OVERSEAS 

RIGHTSIZING

State Has Improved 

the Consistency of Its 

Approach, but Does 

Not Follow Up on Its 

Recommendations

Report to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate

July 2012

GAO-12-799

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-799, a report to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

July 2012

OVERSEAS RIGHTSIZING

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, 

but Does Not Follow Up on Its Recommendations

Why GAO Did This Study

After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. 

embassies, a U.S. government panel 

determined that staffing levels had not 

been adjusted to reflect changing 

missions, requirements, and security 

concerns. In 2004, Congress 

mandated the establishment of the 

Office of Rightsizing within the 

Department of State. The office 

reviews levels of overseas staffing for 

all U.S. government agencies at every 

post every 5 years, projects future 

staffing levels it determines are 

appropriate to meet mission needs, 

and recommends ways to improve 

efficiency. Rightsizing is intended to 

align the number and location of staff 

with foreign policy priorities, security, 

and other constraints.

GAO examined (1) the consistency of 

State’s approach to conducting 

rightsizing reviews and how its 

projections compare to actual staffing 

levels; (2) the focus of State’s 

rightsizing recommendations; and 

(3) the extent to which State uses its 

rightsizing reviews and monitors 

implementation of recommendations. 

GAO reviewed 181 rightsizing reviews, 

compared projections in reviews with 

current actual staffing data, and 

interviewed officials from State and 

other agencies in Washington, D.C., 

and at overseas posts. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of State designate the appropriate 

entities to ensure that rightsizing 

recommendations are addressed and 

to track and report the actions taken to 

implement the recommendations. State 

described a number of actions it 

intends to take that could address 

GAO’s recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) has improved the consistency of its rightsizing 

approach across overseas posts. However, differences between future staffing levels 

it projects are appropriate to meet mission needs and actual staffing levels still exist 

due to unanticipated events and other factors. GAO reported in 2006 that State’s 

Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) had not been 

conducting its rightsizing reviews consistently. Some reviews discussed various 

rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing, while others did not. State has since

improved the consistency of its reviews by developing a variety of methodological 

tools and a standard template which it applies to each post. GAO found that over half 

of the 144 rightsizing projections analyzed were within 10 percent of actual staffing 

levels as of December 2011. In contrast, over 40 percent of the posts have staffing 

level differences of over 10 percent. Unanticipated events and other factors, such as 

changes in policies, contributed to these differences. For example, according to the 

management officer in Mozambique, M/PRI projected staffing increases as a result of 

the President’s program to combat AIDS, but the actual funding level for the program 

was much higher than anticipated. This resulted in higher actual staffing levels for 

both U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions.

Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations and 

eliminate duplicative services and positions. To develop its recommendations, M/PRI 

reviews the levels of all staff at posts and seeks input from State and non-State 

agencies. M/PRI relies on non-State agencies to determine independently their own 

staffing needs. Many of State’s recommendations for a specific post focus on the 

level of State’s administrative or management staff, rather than State’s programmatic 

staff or staff from other agencies. Some State officials stated that the activities of 

administrative and management staff are better suited to quantitative measurement 

while the qualitative nature of programmatic staff activities, such as discussing policy 

issues with foreign diplomatic counterparts, is more difficult to measure. 

State’s use of rightsizing reviews varies, and State does not follow up on review 

recommendations. State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations uses the staffing 

projections in rightsizing reviews to plan the size of new embassy compounds. 

Further, M/PRI uses rightsizing reviews when it assesses requests by State or other 

agencies to add staff to overseas posts, although the final decision is made by the 

respective Chief of Mission. In addition, Bureau of Diplomatic Security officials said 

that they incorporate rightsizing reviews into their annual staffing planning exercise, 

and some post officials said that they refer to rightsizing reviews to support staffing 

changes. Some U.S. officials stated that undertaking the rightsizing process acts as a 

check on growth in overseas staffing levels. However, some State regional bureau 

officials said that they do not actively use the reviews except as a historical overview 

of staffing, and some post officials said that they do not use the reviews at all. State 

often uses documents other than rightsizing reviews for decisions in areas including 

staffing levels. Finally, State does not monitor the implementation of rightsizing 

review recommendations and has not designated an office with responsibility for their 

implementation. State issues an annual report to Congress in which it lists the 

rightsizing reviews it has completed, number of positions recommended for 

elimination, and potential cost savings; the report does not address whether 

recommendations have been implemented. Because State does not track or report 

on the implementation of recommendations, State cannot determine if rightsizing

reviews are achieving their purpose of aligning overseas staffing levels with U.S. 

priorities.

View GAO-12-799. For more information, 

contact Michael J. Courts at (202) 512-8980 or 

courtsm@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Letter 1 

Background 3

State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, but 

Unanticipated Events and Other Factors Contribute to 

Differences between Actual and Projected Staff Levels 6

Rightsizing Recommendations Focus on State Administrative and 

Management Staff, and State Relies on Non-State Agencies to 

Determine Their Own Staffing Needs 15

State Offices Vary in Their Use of Rightsizing Reviews, and State 

Does Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing 

Recommendations 19

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 32

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Required Elements of Rightsizing Reviews 8

Table 2: Countries with the Largest Differences between December 

2011 Staffing Levels and Rightsizing Review Projections 13

Figure

Figure 1: Percentage of Rightsizing Reviews with December 2011 

Staffing Levels Over and Under Rightsizing Projections 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

ICASS International Cooperative Administrative Support Services

M/PRI Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation

MSRP Mission Strategic Resource Plan

NSDD-38 National Security Decision Directive 38

OBO Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations

OIG Office of Inspector General

PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

State Department of State 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 25, 2012

The Honorable John F. Kerry

Chairman

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

After the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, 

Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, a U.S. government panel convened to 

conduct an assessment of overseas presence determined that the 

staffing levels at embassies and consulates worldwide had not been 

adjusted to reflect changing missions, requirements, and security 

concerns. In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of 

Rightsizing within the Department of State (State).1 This office, now part 

of the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI), 

reviews staffing levels for all U.S. government agencies at every overseas 

mission2 once every 5 years and before undertaking all capital 

construction projects. The office also projects future staffing levels that it 

determines are appropriate to meet the missions’ needs and recommends 

ways to improve efficiency. Since 2002, we have conducted several 

reviews related to U.S. government staffing overseas.3

 

1

Pub. L. No. 108-199, Div. B, Title IV; 118 Stat. 80.

In these reviews, 

we examined the rightsizing process and issues related to the 

construction of new facilities overseas, among other things. In 2006, we 

found that the information presented within rightsizing reviews varied from 

2

U.S. overseas missions can encompass multiple locations, or posts, within a country. For 

example, the U.S. mission to Germany comprises six posts, including an embassy in 

Berlin, and consulates in Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Leipzig, and Munich.

3

See GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff Levels Can 

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

Embassy Construction: Process for Determining Staffing Requirements Needs 

Improvement, GAO-03-411 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2003); GAO, Overseas Staffing: 

Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and 

Carry Out Efforts, GAO-06-737 (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 30, 2006); and GAO, New 

Embassy Compounds: State Faces Challenges in Sizing Facilities and Providing for 

Operations and Maintenance Requirements, GAO-10-689 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 20, 

2010).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

post to post, and the rightsizing elements that the posts evaluated and 

reported were not consistent.

In response to your request, we examined (1) the consistency of State’s 

approach to conducting rightsizing reviews and how its projections 

compare to actual staffing levels; (2) the focus of State’s rightsizing 

recommendations; and (3) the extent to which State uses its rightsizing 

reviews and monitors implementation of recommendations.

To address these objectives, we reviewed rightsizing guidance, related 

legislation, 181 rightsizing reviews State undertook from 2005 through 

2011, and previous GAO reports related to U.S. government staffing 

levels overseas. We reviewed 14 rightsizing reviews in greater depth, to 

obtain additional information about the rightsizing process, the differences 

between projected and actual staffing levels, and post officials’ use of the 

reviews. We conducted site visits at 3 of the posts: Prague, the Czech 

Republic; Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Kuwait City, Kuwait. We 

communicated via teleconference and other means with the additional 

posts. To compare projected staffing levels in rightsizing reviews with 

actual staffing levels as of December 2011, we compared staffing data 

from State’s personnel database as of December 2011 with the staffing 

projections of 144 rightsizing reviews State conducted from 2006 through 

2011. We did not include all of the rightsizing reviews in the comparison 

between the actual and projected staffing levels for various 

methodological reasons, such as data reliability concerns and review time 

frames that were outside the scope of our analysis. To assess the 

reasons for the differences between the projection and the actual staffing 

levels, we constructed a composite index for each country taking into 

account the differences in staffing levels for various personnel categories. 

We then sent questions to the management officers in 10 countries with 

the highest indices: 5 for reviews that had projected staff levels that were 

higher than actual levels and 5 for those that had projected levels that 

were lower than actual levels. In addition, we discussed rightsizing with 

State officials in Washington, D.C., from M/PRI, State’s regional bureaus, 

the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), the Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security, and the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also 

discussed rightsizing with officials from non-State agencies based in 

Washington, D.C. or overseas, including the Departments of Defense 

(DOD); Commerce; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security; and 

Justice; and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Appendix I provides more information on our scope and methodology.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to July 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The U.S. government maintains more than 270 diplomatic posts, 

including embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices, in about 

180 countries worldwide. More than 80,000 U.S. government employees 

work overseas, including both U.S. direct hires and locally-employed staff 

under chief of mission4

In the aftermath of the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in 

Africa, State formed the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel to conduct 

an assessment of overseas presence. The panel determined that 

overseas staffing levels had not been adjusted to reflect changing 

missions, requirements, and security concerns. Some missions were 

overstaffed, while others were understaffed. In 2002, we outlined a 

framework for assessing overseas staff levels.

authority, representing more than 30 agencies 

and government entities. Agencies represented overseas include the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, 

Justice, State, the Treasury, and USAID.

5 In 2003, we found that 

U.S. agencies’ staffing projections for new embassy compounds were 

developed without a systematic approach or comprehensive rightsizing 

analysis.6

In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of 

Rightsizing within State. The Office of Rightsizing was combined with two 

other offices in 2007 to create M/PRI. The House Foreign Affairs 

 

4

A chief of mission is the principal officer, usually the Ambassador, in charge of a U.S. 

diplomatic mission abroad, and has full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and 

supervision of all U.S. government executive branch employees in that country (except for 

Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under the 

command of a U.S. area military commander). See 22 U.S.C. 3927.

5

GAO-02-780. 

6

GAO-03-411. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Committee directed the office to lead State’s efforts to develop internal 

and interagency mechanisms to coordinate, rationalize, and manage the 

deployment of U.S. government staff overseas. This legislation was 

intended to result in the reallocation of resources to achieve a leaner, 

streamlined, more agile and secure U.S. government presence abroad. 

The conference report accompanying the legislation establishing the 

Office of Rightsizing stated that a proper rightsizing plan should include a 

systematic analysis to bring about a reconfiguration of overseas staffing 

to the number necessary to achieve U.S. foreign policy needs, and noted 

that rationalizing staffing and operations abroad had the potential for 

significant budgetary savings. The office was directed by the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee to review all U.S. government staffing 

overseas, including all American and foreign national personnel, in all 

employment categories. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also 

directed OBO to work closely with M/PRI to ensure that projected staffing 

levels for new embassy compounds were prepared in a disciplined and 

realistic manner, and that these estimates become a basis for 

determining the size, configuration, and budget of new embassy 

construction projects.

M/PRI conducts rightsizing reviews before each construction project and 

on each mission every 5 years, among other responsibilities.7 M/PRI 

focuses on streamlining staffing levels by, for example, consolidating or 

outsourcing administrative functions. M/PRI also looks for opportunities to 

substitute less expensive, locally-employed staff for more expensive U.S. 

direct-hire employees.8

 

7

The legislation establishing the Office of Rightsizing also directed the Secretary of State 

to require chiefs of mission to review, not less than once every 5 years, every staff 

element under their authority, including staff from other departments or agencies of the 

United States, and recommend approval or disapproval of each staff element. Pub. L. No. 

108-447, Div. B. sec. 409(a). M/PRI coordinates this process and provides analysis of 

chief of mission submissions. 

According to the guidance M/PRI provides to 

8

U.S. overseas missions are staffed by both U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff, all 

of whom are considered during the rightsizing process. U.S. direct-hire staff work directly 

for a U.S. government agency (i.e., are not contractors); individuals who are hired locally 

to work at U.S. missions overseas are referred to as locally-employed staff. U.S. directhire staff salaries are paid for by budgets in Washington, D.C., while locally-employed staff 

salaries and benefits are paid for out of a specific post’s budget. M/PRI estimates that the 

average cost to maintain a U.S. direct-hire position overseas is approximately $530,000 

annually, which includes housing and other benefits and allowances. Costs for locallyemployed staff, who do not receive the same benefits and allowances as U.S. direct-hire 

staff, are often significantly less. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

overseas missions, a rightsizing analysis may lead to the reallocation of 

resources from one mission goal to another and to enhancing operational 

efficiency through regionalization9

In the first step of the rightsizing process, overseas missions, generally 

led by the mission’s management officer, prepare a report for M/PRI 

outlining their strategic goals, current staffing data for all agencies, and 

projected staffing levels 5 years into the future. State and non-State 

agencies present at an overseas mission provide their staffing data to be 

included in the mission’s submission to M/PRI. M/PRI officials stated that, 

under their current process, an M/PRI analyst usually visits the mission to 

assist in preparing the rightsizing report. After a mission completes its 

rightsizing report, the relevant regional bureau approves the submission 

before sending it to M/PRI. Next, M/PRI conducts its analysis of staffing at 

the mission, coordinating with the headquarters of non-State agencies to 

confirm the numbers provided at the mission for those agencies. When 

M/PRI completes a draft rightsizing review, other State bureaus and 

agencies have the opportunity to review and discuss it. According to 

officials from State bureaus, they frequently engage in a dialogue with 

M/PRI to negotiate the staffing projections to be published in the 

rightsizing review and in a majority of cases, differences in projected 

staffing numbers are resolved through these discussions. Once all 

bureaus and agencies have reviewed the rightsizing review document, 

M/PRI finalizes and publishes it on an internal State website. Since its 

creation in 2004, State’s rightsizing office has conducted 224 reviews.

and centralization. M/PRI uses GAO’s 

definition of rightsizing: aligning the number and location of staff assigned 

overseas with foreign policy priorities, security concerns, and other 

constraints. Rightsizing may result in the addition or reduction of staff, or 

a change in the mix of staff at a given embassy or consulate. M/PRI’s 

guidance stresses that all sections and agencies of an overseas mission 

should be included in a rightsizing analysis.

10

 

9

Regionalization could include outsourcing certain activities, such as voucher examining, 

from a post to a regional center or U.S. office.

According to M/PRI officials, all overseas missions have undergone the 

process once, and a second round of reviews is now under way.

10 M/PRI provided us with 181 rightsizing reviews within the time frame of our analysis. 

Since that time, M/PRI has completed additional reviews.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

The staffing levels of a mission are determined by the chief of mission 

through the National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38)11 process, 

which provides authority for the chief of mission to determine the size, 

composition, or mandate of personnel operating at the mission. To add or 

abolish U.S. direct-hire positions at a mission, agencies electronically 

submit an NSDD-38 request for the chief of mission to either approve or 

deny. Requests may only include one agency in one country, but may 

include requests for multiple positions. Formal submission is generally 

preceded by informal discussions about the requested positions, 

according to officials.

State has improved the consistency of its analyses across overseas 

missions, but differences between actual and projected staffing levels still 

exist due to unanticipated events and other factors. We reported in 2006 

that the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation (M/PRI) 

had not been conducting its rightsizing reviews in a consistent manner.12

State has since improved the consistency of its reviews by developing a 

variety of methodological tools and a standard template that it applies to 

each mission. These tools include ratios and formulas that compare 

missions similar in size and foreign policy priority to help M/PRI project 

what the office determines is the appropriate level of staffing at each 

mission. We found that although actual staffing levels as of December 

2011 were within 10 percent of projected staffing levels in over half of the 

reviews we analyzed, over 40 percent of the missions have staffing level 

differences over 10 percent. Unanticipated events and other factors, such 

as changes in policies and priorities, contributed to the differences 

between actual and projected staffing levels.

 

11NSDD-38 states that agencies with staff under chief of mission authority will ensure that 

approval from the chief of mission is sought, in coordination with State, before making any 

proposed changes to the size, composition, or mandate of the agencies’ staffing elements 

at the post. 

12 GAO-06-737. 

State Has Improved

the Consistency of Its 

Approach, but 

Unanticipated Events 

and Other Factors 

Contribute to 

Differences between 

Actual and Projected 

Staff Levels
 

Page 7 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

With its current approach to rightsizing, State has improved the 

consistency of its analysis across overseas missions. In 2006, we 

reported that the information presented in rightsizing reviews varied from 

mission to mission and the rightsizing elements that missions evaluated 

and reported were not consistent.13

According to current M/PRI officials, the methodology used in the 

rightsizing process has evolved since the office was created. M/PRI 

officials stated that their reviews are now more standardized than in the 

past. The reviews now contain the same types of information in a similar 

format and have a more uniform level of detail. The required elements of 

a rightsizing review include detailed analysis of current and projected staff 

for each section of an overseas mission, as shown in table 1. M/PRI has 

also refined its methodology for analyzing administrative, management, 

and program staff. M/PRI has developed uniform guidance for staff at 

overseas missions to use in preparing rightsizing submissions. The 

majority of State officials at posts we visited that had participated in a 

rightsizing review said that the M/PRI guidance was helpful for the post in 

completing its submission.

Some missions provided narratives 

discussing various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing and post 

security, while others did not. The reviews ranged in length from less than 

5 pages to over 20 pages.

 

13 GAO-06-737. 

State Has Improved the 

Consistency of Its 

Rightsizing Reviews Since 

2006
 

Page 8 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Table 1: Summary of Required Elements of Rightsizing Reviews

Element Description

Mission goals and objectives For each mission goal, identify the resources currently supporting that goal, and analyze the 

post’s specific achievements in meeting the objectives.

Current and projected staffing Analyze current and projected staffing in each section of an overseas post and for each agency, 

using comparative indicators. Complete the summary staffing table, including all sections and/or 

agencies, showing current staffing levels, projected staffing levels, and the net change.

Duplicative activities Assess areas of duplication, activities that are no longer required or may require adjustment of 

resource levels, and identify activities that require increased resources to achieve their 

objectives.

Competitive sourcing Identify services that are or could be outsourced, including services contracted by the embassy 

such as local guard services, vehicle maintenance, janitor services, gardening services, etc.

Regionalized services Identify activities that are or could be performed by regional or U.S.-based government 

personnel such as financial management and human resources services.

Substitution of locally-employed 

staff for U.S. direct-hire positions

Identify U.S. direct-hire or eligible family member positions for which locally-employed staff may 

be substituted. 

ICASSa workload count Compare the productivity of locally-employed staff in the different management service functions 

to worldwide average productivity and to the productivity of staff at other posts of approximately 

the same size and operating environment. 

Source: GAO and M/PRI.

a

The International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) system provides more than 

30 services—including financial management, human resources, and travel services, among others—

with costs of the services divided among the agencies and sub-agencies with staff at the post, based 

on the level of ICASS services used.

M/PRI has developed standard methodological tools to examine overseas 

staffing on a mission-by-mission basis. These tools are ratios and 

formulas that compare missions considered similar in size, foreign policy 

priority, and management and administrative requirements, and help 

M/PRI to determine what it believes to be appropriate staffing levels in 

each section of an overseas post. The total management ratio, for 

example, is the number of customer units divided by the number of U.S. 

direct-hire management positions.14 Further, the level of program staff15

 

14The total management ratio is a way to quantify the workload of service providers in the 

management section by measuring the amount of customer units served. Customer units 

represent the different customers served by the management section, including U.S. 

direct-hire staff, their family members, and locally-employed staff. 

is 

analyzed using two tools—the Four Factor Index and diplomatic density. 

The Four Factor Index is an attempt to measure a country’s theoretical 

15Program staff include State Department staff in the offices of the chief of mission, 

political affairs, economic affairs, and public diplomacy. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

foreign policy importance to the United States using a combination of 

factors such as population, gross domestic product, trade volume with the 

United States, and U.S. foreign assistance. Diplomatic density is an effort 

to quantify the size of the U.S. diplomatic presence in a country with 

respect to U.S. interests in that particular country. It is calculated by 

dividing the number of diplomatic direct-hire positions present in a given 

country by the Four Factor Index. According to M/PRI officials, diplomatic 

density tends to be relatively low in developed countries with which the 

United States has close relations, such as Canada, Japan, and Germany, 

or where our interests are limited or primarily humanitarian. Diplomatic 

density may be higher where the United States has or has recently had 

difficult relations or where vital security interests are at stake, such as in 

Russia and many of the countries in the Middle East.

Many post officials we spoke with considered M/PRI’s standardized 

analysis appropriate but emphasized the need for flexibility to account for 

varying circumstances at each post. Some officials noted that M/PRI’s 

comparative analysis among posts was particularly helpful in providing 

context for staffing decisions. For example, one management officer 

stated that the rightsizing review found that locally-employed staff at post 

had heavier workloads than their counterparts at similar posts. The post 

used this analysis as justification for requesting more locally-employed 

staff positions.

According to non-State officials, M/PRI generally coordinates with other 

agencies in preparing rightsizing reviews of U.S. government staffing 

overseas. In 2006, we reported that coordination with other agencies in 

the rightsizing process was initially limited.16 Non-State agencies had 

voiced a number of concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of 

Rightsizing, including their desire for greater participation in the rightsizing 

process. We recommended that the Office of Rightsizing increase its 

outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all relevant agencies 

with an overseas presence could discuss rightsizing initiatives on a

regular and continuous basis. During our current review, non-State 

officials stated that M/PRI’s current coordination efforts had improved.

 

16 GAO-06-737. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

For more than half of the 144 staffing projections based on rightsizing 

reviews that we analyzed, actual staffing levels as of December 2011 

were within 10 percent of review staffing projections, either higher or 

lower.17

 

17Rightsizing reviews usually project staffing levels 4 to 5 years into the future based on 

the existing levels at the time of the review. For actual staffing levels, we used data as of 

December 2011 from State’s post personnel database, which includes overseas staff 

numbers for all agencies. For the projected staffing levels, we used the rightsizing reviews’ 

numbers if the projection year was 2011 and we extrapolated the staffing levels if the 

projection year was beyond 2011. We did not include all of the rightsizing reviews in the 

comparison between the actual and projected staffing levels for various methodological 

reasons, such as data reliability concerns and review time frames that were outside the 

scope of our analysis. See appendix I for more information about our methodology.

However, over 40 percent of the projections based on the 

reviews had differences of greater than 10 percent. About 30 percent of 

these had more staff than projected and 13 percent had fewer (see fig. 1). 

In a few cases, the actual staffing levels as of December 2011 were much 

higher or lower than the projected levels. For example, the actual number 

of U.S. direct-hire desk positions (81) in Bolivia as of 2011 was less than 

half of the projected number of U.S. direct-hire desk positions (164). On 

the other hand, the actual number of U.S. direct-hire desk positions in 

Algeria (56) was nearly 20 percent higher than the projected level (45). 

See appendix I for more information about our methodology.

Over Half of Staffing 

Projections Were within 10 

Percent of Actual Staffing 

Levels as of December 

2011, but Some Posts Have 

Larger Differences
 

Page 11 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 1: Percentage of Rightsizing Reviews with December 2011 Staffing Levels 

Over and Under Rightsizing Projections

Notes:

1. The projected staffing levels were from the rightsizing reviews if the projection year was 2011 and 

were extrapolated if the projection year was beyond 2011. The actual staffing levels refer to the levels 

from the State post personnel database as of December 2011. The database includes overseas staff 

from State and non-State agencies.

2. Our comparison included 144 rightsizing reviews. We excluded reviews for a variety of reasons, 

including the following: (1) the projection year was before 2011; (2) the actual staffing level as of 

December 2011 was deemed unreliable; (3) the review was for an individual post, not for all posts in 

a country; and (4) the review had no projected staffing level.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Numerous factors contribute to differences between projected and current 

staffing levels, such as unanticipated U.S. and foreign government policy 

changes. Officials from ten missions we identified as having the largest 

differences between December 2011 staffing levels and the rightsizing 

projected staffing levels, either higher or lower, identified such factors.18

Table 2 shows the percentage differences between December 2011

actual staffing levels and projected total staffing levels based on the 

rightsizing reviews for these missions.

 

18To understand the factors that could explain the differences between the actual and 

projected staffing levels, we identified posts with relatively large differences by generating 

a composite index for each country. Based on the composite index, we identified the top 5 

countries with projected staff levels that were higher than actual levels and the top 5 

countries with projected staff levels that were lower than the actual level. We sent 

questions to the management officers in each of the 10 countries asking for their views on 

causes for the differences, and received responses from all of them. The following section 

summarizes responses from the management officers in these countries, as well as 

Kuwait, a country we visited.

Unanticipated Events and 

Other Factors Contribute 

to Differences between 

Projected and Current 

Staffing Levels
 

Page 13 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Table 2: Countries with the Largest Differences between December 2011 Staffing 

Levels and Rightsizing Review Projections 

Country

Percentage Differences between 

December 2011 Total Staffing Levels 

and Rightsizing Review Projections

December 2011 Staffing Level Below Rightsizing Projection

Libya -39

Philippinesa -32

Korea -30

Bolivia -28

Tunisia -24

December 2011 Staffing Level Above Rightsizing Projection

Burkina Faso 30

Mozambique 25

Bangladesh 22

Pakistan 21

Ghana 20

Source: GAO.

Notes: 

Because size of missions varies greatly, similar differences in percentages represent a higher number 

of staff in a larger mission than in a smaller mission.

a

The management officer in the Philippines explained that the large difference between the projected 

and the actual staffing levels was because rightsizing projections included certain contractor 

positions, such as local guards, janitors, gardeners and cafeteria workers that were not included in 

State’s post personnel database, which was the basis for the actual staffing level. After taking out 

these positions from the projection, the total actual staffing level was close to the projected level. 

This post was the only location we interviewed where staffing level differences were identified as a 

result of data differences, rather than other factors related to U.S. operations in the country. 

Unanticipated changes in U.S. government policies and priorities 

contribute to differences between actual and projected staffing levels at 

overseas posts.19 Programs such as the President’s Emergency Plan for 

AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)20

 

19Multiple factors can contribute to the differences between actual and projected staffing 

levels. The data we have are not at a level of specificity that would allow us to isolate the 

effect of each of the factors.

and USAID and State hiring initiatives, including 

20PEPFAR is a U.S. government initiative which began in 2008 with the goal to combat 

HIV/AIDS around the world.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Diplomacy 3.0,21

• According to the management officer in Mozambique, the increase in 

the number of U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions as 

a result of PEPFAR’s initiation was greater than anticipated.

have added additional staff to overseas posts, while 

other changes in U.S. foreign policy have led to lower-than-projected 

staffing levels.

• The introduction of the Visa Waiver Program for Korea reduced the 

need for consular officers to conduct visa interviews and led to lowerthan-projected staffing levels, according to the management officer in 

Korea.

• Ghana became a USAID priority country and the beneficiary of the 

Global Health Initiative, Feed the Future, and Partnership for Growth, 

which led to increased staffing levels, according to the management 

officer in Ghana.

• USAID’s and State’s hiring initiatives added a human resource officer, 

a political officer, and a general service officer, positions not 

anticipated at the time of the rightsizing review, according to the 

management officer in Mozambique.

• According to the management officer in Pakistan, increased funding to 

address development and security projects has led to higher staffing 

levels than the rightsizing review projected.

• The closure of an Arabic language school for State employees in 

Tunisia resulted in staffing levels below rightsizing projections, 

according to the management officer.

Unanticipated changes in foreign government priorities and political 

environment can contribute to differences between actual and projected 

staffing levels. A foreign government’s decision to eliminate program 

funding or request the closure of a U.S. program usually leads to lower 

staffing levels, as in the following examples.

• According to the Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait, the decrease in

Kuwaiti government funding for the Office of Military CooperationKuwait caused the post to reduce staffing levels beginning in 2009.

• In 2008, the Bolivian government ordered the U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Agency to leave Bolivia, leading to an unexpected reduction in staff, 

according to the management officer in Bolivia.

 

21Diplomacy 3.0 is State’s multi-year hiring program to increase its Foreign Service and 

Civil Service personnel.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

• According to the management officer in Libya, staff levels decreased 

after the evacuation and destruction of the U.S. embassy in February 

2011.

Additionally, some posts reported that they were unable to carry out the 

relatively large reductions in staffing levels projected in the rightsizing 

reviews, usually for locally-employed staff positions. M/PRI projected

sizeable reductions in locally-employed staffing levels for posts through 

outsourcing or contracting. However, some posts reported that a lack of 

viable service options in the local economy made it unfeasible to 

outsource or contract services. For example,

• In Mozambique, outsourcing services such as the motor pool, 

customs shipping, travel services, and warehousing are not feasible 

due to the country’s poor infrastructure, according to a management 

officer in the country.

• In Bangladesh, according to a management officer in the country, the 

post does not contract custodial services, warehouse services, or car 

repair as recommended by the rightsizing review because no local 

contracting options exist.

• In Burkina Faso, the embassy did not contract guard services 

because no major contractors exist in the capital, Ouagadougou, and 

local companies cannot provide the level of quality and service 

required by the post, according to the embassy’s management officer.

Rightsizing recommendations often focus on administrative or 

management positions, where efficiencies are considered likely to be 

achieved. M/PRI typically does not make recommendations to non-State 

agencies and generally relies on non-State agencies, as well as certain 

State bureaus, to determine their own staffing needs.

Rightsizing 

Recommendations 

Focus on State 

Administrative and 

Management Staff, 

and State Relies on 

Non-State Agencies to 

Determine Their Own 

Staffing Needs
 

Page 16 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations 

and eliminate duplicative services and positions;22 these 

recommendations often focus on State’s administrative and management 

staff. To develop its recommendations, M/PRI reviews the levels of all 

staff at missions and seeks input from both State and non-State agencies. 

Many of M/PRI’s recommendations that we analyzed focused on State 

administrative and management staff rather than programmatic staff or 

staff from other agencies. Officials stated that administrative and 

management functions are where greater efficiencies are considered 

likely to be achieved. M/PRI recommendations may include outsourcing 

or regionalization of administrative functions such as voucher processing 

or warehousing. These changes affect administrative staff responsible for 

those functions, at times addressing dozens of positions filled by locallyemployed staff. In Albania, for example, the rightsizing review 

recommended a reduction of over half of the locally-employed staff nondesk23

According to State officials, the focus on management services is 

appropriate because that is where duplication of effort is most likely to 

occur. State officials said that it is easier to apply M/PRI’s quantitative 

tools to administrative and management staff activities than to 

programmatic activities. According to State officials, administrative or 

management work is better suited to measurements that can be 

positions, from 216 to 93, mainly through outsourcing of guard 

services. In Bangladesh, the rightsizing review recommended eliminating 

27 locally-employed non-desk staff positions out of a total of 192 to 

improve the efficiency of administrative functions, such as building, 

gardening, and custodial services. The review found that the number of 

square meters maintained per service provider for both residential and 

non-residential buildings in Bangladesh was lower than the worldwide 

median. For example, the review found that the area a service provider 

maintained in Bangladesh was less than half that in other posts for nonresidential buildings and thus deemed the service to be inefficient. It 

recommended eliminating a sufficient number of positions to bring the 

ratio of square meters per service provider on par with other posts.

 

22M/PRI officials stated that their recommendations can make posts’ administrative 

services platform more efficient, which can lower costs for all agencies at a post.

23Desk positions are those that require the use of designated office and desk space, while 

those that do not need an office, such as guards and garden and custodial staff, are 

considered non-desk positions. These designations help OBO determine how much space 

is needed when planning construction of an embassy or consulate.

State’s Recommendations 

Generally Focus on State 

Administrative and 

Management Staff at a 

Specific Post to Improve 

Efficiency 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

compared across posts. For example, voucher examiners can record the 

volume of vouchers handled in a given time and the length of time they 

take to process. M/PRI has developed tools to assess the level of 

administrative support needed at posts of different sizes and has used 

those tools to compare posts of similar size. By comparing the efficiency 

of administrative services across similar posts, M/PRI has developed 

targets that posts should meet and uses these targets to identify posts 

that may be under- or overstaffed in administrative functions. For 

example, the rightsizing review for Paraguay recommended that the 

embassy cut one U.S. direct-hire position in administrative services 

support, a general services officer. This recommendation was based on 

comparing the workload of Paraguay’s service providers with workloads 

of service providers at similar posts—Uruguay, Croatia, and Cyprus. 

Rightsizing reviews also evaluate whether posts can utilize locallyemployed staff in a position rather than a more costly U.S. direct hire. For 

example, the 2010 rightsizing review for Kenya recommended that the 

post use appointment-eligible family members24

According to State officials, it is more difficult to quantify the workload of 

program staff such as political officers than that of administrative and 

management staff. M/PRI has developed methodological tools to 

measure a post’s diplomatic density and foreign policy priority for 

comparison with similar posts. However, State officials said that it is 

difficult to assess the efficiency of program staff due to the qualitative 

nature of their activities, such as discussing policy issues with their 

diplomatic counterparts or drafting briefing documents for visiting officials. 

Nevertheless, M/PRI makes recommendations regarding programmatic 

staff where possible. In Kuwait, for example, the 2010 rightsizing review 

to serve in office 

management positions instead of U.S. direct hires. According to M/PRI, 

the cost of employing these appointment-eligible family members is only a 

fraction of U.S. direct-hire employees and helps minimize the American 

footprint in dangerous overseas environments. In addition, M/PRI 

recommended that appointment-eligible family members be considered 

for employment if host country nationals are unavailable or present an 

unacceptable risk.

 

24An appointment-eligible family member is a U.S. citizen spouse or domestic partner, or 

U.S. citizen child who is at least 18 and up to their 21st birthday, and who is included on 

the travel orders of a foreign service or civil service employee or uniformed service 

member permanently assigned to an overseas post under chief of mission authority. The 

appointment-eligible family member must be a resident at the employee’s overseas post.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

recommended the periodic reevaluation of the political and economic 

sections to assess the possibility of combining them. In some cases, 

M/PRI has made broader recommendations for posts to review levels of 

staff across an entire region. For example, M/PRI recommended that the 

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs reevaluate an appropriate 

presence in former Warsaw Pact country posts, given that the political 

and economic environment in these countries has shifted dramatically 

during the past 2 decades.

M/PRI reviews all U.S. government staffing overseas and incorporates 

staffing data and projections from non-State agencies with a presence 

overseas.25

According to some bureau officials, non-State agencies that are relatively 

new to operating overseas have been slow to acclimate to the rightsizing 

process. State officials noted that non-State agency officials in 

Washington might have a different view of long-range overseas staffing 

needs than their agency officials at post. Several officials from different 

regional bureaus said that agencies prefer to conduct their own strategic 

planning and staffing exercises and view rightsizing as an activity internal 

to State. Officials from several non-State agencies confirmed that they 

While chiefs of mission have final decision-making authority 

on staffing changes at their missions, M/PRI officials stated that their 

office does not have the authority to direct non-State agencies’ overseas 

staffing decisions. M/PRI generally does not analyze staffing numbers of 

other U.S. agencies overseas or make recommendations affecting these 

staff. Instead, M/PRI officials stated that they rely on these agencies to 

conduct their own rightsizing assessments and determine independently 

what their staffing needs will be for each post. M/PRI infrequently makes 

recommendations to other agencies, such as USAID. For example, M/PRI 

recommended that USAID evaluate the distribution of its staff in Central 

America, questioning the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of high 

USAID staffing levels in El Salvador and suggesting that USAID’s 

development resources could be better utilized elsewhere in Central 

America. However, such broader recommendations are an exception in 

rightsizing reviews and not a common occurrence, according to M/PRI 

officials.

 

25State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of Diplomatic Security also have 

methodologies for determining staffing levels. 

State Does Not Often Make 

Recommendations 

Directed at Other U.S. 

Government Agencies and 

Relies on These Agencies 

to Determine Their Own 

Staffing Needs Overseas
 

Page 19 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

conduct their own internal staffing analyses. For example, officials from 

the Department of Homeland Security noted that they review overseas 

staffing on an ongoing basis, since current events dictate the 

department’s operational needs. Similarly, officials from the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention stated that they evaluate overseas 

staffing through annual updates to their strategic staffing plan and look for 

opportunities to reduce U.S. direct hires by empowering locally-employed 

staff to serve in senior management and leadership positions. The 

Defense Intelligence Agency coordinates the DOD’s rightsizing efforts at 

U.S. posts; DOD components reevaluate positions worldwide as 

requirements change to ensure that staff are best positioned to achieve 

the department’s mission, according to an agency official.

State uses rightsizing reviews to plan facilities construction and for certain 

staffing considerations, but some U.S. officials said that use of the 

reviews is limited, and State officials do not monitor whether 

recommendations are implemented. State’s Bureau of Overseas 

Buildings Operations (OBO) uses the staffing projections in rightsizing 

reviews to plan the size and estimate the initial costs of new embassy and 

consulate compounds. Further, M/PRI uses rightsizing reviews when it 

assesses requests from State or other agencies to add staff to overseas 

posts, although the respective chief of mission makes the final decision 

for his or her mission. However, some regional bureau officials said that 

they do not actively use the reviews except as a historical overview of 

staffing, and some post officials said that they do not use the reviews at 

all. In addition, State often uses documents other than rightsizing reviews 

to inform decisions in areas such as determining staffing levels and 

regionalization. Finally, State does not monitor the implementation of 

rightsizing review recommendations and has not designated an office with 

that responsibility, making it difficult to know the extent to which 

rightsizing reviews are having an impact.

State uses rightsizing reviews for various purposes, according to U.S. 

officials. These officials use reviews to, among other things, plan new 

construction, assess requests to add staff to a post, and sometimes, in 

conjunction with other information, allocate resources. In addition, some 

State officials stated that rightsizing is the only comprehensive process to 

verify the number of overseas positions and the personnel occupying 

them.

State Offices Vary in 

Their Use of 

Rightsizing Reviews, 

and State Does Not 

Monitor 

Implementation of 

Rightsizing 

Recommendations 

Some State Officials Use 

Rightsizing Reviews to 

Plan Construction and for 

Certain Staffing 

Considerations 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

The reviews that precede the construction of a new diplomatic compound 

have the most impact, according to M/PRI’s fiscal year 2010 report to 

Congress, because OBO uses the rightsizing projections to plan the size 

and estimate the preliminary costs of such projects. OBO officials told us 

that using rightsizing reviews to plan new construction is a significant 

improvement over the process previously used, which was informal and 

not systematic.26 Rightsizing reviews must accompany any proposal for 

new construction that is sent to the Office of Management and Budget 

and to Congress. While OBO bases its construction plans on M/PRI’s 

rightsizing review, OBO officials stated that they also verify the staffing 

numbers in the rightsizing reviews with the staffing numbers in personnel 

databases and with agency and post officials. If post staffing levels 

increase by more than 10 percent (the amount of growth space OBO 

builds in) after a project has started, OBO asks M/PRI to do a rightsizing 

revision to obtain more accurate numbers and improve construction 

planning, according to OBO officials.27 Regional bureau officials stated 

that they and post officials pay particularly close attention to rightsizing 

reviews that are conducted in preparation for construction because they 

want to ensure that OBO plans enough space for the new diplomatic 

compounds.28

Further, M/PRI and post officials stated that they use rightsizing reviews 

when assessing requests by State or other agencies through the NSDD38 process to add staff to overseas posts, although the final decision on 

requests is made by the chief of mission. An M/PRI official stated that 

rightsizing reviews are intended to be used by the chief of mission to 

inform decisions on staffing, including those made through the NSDD-38 

process. A few post management officers told us that the rightsizing 

 

26In 2003, prior to the establishment of M/PRI, we reported that U.S. agencies’ staffing 

projections for new embassy compounds were developed without a systematic approach 

or comprehensive rightsizing analyses. See GAO-03-411. 

27While many of the new U.S. facilities were planned or built prior to the start of the current 

rightsizing process, which began in 2004, some were planned using current rightsizing 

reviews. M/PRI identified 21 rightsizing reviews that were used to plan construction. OBO 

officials said that most of the new facilities OBO has built have had more staff move in 

than originally planned. In a 2010 report on new embassy compounds completed between 

2001 and 2009, we found that actual staffing levels exceeded the originally-built office 

space by more than 10 percent at almost half of the new buildings that we analyzed. See 

GAO-10-689. 

28According to officials, OBO’s planning process typically incorporates a 10 percent future 

growth allowance to accommodate future unanticipated growth. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

process had prompted posts to review staffing requests more carefully. 

One management officer said that the rightsizing process also prompted 

a more substantial justification for NSDD-38 requests, adding 

organization and structure to the decision-making process. Another 

management officer said that rightsizing prompted the post to launch a 

new internal mechanism to control growth. The post instituted an internal 

pre-NSDD-38 vetting process requiring each office or agency to justify the 

need for a requested position via internal memorandum and explain how 

it would be funded and address other logistical needs (such as available 

office space).

In addition, some officials from State bureaus and posts told us that they 

use rightsizing reviews in a variety of other ways. Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security officials said that they use rightsizing reviews in conjunction with 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, annual Mission Strategic 

Resource Plans (MSRP),29

Some post officials, particularly those in management functions, said that 

they refer to rightsizing reviews to support staffing changes. For example, 

the management officer in Paraguay stated that the post concurred with 

the rightsizing recommendation to eliminate an assistant general services 

officer position; post officials are now in the process of abolishing the 

position. The financial management officer in Sarajevo said that she had 

already considered outsourcing cashiering, but a rightsizing 

recommendation to do so gave her more incentive to take action. Further, 

according to M/PRI officials, M/PRI’s 2007 review on Uruguay 

and other information to make resource 

allocation decisions in their annual staffing planning exercise. In addition, 

an official in Kuwait said that she read the rightsizing review when she 

arrived at post because it gave a more concise summary of conditions at 

post than other documents, such as the MSRP. Further, a regional 

bureau official stated that the primary value of rightsizing was that it 

forces missions to systematically collect information and plan for future 

staffing. Several officials stated that undertaking the rightsizing process 

acts as a check on growth in overseas staffing levels. For example, 

M/PRI’s fiscal year 2011 report to Congress states that M/PRI projected 

42 fewer U.S. direct-hire positions than missions had projected.

 

29Posts articulate country goals and make budget requests to support those goals through 

the MSRP. The MSRP serves as the programmatic planning tool for all U.S. government 

agencies with programming in that country. State is currently in the process of 

transitioning to a new planning system to replace the MSRP. 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

recommended adding a second U.S. direct-hire public diplomacy position, 

and the post has since implemented that recommendation.

According to State officials, M/PRI provides a broader perspective in 

analyzing overseas staffing, providing information on where posts are 

overstaffed or understaffed, and recommending potential ways to achieve 

greater efficiencies. OBO officials stated that rightsizing is an independent 

process that provides staffing projections. According to regional bureau 

officials, the rightsizing review is currently the only tool that provides a 

comprehensive process to verify the number of overseas positions and 

the personnel occupying them. Officials from several regional bureaus 

said that M/PRI’s broader perspective in analyzing post operations was a 

benefit to rightsizing, as posts tend to have a narrower, more parochial 

perspective on what staffing levels are necessary.

Several U.S. officials stated that they do not actively use rightsizing 

reviews; they view other documents and tools as more timely and useful 

for planning and staffing decisions. For example, officials from a regional 

bureau said that they do not actively use the reviews except as a 

historical overview of staffing. Officials from one regional bureau said that 

the 5-year reviews do not have as clear a use as those done specifically 

for construction. Some State post officials, especially in non-management 

functions, said that the rightsizing reviews were of little or no use to them.

Several U.S. officials stated that that they use MSRPs and OIG reports 

more frequently than rightsizing reviews to make staffing and resource 

allocation decisions. These officials said that they were more aware of the 

annual MSRPs, which are more current than 5-year rightsizing reviews, 

and OIG reports and recommendations, which require follow-up until they 

are closed. Officials said that rightsizing reviews, done every 5 years, 

quickly become outdated as the situation at a post changes. Officials from 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that, while the 

rightsizing review is a long-term planning document, the more immediate 

time frame of the annual MSRP is more actionable, given the short-term 

program-driven nature of the agency’s work. Further, some State officials 

told us that because the rightsizing process is still relatively new and done 

at each post only once every 5 years, many post management officers 

have not yet gone through a rightsizing review and may be unfamiliar with 

it. As a result, some post officials may be resisting the rightsizing process 

rather than viewing it as a tool, according to M/PRI officials.

Some U.S. Officials Use 

Rightsizing Reviews Less 

Often than Other 

Documents that Are More 

Timely and More Widely 

Known 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

In addition, some officials said that the final rightsizing reviews are not 

widely disseminated, or that they do not know how to find the reviews.

Department of Homeland Security officials said that this is the first year 

State has given them access to the final rightsizing review on State’s 

intranet. Previously, while they provided comments on drafts, they were 

not given access to the final document. In addition, a human resources 

officer at one of the posts we visited stated that the training State 

provides to new human resources officers does not mention the 

rightsizing review. Several officials at the posts we visited said that they 

first learned about their post’s rightsizing review in an announcement of 

our visit to discuss rightsizing.

State has not clearly designated an office with responsibility for pursuing 

implementation of rightsizing recommendations and does not track 

recommendation status after completing a rightsizing review, making it 

difficult for M/PRI to assess impact.30

State officials have differing opinions about who should be responsible for 

implementing recommendations. M/PRI’s 2010 report to Congress states 

that rightsizing decisions are implemented through the NSDD-38 process, 

with the final decision resting with the chief of mission. However, one post 

official stated that regional bureaus should have responsibility for taking 

action on rightsizing recommendations because they make resource 

allocations across posts. Other post and regional bureau officials, in 

contrast, stated that individual posts have responsibility to take action on 

rightsizing recommendations because the recommendations are 

generally directed at the posts, not the bureau. Still other officials stated 

that the posts and regional bureaus should share responsibility for 

implementing the recommendations. Officials from one regional bureau 

said that M/PRI’s recent rightsizing recommendations were often 

developed in concert with the regional bureaus, which could prompt the 

The legislation that established the 

rightsizing process states that the Secretary of State shall take actions to 

carry out the recommendations made in each rightsizing review.

 

30According to GAO’s standards for internal control in the federal government, 

management should assess the quality of performance over time and ensure that the 

findings of audits and other reviews are promptly resolved. Resolution could be through 

correcting identified deficiencies, producing improvements, or demonstrating that the 

findings and recommendations do not warrant management action. GAO, Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 1999).

State Does Not Monitor 

Implementation of 

Rightsizing 

Recommendations and 

Has Not Clearly 

Designated an Office 

Responsible for Following 

Up on Recommendations
 

Page 24 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

bureau to follow up and encourage the post to implement the 

recommendations. M/PRI began requiring posts to provide 

recommendation implementation action plans in 2007 in response to one 

of our previous recommendations.31

Some post officials noted that there is little incentive to implement 

recommendations, particularly if the recommendations are to decrease 

the workforce size. While posts may agree with rightsizing 

recommendations in concept, the tendency is for posts to protect their 

staffing levels and look for increases if possible. For example, an official 

in Prague agreed with a rightsizing recommendation to conduct a 

strategic regional review of staffing in former Warsaw Pact countries to 

determine whether the number of positions could be reduced. He noted, 

however, that it would be difficult to accomplish in practice because posts 

lack incentive to cut positions. The post’s budget provides salaries and

other compensation for locally-employed staff, while State’s headquarters 

budget provides U.S. direct-hire staff salaries.

However, officials said that they 

stopped doing the plans after about a year. The time horizon for 

implementing the rightsizing recommendations varied to such an extent 

that frequent reevaluation of progress would have been required to 

ensure compliance, which was impractical given M/PRI’s resource 

constraints, according to M/PRI officials. Officials from both M/PRI and 

the regional bureaus have noted that M/PRI does not have the authority 

to compel implementation of rightsizing recommendations.

32

Because it is unclear which entity is responsible for addressing 

recommendations, and State does not monitor actions taken in response 

to rightsizing reviews, State’s ability to report to Congress on the results 

of the reviews is limited. No entity within State monitors implementation of 

rightsizing recommendations. Some regional bureau officials have stated 

that, since M/PRI makes the recommendations, it should be M/PRI’s 

responsibility to track their implementation. M/PRI issues an annual report 

As a result, posts lack 

incentive to reduce U.S. direct-hire staff even though they are more costly 

than locally-employed staff. In addition, the chief of mission in a particular 

country has final authority over staffing decisions and may have priorities 

that extend beyond rightsizing considerations.

 

31GAO-06-737. 

32The post budget also provides some benefits to U.S. direct-hire staff.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

to Congress33 in which it lists the rightsizing reviews it has completed, the 

number of staff positions recommended for elimination, potential cost 

savings, and information on NSDD-38 decisions to add or abolish 

positions overseas. M/PRI’s fiscal year 2010 report to Congress stated 

that rightsizing is a tool in reallocating existing personnel resources and 

related costs and ensuring that requests for new resources are the 

minimum required to meet national goals and objectives. The report 

asserted that rightsizing had resulted in 838 fewer U.S. direct-hire 

positions between 2005 and 2010, decreasing future costs by an 

estimated $503 million per year for these positions. However, these 

numbers were simply an accounting of what M/PRI recommended, not 

what actually occurred. The report did not indicate whether rightsizing 

review recommendations had been implemented. M/PRI did not review 

those positions to determine if they were in fact eliminated, and, if so, 

whether they were reinstated later. In addition, the eliminated positions 

would not necessarily result in a net cost savings to the government. For 

example, although some U.S. direct-hire positions might be cut at one 

post, the persons occupying those positions could then be assigned to a 

position at a different post. M/PRI officials noted that they no longer 

calculate decreases in future costs because these numbers are 

problematic. M/PRI’s fiscal year 2011 report to Congress does not include 

these estimates.

Rightsizing reviews play a crucial role in planning construction of new 

diplomatic facilities overseas, can inform bureau and post decisions on 

staffing, and have prompted some posts to reassess staffing increases. 

M/PRI has improved the consistency of its rightsizing approach over the 

past several years. In addition, undertaking the rightsizing process can 

act as a check on growth in overseas staffing. A valuable component of 

the reviews is the recommendations made to improve post operations.

The legislation that established the rightsizing process requires the 

Secretary of State to ensure that rightsizing recommendations are 

addressed; however, State officials have not developed a clear approach 

or designated an office to address, track, and report on such 

recommendations. No State office has responsibility for following up on 

 

33Congress requires State to submit an annual report on the rightsizing reviews that 

occurred during the previous 12 months, trends in overseas staffing, and the Secretary of 

State’s recommendations regarding such reviews.

Conclusions 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

recommendations, and posts or bureaus have limited incentive to 

undertake an examination of recommendations and implement them if 

they prove to have value. Further, any actions post officials take to 

implement recommendations may not be known or documented outside 

the post, which contributes to a substantial loss of information for State 

officials. Although the reviews have certain limitations, including 

competing priorities at posts, State has not yet realized the full potential of 

its rightsizing reviews. To strengthen the impact of future rightsizing 

reviews, State needs a process by which it can capture this information to 

inform future decisions about the optimal number and mix of staff at posts 

overseas to maximize the use of limited resources. Such a process would 

also strengthen State’s ability to report to Congress on the 

accomplishments of its rightsizing process.

To strengthen the effectiveness of the rightsizing effort, we recommend 

that the Secretary of State designate the appropriate entity or entities to 

take the following two actions: 

1. ensure that rightsizing recommendations are addressed, including 

time frames for their evaluation and implementation, and

2. track and report on the actions taken to implement the 

recommendations.

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. In its written 

comments, reproduced in appendix II, State emphasized that correctly 

aligning staffing with foreign policy goals and ensuring the maximum 

safety and efficiency of overseas operations remain top department 

priorities. State also noted that, given the critical role rightsizing reviews 

play in determining staffing levels in preparation for the construction of 

diplomatic facilities overseas and informing bureau and post decisions on 

future staffing needs, it is important that the rightsizing function be carried 

out optimally and that rightsizing data and analysis be shared widely. 

State indicated that it would carefully consider our recommendations, and 

it described a number of actions it intends to take that could address 

them. State noted that M/PRI will take the lead with regard to tracking 

implementation of rightsizing review recommendations. For rightsizing 

reviews initiated after August 1, 2012, as part of the ongoing second cycle 

of reviews, M/PRI analysts will outline the extent to which specific 

recommendations M/PRI provided in the previous rightsizing cycle have 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 27 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

been implemented, as appropriate. State proposed that this information 

on progress related to implementation of M/PRI’s recommendations for 

overseas posts be included in the yearly rightsizing report to Congress 

beginning in December 2012. In addition, beginning in calendar year 

2013, M/PRI will survey each mission 1 year after the completion of a 

rightsizing review to assess progress with regard to the implementation of 

recommendations. Posts will be asked to report on measures taken to 

comply with recommendations, provide a time frame for doing so, or 

explain changing conditions or policies that make compliance unfeasible. 

State proposed to then include this additional information in the yearly 

rightsizing report to Congress beginning in December 2013. Further, 

State reported ongoing efforts to refine analytical tools used in the 

rightsizing analysis and cited an intention to expand the number of 

outreach sessions and training on rightsizing to classes at its Foreign 

Service Institute. 

State also provided technical comments that were incorporated, as 

appropriate. We provided the Departments of Defense; Health and 

Human Services; Homeland Security; and Justice; and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development with relevant excerpts of the report and 

requested technical comments, but none were provided.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies of this report to the Secretary of 

State. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

me at (202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this reported 

are listed in appendix III.

Michael J. Courts

Acting Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the consistency of the 

Department of State’s (State) approach to conducting rightsizing reviews 

and how its projections compare to actual staffing levels; (2) the focus of 

State’s rightsizing recommendations; and (3) the extent to which State 

uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors implementation of 

recommendations.

Our scope included the 181 rightsizing reviews that State’s Office of

Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) completed 

between 2005 and 2011 that were provided within the time frame of our 

review. Each U.S. overseas mission has undergone at least one 

rightsizing review, according to M/PRI; a few have undergone two 

reviews.

To obtain information on the consistency of State’s approach to 

conducting rightsizing reviews, the focus of rightsizing recommendations, 

and the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors 

implementation of recommendations, we reviewed agency documents—

including M/PRI’s annual reports to Congress, and Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) reports—and interviewed officials from State and nonState agencies, both in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts. 

Specifically, we discussed rightsizing with State officials in Washington 

from M/PRI, regional bureaus, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 

Operations; the Bureau of Diplomatic Security; the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs; and the OIG. We also spoke with officials from non-State 

agencies in the United States and overseas, including the Departments of 

Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

and Justice, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

To obtain more detailed information on the consistency of State’s 

approach to conducting rightsizing reviews, how projections compare to 

actual staffing levels, the focus of rightsizing recommendations, and how 

State uses and monitors implementation, we selected 14 reviews to 

analyze in greater depth, traveling to 3 of the posts and contacting the 

other 11 by telephone or email. We based our selections on interviews 

with M/PRI and State’s regional bureaus, the content of the rightsizing 

reviews, and the political and security conditions at post to ensure that we 

analyzed a range of experiences. In selecting posts, we considered the 

date the rightsizing review was completed, whether other U.S. agencies 

were present at post, geographic diversity and whether a post was 

located in a new embassy compound. We traveled to Prague, the Czech 

Republic; Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Kuwait City, Kuwait to 

discuss their respective rightsizing reviews with post officials. While at 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

post, we interviewed officials in each embassy section, including the 

office of the chief of mission, management, human resources, financial 

management, facilities management, the regional security office, political 

affairs, public affairs, and consular affairs, among others. We also met 

with officials from other U.S. government agencies present at post. We 

also communicated with management officers at the following 11 

missions: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Korea, Libya, 

Mozambique, Pakistan, Paraguay, the Philippines, and Tunisia.

To obtain additional information on the consistency of State’s approach to 

conducting rightsizing reviews, we reviewed agency documents—

including M/PRI’s annual reports to Congress, M/PRI’s guidance to posts, 

and M/PRI’s guide to rightsizing for its analysts—and interviewed officials 

from State and non-State agencies, both in Washington, D.C., and at 

overseas posts. During our overseas site visits to the Czech Republic, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kuwait, we discussed the rightsizing 

process with the embassy section heads. To examine M/PRI’s 

coordination with other U.S. government agencies, we spoke with officials 

from non-State agencies in the United States and overseas. We also 

discussed their process for allocating overseas staff with these officials. In 

addition, we reviewed legislation related to the establishment of the Office 

of Rightsizing within State and the intent of rightsizing. To examine how 

M/PRI’s methodology has evolved in recent years, we reviewed 181 

rightsizing reviews completed by M/PRI between 2005 and 2011. We 

reviewed information papers on M/PRI’s methodological tools for 

assessing both administrative staff and program staff, including the total 

management ratio and diplomatic density.

To assess the extent to which State’s staffing projections compare with 

actual staffing levels, we relied on two main sources of data: (1) the 

staffing projections in the rightsizing reviews, which we manually entered 

into a spreadsheet and (2) the actual staffing levels State extracted from 

the Post Personnel database for us. To assess the reliability of the data, 

we conducted a data consistency check and interviewed knowledgeable 

State officials on how the data were collected and maintained, as well as 

how the data were extracted for our use. We sent the staffing projection 

data we manually entered to State for verification. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose of comparing staffing 

projections with actual staff levels as of December 2011. We obtained 

181 rightsizing reviews from the Office of Rightsizing. We took the 

following steps to reduce the number of reviews to 144 for the 

comparison analysis:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

• deleted entries with projection years prior to 2011;

• deleted entries based on an older review if there were multiple 

reviews;

• deleted entries with unreliable data. For example, State told us that 

Afghanistan personnel numbers were not reliable;

• consolidated projections for bilateral and multilateral missions in the 

same country. For example, we combined projections for the U.S. 

missions to Belgium, the European Union, and the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization into one entry;

• consolidated projections for multiple posts in one country into one 

entry. For example, we consolidated projections for posts in Russia 

and posts in Poland; and

• deleted entries with no projections.

To compare rightsizing projections to the actual staffing levels of 2011, 

which is the year for which State provided personnel data, we 

extrapolated 2011 staffing levels based on rightsizing review projections. 

We assumed linear growth or decline in staffing levels. For example, if the 

base year was 2008 and the projection year was 2013, we divided the 

change in staffing levels by 5 (5 years between the projection year and 

the base year) to get the annual change in staffing levels. We added the 

changes for 3 years (3 years between the base year and 2011) to the 

base-year staffing level. We then identified the number of reviews in each 

category of differences between the actual and the projection: within 10 

percent, 10 to 50 percent overprojection, 10 to 50 percent 

underprojection, more than 50 percent overprojection, and more than 50 

percent underprojection. Missions with overprojections had fewer staff 

than projected, while those with underprojections had more.

To understand the factors that could lead to differences between the 

actual and projected staffing levels, we identified posts with relatively 

large differences by generating a composite index for each country, 

taking into consideration the differences in absolute numbers and 

percentages for the following three categories: (a) U.S. direct-hire desk 

positions, which have the most significant impact on the physical space at 

a post; (b) locally-employed staff, which comprise the majority of the 

personnel overseas; and (c) country total, which captures all personnel at 

a post . Based on the composite index, we identified five countries for 

overprojection—Tunisia, Libya, Bolivia, Korea, and the Philippines—and 

five countries for underprojection—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, 

Mozambique, and Burkina Faso. The differences between projected and 

actual total staffing levels as of December 2011 were over 10 percent for 

all 10 countries. We then sent questions to the management officers in 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

each country asking them the reasons for the differences. We 

summarized their responses in the report.

To obtain information on the focus of recommendations made by State’s 

rightsizing office, we reviewed 181 rightsizing reviews completed by 

M/PRI between 2005 and 2011. During our overseas site visits to the 

Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kuwait, we discussed the 

rightsizing recommendations with the relevant section heads at each 

post. We also discussed rightsizing recommendations with the 

management officers in the other 11 missions that we selected for more 

in-depth review.

To assess the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and 

tracks implementation of recommendations, we reviewed agency 

documents, including M/PRI’s annual report to Congress, and interviewed 

officials from State and non-State agencies, both in Washington, D.C., 

and at overseas posts to obtain information on how officials use the 

reviews and monitor implementation. In addition, we reviewed our prior 

work on rightsizing, embassy construction, and guidance on internal 

controls.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 32 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 33 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 34 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 35 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 36 GAO-12-799 Overseas Rightsizing

Michael J. Courts, (202) 512-8980 or courtsm@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Ming Chen, Debbie Chung, 

Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Mark Dowling, Etana Finkler, Leslie 

Holen (Assistant Director), Heather Latta, Lisa Reijula, and Christina 

Werth made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320854)
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 website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.