with the 

restructuring proposals but recognized the need to reassess the functions

and work processes of its Investigations Division. OIOS indicated that it

will undertake a review of that division that will be completed by the end 

of 2006. 

OIOS’s July 2006 report included its own proposals for strengthening its 

capacity. The OIOS report indicated that some recommendations of the 

external review will require consideration by the General Assembly, but 

that many are being considered for implementation under the authority of

the Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services. The OIOS 

report discussed 14 of the recommendations made by the external review

 28The report made recommendations in the following nine areas: independence, 

governance structure in which OIOS operates, OIOS’s organization and structure, human

resources, working practices, information and communications technology,

communication and reporting, knowledge management, and performance measures. 

29OIOS is currently organized into four divisions: two internal audit divisions; an 

investigation division; and a monitoring, evaluation, and consulting division. 

30According to U.S. and UN officials, the external review team proposed this structural 

change based on a corporate oversight model. These officials also told us that the 

European Union has a similar system. 

31Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on Proposals for Strengthening the 

Office of Internal Oversight Services, U.N. Doc. A/60/901. 

Page 16 GAO-07-14 United Nations
and generally agreed with most of them, such as training of OIOS staff, 

human resource management, and information and communications 

technology. However, as discussed above, OIOS strongly disagreed with 

the recommendations that would restructure it. 

Ethics Office Established, 

but It Is Too Early to 

Assess Its Impact 

The UN established an ethics office in January 2006 but, as of September 

2006 it continues to operate with interim staff,32 and some experts, 

including a panel commissioned by a UN staff union to review the UN’s 

internal justice system, have questioned the sufficiency of the number of 

staff in the office. Since January 2006, the office’s six interim staff 

members have developed and implemented activities associated with the 

ethics office’s four areas of responsibility: (1) administering the UN’s 

financial disclosure program, (2) implementing the new UN whistleblower 

protection policy, (3) providing guidance to staff on ethics issues, and (4) 

developing ethics standards and training. For example, the interim staff 

members have undertaken preliminary reviews of claims of retaliation for 

whistleblowing and have collected financial disclosure forms from UN 

managers. As the office is new and in the process of hiring permanent 

staff, it is too early to determine whether the office will be able to fully 

carry out its mandate. See figure 3 for key dates associated with the 

establishment of the ethics office. 

 32These staff are UN employees assigned to other duty stations within the UN system who 

are working temporarily in the ethics office until permanent staff are hired.

Page 17 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Figure 3: Key Dates for the Ethics Office 

2005 2006

J FMAMJ JA S O N DJ F M A M J J A S OND

January–Fall 2006: Ethics office operates with interim staff.

September 2005: 

Member states

requested that the 

Secretary-General 

create an ethics office to 

ensure ethical conduct 

of UN staff and 

management.

September 2006: 

Ethics office issued 

interim report on its

operations.

January 2006: UN (1) 

established an ethics office 

to ensure ethical conduct of 

UN staff and management, 

(2) created a new 

whistleblower protection 

policy, and (3) expanded the 

UN financial disclosure 

policy.

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

Before creating the ethics office, the UN Secretariat did not have a way to

coordinate ethics-related initiatives within the organization and to ensure 

that all staff are aware of and updated on ethics issues. The 2005 outcome 

document specifically requested that the Secretary-General develop a 

detailed proposal for an independent ethics office. The Secretary-General

developed and submitted this proposal in November 2005, and the General 

Assembly approved it in December 2005. The ethics office began operating

in January 2006 as an independent entity reporting directly to the 

Secretary-General and by March 2006 it was staffed with one director, four

staff members, and a consultant, all temporarily assigned to the office.

These staff have been establishing and documenting the procedures the 

office follows in carrying out its duties. The UN is in the process of hiring 

permanent staff to replace the interim staff. The office has four main areas 

of responsibility and has made some progress in fulfilling each as follows: 

• The ethics office is responsible for administering the UN’s financial 

disclosure program to ensure that staff comply with applicable conflict of 

interest rules and standards of conduct. Designated UN staff— those at 

and above the director level and all staff carrying out procurement and 

investment functions—are required to file an annual confidential 

statement of their financial interests. This policy applies to about 1,800 UN

staff and as of July 31, 2006, the ethics office had received 90 percent of 

their financial disclosure statements. The ethics office is currently 

Page 18 GAO-07-14 United Nations
reviewing bids from contractors to carry out the review and audit of these 

forms. The Secretariat recommended that the review be conducted by 

independent financial experts, as is the practice at the World Bank and the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF), to safeguard the confidentiality of 

senior officials’ private financial information. The ethics office will keep 

these financial disclosure forms confidential, but a report by a panel of 

experts reviewing the UN’s internal justice system recommended that the 

office maintain the forms in a public register. 

• The ethics office is implementing the UN’s new whistleblower protection 

policy, which took effect in January 2006. When a staff member contacts 

the ethics office with a complaint that he or she has been retaliated against

for reporting misconduct, the office conducts a preliminary review to 

determine if the case should move forward for formal investigation by 

OIOS. The ethics office staff review the evidence presented by the 

claimant, interview the party accused of retaliation, and talk to other staff 

involved. If the ethics office determines that the case is an interpersonal 

problem within a particular office, rather than a case of retaliation for 

whistleblowing, it advises the staff member concerned of the existence of 

the Office of the Ombudsman and other informal conflict resolution 

mechanisms within the organization. If a case of retaliation is established 

after investigation by OIOS, the ethics office takes into account any 

recommendations made by OIOS and recommends appropriate measures 

aimed at correcting the negative consequences suffered as a result of the 

retaliatory action. As of July 31, 2006, the office had received 45 

complaints of retaliation for reporting misconduct, one of which they 

submitted for further investigation. Ethics office staff told us that they 

track all whistleblowing complaints that are brought to their attention, 

including those referred to other offices. Staff also said that the time they 

spend on each case of whistleblower retaliation varies from several hours

to more than 45 days.33

• As part of its regular duties, the ethics office provides confidential 

guidance to staff on ethics issues. To fulfill this responsibility, the ethics 

office operates an ethics helpline to answer questions from and provide 

advice to UN staff. UN staff have used the helpline to make whistleblower 

retaliation complaints. Staff can also contact the office in person, by mail 

or e-mail, or by fax. 

 33The whistleblower protection policy calls for the ethics office to complete its review 

within 45 days of receiving a complaint, but some reviews take longer to conduct.

Page 19 GAO-07-14 United Nations
• The ethics office is responsible for developing ethics standards and 

content for training, which all UN staff will be expected to take annually, 

and it is working to provide clear guidance to staff on ethics regulations, 

rules, and standards. The Office of Human Resources Management, in 

consultation with the ethics office staff, has developed a half-day ethics 

workshop for all staff and has worked to ensure that ethics issues are 

incorporated into courses on other topics, such as procurement. The 

ethics office has developed an intranet site for UN staff that provides 

general information about the office as well as UN ethics issues and 

standards. 

While the interim staff in the ethics office have been undertaking activities 

consistent with their responsibilities, questions have been raised about the 

capacity of this office to fulfill its mandate. One nongovernmental 

organization said the UN’s whistleblower protection policy created a new 

benchmark for such policies in other intergovernmental organizations, 

such as the World Bank and IMF. However, it questioned the UN’s 

implementation of the policy, citing the low number of staff in the ethics 

office and the amount of time it is taking to conduct preliminary reviews 

of whistleblower retaliation cases. In addition, in a report endorsed by a 

UN staff union,34 a commission of experts criticized the UN’s 

implementation of the whistleblower protection policy and made several

recommendations35 that, if adopted, would change the responsibilities and 

structure of the ethics office. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the

UN has also cited the UN staff union’s concerns about the capacity of the 

ethics office to fulfill its responsibilities. 

The appropriate number of staff assigned to the ethics office has been in 

question since the office’s inception. The Secretariat originally requested 

funding for 16 staff positions for the ethics office, including liaison posts in 

UN offices in Vienna, Nairobi, and Geneva, to provide the office with 

 34United Nations Staff Union, Report of the Commission of Experts on Reforming Internal

Justice at the United Nations (New York, NY: June 12, 2006). 

35The recommendations made by the report are: (1) to raise the status of the head of the

ethics office from the present status as Director to the Assistant Secretary-General level; 

(2) to increase its independence, have the ethics office report directly to an independent 

review board rather than to the Secretary-General; (3) to have the ethics office maintain a 

public register of the financial disclosure statements of senior managers; (4) to establish 

regional ethics offices in all major duty stations outside of headquarters; and (5) to move

whistleblower protection responsibilities from the ethics office, which is not equipped to

conduct investigations, to OIOS, the Office of the Ombudsman, or an Office of Special 

Prosecutor, which the report suggests the UN create. 

Page 20 GAO-07-14 United Nations
greater proximity to the two-thirds of UN employees located in field 

offices around the world. However, the General Assembly, following the

recommendation of the ACABQ, approved funding for only six positions, 

with no posts in the field. The ACABQ reported that the office could 

operate with fewer staff than requested, given the office’s uncertain 

workload at its inception, and that its workload would be reduced after 

the initial work of developing standards and training was complete. The 

Special Advisor to the Secretary-General for the ethics office, who is 

overseeing the new office, stated that the number of staff assigned to the 

office is currently appropriate. The interim staff said that the office needs 

more resources, particularly additional staff, given its number of 

responsibilities and activities. A representative from a nongovernmental 

organization with expertise in whistleblower protection also stated that 

the ethics office has too few resources to carry out its duties. In addition, 

the panel of experts commissioned by a UN staff union to review the UN’s 

internal justice system stated that it is critical that the ethics office be 

given adequate resources, including representation in the UN’s regional 

offices, to fulfill its responsibilities. The ethics office submitted a status 

report to the General Assembly in September 2006 that suggested that the

office may need additional staff and resources in the future. 36

Member state review of all UN programs and activities has been slow 

because of disagreements on both the scope and process; therefore, it is 

unlikely that the December 2006 deadline to complete the review will be 

met. In the 2005 outcome document, member states requested a review of

all UN programs and activities, or mandates, that were created 5 or more 

years ago (see fig. 4 below for key dates in the review process) to 

strengthen and update UN programs and activities to more accurately 

reflect the current needs of the organization. The UN does not have a 

system for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of its mandates, which 

make up its main body of work. The General Assembly, Economic and 

Social Council, and the Security Council each adopt new mandates every 

year on many of the same issues, which can lead to interrelated and 

overlapping mandates. As a result, the Secretariat’s implementation of 

these mandates may be uncoordinated and inconsistent. 

Disagreement among 

Member States Has 

Delayed Review of 

Programs and Activities 

 36Activities of the Ethics Office, U.N. Doc. A/60/274. 

Page 21 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Figure 4: Key Dates for Review of Programs and Activities 

March 2005: 

Secretary-General’s

report, “In Larger 

Freedom,” requested 

that the General 

Assembly review all 

UN mandates older 

than 5 years. 

June 2005:

Gingrich-Mitchell 

review reiterated the 

Secretary-General’s

proposal to review all 

mandates older than 5 

years. 

September 2005: World 

Summit outcome 

document requested that 

General Assembly and 

other revelant UN bodies

review all UN mandates 

older than 5 years during 

2006. 

April 2006:

General 

Assembly 

began informal 

meetings to 

discuss the 

Secretariat’s

report and 

member state 

proposals on 

the disposition 

of specific 

mandates.

December 2006:

Mandate review 

should be 

completed by end 

of 2006, according 

to the 2005 World 

Summit Outcome 

document.

March 2006:

Secretariat issued 

a report providing 

analysis and 

recommendations

for the review and 

established a

database listing 

all mandates.

June 2006:

Discussions continued 

in the General 

Assembly, but no 

agreement was

reached on the 

disposition of any 

mandates before the 

budget cap was lifted 

on June 30. 

Discussions in 

Security Council 

continued.

January 2006:

General Assembly 

began informal 

meetings to discuss

the scope and process

of the reviews. 

July-Fall 2006:

Discussions continued 

in the General 

Assembly on mandates

older than 5 years that 

have not been 

renewed, with some 

agreement on 

mandates that have 

been completed. 

Review of mandates

older than 5 years that 

have been renewed 

has not begun, and 

member states have 

not agreed on how to 

proceed with this part 

of the review.

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

2005 2006

J FMAMJ JA S O N DJ F M A M J J A S OND

Page 22 GAO-07-14 United Nations
UN member states agreed at the 2005 World Summit to undertake in 2006 

a review of UN mandates37 older than 5 years to update the UN’s programs 

and activities so that they respond to the current needs of member states. 

Member states did not establish milestones for this review, but said it 

should be completed by 2006. In March 2006, the Secretary-General issued 

a report that provided a framework for conducting this review, including a 

recommendation to conduct the review in two phases, and compiled an 

electronic inventory of about 9,000 total mandates, over 6,900 of which are 

older than 5 years, originating from the three principal UN organs—the 

General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security 

Council. The General Assembly, which has responsibility for about 80 

percent of the mandates, began discussions on the mandate review 

process in November 2005 and started substantive discussions on specific 

mandates in April 2006. The Security Council and Economic and Social 

Council began their respective reviews in May 2006. 38 During these 

discussions, countries and groups of countries made proposals on the 

process for the review and on how to handle specific mandates. For 

example, one country proposed that the mandate review process involve 

roundtable discussions and informal debates. Another proposal, with 

regard to a specific mandate, was to consolidate the Secretariat’s working 

papers on individual and small island territories. During the discussions, 

some countries requested more information from the Secretariat on 

certain mandates, such as how one mandate might be duplicative of 

another, or which UN departments or entities are involved in

implementing each mandate. 

Throughout the review process, member states have disagreed about 

which mandates to include in the review and what to do with any savings 

generated by the potential elimination or consolidation of mandates, 

which has led to slow and limited progress. Members of the G-77 contend 

that the scope of the review should include only those mandates older 

than 5 years that have not been renewed since they were adopted. This 

represents about 626 mandates, or 7 percent of the total number of 

mandates (see fig. 5). The United States and other developed countries, 

 37The Secretary-General defines a mandate as a request or a direction for action by the UN

Secretariat or other implementing entities in the system, which originates in a resolution of

the General Assembly or one of the other UN organs. See Mandating and Delivering: 

Analysis and Recommendations to Facilitate the Review of Mandates, U.N. Doc. 

A/60/733. 

38For the purpose of this report, we focused on the General Assembly’s review process.

Page 23 GAO-07-14 United Nations
including Japan, Australia, Canada, and the European Union, argue that 

the review should include all mandates older than 5 years, whether or not 

they have been renewed. Using these criteria, the review would include an

additional 6,347 mandates. 

Figure 5: Distribution of UN Mandates by Renewal Classification 

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

7%

70%

23%

Mandates older than 5 years and not 

renewed within last 5 years (626)

Mandates older than 5 years and renewed 

within last 5 years (6,347)

Mandates newer than 5 years (2,073) 

Total number = 9,046

The G-77 established several criteria under which it would consider 

reviewing mandates that are older than 5 years: (1) member states must 

first agree that any savings derived from the mandate review will be 

reinvested in the areas from which they were derived, or in UN activities in 

the development area and (2) all politically sensitive mandates must be 

excluded from the review process.39 The United States has stated that a

decision about the use of cost savings from the mandate review should be 

made once the review is complete. In addition, the United States maintains 

 39According to U.S. officials, these mandates are the most contentious because at least one

member state is particularly sensitive about changing or eliminating each of them. 

Politically sensitive mandates include those that relate to Cyprus, the Palestinian territory,

Serbia and Montenegro, and Sudan.

Page 24 GAO-07-14 United Nations
that no mandates older than 5 years, including those that are controversial, 

should be excluded from the review. 

Despite disagreement on which General Assembly mandates to review, 

member states decided in June 2006 to move forward with the first phase,

which consists of reviewing 399 mandates that are older than 5 years and 

have not been renewed within the last 5 years. Mandates that are older 

than 5 years and have been renewed could be reviewed in a second phase. 

Mandates in phase one include completed projects, such as a 1965

resolution requesting that the Secretary-General convene a conference on

the World Food Program. Although most of the mandates in this category

do not require any further action or resources from the UN, member states 

could only agree to set aside 74 of them, which they classified as 

completed, meaning they have been acted upon and completely 

implemented and do not require further action at this time. Additionally, 

they decided that 33 mandates are not applicable to the review. The 

remaining 292 mandates included in phase one may be reviewed in phase 

two if member states believe they need further discussion. See table 1 for 

details on the status of mandates considered in phase one. 

Table 1: Categories of Mandates Reviewed in Phase One

Category Number of mandates in category

Completed—no agreement on

dispositionb

172

 Completed—agreed to set asidec74

Completeda—total 246

Implemented/in-progressd102

No indicatione 18

Not applicablef33

Grand total 399

Source: Department of State. 

a

Completed mandates are those that have been acted upon and completely implemented. These 

include the majority of founding and founding-related mandates, which are mandates that specify the 

structure and the functions of the established entity or amend the original founding mandate of such 

entity. 

b

Member states did not agree on what to do with the mandates in this category. They will remain 

available for review in phase two if needed. 

c

Member states agreed to set aside mandates in this category for the remainder of the review, with no

further action needed. 

d

Implemented/in-progress mandates are those that have been acted upon and for which 

implementation is ongoing. 

Page 25 GAO-07-14 United Nations
e

Mandates in the category of “no indication” are those for which it was not possible to collect definitive 

information from departments and other UN entities. 

f

Mandates categorized as “not applicable” are those that originated in the General Assembly and 

require action by entities other than the Secretariat or implementing entities of the UN system, such 

as member states, nongovernmental organizations, or international financial institutions, and

therefore do not pertain to the purpose of the mandate review exercise. 

As of September 2006, after beginning discussions on specific mandates in

April 2006, member states had not agreed to change, eliminate, or retain 

any mandates. On September 1, 2006, leaders of the working group on 

mandate review developed a proposal suggesting terms under which 

member states would move forward into phase two of the review, but as of 

the end of September member states had not accepted it. The proposal 

suggests that member states reallocate within the UN budget any savings 

from mandate review according to normal budgetary procedures and that

they reinvest any savings from development activities into other 

development activities. In addition, the proposal recommends that 

member states agree to address politically sensitive mandates carefully 

and take into account the positions of member states concerned. Given the 

volume of mandates still to be discussed and the contentious nature of the 

review process, the prospects for completing the review by the end of 2006 

are unlikely. 

Effectiveness and Impact 

of Newly-Created Human 

Rights Council Remain 

Uncertain 

In March 2006, the UN voted to create a new UN Human Rights Council to 

replace the Commission on Human Rights; however, significant concerns 

remain about the council’s structure. UN member states generally agreed 

that the Commission on Human Rights should be improved as it was no 

longer seen as a credible institution for protecting human rights, due to a 

number of weaknesses. For example, according to human rights 

organizations, countries known to be human rights violators were 

consistently selected for membership to the commission and used their 

membership to protect themselves against criticism of their human rights 

records. Furthermore, the commission did not criticize the actions of 

several countries that were found to be abusers of human rights, including 

Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. As a result, the member states agreed 

at the 2005 World Summit to create a new Human Rights Council that 

would improve upon these deficiencies. UN member states voted to 

establish the council in March 2006 and elected members in May 2006. 

(See fig. 6 for key dates for the Human Rights Council.) 

Page 26 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Figure 6: Key Dates for the Human Rights Council 

March 2005:

Secretary-General’s

report, “In Larger 

Freedom,” called for 

member states to 

create a Human 

Rights Council to 

replace the 

Commission on 

Human Rights.

June 2005:

Gingrich-Mitchell 

review recommended 

that the commission 

be replaced with a

Human Rights

Council with specific 

membership 

requirements.

September 2005: 

World Summit outcome 

documents called on 

General Assembly to 

develop a new Human 

Rights Council.

March 2006:

General 

Assembly voted 

for 

establishment 

of the Human 

Rights Council; 

U.S. voted 

against it.

May 2006: General 

Assembly elected members

to council, including 

countries with questionable 

human rights records; U.S. 

did not run for election. 

June 2006: Council 

held first session in 

Geneva.

July 2006:

Council held 

special 

session to 

discuss

human rights

situation in 

occupied Arab

territories.

September-October 2006: 

Council held its second 

session.

November 2006 

(proposed): Council 

holds third session.

Source: GAO analysis of UN data.

2005 2006

J FMAMJ JA S O N DJ F M A M J J A S OND

In establishing the new Human Rights Council, UN member states aimed 

to address some of the deficiencies in the 53-member Commission on 

Human Rights. The 47 members of the new council must be elected 

individually to the body by a majority of UN members. Previously, 

candidates were grouped into slates of countries representing regions, and 

members would vote on the entire slate rather than for an individual 

country on the slate. The United States sought a significantly smaller body 

and advocated that to gain membership on the council, members should 

be elected by the higher standard of a two-thirds majority, rather than an 

absolute majority, to make it more difficult for repressive countries that 

have not demonstrated a commitment to human rights to gain seats on the 

council. Members can now be suspended from the council by a two-thirds 

majority vote if they are found to have committed gross violations of 

human rights. When voting for candidates to the council, UN member 

states are instructed to take into account each country’s human rights 

record, a measure that was not called for when voting for candidates to 

the commission. The United States wanted to automatically exclude from 

council membership any country under Security Council sanctions, but 

that provision was not included in the final design of the body. When 

Page 27 GAO-07-14 United Nations
elections to the council were held in May 2006, several countries with 

questionable human rights records were elected, including China, Russia, 

and Cuba. However, other countries that previously served on the 

commission and have questionable human rights records did not even run 

for election, including Zimbabwe, Sudan, and North Korea. In addition, 

Iran campaigned for a seat on the Council but did not win. 

The Human Rights Council will also operate differently from the 

commission. The council will meet more frequently and can more readily 

call special sessions to address emerging human rights situations than 

could the commission. The council will meet at least three times a year for 

a total of 10 weeks, while the commission met once a year for a total of 6 

weeks. Furthermore, the council is required to periodically review the 

human rights records of all UN member states, a procedure the 

commission lacked. Members of the council will be the first to undergo 

these reviews and will be required to cooperate with investigators. The 

council is currently developing the procedures it will follow when 

conducting the reviews. Finally, member states made the council a 

subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, elevating it from the 

commission’s status as part of the Economic and Social Council. 

While the United States voted against the creation of the new Human 

Rights Council, stating that it did not sufficiently improve upon the former 

commission, many nongovernmental organizations and other UN members 

have stated that the council is better equipped than the commission was to 

address urgent, serious, and long-running human rights situations around 

the world. Of the UN member states participating in the vote on the 

creation of the council, 170 voted in favor, while 4 voted against.40 The 

United States did not run for election to the body but has agreed to 

provide funding for it. Representatives from one group of member states 

said that they were disappointed the United States did not run for election 

because it was important to have the United States on the council from its 

inception, to show support for the new body. The council meets in Geneva 

and met for the first time in June 2006 and a second time in September 

2006. It plans to meet again in November 2006. The council held special

sessions in summer 2006 on the situation of human rights in Palestine and

other Arab territories. It is too early to determine the impact of the new 

council on the UN and human rights worldwide. 

 40The United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau all voted against the creation of 

the Human Rights Council. 

Page 28 GAO-07-14 United Nations
We identified several factors that may impede the UN’s progress toward 

full implementation of management reforms: (1) considerable 

disagreement within the General Assembly over their overall implications; 

(2) absence of an implementation plan for each reform that includes time 

frames and cost estimates; and (3) administrative guidance that may 

complicate the process of implementing certain human resource 

initiatives. 

Disagreement between G-77 and developed countries over the broader 

implications of management reforms may affect the UN’s ability to fully 

implement them. According to UN and member state officials, the G-77 is 

concerned that some of the reforms could increase the authority of the 

Secretariat at the expense of the General Assembly, thus decreasing the 

G-77’s influence over UN operations. Further, according to several UN and 

member state officials, most developed countries view management 

reform as a way to increase organizational effectiveness, whereas the G-77

countries perceive that developed countries view certain reform 

initiatives, such as mandate review, as cost-cutting exercises. Moreover, 

UN officials and member state representatives told us that a disagreement 

over a 6-month spending cap41 served to unify the G-77 countries and 

weaken the cohesion between developed countries. According to UN and 

member state representatives, the budget cap initially served to focus 

attention on the need to make progress on the reform initiatives. However, 

according to member state representatives, the spending cap made it more 

difficult to reach consensus on management reforms. On June 30, 2006, the 

General Assembly decided to lift the spending cap.42 According to UN 

officials and member state representatives, now that the cap is lifted, 

implementation of the reforms can continue, but questions remain about 

the pace and priorities for implementation of the reforms. 

Various Factors May 

Impede Full 

Implementation of UN 

Management Reforms 

Disagreement within the 

General Assembly Has 

Limited the 

Implementation of 

Reforms 

 41In December 2005, the General Assembly adopted the UN’s budget for the 2006-2007 

biennium with a provision that the Secretary-General could spend only $950 million in 

2006, which represents about 6 months of operating costs for the Secretariat. This 

provision was proposed by the United States and other developed countries and agreed to

by a consensus of all member states. This decision allowed the UN to continue its 

operations and activities while member states continued to discuss the implementation of 

management reforms agreed to at the September 2005 World Summit. 

42Even though the decision was made by consensus, the United States, Australia, and Japan 

disassociated themselves from consensus. According to a U.S. official, disassociation from

consensus is a process whereby a country does not necessarily agree on an issue but does

not block its approval. 

Page 29 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Disagreement between the G-77 countries and the developed countries 

over the details of implementing the initiatives could continue to affect 

their progress. Member states disagree on some of the specifics of the 

reforms in areas such as the review of programs and activities and the 

details for creating the Human Rights Council, as discussed earlier, as well 

as the role of the Deputy Secretary-General. For example, two 

independent studies recommended the creation of a chief operating officer 

position and the Secretary-General’s March 2006 report recommended that 

the Deputy Secretary-General assume formal authority and accountability 

for the management and overall direction of the Secretariat’s operations. 

However, the spokesperson for the G-77 countries has stated in the Fifth 

Committee and in the General Assembly that, according to the UN charter, 

the Secretary-General is the UN’s Chief Administrative Officer and thus 

responsible for the organization’s management. In May 2006, the General

Assembly passed a resolution that noted that the function of the post of 

Deputy Secretary-General should not diminish the role or responsibilities 

of the Secretary-General. The resolution further noted that the overall 

responsibility for management of the Organization rests with the 

Secretary-General. Therefore, it will be up to the discretion of the next 

Secretary-General to decide on the delegation of authority to his/her 

deputy. (App. II provides more information on the disagreements specific 

to each reform.) 

UN Has Not Developed a 

Comprehensive Plan to 

Implement the Reforms 

For many of the management reform proposals, the UN has not developed 

comprehensive implementation plans with associated time frames, cost 

estimates, and potential savings.43 Setting an implementation time line is a 

key practice for organizations undergoing change.44 However, many UN 

proposals we reviewed that are related to management reform do not 

include specific time frames. For example, although a senior U.S. official

said that the July 2006 resolution is a positive step toward implementation 

of certain reforms, he noted that the section on oversight does not provide 

concrete actions. In addition, the resolution does not include specific time 

 43The Secretary-General’s detailed proposal for adopting International Public Sector 

Accounting Standards includes a timetable for implementation. In addition, at the end of

September 2006 the Secretariat released a detailed report on human resource initiatives 

that includes time lines and resource implications for most of them. However, this report 

was released after our report had gone to press; therefore, we did not have time to analyze 

and incorporate the new information. 

44GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

Page 30 GAO-07-14 United Nations
frames for implementing a fully operational ethics office or the 

Independent Audit Advisory Committee. Without establishing deadlines, it 

is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing reform efforts. 

Moreover, without comprehensive implementation plans, the total 

budgetary implications of the reform efforts are not clear. 

The UN has not developed or refined cost estimates for many of the 

initiatives, including improving certain field staff benefits and conditions

to mirror those of headquarters staff; increasing investments in human 

resource development; introducing a new information communications 

technology system; and approving a staff buyout program. However, the 

Secretary-General has developed preliminary cost estimates for three key 

initiatives that alone could cost over $500 million—the proposed new 

information communications technology system ($120 million over several 

years), a one-time staff buyout ($50 to $100 million), and efforts to 

improve field staff benefits ($280 million annually). Moreover, the UN 

Secretariat said that these estimates will require further assessments 

before reliable estimates and a plan of action can be determined. Without 

determining cost estimates, it is difficult to ensure that financing will be 

available when needed. 

Likewise, the UN has not yet developed savings estimates because certain 

initiatives will require further assessment and then approval by the 

General Assembly. The Secretary-General anticipates that the costs for the 

reforms could be offset by savings from efforts such as relocation and 

outsourcing and the long-term benefits of a more efficiently run 

organization. However, the UN has not yet produced any concrete savings 

estimates, and efforts to produce savings have faced significant 

challenges. For instance, the Secretary-General said that the cost could be

partially offset by savings in procurement reform. However, UN officials 

said that the UN Secretariat has not yet developed firm procurement 

savings estimates.45 In addition, proposals to streamline the way in which 

the organization delivers its services, which may result in savings, have

experienced resistance from member states and staff members. In May 

2006, the G-77 did not authorize the Secretary-General to conduct a costbenefit analysis of his proposal to relocate translation, editing, and 

document production services. Public documents do not specify the 

 45The Secretary-General projects cost and efficiency savings of between $100 million to 

$400 million from increasing information-sharing on procurement matters within the UN

common system, among other things. 

Page 31 GAO-07-14 United Nations
G-77’s reason for not allowing a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken.46

Further, the outsourcing of internal printing and publishing processes 

could generate savings but, according to UN officials, it could also face

challenges from member states and staff to implement. 

To develop or refine cost and savings estimates, the Secretariat is 

conducting cost-benefit analyses and assessments in areas such as the 

proposed new information communications technology system, 

outsourcing and relocation, staff buyout, and public access to UN 

information. Appendix IV provides information on the reviews, 

assessments, and cost-benefit analyses that the Secretariat is preparing, 

including their expected time frames for completion to the extent stated 

by the UN. However, some of the cost-benefit analyses and assessments 

will not be available until March 2007 for member states to consider, and 

these will have a bearing on the overall reform package and, ultimately, 

the total cost of the reform. To date, the additional cost to member states 

to implement certain management reform initiatives has been about $40 

million, which primarily reflects start-up costs for efforts such as the 

adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards, the new 

ethics office, additional costs for the new Human Rights Council, and an 

increase to the working capital fund47 (see table 2). Therefore, based on 

the slow pace of the reform process and the time frames for completion of 

the assessments and cost-benefit analyses, the total budgetary

implications of the reform effort, including the U.S. government’s share, 

remain unclear.48

 46According to a U. S. official, the United States and 49 other countries voted against the 

resolution put forth by the G-77 countries (A/RES/60/260 of May 16, 2006) because it 

constrained the Secretary-General from moving forward fully on outsourcing, among other 

things. 

47The increase in the working capital fund is intended to allow the Secretary-General to 

provide advances necessary to finance budgetary appropriations, pending the receipt of 

member states’ contributions, and to finance unforeseen and extraordinary expenses 

pending appropriation action by the General Assembly. 

48In 2004, GAO reported that, according to UN officials, the Secretariat did not complete a 

comprehensive assessment of the personnel and budgetary implications during the

development of his 2002 reform agenda. 

Page 32 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Table 2: Additional Funds Approved to Implement Certain Management Reform

Initiatives, as of September 2006 

Dollars in millions 

Reform actions

Funds approved

(2006-2007 biennium)

Regular budget resources: 

Increase in the Working Capital Fund (from member states’

assessments effective January 1, 2007) $15

Strengthen Office of Internal Oversight Services (39 temporary 

posts) 5.8

Additional funding for new Human Rights Council 4.4

Cost for independent external evaluation on Governance and 

Oversight 4.3

New Ethics Office 2.9

Cost study and implementation plan for new information 

communications technology system 2.2

Start-up cost for the International Public Sector Accounting 

Standards 2.0

Office accommodations for new posts at Headquarters 1.9

New Chief Information Communications Technology Officer .3

Staff selection system in Office of Human Resources 

Management .2

 Subtotal – regular budget resources $39.0

Peacekeeping support account: 

Temporary procurement service staff (6) .7

Subtotal – peacekeeping support account $ .7

Total additional funds approved to date $39.7

Sources: UN and the U.S Mission to the UN.

Notes: 

The total dollar amount presented in the table attempts to address the scope of our report objectives 

and does not include all reform efforts that were a result of the 2005 World Summit, such as the 

Peace Building Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 

The Working Capital fund was increased from $100 million to $150 million. To cover the increase, the 

additional amount of $35 million will be funded from the 2004-2005 budget surplus. The $35 million is

an estimate pending the Board of Auditors audit for the biennium. 

According to a Department of State official, funds for the review of certain budgetary, financial, and 

human resources policies, including the design of the staff buyout program, are being drawn from 

existing resources. 

Page 33 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Administrative guidance, such as staff regulations and rules that 

implement General Assembly resolutions, could complicate and 

sometimes restrict the process of implementing certain human resource 

initiatives. According to the Secretary-General, the existing human 

resources management framework was designed for a stable, largely 

headquarters-based environment, and currently more than half of the UN’s 

30,000 staff members are serving in the field. The Secretary-General also

said that the Secretariat’s increasingly complex mandates require a new 

skills profile that will enable it to respond in an integrated way to new 

needs in diverse areas such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. 

In addition, salaries and other human resource costs comprise almost 80 

percent of the UN regular budget. As such, UN officials state that it would 

be impossible to achieve meaningful management reform without 

reforming human resources. The Secretary-General has proposed several 

human resource reforms,49 such as a staff buyout, replacing permanent 

contracts with open-ended appointments, better integration of staff 

worldwide, and outsourcing.50 However, administrative guidance may 

complicate the process of implementing some initiatives, such as: 

Administrative Guidance 

May Complicate the 

Process of Implementing 

Certain Human Resource 

Initiatives 

• In September 2005, member states agreed to consider a proposal from the 

Secretary-General for a one-time staff buyout. According to the SecretaryGeneral, to target staff for buyout the UN Secretariat must analyze and 

determine the skills needed in the organization, taking into account 

proposed reform efforts such as relocation of work, outsourcing, and 

mandate review. Staff performing administrative functions that are 

targeted for outsourcing may be offered a buyout if their skills are no 

longer needed by the UN. The Secretary-General must also conduct 

 49This report does not include information from the Secretary-General’s detailed human

resources report issued in late September. 

50Outsourcing describes a situation in which an organization allows all or part of its

business processes to be undertaken by third party providers. 

Page 34 GAO-07-14 United Nations
consultations with UN staff representatives.51 UN officials said that it may 

be difficult for the Secretary-General, staff representatives, and member 

states to agree on the skills required to realign staff with the UN’s 

priorities. In addition, some of the cost-benefit analyses for the relocation

and outsourcing initiatives will not be completed until March 2007. 

• The UN Secretariat is developing a more integrated approach for staff to 

serve worldwide. However, UN officials said that staff may find ways to 

resist efforts to be transferred, especially if a transfer would result in 

leaving UN Headquarters or other desirable duty stations. According to the 

Secretary-General, staff are not sufficiently mobile, and their movement is 

hampered by multiple and restrictive mandates.

• The Secretary-General proposed the integration of field and headquarters 

staff into one global Secretariat with competitive conditions of service. 

This would include changing the staff rules to create one staff contract to 

mirror that of headquarters staff. Based on a study prepared in January 

2006 by the International Civil Service Commission for the General 

Assembly,52 this proposed integration raises a number of complicated 

policy questions that will need to be addressed, including long-term 

contractual obligations, cost implications related to differences in the 

compensation packages, distortion of geographical distribution and 

gender balance, and complications for merit-based, transparent, and open 

selection procedures. 

• Further, according to UN officials, proposals to reconsider a change in the 

way the UN delivers its services by relocating and outsourcing certain 

headquarters functions may meet with resistance from some member 

 51According to the Secretary-General, his staff buyout proposals and other human 

resources proposals (see General Assembly resolution 60/1 par. 163 (c)), will take into 

consideration part II of resolution A/60/260, and will follow consultation with staff 

representatives to be carried out in accordance with article VIII of the Staff Regulations 

and section XVI of General Assembly resolution 59/266. For example, based on these 

resolutions and regulation, the Secretary-General must submit a detailed proposal on the 

framework for a one-time staff buyout to improve personnel structure and quality, 

including an indication of costs involved and mechanisms to ensure that it achieves its 

intended purpose. Also, generally, the Secretary-General shall establish and maintain 

continuous contact and communication with the staff in order to ensure the effective 

participation of the staff in identifying, examining, and resolving issues relating to staff 

welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life, and other personnel 

policies. 

52International Civil Service Commission, Staffing of Field Missions: Review of 

Conversion of Contractual Instruments, January 2006. 

Page 35 GAO-07-14 United Nations
states and staff as jobs may be lost. According to the Secretary-General, 

the General Assembly established a number of conditions for outsourcing 

that severely restrict the circumstances under which it can be 

contemplated.53 One of those restrictions includes avoiding possible 

negative impact on staff.

54 Thus, restrictive conditions such as these could 

complicate the process of implementing certain human resource 

initiatives. 

During the past few years, the inadequate oversight of the Oil for Food 

program and mismanagement of UN procurement activities have 

demonstrated the urgent need for UN management reform. Several 

independent reports in 2005 found that inefficient UN management 

operations persist and discuss the immediate need for management reform 

given the growth in complexity and significance of UN worldwide 

operations within the past decade. Despite several past reform efforts, 

long-standing concerns about weak UN management functions remain. As 

the largest financial contributor to the UN, the United States has taken a 

leadership role in calling for improved management processes. In addition,

the United States, through the Department of State and the U.S. Mission to 

the United Nations, continues to take measures to advance reform of UN 

management processes. However, progress in management reform efforts 

has been slow. Proposals awaiting review cannot progress until the 

General Assembly approves them through a process that traditionally 

requires agreement by all 192 UN member states, and consensus building 

can be a difficult and lengthy process. Moreover, the UN has not agreed 

upon implementation plans for each reform effort that include established 

time frames and cost estimates—practices that increase the transparency 

Conclusion 

 53G. A. Res. A/RES/55/232, Outsourcing Practices, United Nations, December 23, 2000. 

54In 1997 and again in 2002, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) reported on several deficiencies 

of the UN’s outsourcing operations, such as lack of a policy and systemwide definition of 

outsourcing, insufficient coordination among UN organizations, and the need for improved

monitoring and management controls over outsourced contracts. In 2002, the JIU said that

since its 1997 report on the challenge of outsourcing for the UN system, outsourced

operations have not evolved significantly in value and scope. In addition, JIU said that

information suggests that cost benefits likely to flow from outsourcing may be greater in

locations such as the New York metropolitan area and field duty stations where the local 

salary rates are lower than UN salary scales. However, JIU also points out that the General 

Assembly resolution provides that one of the goals of outsourcing should be to avoid a

possible negative impact on staff, but that adverse effects on staff can be minimized and 

perhaps even averted by carefully planning their redeployment to other functions or 

considering attrition solutions during the precontract processes.

Page 36 GAO-07-14 United Nations
and accountability of the reform process. The Secretary-General’s 

proposal for the adoption of International Public Sector Accounting 

Standards is a step toward increased transparency and accountability 

because it includes a detailed timetable for implementation. Until the UN 

undergoes successful management reform, its ability to respond 

effectively and efficiently to increasingly complex international crises is 

diminished. 

We recommend that the Secretary of State and the U.S. Permanent 

Representative to the UN work with other member states to encourage the 

General Assembly and the Secretary-General to include cost estimates and 

expected time frames for implementation and completion for each reform 

as it is approved. We also recommend that the Secretary of State’s annual 

U.S. Participation in the United Nations report to the Congress include a 

section on the status and progress of the major UN management reforms. 

The Department of State provided written comments on a draft of this 

report (see app. V). The Department of State agreed with our 

recommendations and stated that it will continue to work toward creating 

a more effective and accountable United Nations. In particular, it noted 

that it has seen too little in terms of results since the September 2005 

Summit. Moreover, the Department of State also said that the Secretariat

should be held accountable for implementing these reforms and will 

continue to work with other member states toward ensuring that a 

transparent reporting mechanism to the General Assembly is established. 

The Department of State also concurred fully with the need to keep the 

U.S. Congress informed of these management reform initiatives and will 

continue to monitor and inform the Congress as recommended. The UN 

did not provide written comments. In addition, the Department of State 

and the United Nations provided technical comments on our draft report, 

which were incorporated into the text where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested members of the 

Congress, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Permanent Representative to

the UN. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 37 GAO-07-14 United Nations
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 VI. 

Thomas Melito 

Director, International Affairs and Trade 

Page 38 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To identify and track management reforms, we reviewed key documents 

proposing United Nations (UN) management and human rights reforms 

and interviewed key officials. We obtained and reviewed official reports of 

the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), 

Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) 

documents, General Assembly resolutions, Secretary-General bulletins, 

Web sites, related budget documents, and statements from UN officials. 

We interviewed senior officials from UN departments in New York City. 

Specifically, we met with officials from the General Assembly Office of the 

President, the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the Departments of 

Management and Policy and Planning, ACABQ, the Office of Program 

Planning and Budget (OPPBA), and OIOS. During the course of our 

review, we also discussed the status of UN reforms with Department of 

State officials in Washington, D.C., and New York City. 

We selected reforms in the areas of management operations of the 

Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, review of programs and activities, 

and human rights to track in more detail. We determined that these were 

key areas of management reform through our review of UN documents 

and in our discussions with UN and U.S. officials. We focused our work on 

management reforms that began in 2005 and did not specifically address 

the 1997 and 2002 reform agendas. The 2005 reforms applied to the 

Secretariat and the UN’s governing bodies, including the General 

Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council. We 

did not include UN specialized agencies or funds and programs in our 

review. Other reform efforts such as the UN Peace Building Commission, 

Security Council reform, and governance were beyond the scope of this 

review. 

To determine the factors facing the implementation of UN reforms, we 

reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General Assembly, 

OIOS, Joint Inspection Unit, and International Civil Service Commission. 

In addition, we spoke with UN officials in New York. These included 

officials from the Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, the Department 

of Management, ACABQ, OPPBA, and OIOS. We also met with 

representatives from several member states and spoke with U.S. officials 

in Washington, D.C., and New York. We also interviewed outside observers 

of the UN system, including nongovernmental organizations and members 

of academia. 

Many cost estimates for the proposed reform initiatives are preliminary, 

and detailed cost estimates are being developed; therefore, we did not 

analyze the assumptions underlying these estimates to determine whether 

Page 39 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

they are reasonable and reliable. To determine the reliability of data in the 

UN’s inventory of about 9,000 programs and activities (mandates) that are 

older than 5 years, we interviewed UN officials and performed some basic 

cross checks. The scope of the mandate review covers mandates of the 

General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Security 

Council that are older than 5 years and are active or potentially active. 

According to the Secretary-General, the resolutions adopted from year to 

year by each of the principal organs are the primary source of mandates. 

The Secretary-General also said that mandates are not easily defined or 

quantifiable, and a concrete legal definition of a mandate does not exist. In 

addition, the UN updates its inventory of mandates on a regular basis. We 

performed our analysis as of September 2006. We determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of establishing the approximate 

number of mandates and comparing the approximate number of mandates 

that have and have not been renewed in the last 5 years. Further, we 

believe that the cost estimates and the associated funds that the General 

Assembly appropriated to date for reform efforts are sufficiently reliable

for the purposes of this report. 

We performed our work between January and September 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted U.S. government auditing standards. 

Page 40 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

We identified and tracked the status of management reform initiatives in 

five key areas—management of the Secretariat, oversight, ethical conduct, 

review of programs and activities, and human rights—and identified 

disagreements among member states that may affect their implementation.

Table 3 provides information on the status of major United Nations (UN) 

management reform initiatives, actions that are still pending, and points of

disagreement. All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated. 

Table 3: Status of Major UN Management Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Improving the management of the Secretariat

Information and Communications Technology

Create the post of chief 

information technology officer to 

define and implement a 

comprehensive information

management strategy for the 

Secretariat. 

In July, the General Assembly 

(GA) approved the post of chief 

information technology officer.

The GA requested that the 

Secretary-General rejustify 

the level of resource 

requirements for the post of 

chief information technology 

officer in the budget for 

biennium 2008-2009. This 

proposal is scheduled to be

considered during the 62nd

session.b

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Align information and 

communications technology (ICT) 

priorities with Secretariat 

performance by incorporating 

better managerial decision-support 

tools, implementing an

organization-wide 

document/content management 

system, and recruiting or training 

people with skills in information

management and analysis. 

In July, the GA requested 

additional information on the 

structure, staffing requirements, 

functions, and the proposed ICT

relationship with other information 

and communications technology 

units. 

The Secretary-General plans 

to provide the additional 

information during the 61st 

session of the GA.

a

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Replace existing information 

technology systems such as the 

Integrated Management 

Information System (IMIS) with a 

fully integrated global system. The 

integration would include human 

resources, finance and 

accounting, and procurement 

systems. 

The GA agreed to replace IMIS 

with the Secretary-General’s 

proposed next generation 

enterprise resource planning 

system or a comparable system 

and approved funds for an 

information and communications 

technology detailed cost study and 

implementation plan. 

The Secretariat will conduct a

detailed cost study (including 

information on user needs, 

scope, timetable, strategy, 

and resource requirements) 

and plans to present the 

results during the 61st 

session of the GA.

a

There is general agreement 

that the current ICT system 

needs to be replaced, but the

GA will decide on the type of 

integrated system after the 

detailed cost study is prepared.

Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Page 41 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Delivery of Services 

Undertake systematic and detailed 

cost-benefit analyses of relocation, 

outsourcing, and telecommuting 

opportunities for select 

administrative services: (1) 

translation, editing and documents 

production by 9/2006; (2) internal 

printing and publishing processes 

by 9/2006; (3) medical insurance 

plan administration by 9/2006; (4) 

information technology support by 

12/2006; (5) payables, 

receivables, and payroll processes 

by 3/2007; and (6) staff benefits 

administration by 3/2007. 

In May, the Group of 77 (G-77) did 

not authorize the SecretaryGeneral to conduct a cost-benefit 

analysis of his proposals to 

relocate translation, editing, and 

documents production. However, 

the GA gave the SecretaryGeneral authority to pursue costbenefit analyses of the remaining 

proposed initiatives. 

The Secretariat is undertaking

cost-benefit analyses of the 

remaining proposals (2 

through 6) and plans to 

submit them to the GA for 

consideration during the 61st 

session.a

According to a U.S. official, the 

United States and 49 other 

countries voted against the GA

resolution put forth by the 

G-77 countries in May because

the United States believes, 

among other things, that the 

resolution constrained the 

Secretary-General from 

moving forward fully on 

outsourcing. 

Page 42 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Procurement Practices 

Continue comprehensive review of 

procurement rules, regulations, 

and policies in the following six 

broad areas: 

(1) establishing a more 

independent bid protest system; 

(2) implementing a risk 

management framework, including 

diagnostic tools to detect 

problematic transactions, more 

systematic rotation of staff serving 

in procurement, and the 

strengthening of the Headquarters 

Committee on Contracts; 

(3) improving the training of 

procurement staff in ethics, 

extending personal financial 

disclosure requirements to 

procurement staff, and improving 

career development; 

(4) reprofiling procurement staff 

requirements to attract high-quality 

people to serve in the field and 

support them with regular training 

and routine rotation; 

(5) increasing information-sharing 

on procurement matters to 

generate significant potential cost 

and efficiency savings; and 

(6) using a lead agency to create 

specialist buyers for the whole UN 

system. 

In June, the Secretary-General

provided a detailed report to the 

GA that includes the status of the 

proposed initiatives. In July, the 

GA authorized about $700,000 in 

funding for six new temporary

positions for 6 months. 

(1) The Secretary-General is 

expected to establish an 

independent bid protest system by 

September 2006. 

(2) The Secretary-General said 

that the Secretariat has developed 

diagnostic tools to identify 

potential irregularities in financial 

transactions using data in 

procurement databases. The 

Procurement Service has begun a 

lateral reassignment program 

within the office. The SecretaryGeneral requested three posts

under the support account for 

peacekeeping to strengthen the 

Headquarters Committee on 

Contracts. 

(3) The Secretary-General said 

that all Procurement Service staff 

have attended a special 

procurement ethics training 

course; financial disclosure is now 

required of all staff involved in

procurement activities, and work 

has begun in improving career 

development. 

(4) The Procurement Service

initiated a review of job functions 

for all staff under the guidance of 

the Office of Human Resources 

Management with a view to 

conducting a horizontal review of 

job classification within 

Procurement Service. 

(5) Information-sharing has begun 

in the area of air and sea freight 

contracts through joint negotiation 

with contractors. 

(6) The UN has been reviewing 

the use of a lead agency concept 

to create specialist buyers for the 

entire procurement system. 

The GA is scheduled to 

consider the SecretaryGeneral’s June 2006 detailed 

procurement report during its 

61st session.a

(1) The Procurement Service 

is seeking the guidance of the 

Office of Legal Affairs to 

develop detailed procedures 

for the independent bid 

protest system, which will be 

posted on its Web site for 

vendors. 

(2) A number of actions are 

ongoing, including managing 

the risks during the start-up 

and major expansion of 

peacekeeping operations. 

The Secretariat is developing 

a career path program for 

procurement staff that would 

allow rotation between 

headquarters and the field. 

The GA will consider staffing

for the Headquarter’s 

Committee on Contracts at 

the 61st session.a

(3) The Secretary-General 

said that procurement staff 

will receive continuous 

training throughout their 

careers. In addition, the 

Secretary-General requested 

resources to establish a 

planning, compliance, and 

monitoring section to lead the 

ethics and integrity program 

of the Procurement Service, 

among other responsibilities. 

The Secretary-General also 

said that career development 

frameworks will be developed 

for the procurement 

occupational group. 

The United States said that it is 

doubtful that the small amount

of resources provided for badly

needed improvements to the 

inadequate procurement 

functions would enable the 

“scandal-ridden activity” to be 

repaired quickly and decisively.

Page 43 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

(4) Following the review of job 

functions, the job profile for 

respective job functions would

be formalized to establish a 

career development path 

within the procurement 

profession. The SecretaryGeneral requested $800,000

for training and to help make 

the career development 

program fully functional. The 

GA will consider the job 

reprofiling at its 61st session.a

(5) Information sharing is also 

being considered among the 

UN system of organizations in

the areas of procurement of 

common requirements such 

as vehicles, information 

technology, and

communications equipment. 

(6) The Secretariat plans to 

expand interagency 

cooperation and to 

extensively use common 

service arrangements with 

other UN organizations. Work 

is under way to determine in 

which field specific UN 

entities have a competitive 

advantage. 

Page 44 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Human Resources

The Secretary General made the 

following proposals: 

(1) Develop a more proactive, 

targeted and efficient recruitment 

system. 

(2) Develop a more integrated 

approach to mobility, including 

authority for the Secretary-General 

to move staff wherever needed, 

strict enforcement of 

postoccupancy limits, designation 

of a majority of international 

professional posts as rotational, 

integration of Headquarters and

field operations into an 

organization-wide mobility 

program, expanded training, and 

improved work/life conditions. 

(3) Enhance career development 

through significant increases in

resources for staff development, 

systematic development of entrylevel professional staff, 

development of career models

with potential career paths, and 

mandatory induction and training 

requirements for managers. 

(4) Modify contractual 

arrangements and harmonize

conditions of service to meet the 

needs of an increasingly fieldbased organization, through one 

set of staff rules; replace 

permanent contracts with openended continuing appointments; 

align the conditions of service of 

Secretariat staff in the field with

those of UN funds and programs. 

(5) Strengthen leadership 

recruitment, training, and 

development plans to build the

cadre of senior and middle 

managers required for the modern 

complex global operations of the 

UN. 

The Secretary-General issued a 

detailed human resources report 

in late September 2006.c

The GA plans to review the 

Secretariat’s detailed human 

resources report in fall 2006. 

The Secretary-General plans 

to provide the GA at its 61st 

session an assessment of the

impact of previous and 

ongoing reforms as they 

relate to this proposal, 

including costs, administrative

implications, and concrete 

examples of how this reform 

would enhance the 

effectiveness of the work of 

the UN.a

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Page 45 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Redefine the role of the Deputy 

Secretary-General to assume

formal authority and accountability 

for the management and overall 

direction of the operational 

functions of the Secretariat. 

In May 2006, the GA passed a 

resolution that noted that the 

function of the role of Deputy 

Secretary-General should not

diminish the role or responsibilities 

of the Secretary-General. 

It will be up to the discretion 

of the next Secretary-General 

to decide on the delegation of

authority for his/her deputy. 

Two independent studies 

recommended the creation of a 

chief operating officer position

and the Secretary-General’s 

March 2006 report 

recommended that the Deputy 

Secretary-General assume 

formal authority and 

accountability for the 

management and overall 

direction of the Secretariat’s 

operations. However, a May 

2006 GA resolution noted that

the overall responsibility for the 

management of the UN rests 

with the Secretary-General. 

Therefore, it will be up to the 

discretion of the next 

Secretary-General to decide 

on the delegation of authority 

to his/her deputy. 

Regroup the 25 departments and 

entities reporting directly to the 

Secretary-General into about eight 

organizational groups or clusters, 

each group headed by an UnderSecretary-General. 

In May, the GA agreed with the 

Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions (ACABQ) that the 

Secretary-General’s successor will 

need to have a say in any 

regrouping of departments within 

the Secretariat as a means of 

streamlining reporting lines. 

The GA requested that this 

proposal be further developed

for the consideration of the 

next Secretary-General. 

There is no disagreement at 

this time since the proposal will 

be considered by the next 

Secretary-General. 

Provide dedicated resources for a 

staff buyout. 

The staff buyout review proposal 

was conducted as part of the 

detailed human resource report 

that was finalized in late 

September. 

The ACABQ and the Fifth 

Committee are scheduled to 

review the information on a 

staff buyout in conjunction

with the detailed human

resources report this fall, and 

the GA plans to consider it at 

its 61st session.a

As part of the 2005 World 

Summit outcome, the GA

requested that the SecretaryGeneral prepare a detailed 

proposal on a one-time staff 

buyout. However, until the 

proposal is presented, it is 

unclear whether the GA will 

agree or disagree on its 

content. 

Page 46 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Budget and Finance

In the area of strategic budgetary 

planning and implementation, the 

Secretary-General proposed that 

(1) budget appropriation be

consolidated from the current 35 

sections into 13 parts; 

(2) the Secretary-General should 

have the authority to redeploy

posts, as necessary, and to 

reclassify up to 10 percent of 

posts within each broad category 

within a given budget period; and 

(3) the Secretary-General be given 

the authority, within a given 

budget period, to use the savings 

from vacant posts, with a value not 

to exceed 10 percent of the overall 

post budget, for emerging 

priorities or unanticipated 

activities. 

 (1) In March, the ACABQ 

requested an example of the 

proposed change, which the 

Secretary-General provided in a 

detailed report in May. 

(2) For the biennium 2004-2005 

(January 1, 2004, to December 

30, 2005), the GA authorized the 

Secretary-General to redeploy 50 

posts. In July, the GA said that the 

50 posts experiment would not be 

extended beyond biennium 2006-

2007 and requested that the 

Secretary-General report at its 

62nd session, which begins in

September 2007, on the results of 

the experiment to redeploy 50

posts and on lessons learned. 

(3) In July, the GA authorized the 

Secretary-General, on an 

experimental basis, a limited 

discretion for budgetary 

implementation, for the biennia 

2006-2007 and 2008-2009, to 

enter into commitments up to $20 

million in each biennium for 

positions and nonpost 

requirements for the purpose of 

meeting the evolving needs of the 

organization. The SecretaryGeneral is authorized to use the 

working capital fund for this use. 

 (1) It is unclear from the GA’s 

July resolution what remain to 

be done. 

(2) The Secretary-General 

plans to provide the GA at its 

62nd session a report on the 

results of the experiment to 

redeploy 50 posts and on 

lessons learned. 

(3) The GA requested that the

Secretary-General submit a 

report for its consideration on 

the use of the experiment 

during the biennium, including

its impact on program 

delivery. The GA is scheduled 

to review the experiment at its 

64th session beginning in 

September 2009 to determine

whether it should be 

continued. 

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Page 47 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

In the area of financial 

management practices, the 

Secretary-General proposed 

(1) that peacekeeping accounts for 

separate field missions be

consolidated into one set of 

accounts and reports starting in 

2007 to improve cash 

management and operational 

flexibility; 

(2) introducing a new policy in July 

2006 to replace four existing

administrative instructions to 

govern the management of trust 

funds in order to simplify rules and 

procedures and to establish a new 

standard for support costs, lower 

than 13 percent, to bring it more in 

line with the fee structure at UN 

funds and programs; 

(3) increasing the ceiling of 

commitment authority for 

peacekeeping operations from $50 

million to $150 and delinked from 

a specified number of Security

Council decisions; 

(4) increasing the level of the 

Working Capital Fund for the 

regular budget from $100 million 

to $250 million;

(5) retaining budget surpluses,

including from peacekeeping 

operations, for use in subsequent 

periods; 

(6) creating a separate fund to

cover unanticipated expenditures 

arising from exchange rate 

fluctuations and inflation, to be

financed from budget surpluses; 

(7) charging interest on arrears on 

member states’ assessed 

contributions; and 

(8) adopting the International 

Public Sector Accounting 

Standards (IPSAS) by 2010 to

ensure a sound financial base, 

improve financial reporting, and 

facilitate accountability and 

transparency, etc. 

(1) In July, the GA reviewed this 

initiative and took no action. 

(2) In May, the Secretary-General 

reported that with respect to trust 

fund matters, administrative 

instructions are being prepared

and are expected to be finalized 

later in 2006. 

(3) In July, the GA reviewed this 

initiative and took no action. 

(4) In July, the GA authorized an 

increase in the working capital

fund from $100 million to $150

million effective January 1, 2007. 

(5) In June, the ACABQ reported 

that this matter is for the GA to

decide. 

(6) In July, the GA reviewed this 

initiative and took no action. 

(7) In June, the ACABQ reported 

that this matter is up to the GA to 

decide. 

(8) In July, the GA approved the 

adoption of IPSAS and provided 

the start-up cost to begin 

implementation. 

(1) The GA plans to address 

this initiative in its 61st 

session.a

(2) The Secretary-General is 

expected to submit 

administrative instructions to 

the GA for consideration later

in 2006. 

(3) The GA plans to address 

this initiative in its 61st 

session.a

(4) Member states will make 

advances to the working 

capital fund in accordance 

with the scale of assessments 

to be adopted by the GA for 

contributions to the regular 

budget for 2007. 

(5) The GA has not yet 

addressed this initiative. 

(6) In July, the GA said that it 

will address this matter in the 

future. However, its resolution 

does not specify when it will

do so. 

(7) In July, the GA took no 

action on this initiative. 

(8) The GA requested that the

implementation plan for 

IPSAS be synchronized with

the introduction of the new 

information technology 

system and that expenditures 

relating to information 

technology await a decision 

by the GA on the system to 

be used. 

In June 2006, Japan said that 

it has serious doubts about 

the proposal to consolidate 

peacekeeping accounts 

because, among other things, 

the consolidation would have a 

negative effect on some 

member states’ payment of 

arrears. 

The ACABQ pointed out that 

the scope and quality of 

information provided on the 

financing of peacekeeping 

operations should not be 

diminished. 

Page 48 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

In the area of performance 

evaluation, the Secretary-General 

proposed to 

(1) increase resources and 

rationalize performance 

measurement activities; 

(2) reform and synchronize 

monitoring and evaluation tools so 

that their results can be evaluated 

in the formation of the subsequent 

budget; 

(3) link the budget and planning 

process to the results of 

performance, work planning, and 

assessment of managerial 

performance in order to ensure the 

effective stewardship of resources 

provided by member states; and 

(4) introduce a new annual report, 

along with other steps, to 

consolidate and simplify financial 

reporting. 

In May, the GA requested, among 

other things, that the SecretaryGeneral submit a detailed 

proposal on strengthening the

monitoring and evaluation tools of 

the Secretariat, taking into 

account recent experience in

results-based budgeting. 

(1), (2), & (3) In May, the 

Secretary-General reported that 

these initiatives will be performed 

based on the recommendations of 

the comprehensive external 

review of governance and 

oversight. 

(4) The UN Secretariat is 

preparing this report, which will be 

done as part of (1) in reporting

mechanisms and in accordance 

with the GA’s guidance. 

(1), (2), & (3) The SecretaryGeneral will submit 

information on initiatives 1 

through 3 to the GA at its 61st 

session.a

(4) The Secretary-General 

plans to submit a 

comprehensive report to the 

GA in fall 2006.

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Page 49 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Reporting Mechanisms and Access to Information

Improve reporting mechanisms by 

(1) developing a single, 

comprehensive annual report of 

the Secretary-General to the GA, 

which will consolidate the 

information currently in five 

different reports; 

(2) consolidating about 45 reports 

on management and finance 

issues into 6 reports; 

(3) providing member states with 

real-time consolidated accounts of 

UN financial performance, on a 

regular quarterly basis, once the 

necessary information systems 

are in place; and 

(4) providing member states with a 

detailed policy proposal on public 

access to UN documentation. 

In May, the Secretary-General

provided a detailed report to the 

GA covering efforts to improve 

reporting mechanisms, including 

access to UN documentation. 

(1) In June, the ACABQ reported 

that there is a need to define more 

clearly the purpose of the 

comprehensive report and the 

target audience and that the 

Secretary-General should 

concentrate on developing a 

comprehensive financial and 

program report for the GA rather 

than for the general public. In July, 

the GA requested that the 

Secretary-General take into 

consideration the requests of the 

ACABQ. 

(2) & (3) In June, the ACABQ said 

that it welcomes efforts to 

consolidate reports, but that the 

matter is up to the GA. 

(4) In May, the Secretary-General 

provided the GA with information 

on public access to UN 

documents. However, the GA

requested additional information. 

(1) The Secretary-General 

plans to submit a 

comprehensive report to the 

GA in the fall; the GA is 

expected to review it in the 

fall and arrive at a decision. 

(2) & (3) In July, the GA said 

that all reports pertaining to 

administrative and budgetary 

matters are subject to the 

consideration of the Fifth 

Committee, but its position on

whether or how the 

Secretary-General should 

proceed with these two 

initiatives is not clear. 

(4) The Secretary-General 

plans to provide the GA at its 

61st session a 

comprehensive report 

containing detailed 

parameters, including 

information on resource 

requirements, financing 

mechanisms and the 

possibility of a fee structure.a

We did not identify any major 

disagreements.

Strengthening oversight

Create an Independent Audit 

Advisory Committee (IAAC) to

enhance the independence of the 

oversight structure and to help

member states better exercise

their oversight responsibilities. 

In November 2005, the SecretaryGeneral proposed the creation of 

the Independent Audit Advisory 

Committee and drafted provisional 

terms of reference for this entity. 

In December 2005, the General 

Assembly approved the creation 

of the committee and requested 

that an external evaluation review 

the terms of reference. In July 

2006, an independent external

evaluation recommended several 

changes regarding the number, 

appointment criteria, terms, and 

compensation of members of the 

committee. 

The GA plans to consider the 

proposed terms of reference 

at its 61st session with a view 

to establishing the IAAC.a

 

The independent external 

evaluator recommended that 

the IAAC be responsible for 

presenting the budget for 

OIOS to the Fifth Committee, 

thereby relieving the ACABQ

of its advisory role in this 

regard. 

Page 50 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Strengthen the capacity of the

Office of Internal Oversight 

Services (OIOS) so that it can 

effectively carry out its mandates. 

In December 2005, the GA

approved funds in the 2006-2007 

biennium budget for 39 temporary 

positions for OIOS and for an 

independent external evaluation of 

OIOS. In July 2006, the 

independent external evaluation 

report was finalized. The report

issued 23 recommendations in

nine areas to strengthen OIOS’s 

capacity. OIOS issued a response 

in July. 

In fall 2006, the GA is 

expected to address the 

recommendations of the 

independent evaluation and 

OIOS’s July 2006 report. 

OIOS disagreed with two 

recommendations that would 

restructure the office. For 

example, the independent 

evaluator recommended 

shifting functions, including 

investigations, to departments 

in the Secretariat. OIOS and 

some UN and U.S. officials 

disagreed with this 

recommendation, stating that

such a change would diminish

the UN’s oversight functions 

and the independence of its 

investigations and could create 

a potential conflict of interest. 

Promoting ethical conduct

Establish an Ethics Office to 

implement new whistleblower 

protection policy, administer more 

stringent financial disclosure 

requirements, provide guidance to 

staff on ethical issues, and 

develop standards, training, and 

education on ethical issues. 

In December 2005, the GA

approved funds for the ethics 

office in the 2006-2007 biennium 

budget. In January 2006, the 

Secretariat established the office 

with 4 professional and 2 

administrative interim full time 

staff. 

The ethics office is in the 

process of hiring permanent 

staff; developing ethics 

training; and engaging a 

contractor to review financial 

disclosure forms. 

In a report requested by a UN

staff union on reforming the 

UN’s internal justice system, a 

commission of experts 

recommended the following in

regard to the ethics office: (1) 

the head of the ethics office 

should be appointed at the 

Assistant Secretary-General 

level, rather than its current 

level of director; (2) the ethics 

office should report to an 

independent review board, 

rather than the Secretary 

General; (3) the ethics office 

should make the financial 

disclosure statements of senior 

managers available to the 

public; and (4) whistleblower 

protection responsibility should 

be removed from the ethics 

office and given to OIOS, 

Office of the Ombudsman, or a 

yet-to-be-created Office of 

Special Prosecutor. 

Page 51 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Reviewing programs and activities (mandate review)

Review programs and activities 

(mandates) of the GA, the 

Economic and Social Council, and 

the Security Council that are older 

than 5 years to strengthen and

better reflect the needs of the UN. 

In March 2006, the Secretariat

identified more than 9,000 total 

UN mandates, but only about 

6,900 are older than 5 years and 

included in the review. Since April 

2006, there have been ongoing 

discussions on mandates, but

member states have only agreed 

to set aside 74 completed 

mandates. No agreement has

been reached on any of the 

remaining mandates. 

Member states continue to 

review mandates. 

Member states disagree on 

several points regarding the 

review: (1) the G-77 countries

believe the review should 

include mandates older than 5

years that have not been 

renewed, while the United 

States and other developed 

countries argue that the review

should include all mandates 

older than 5 years, renewed or

not renewed; (2) the G-77 

wants any savings from the 

consolidation or elimination of 

mandates to go into the areas

from which they were derived 

or into development projects, 

and the United States says 

that a decision on where to 

redirect savings should be 

made after the review is 

complete; and (3) the G-77 

states that all politically 

sensitive mandates should be

excluded from the review, but 

the United States does not 

want to automatically exclude

any mandates from the review.

Page 52 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix II: Status of UN Management 

Reform Initiatives 

Proposed reform actions Status to date What remains to be done Points of disagreement 

Creating a Human Rights Council 

Establish a new Human Rights 

Council to strengthen and improve 

the ability of the UN to address 

human rights issues. 

In March 2006, the GA approved 

the charter for the new council, 

and the election of members took 

place on May 9, 2006. The body 

held its first meeting in Geneva in 

June 2006. 

The council held its second 

meeting in September 2006 during 

which it discussed reports from 

the Secretariat, the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights, 

and progress reports on the 

development of the mechanism to 

review the human rights situations 

of all member states. 

The council plans to hold a 

third meeting in November 

2006. 

The United States voted 

against the creation of the 

council because it did not 

sufficiently improve upon the 

former commission in the 

following ways: (1) members 

are elected by majority rather 

than the higher standard of a 

two-thirds majority and (2) 

member states under Security

Council sanctions are not 

automatically excluded from 

membership on the council. 

However, several 

nongovernmental 

organizations stated that the 

council is an improvement on

the commission and 104 UN 

member states voted for its 

creation. The United States did 

not run for election to the 

council in 2006 but stated that, 

if the new council is effective, it

will likely run in 2007. 

Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN.

a

The GA 61st session begin in September 2006. 

b

The GA 62nd session will begin in September 2007.

c

The UN provided us with a copy of the detailed human resources report after our report had gone to 

press; therefore, we did not have time to analyze and incorporate the information. 

Page 53 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower Protection Procedure 

Protection Procedure 

The United Nations (UN) ethics office is implementing the UN’s new 

whistleblower protection policy, which took effect in January 2006. The 

policy protects UN staff from retaliation for reporting misconduct of any 

other staff. Retaliation, as defined in the policy, includes any detrimental 

action recommended, threatened, or taken because an individual reported 

misconduct or cooperated with an authorized audit or investigation. The 

policy shifts the burden of proof for retaliation to the UN organization and

away from individuals, requiring the organization to prove in each case 

that the alleged retaliatory action is unrelated to the report of misconduct. 

According to the policy, the ethics office is responsible for receiving

complaints about threatened or actual acts of retaliation against staff and 

keeping confidential records of all complaints received. The office is also

responsible for conducting a preliminary review of the complaint to 

determine if the complainant engaged in an activity protected by the 

whistleblower protection policy, and there is sufficient evidence that the 

protected activity was a contributing factor in causing the alleged 

retaliation or threat of retaliation. 

In order for an individual to receive protection under the whistleblower 

protection policy, the report of misconduct should be made as soon as 

possible and no more than 6 years after the individual becomes aware of 

the misconduct. The individual reporting misconduct must submit 

information or evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct 

has occurred. UN staff may make reports of misconduct through 

established internal mechanisms including Office of Internal Oversight 

Services (OIOS), the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources 

Management, and the head of the department or office concerned. The 

whistleblower protection policy also protects staff who report misconduct 

to external mechanisms, such as the media or outside organizations, 

provided that all internal mechanisms have been exhausted. The UN is the 

first intergovernmental organization to provide such protection. 

Staff who believe that retaliatory action has been taken against them 

because they have reported misconduct or cooperated with an authorized 

audit or investigation are directed to forward all information and 

documentation to support their complaint to the ethics office. The 

whistleblower protection policy states that such complaints can be made

in person, by regular mail, e-mail, fax, or through the ethics office helpline. 

Once the ethics office receives a complaint, it conducts a preliminary 

review, which should be completed within 45 days. According to staff in 

the ethics office, they try to complete their reviews within that time frame, 

but, in some cases, they need more time to speak to everyone involved in 

the case. In reviewing a case, the ethics office reviews the evidence 

Page 54 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix III: The UN Whistleblower 

Protection Procedure 

presented by the complainant and interviews the individual being accused 

and any other witnesses of the alleged retaliation. If the ethics office finds 

that there is a credible case of retaliation or threat of retaliation, it refers 

the matter in writing to OIOS for investigation and immediately notifies 

the complainant, in writing, that his or her case has been referred. 

According to the whistleblower protection policy, OIOS seeks to complete 

its investigation and write a report within 120 days. The report is 

submitted to the ethics office. 

Once the ethics office receives the investigation report, it informs the 

complainant, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation and makes 

recommendations on the case to the head of the department or office 

concerned and to the Under-Secretary-General for management. The 

ethics office may recommend that disciplinary actions be taken against the 

retaliator. It may also recommend that measures be taken to correct the 

negative consequences suffered by the complainant as a result of the 

retaliatory action, including reinstatement or transfer to another office or 

function for which the individual is qualified. If the ethics office is not 

satisfied with the response from the head of the department or office 

concerned, it can make a recommendation directly to the SecretaryGeneral, who then provides a written response to the ethics office and the 

head of the office concerned. The whistleblower protection policy states

that retaliation against an individual for reporting misconduct is itself 

misconduct and will lead to disciplinary action. 

Page 55 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and

Cost-Benefit Analyses 

The United Nations (UN) Secretariat is currently conducting a number of 

assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive reports. We 

identified a number of key studies that include a detailed cost study for the 

proposed new information communications technology system, 

assessments of a staff buyout, and cost-benefit analyses of outsourcing 

internal printing and publishing processes, and the relocation of 

information technology support services. Some of these assessments will 

not be available for member states to consider until early 2007. In addition,

the projected completion dates represent the dates when the UN 

Secretariat is expected to complete the reports and forward them to the 

legislative bodies for review. It is not clear when the General Assembly 

will review and make a decision on these initiatives. Table 4 lists the key 

assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and comprehensive reports that the 

UN Secretariat is currently conducting. The UN Secretariat did not provide 

us with detailed information, such as status and projected completion date 

for each initiative. 

Table 4: Reviews, Assessments, and Cost-Benefit Analyses 

Type of study Projected completion date

Human resources 

Assessments for increased investments in recruitment, mobility, and 

career development, including, among other things, specific costs and 

administrative implications as well as required changes to regulations, 

rules, and procedures. 

September 2006.a 

Assessment for improving field benefits and conditions to create a 

single global staff, including, among other things, specific costs and 

administrative implications as well as required changes to regulations, 

rules, and procedures. 

September 2006.a

Assessments for strengthening leadership recruitment, including, 

among other things, specific costs and administrative implications as 

well as required changes to regulations, rules, and procedures. 

September 2006.a

Assessment of a staff buyout, including costs and mechanisms to 

ensure that it achieves its intended purpose.

September 2006.a

Information and communications technology

Assessment for implementing an organization-wide document content 

management system, including staffing requirements. 

March 2007 

Detailed cost study for a new information technology system, including 

a detailed implementation plan with user needs, scope, timetable, 

strategy, and resource requirements. 

March 2007 

Ways of delivering services

Cost-benefit analysis of outsourcing internal printing and publishing 

processes. 

September 2006 

Appendix IV: Information on Assessments 

and Cost-Benefit Analyses 

Page 56 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and

Cost-Benefit Analyses 

Type of study Projected completion date

Cost-benefit analysis of outsourcing medical insurance plan 

administration. 

September 2006 

Cost-benefit analysis of relocating information technology support 

services. 

December 2006

Cost-benefit analysis of relocating payables, receivables and payroll 

processes. 

March 2007 

Cost-benefit analysis of relocating staff benefit administration. March 2007 

Budget and finance

Detailed proposal on strengthening monitoring and evaluation tools in

the Secretariat, taking into account recent experience in results-based 

budgeting. 

The Secretary-General plans to to submit this information to 

the General Assembly during its 61st sessionb

 

Public access to un information

Comprehensive report on public access to UN documentation, including 

detailed parameters, information on resource requirements, financing 

mechanisms, and potential fee structure. 

During the 61st session, the Secretary-General plans to 

provide the GA with a comprehensive report containing 

detailed parameters, including information on resource 

requirements, financing mechanisms and the possibility of a

fee structure.b

Procurement 

Assessment for increasing information-sharing on procurement matters 

within the UN common system. 

The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General’s 

June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006. 

Information sharing assessment has begun; however, it is 

not clear from the detailed procurement report when it will 

be completed.

Assessment of the effectiveness of the internal controls of the UN 

organization compared to those of the UN Procurement Service. 

The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General’s 

June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006. 

Review business practices and procurement models in various 

industries with a view to realign procurement process to industry 

practices. 

The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General’s 

June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006. 

Formal review of vendor performance issues to be conducted at least 

on a 6-month basis for all major peacekeeping contracts. 

The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General’s 

June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006. Based 

on this report, in June 2005, the Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations established a Contracts 

Compliance and Monitoring Unit to consolidate vendor 

monitoring as a comprehensive management function. It is 

unclear from the detailed procurement report whether the 

UN has begun this initiative. 

Review of the financial threshold of Headquarters Committee on 

Contracts. 

Based on the Secretary-General’s June 2006 detailed 

procurement report, this review was expected to be 

completed by September 2006. The UN Secretariat did not 

respond to our request for the current status of this initiative.

Review of logistics support arrangements, such as rations contracting 

during mission start-up; regional or global fuel supply arrangements; 

long-term air charter arrangements; and freight forwarding and shipping 

arrangements. 

Based on the Secretary-General’s June 2006 detailed 

procurement report, the UN Secretariat is currently exploring 

these logistic support arrangements. It is unclear when they 

are expected to be completed. 

Page 57 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix IV: Information on Assessments and

Cost-Benefit Analyses 

Type of study Projected completion date

Procurement Service review of job functions for all staff to develop a 

career path for the procurement occupation. 

The GA is scheduled to consider the Secretary-General’s 

June 2006 detailed procurement report in fall 2006. Based 

on this report, the UN Secretariat has begun this review. It is 

unclear when it is expected to be completed.

Sources: GAO analysis of UN and the U.S. Mission to the UN data.

a

According to a UN Secretariat official, the detailed human resource report issued in September 2006 

includes this information. However, the UN report was release after our report had gone to press; 

therefore, we did not have time to analyze to determine whether all the elements of the assessment 

were addressed.

b

The General Assembly’s 61st session began September 2006. 

Page 58 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V of State : Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 59 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 60 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 61 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 62 GAO-07-14

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant 

Director; Jeanette Espinola, Stephanie Robinson, and Barbara Shields 

made key contributions to this report. Debbie J. Chung, Martin De Alteriis, 

Etana Finkler, and Grace Lui provided technical assistance. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

United Nations
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

United Nations: Weaknesses in Internal Oversight and Procurement 

Could Affect the Effective Implementation of the Planned Renovation. 

GAO-06-877T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006. 

United Nations: Oil for Food Program Provides Lessons for Future 

Sanctions and Ongoing Reform, GAO-06-711T. Washington, D.C.: May 2,

2006. 

United Nations: Internal Oversight and Procurement Controls and 

Processes Need Strengthening. GAO-06-710T. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 

2006. 

United Nations: Funding Arrangements Impede Independence of 

Internal Auditors. GAO-06-575. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

United Nations: Lessons from Oil for Food Program Indicate Need to 

Strengthen Internal Controls and Oversight, GAO-06-330. Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 25, 2006. 

United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, GAO-06-577. 

Washington, D.C., April 25, 2006. 

Peacekeeping: Cost Comparison of Actual UN and Hypothetical U.S. 

Operations in Haiti. GAO-06-331. Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2006.

United Nations: Preliminary Observations on Internal Oversight and 

Procurement Practices, GAO-06-226T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2005. 

United Nations: Sustained Oversight Is Needed for Reforms to Achieve 

Lasting Results, GAO-05-392T. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005. 

United Nations: Oil for Food Program Audits, GAO-05-346T. Washington,

D.C.: February 15, 2005. 

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Areas for 

Further Investigation. GAO-04-953T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2004. 

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Iraq’s 

Food Security. GAO-04-880T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004. 

United Nations: Observations on the Management and Oversight of the 

Oil for Food Program. GAO-04-730T. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2004. 

Page 63 GAO-07-14 United Nations
Related GAO Products 

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program. GAO-04-

651T. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2004. 

Recovering Iraq’s Assets: Preliminary Observations on U.S. Efforts and 

Challenges. GAO-04-579T. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2004.

United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments

Needed to Measure Impact, GAO-04-339. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 

2004. 

Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.N. Confronts Significant Challenges in

Implementing Sanctions against Iraq, GAO-02-625. Washington, D.C.: 

May 23, 2002. 

United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened Operations, but 

Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Achieved, GAO/NSIAD-00-150. 

Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000. 

United Nations: Progress of Procurement Reforms. GAO/NSIAD-99-71. 

Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999. 

United Nations: Status of Internal Oversight Services, GAO/NSIAD-98-9. 

Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1997. 

(320398) Page 64 GAO-07-14 United Nations
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