DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE

Foreign Service 

Midlevel Staffing Gaps 

Persist Despite 

Significant Increases 

in Hiring

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

June 2012

GAO-12-721

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-721, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

June 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Foreign Service Midlevel Staffing Gaps Persist 

Despite Significant Increases in Hiring 

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2009, GAO reported on challenges 

that State faced in filling its increasing 

overseas staffing needs with 

sufficiently experienced personnel and 

noted that persistent Foreign Service 

staffing and experience gaps put 

diplomatic readiness at risk. State is 

currently undertaking a new hiring 

plan, known as “Diplomacy 3.0,” to 

increase the size of the Foreign 

Service by 25 percent to close staffing 

gaps and respond to new diplomatic 

priorities. However, fiscal constraints 

are likely to delay the plan’s full 

implementation well beyond its 

intended target for completion in 2013.

In addition, State’s first Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review

highlighted the need to find ways to 

close overseas gaps. GAO was asked 

to assess (1) the extent to which 

State’s overseas midlevel experience 

gaps in the Foreign Service have 

changed since 2008 and (2) State’s 

efforts to address these gaps. GAO 

analyzed State’s personnel data; 

reviewed key planning documents, 

including the Five Year Workforce 

Plan; and interviewed State officials in 

Washington, D.C., and at selected 

posts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State update 

its Five Year Workforce Plan to include 

a strategy to address midlevel Foreign 

Service gaps and a plan to evaluate 

the success of this strategy. State 

reviewed a draft of this report and 

agreed with GAO’s recommendation.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) faces persistent experience gaps in overseas 

Foreign Service positions, particularly at the midlevels, and these gaps have not 

diminished since 2008. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, State increased the size of 

the Foreign Service by 17 percent. However, these new hires will not have the 

experience to reach midlevels until fiscal years 2014 and 2015. As shown in the 

figure, GAO found that 28 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were 

either vacant or filled by upstretch candidates—officers serving in positions 

above their grade—as of October 2011, a percentage that has not changed since 

2008. Midlevel positions represent the largest share of these gaps. According to 

State officials, the gaps have not diminished because State increased the total 

number of overseas positions in response to increased needs and emerging 

priorities. State officials noted the department takes special measures to fill highpriority positions, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. 

Overseas Foreign Service Positions Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch Assignments, and 

Vacant, 2008 and 2011 

State has taken steps to increase its reliance on Civil Service employees and 

retirees, as well as expand mentoring, to help address midlevel experience gaps

overseas; however, State lacks a strategy to guide these efforts. State is 

currently implementing a pilot program to expand overseas assignments for Civil 

Service employees. Efforts to expand the limited number of these assignments 

must overcome some key challenges, such as addressing new gaps when Civil 

Service employees leave their headquarters positions and identifying qualified 

Civil Service applicants to fill overseas vacancies. State also hires retirees on a 

limited basis for both full-time and short-term positions. For example, State used 

limited congressional authority to offer dual compensation waivers to hire 57 

retirees in 2011. As a step toward mitigating experience gaps overseas, State 

began a pilot program offering workshops that include mentoring for first-time 

supervisors. State acknowledges the need to close midlevel Foreign Service 

gaps, but it has not developed a strategy to help ensure that the department is 

taking full advantage of available human capital flexibilities and evaluating the 

success of its efforts to address these gaps. 

View GAO-12-721. For more information, 

contact Michael Courts at (202) 512-8980 or 

courtsm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Letter 1 

Background 2

Even with Increased Hiring, State Faces Persistent Midlevel

Experience Gaps Overseas 7

State Has Taken Steps to Address Midlevel Experience Gaps 

Overseas but Has Not Included These Steps in Its 

Workforce Plan 17

Conclusions 26

Recommendation for Executive Action 26

Agency Comments 26

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28

Appendix II Analysis of Factors Associated with Vacancies and 

Upstretch Assignments 32

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 41

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Tables 

Table 1: Civil Service Conversions to Foreign Service Generalist 

Positions in 2010 and 2011 21

Table 2: WAE Appointments, by Bureau, in Fiscal Year 2011 24

Table 3: Percentages of Positions with Different Characteristics 

That Were Filled and Vacant, and Odds and Odds Ratios 

Indicating the Differences between Categories 34

Table 4: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating the 

Differences in the Odds on Positions Being Vacant 

between Positions with Various Characteristics 36

Table 5: Percentages of Positions with Different Characteristics 

That Were Filled by Employees Below Grade Level Versus 

at or above Grade Level, and Odds and Odds Ratios 

Indicating the Differences between Them 39

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Table 6: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating the 

Differences in the Odds on Positions Being Filled with 

Below-Grade Employees between Positions with Various 

Characteristics 40

Figures

Figure 1: State’s Workforce by Employee Type, as of June 30, 2011 3

Figure 2: Overseas Foreign Service Positions Filled at Grade, Filled 

with Upstretch Assignments, and Vacant, 2008 and 2011 9

Figure 3: Locations of Overseas Positions 2008 and 2011, as of 

October 31, 2011 10

Figure 4: Position Levels Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch 

Assignments, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2011 11

Figure 5: Generalist Positions Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch 

Assignments, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2011 14

Figure 6: Positions within the 10 Largest Specialist Skill Groups 

That Are Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch 

Assignments, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2011 15

Abbreviations

AFSA American Foreign Service Association 

AIP countries Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan

BSRP Bureau Strategic and Resource Plan 

GEMS Global Employee Management System 

LNA Limited Non-Career Appointment

OMS Office Management Specialist 

QDDR Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 

State Department of State 

WAE When Actually Employed

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-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

June 14, 2012

The Honorable Daniel Akaka

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, the Federal Workforce,

and the District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Department of State (State) staffs U.S. Foreign Service employees to 

more than 270 posts worldwide to carry out American foreign policy. In 

2009, we reported on challenges that State faced in filling its increasing 

overseas staffing needs with sufficiently experienced personnel and noted 

that persistent Foreign Service staffing and experience gaps put 

diplomatic readiness at risk.1

 

1

GAO, Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing Staffing and 

Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts, 

State has acknowledged that the priority it 

places on meeting huge staffing demands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

Pakistan—referred to as AIP countries—has contributed to gaps 

elsewhere, despite efforts to hire Foreign Service employees at levels 

above attrition. State is currently undertaking a new hiring plan, known as 

“Diplomacy 3.0,” to increase the size of the Foreign Service by 25 percent 

to close staffing gaps and respond to new diplomatic priorities. However, 

fiscal constraints are likely to delay full implementation of this increase 

well beyond its intended target for completion in 2013. State also 

recognizes that it will take a number of years before entry-level officers 

hired under Diplomacy 3.0 gain the experience needed to fill the shortfall 

in midlevel positions. State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and 

Development Review (QDDR), released in 2010, highlighted the need to 

find additional ways to close overseas experience gaps at the midlevels, 

including drawing on the expertise of the department’s Civil Service 

employees and Foreign Service retirees, and expanding mentoring 

programs.

GAO-09-874 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2009).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

In response to your request, we assessed (1) the extent to which State’s 

overseas midlevel experience gaps in the Foreign Service have changed 

since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps.

To address these objectives, we analyzed State’s personnel data from 

the department’s Global Employee Management System (GEMS), as of 

September 2008 and October 2011. We did not validate whether the total 

number of authorized overseas positions was appropriate or met State’s 

needs. We also analyzed State data on the use of retirees and Civil 

Service employees in overseas posts; key planning documents, including 

State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan, the 

QDDR, the Bureau of Human Resources’ Strategic and Resource Plan, 

and other relevant documents; and our previous reports on human capital 

challenges at State and effective strategic workforce planning at other 

federal agencies. We also interviewed State officials at the Bureau of 

Human Resources, as well as the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the six 

regional bureaus; the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA); and 

the American Academy of Diplomacy. In addition, we interviewed 

management officers at selected overseas posts. Appendix I contains a 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 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.

State is the lead agency responsible for implementing American foreign 

policy and representing the United States abroad. It staffs over 270 

embassies, consulates, and other posts worldwide. Figure 1 shows the 

number and share of State’s Foreign Service, Civil Service, and Locally 

Employed staff. According to State, about two-thirds of the Foreign 

Service serves overseas at a given point in time, whereas almost all Civil 

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Service employees serve domestically.2 Locally Employed staff serve 

overseas.3

Figure 1: State’s Workforce by Employee Type, as of June 30, 2011

Foreign Service employees serving abroad fall into two broad 

categories—generalists and specialists. Generalists help formulate and 

implement the foreign policy of the United States and are grouped into 

five career tracks: consular, economic, management, political, and public 

diplomacy. Specialists serve in 18 different skill groups to support 

overseas posts worldwide or in Washington, D.C. These skill groups are 

grouped into eight major categories: Administration, Construction 

Engineering, Facility Management, Information Technology, International 

 

2

Civil Service employees work in a variety of areas at State domestically, including Budget 

Administration, Contract Procurement, Foreign Affairs, General Accounting and 

Administration, Information Technology Management, Legal Counsel, Management 

Analysis, Passport Visa Services, Personnel Management, and Public Affairs. 

3

Locally Employed staff include foreign nationals and U.S. citizen residents employed via 

direct-hire appointments, personal services agreements, and personal services contracts. 

Foreign Service Workforce
 

Page 4 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Information and English Language Programs, Medical and Health, Office 

Management, and Security.

State typically hires Foreign Service employees at the entry level. Among 

Foreign Service generalists, the entry-level consists of three position 

grades—06, 05, and 04.4

State requires its Foreign Service employees to be available for service 

anywhere in the world and reserves the ability to direct officers to any of 

its posts overseas or to its Washington headquarters. However, the 

department does not generally use this authority, preferring other means 

of filling high-priority positions, according to State officials. The process of 

assigning Foreign Service employees to their positions typically begins 

when they receive a list of upcoming vacancies for which they may 

compete. Foreign Service employees then submit a list of positions for 

which they want to be considered, or “bids,” to the Office of Career 

Development and Assignments and consult with their career development 

officer. The process varies depending on an officer’s grade and functional 

specialty, and State uses a variety of incentives to encourage Foreign 

Service employees to bid on hardship posts, including the high-priority 

posts in AIP countries.

Midlevel positions include grades 03, 02, and 

01, and senior-level positions include career minister, minister counselor, 

and counselor positions. Officers compete annually for promotion to the 

next higher grade. It typically takes about 4 to 5 years for an officer to 

move through the entry-level grades to a midlevel grade. The levels 

associated with Foreign Service specialist position grades vary across 

specialist function. For example, a senior-level office management 

specialist position is a 04 grade, whereas a senior-level medical 

technician position is a 02 grade.

State has a Five Year Workforce Plan, which it updates annually. This 

document describes State’s strategic workforce planning process, which 

includes the following five elements:

• Establish strategic alignment: links human resources to strategic 

goals.

 

4

Within the Foreign Service, grade numbers decrease as a position’s level rises. 

Five Year Workforce Plan
 

Page 5 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

• Identify gaps by analysis of requirements and talent pool: compares 

estimated staffing requirements to projected workforce levels to 

identify workforce gaps and strength.

• Develop management plans: develop plans related to recruitment, 

hiring, promotion, training, and career development.

• Implement management plans: implement plans related to 

recruitment, hiring, promotion, training, and career development.

• Evaluate strategies: evaluate plans, strategies, programs, and 

initiatives.

State uses an Overseas Staffing Model, which it updates every 2 years, 

to ensure that the department’s personnel resources are aligned with its 

strategic priorities and foreign policy objectives. The model uses a variety 

of inputs—such as the priority level of overseas posts, visa processing 

requirements, and security needs—to estimate the required Foreign 

Service staffing levels at each overseas location. The model includes 

seven categories of embassies based primarily on the level and type of 

work required to pursue the U.S. government’s diplomatic relations with 

the host country. For example, the lowest-level category includes specialpurpose small embassies with limited requirements for advocacy, liaison, 

and coordination in the host country’s capital. The highest-level category 

includes the largest, most comprehensive full-service posts where the 

host country’s regional and global role requires extensive U.S. personnel 

resources.

State has sought to rebuild the size of its Foreign Service after a period of 

hiring below attrition levels during the 1990s that contributed to staffing 

gaps overseas and endangered diplomatic readiness, according to the 

department. To address these gaps, State implemented the “Diplomatic 

Readiness Initiative,” which resulted in hiring over 1,000 new employees 

above attrition from 2002 to 2004. However, as we previously reported, 

most of this increase was absorbed by the demand for personnel in 

Afghanistan and Iraq.5

 

5

GAO, Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite 

Initiatives to Address Gaps, 

In 2009, State began another hiring effort called 

GAO-06-894 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006). 

Overseas Staffing Model

Recent Hiring Initiatives
 

Page 6 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Diplomacy 3.0 to increase its Foreign Service workforce by 25 percent by 

2013. However, due to emerging budgetary constraints, State now 

anticipates this goal will not be met until 2023. 

In 2009, we reported that State faced persistent staffing and experience 

gaps at overseas posts, particularly at the midlevel.6 The report’s analysis 

of State’s personnel data, as of September 2008, found that posts with 

the greatest hardship levels had higher vacancy rates than posts with no 

or low hardship levels.7

In addition, we reported on a variety of measures and incentives that 

State used to help ensure that Foreign Service employees bid on 

hardship posts. These ranged from monetary benefits to changes in 

service and bidding requirements. In response to our recommendation, 

State evaluated these measures and incentives in 2011. According to 

State officials, this evaluation found that officers used the entire range of 

incentives available—financial and nonfinancial—based on preferences 

and priorities and that career stage and family status were key to affecting 

the officers’ decisions.

Posts with the greatest hardship also were more 

likely to fill positions through “upstretch” assignments—assignments in 

which the position’s grade is at least one grade higher than that of the 

officer assigned to it. The report also found that these staffing and 

experience gaps can compromise posts’ diplomatic readiness in a variety 

of ways. For example, gaps can lead to decreased reporting coverage; 

loss of institutional knowledge; and increased supervisory requirements 

for senior staff, detracting from other critical diplomatic responsibilities.

 

6

GAO-09-874. 

7

State defines hardship posts as those locations where the U.S. government provides 

differential pay incentives—an additional 5 percent to 35 percent of basic salary, 

depending on the severity or difficulty of the conditions—to encourage employees to bid 

on assignments to these posts and to compensate employees for the hardships they 

encounter. For the purposes of this report, we refer to these differential pay incentives as 

hardship differentials. We define hardship posts as those posts where the hardship 

differential is at least 15 percent. We define posts of greatest hardship as those where the 

hardship differential is at least 25 percent. We define posts with low hardship differentials 

as those where the hardship differential is 5 percent or 10 percent. We define posts with 

no hardship differentials as those where the hardship differential is 0 percent.

Findings from 2009 GAO 

Report on Staffing 

Hardship Posts
 

Page 7 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

State increased the size of the Foreign Service by about 17 percent in 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but overseas experience gaps—the 

percentage of positions that are vacant or filled with upstretch 

assignments—have not declined since 2008 because State increased the 

total number of overseas positions in response to increased needs and 

emerging diplomatic priorities. These gaps are largest at the midlevels 

and in hardship posts. According to State officials, the department takes 

special measures to fill high-priority positions.

State made substantial progress in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 toward the 

Diplomacy 3.0 goal of increasing the size of the Foreign Service by 25 

percent by 2013. In those years, State hired about 1,900 Foreign Service 

employees above attrition, increasing the total size of the Foreign Service 

by about 17 percent, or over two-thirds of its total 5-year goal. According 

to State, in addition to expanding overseas staffing, the increase in hiring 

allowed the department to double the size of the training complement, 

which provides flexibility to enroll Foreign Service employees in language 

courses—some of which require up to 2 years of training—without 

increasing the size of overseas gaps.

However, due to budget constraints, hiring has slowed significantly, and 

State only added 38 new Foreign Service positions above attrition in fiscal 

year 2011. In that year, it also modified its hiring projections to reflect a 

downward revision of future budget estimates for fiscal year 2012 and 

beyond. State now projects it will add 150 new Foreign Service positions 

above attrition in fiscal year 2012 and 82 new Foreign Service positions 

above attrition in each of the following 6 years. As a result, State revised 

its estimate for when it will complete the Diplomacy 3.0 hiring initiative. In 

April 2011, State estimated it would complete the increased hiring called 

for in Diplomacy 3.0 in fiscal year 2018; however, State now estimates it 

will not complete the hiring initiative until fiscal year 2023. State officials 

noted that these estimates may be revised again based on future budget 

environments.

Our analysis of State staffing data shows that State faces experience 

gaps in over one-quarter of Foreign Service positions at overseas posts, 

a proportion that has not changed since 2008. The largest gaps are in 

midlevel positions, while hardship posts and some position categories, 

such as Office Management Specialist positions, also have large gaps.

Even with Increased 

Hiring, State Faces 

Persistent Midlevel 

Experience Gaps 

Overseas

State Increased Hiring 

under Diplomacy 3.0 but 

Revised Its Targets for 

Future Years

Experience Gaps at 

Overseas Posts Have Not 

Declined
 

Page 8 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

According to our analysis of State staffing data as of October 31, 2011, 

State faces experience gaps in 28 percent of overseas Foreign Service 

positions. Specifically, 14 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions 

are vacant and an additional 14 percent of positions are filled through 

upstretch assignments.8

Our analysis indicates that State has not met its goal for reducing the 

overseas vacancy rate. In its fiscal year 2013 Bureau Strategic and 

Resource Plan (BSRP), State’s Bureau of Human Resources established 

a goal of reducing the vacancy rate for overseas positions to 8 percent by 

the end of fiscal year 2011. However, we found that State had an 

overseas vacancy rate of 14 percent 1 month after the end of that fiscal 

year.

Both percentages, as well as the total percentage 

of positions facing experience gaps, are unchanged since 2008.

9

The overall proportion of overseas positions filled by upstretch 

assignments is also essentially unchanged since 2008, with 

approximately 14 percent of all positions assigned to officers with grades 

below the position’s designated grade. State officials noted that some of 

these upstretch assignments are in midlevel positions that were 

temporarily downgraded—or ceded—to a lower grade, so that they could 

be filled by entry-level officers. According to State officials, the work 

requirements of ceded positions are revised to make the positions more 

appropriate for an entry-level officer and the department provides training 

and mentoring to help prepare officers for the position. Therefore, State

Further, our comparison of data from 2008 and 2011 shows that, 

while the number of officers serving overseas increased following the 

Diplomacy 3.0 hiring surge, the number of authorized positions overseas 

has also increased. Consequently, the overall vacancy rates have not 

declined. In 2008, approximately 7,000 of about 8,100 total Foreign 

Service positions were filled. Comparatively, in 2011, nearly 7,800 

Foreign Service positions were filled—or 11 percent more positions than 

in 2008—but the total number of positions increased to over 9,000, 

resulting in the same vacancy rate.

 

8

In filling positions, State does not count any assignments within entry-level positions as 

upstretch assignments. However, for the purposes of our analysis, we defined an 

upstretch assignment as any assignment in which the grade of the position is higher than 

the grade of the incumbent.

9

The BSRP also set overseas vacancy rate targets of 10 percent in 2010 and 6 percent in 

2012. The BSRP stated that the department did not meet its 2010 target with an actual 

vacancy rate of 16.7 percent.

Vacancy and Upstretch Rates 

Are Unchanged Since 2008 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

does not consider an entry-level officer in a ceded position to be in an 

upstretch assignment.10

Figure 2: Overseas Foreign Service Positions Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch 

Assignments, and Vacant, 2008 and 2011

However, officials at overseas posts and in 

regional bureaus noted that these positions may still suffer from 

experience gaps. Figure 2 shows that the number of authorized positions 

and Foreign Service employees serving overseas has increased, but the 

proportion of positions with experience gaps has not changed.

State officials noted that AIP posts—State’s highest-priority posts—account 

for much of the increase in new positions. As figure 3 shows, regionally, the 

largest share of new positions is in the Bureau of South and Central Asian 

Affairs, primarily because of increases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and 

 

10In State’s staffing data, ceded positions appear at their original grade and, therefore, we 

were unable to differentiate entry-level assignments to ceded positions from upstretch 

assignments. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

the majority of new positions are in a small number of countries where 

State has high levels of engagement. Specifically, about 40 percent of all 

new positions are in AIP countries and an additional 20 percent are in 5 

other countries: Mexico, Brazil, China, India, and Russia. State officials 

noted that this distribution of new positions reflects the department’s 

changing foreign policy priorities. For example, positions were added in 

Brazil and China in response to presidential directives to expand consular 

capacity in those countries. According to State officials, the department has 

also created positions to address emerging diplomatic priorities, such as 

climate change and global health. Additionally, State officials noted that 

most Foreign Service employees hired in fiscal year 2010 would not have 

been placed in overseas assignments as of October 31, 2011, when we 

acquired staffing data. State anticipates that overall vacancy rates will drop 

to approximately 9 percent as officers hired in recent years are fully 

deployed by the end of 2012.

Figure 3: Locations of Overseas Positions 2008 and 2011, as of October 31, 2011
 

Page 11 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Although State intended to eliminate gaps in midlevel Foreign Service 

positions by the end of fiscal year 2012, these gaps have only diminished 

slightly since 2008. Specifically, experience gaps currently exist in about 

26 percent of midlevel Foreign Service positions—only 2 percent lower 

than in 2008. About 60 percent of all vacancies and upstretch 

assignments are in midlevel positions because they make up the largest 

share of all overseas positions. Figure 4 shows the numbers and 

percentages of positions filled at grade, filled with upstretch assignments, 

and vacant for the various position levels.

Figure 4: Position Levels Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch Assignments, and 

Vacant, as of October 31, 2011

Notes: Numbers may not add to 100 percent, due to rounding. According to State officials, seniorlevel upstretch assignments may be overstated because promotions of officers into the senor levels 

might not have taken effect as of October 31, 2011. 

State has acknowledged that midlevel gaps are a persistent problem. 

State has faced midlevel gaps for years and, according to the August 

Midlevel Gaps Persist
 

Page 12 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

2011 Five Year Workforce Plan, the midlevel gap grew from 2010 to 

2011. According to State officials, midlevel gaps have grown in recent 

years because most of the new positions created under Diplomacy 3.0 

were midlevel positions and State only hires entry-level Foreign Service 

employees. In prior reports, we found that midlevel experience gaps 

compromise diplomatic readiness, and State officials confirmed that these 

gaps continue to impact overseas operations.

State officials noted that midlevel gaps will decrease as recent hires are 

promoted. According to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan, officers hired in 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010 under the first wave of Diplomacy 3.0 hiring 

will begin to be eligible for promotion to the midlevels in fiscal years 2014 

or 2015. In recent years, State has accelerated the average time it takes 

for officers to be promoted into the midlevels, in part to fill gaps. However, 

officials from State’s regional bureaus and AFSA expressed concerns that 

this creates a different form of experience gap, as some officers may be 

promoted before they are fully prepared to assume new responsibilities.

Our analysis shows that a post’s hardship level continues to be one of the 

most significant factors for predicting whether a position is filled, remains 

vacant, or is filled with an upstretch assignment. We found that over 35 

percent of all positions in posts of greatest hardship are vacant or filled 

with upstretch assignments compared to about 22 percent for posts with 

low or no hardship differentials. Further, our analysis of the likelihood of 

positions being vacant or filled with an upstretch assignment shows that—

controlling for other factors, such as a position’s level, type, or regional 

location—a post’s hardship level is one of the most consistent factors for 

predicting where experience gaps will occur. Specifically, we found that 

positions in posts of greatest hardship are 44 percent more likely to be 

vacant than positions at posts with low or no hardship differentials. 

Additionally, when positions are filled, posts of greatest hardship are 81 

percent more likely to use an upstretch candidate than posts with low or 

no hardship differentials. This is consistent with our findings in prior work, 

which found that hardship posts faced larger gaps than posts with low or 

no hardship differential.11

 

11See 

Appendix II describes our analysis of the 

likelihood of various positions being vacant or filled with an upstretch 

assignment in further detail.

GAO-09-874. 

A Post’s Hardship Level 

Continues to Be One of the 

Most Significant Factors 

Affecting Gaps 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

We found no significant difference between the rates at which generalist 

and specialist positions are filled. However, the likelihood of generalist 

positions being filled with upstretch assignments is somewhat higher than 

for specialist positions. We also found that there are differences in 

vacancy and upstretch rates for specific functions within both the 

generalist and specialist fields and that some position categories are

more difficult to fill.

Among generalists, the consular section has the largest gaps, in terms of 

the total number of positions that are vacant or filled with upstretch 

assignments, because it is the largest generalist section. According to our 

analysis, about 170 consular positions were vacant as of October 31, 

2011, and about 250 consular positions were filled with upstretch 

assignments. State officials noted that demand is high for entry-level 

consular officers to adjudicate visas, particularly in countries that have 

seen dramatic increases in demand for visas in recent years.

12

 

12To help address this gap, State recently introduced a pilot program in Brazil and China 

to fill entry-level consular positions with non-Foreign Service employees hired on a limited 

5-year term.

In 

addition, the Public Diplomacy section has a relatively high upstretch rate, 

with nearly one-quarter of all Public Diplomacy positions filled with 

upstretch assignments. State officials noted that gaps within the Public 

Diplomacy section, particularly at the midlevels, have persisted since the 

late 1990s, when the U.S. Information Agency—which had responsibility 

for public diplomacy—was integrated into State. Figure 5 shows the 

proportion of positions that are filled at grade or better, filled with 

upstretch assignments, or are vacant for generalist positions.

Generalist and Specialist 

Positions Are Filled at Roughly 

Equal Rates, but Some Position 

Categories Are More Difficult 

to Fill
 

Page 14 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Figure 5: Generalist Positions Filled at Grade, Filled with Upstretch Assignments, 

and Vacant, as of October 31, 2011

Note: “Other” includes positions designated as “Executive” or “International Relations” which, 

according to State officials, may be filled by officers from any generalist discipline. 

Within specialist skill groups, Office Management Specialist (OMS) 

positions have the largest overall gaps, both in terms of the number of 

positions and the relative percentage of the gap. Over one-third of all 

OMS positions, or nearly 300 positions, are either vacant or filled with 

upstretch assignments. Regional bureau and post officials cited OMS 

positions as being among the most difficult to fill. For example, officials in 

Brazil noted that both the embassy in Brasilia and the consulate in Sao 

Paulo had OMS positions that were vacant for 2 years. Security specialist 

skill groups also face substantial gaps. The Security Technician and 

Security Engineer fields have fewer positions than some of the larger 

specialist fields, but about 30 percent of positions in both fields are vacant 

or filled with upstretch assignments. Further, security officers have one of 

the highest vacancy rates among specialist fields, with about 17 percent 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

of those positions unfilled. Figure 6 shows the proportion of positions that 

are filled at grade, filled with upstretch assignments, or vacant for the 10 

largest specialist skill groups.

Figure 6: Positions within the 10 Largest Specialist Skill Groups That Are Filled at 

Grade, Filled with Upstretch Assignments, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2011

Note: In total, there are 18 specialist skill groups, many of which are small. We only show the 10 

largest specialist skill groups. 

According to State officials, the department takes a number of steps to 

help fill high-priority positions. State staggers the assignments process 

over several months and seeks bids for high-priority areas—including 

Chiefs of Mission, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and positions in AIP—before 

the regular bid cycle. Officials noted that in the most recent cycle for 

assignments starting in the summer of 2012, State filled about threequarters of all positions in AIP posts before the regular bid round began. 

State Takes Special 

Measures to Fill HighPriority Positions
 

Page 16 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Regional bureau officials noted that this should have a positive effect on 

staffing elsewhere because it limits the number of people pulled from 

other assignments. State continues to fill AIP positions year-round and 

often uses people from other posts on temporary assignments in AIP 

posts. According to State, as of February 2012, approximately 91 percent 

of AIP positions were filled.13

State uses a decentralized process for prioritizing and filling overseas 

positions, which officials stated helps ensure important positions are filled. 

While AIP posts are the only official department priority for staffing, State 

officials said regional bureaus informally set their own priorities by 

determining which of the positions within the bureau that are up for bid are 

most critical and actively recruiting candidates for those positions. Officials 

from State’s Office of Career Development and Assignments stated that 

the regional bureaus are in the best position to assess the needs across 

posts and prioritize positions accordingly. Regional bureau officials stated 

that, in order to minimize the impact of experience gaps, they will consider 

factors such as the size of the post or the availability of upper-level support 

in addition to the needs of the position itself when determining whether a 

position can remain vacant or be filled through an upstretch assignment. 

For example, officials stated they may prefer to fill a single position in a 

small, difficult-to-fill post ahead of multiple positions in a much larger post. 

Similarly, they may be more likely to allow an upstretch assignment for a 

lower midlevel position in a large post because larger posts are likely to 

have more layers of upper management support.

State also holds an “urgent vacancies” bid 

round in the spring to fill positions that were not filled in earlier cycles.

As we reported in 2009, State has created a wide range of measures and 

financial and nonfinancial incentives to encourage officers to bid on 

assignments at hardship posts. For example, Foreign Service employees 

may receive favorable consideration for promotion for service in hardship 

posts. Additionally, State uses Fair Share bidding rules, which require 

employees who have not served in a hardship location within the last 8 

 

13This calculation includes all positions except those that are assigned outside of the 

regular recruitment and assignments process. State officials noted that a fill rate of 91 

percent in AIP does not necessarily indicate that State has been unable to find bidders for 

9 percent of AIP positions. For example, State has not sought bids for some positions that 

are reported as vacant because they are being considered for elimination. In addition, 

officials noted staffing data are unlikely to show fill rates of 100 percent at any given time 

because positions are routinely added and removed due to changing needs of the 

Missions. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

years to bid on at least three positions in hardship posts. Officials in the 

bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and South and Central Asian Affairs 

stated that they regularly collect feedback on the impact of incentives in 

encouraging officers to bid on positions in AIP posts. One official noted 

that, in addition to financial incentives, nonfinancial incentives, such as 

additional opportunities or the feeling that they are doing something 

important, often help to attract bidders. According to State officials, 

through this system of incentives and bidding rules, State has always 

been able to find volunteers to fill critical needs. While the department has 

the authority to direct Foreign Service employees to specific assignments 

if it does not have adequate bidders for a position, according to State 

officials, the department has not used these directed assignments—

outside of assigning Foreign Service employees in their first or second 

rotation. State officials noted that use of directed assignments could 

potentially result in a less motivated or productive workforce.

State has taken steps to implement goals highlighted in the QDDR to 

increase its reliance on Civil Service employees and retirees, and expand 

mentoring to help address midlevel experience gaps overseas. To 

expand the limited number of Civil Service employees filling overseas 

positions, State began a pilot program to offer additional opportunities for 

overseas assignments and eased requirements for conversions from Civil 

Service to Foreign Service. State also hires retirees on a limited basis to 

help fill gaps overseas. In addition, State began a pilot program offering a 

workshop with mentoring for first-time supervisors overseas. However, 

State’s Five Year Workforce Plan does not include a specific strategy to 

guide efforts to address midlevel gaps.

State’s first QDDR, released in 2010, highlighted the goal of expanding 

the use of Civil Service employees to help close the midlevel experience 

gap. The QDDR noted that State has a base of Civil Service employees 

with significant experience and called for increasing opportunities for Civil 

Service employees to fill overseas Foreign Service assignments and 

increasing the number of Civil Service conversions to the Foreign 

Service. A February 2011 report by the American Academy of Diplomacy 

and the Stimson Center also recommended expanded use of Civil 

State Has Taken Steps 

to Address Midlevel 

Experience Gaps 

Overseas but Has Not 

Included These Steps 

in Its Workforce Plan

State Has Taken Steps to 

Expand the Use of Civil 

Service Employees in 

Midlevel Overseas 

Positions
 

Page 18 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Service employees to fill midlevel gaps.14

The extent to which State currently draws on its pool of Civil Service 

employees for overseas assignments is limited. From fiscal years 2009 

through 2011, State placed 159 Civil Service employees in overseas 

Foreign Service positions in temporary assignments. These are known as 

“Limited Non-Career Appointments” (LNA). According to State officials, 

many of these assignments fill midlevel positions. State’s human capital 

rules enable Civil Service employees (and other non-Foreign Service 

employees) to serve as LNAs, normally for up to 5 years.

As a first step, State recently 

conducted a survey of its Civil Service employees and found a high level 

of interest in serving overseas. About 75 percent of respondents 

expressed interest in serving in some type of overseas assignment in 

their careers and about 25 percent expressed interest in eventually 

converting to Foreign Service, according to State officials.

15

Many of these LNA assignments are for positions that the department has 

identified as “hard-to-fill,” meaning they lack sufficient qualified bidders 

from among the ranks of the Foreign Service. In an announcement to the 

department each May, State identifies hard-to-fill positions for which Civil 

Service employees may apply.

However, the 

duration of these assignments typically ranges from 1 to 3 years, 

according to State officials.

16

State Human Resources Bureau officials we met with identified several 

key challenges to assigning Civil Service employees to overseas 

assignments. In particular, these assignments can create gaps in the 

Most of these positions are at the 

midlevel. State listed 36 hard-to-fill positions in 2009, 74 in 2010, and 55 

in 2011. Other common types of overseas LNA assignments for Civil 

Service employees include positions in AIP countries, developmental 

opportunities, and positions requiring specific expertise.

 

14Henry L. Stimson Center, American Foreign Service Association, and American 

Academy of Diplomacy, Forging a 21st-Century Diplomatic Service for the United States 

through Professional Education and Training (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

15Rules governing LNAs are covered in the Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 2290) and 

federal law (22 U.S.C. §§ 3943, 3949).

16These positions continue to be available for Foreign Service employees to bid on. Local 

eligible family members may also bid on these positions and would have priority over 

Washington-based Civil Service employees.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

positions Civil Service employees leave behind. Affected bureaus must 

guarantee that applicants will be placed into permanent Civil Service 

positions within the same bureau when they return from their overseas 

assignments. This requirement creates some reluctance on the part of 

bureaus to approve applications for overseas assignments, according to 

State officials. In addition, department officials noted that Civil Service 

employees have concerns about losing future opportunities for desirable 

Civil Service positions while serving overseas. Another challenge is that 

State cannot always identify a sufficient number of qualified Civil Service 

employees to apply for the overseas vacancies it seeks to fill. State 

officials noted that hard-to-fill positions are typically not in the more 

desirable locations, which they said contributes to limited interest among 

qualified Civil Servants. In addition, it can often be difficult to match Civil 

Service employees’ qualifications with the needs of the open positions.

The Human Resources Bureau began a pilot program in November 2011 

to expand opportunities for Civil Service employees to serve in overseas 

positions. It was intended to support goals highlighted in the QDDR to 

enhance career development for midlevel Civil Service employees and 

ease Foreign Service midlevel staffing gaps. The department identified 11 

overseas positions at various posts to which qualified Civil Service 

employees could apply. Most of these assignments are for midlevel 

positions. The assignments in the pilot differ from the hard-to-fill 

assignments in two key ways. First, these are not positions that Foreign 

Service bidders initially passed over. Second, the re-employment rules 

are more flexible, according to Human Resources Bureau officials; 

affected bureaus do not have to hold a position for the Civil Service 

employees who participate in the pilot. Instead, returning Civil Service 

employees can be placed in a bureau different from the one they vacated.

According to State officials, the department has agreed with AFSA to limit 

the total to about 20 assignments at any one time during the pilot to 

ensure that the program does not limit career development opportunities 

for Foreign Service employees.17

 

17State plans to offer additional overseas assignment opportunities to Civil Service 

employees on a rolling basis to keep the total number of these assignments within 20 at 

any one time. State indicated in April 2012 that the program would soon offer five 

additional positions. 

The officials noted that Foreign Service 

employees operate in an “up-or-out” personnel system, which requires 

them to have sufficient experience and responsibilities to progress in their 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

careers. In addition, efforts to increase the number of Civil Service 

assignments to Foreign Service positions must be consistent with State’s 

human capital rules, which state that the department’s goal is to fill 

Foreign Service positions with Foreign Service employees except under 

special circumstances.18

Human Resources Bureau officials stated that they expect this pilot 

program to help the department assess its ability to identify overseas 

positions that match the skills and experience of potential Civil Service 

applicants. It will also identify potential staffing impacts on affected 

bureaus and posts, as well as career development needs of the Foreign 

Service. However, according to the officials, the department has not 

finalized plans for evaluating the results of the pilot program. They also 

noted that it will be more than 2 years before the first set of assignments 

is completed and they can begin to survey participants and stakeholders 

to assess results of the pilot program.

The overseas positions in the pilot program 

continue to be designated as Foreign Service positions and can be filled 

by Foreign Service employees after the Civil Service employees complete 

their assignments.

State’s QDDR also included a goal of expanding opportunities for Civil 

Service employees to convert to the Foreign Service to help fill 

experience gaps overseas. The QDDR stated that, while all State 

personnel can apply to enter the Foreign Service through the traditional 

selection process, it is in the department’s interest to offer more and 

quicker pathways for qualified and interested Civil Service employees to 

join the Foreign Service. However, State’s Foreign Service Conversion 

Program has strict eligibility requirements, which limit the number of 

conversions. The program’s application and review process resulted in 

only three Civil Service applicants recommended for conversion in 2010 

and four in 2011.

State only opens positions for conversion that it projects to be in deficit or 

otherwise approved by the Director General and lists them in an annual 

 

18This goal is articulated in the Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 2293). In addition, 22 

U.S.C. § 3982 states that the Secretary of State shall assure that positions designated as 

Foreign Service positions normally shall be filled by the assignment of members of the 

Foreign Service to those positions. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

cable that it circulates throughout the department.19 The department 

convenes a review panel to confirm that applicants meet minimum 

qualifications, which include 24 months in Foreign Service positions 

abroad out of the previous 6 years; and 30 months of service—

domestically or overseas—in the desired skill code in the previous 6 

years. The panel then determines if applicants have the skills and 

experience necessary to perform successfully in the positions for which 

they are applying. Applicants offered an opportunity to convert based on 

the panel review must then submit a proctored writing sample, which 

must earn a passing grade from the Foreign Service Board of Examiners 

to be recommended for conversion.20

According to Human Resources Bureau officials, in 2011, State identified 

88 Foreign Service generalist positions as open for conversion from Civil 

Service, as well as Foreign Service generalist and specialist. Twenty-six 

Civil Service applicants applied. Ultimately, the process resulted in seven 

applicants given the opportunity to convert and four of the seven passing 

the writing test requirement. Table 1 shows the number of applicants who 

qualified at key stages in the process in 2010 and 2011.

Table 1: Civil Service Conversions to Foreign Service Generalist Positions in 2010 

and 2011 

Year

Number of applicants 

who met minimum 

qualifications

Number of applicants 

offered opportunity to 

convert 

Number of applicants

passing writing test 

requirement

2010 30 8 3 

2011 26 7 4a

Source: State.

a

Number includes two applicants not required to take the writing test because they previously passed 

the Foreign Service Oral Assessment. 

Human Resources Bureau officials noted that in 2011, the department 

sought to ease the qualification requirements somewhat, including 

reducing the number of months served overseas from 30 months to 24 

 

19This cable articulates the rules governing its Foreign Service Conversion Program. 

Foreign Service specialists may also apply for conversion to open generalist positions and 

generalists may apply to convert to a different generalist job category.

20Applicants are not required to take the writing exam if they have previously passed the 

Foreign Service Oral Assessment.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

months; however, the number of qualified applicants actually dropped 

from 30 in 2010 to 26 in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the assessment 

process will include a structured interview, along with the writing test, to 

give candidates an additional means of demonstrating their skills and 

competencies.

Retirees can fill key roles at overseas posts, bringing with them a high 

level of skills and experience, according to State officials. The department 

has limited authority to hire retirees for full-time positions and also for 

temporary assignments. State’s QDDR noted that the department should 

draw on its pool of retirees to help address its overseas midlevel gap. In 

addition, the Stimson Center and American Academy of Diplomacy report 

also recommended that State increase reliance on retirees.

State hires retired Foreign Service and Civil Service employees to work 

full-time with waivers from federal dual compensation rules, under certain 

circumstances, to help fill workforce gaps overseas. In calendar year 

2011, State approved 57 dual compensation waivers for 35 Foreign 

Service retirees and 22 Civil Service retirees for overseas assignments. 

Federal law requires that payment of a retiree’s annuity terminates on the 

date of re-employment except under circumstances in which State has 

the authority to grant a dual compensation waiver.21

State officials stated that they would make greater use of dual 

compensation waivers to draw from the pool of retirees to fill experience 

gaps if their legal authority were expanded. However, other than State’s 

These circumstances 

include staffing needs in AIP countries and emergency situations 

involving a direct threat to life or property, or other unusual 

circumstances.

 

2122 U.S.C. § 4064 specifies dual compensation restrictions related to hiring Foreign 

Service retirees and gives authority to the Secretary of State to waive these restrictions 

under certain circumstances. 5 U.S.C. §§ 8344 and 8468 provide similar restrictions 

related to hiring Civil Service retirees and gives authority to the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to waive these restrictions at the request of the head of an 

Executive agency, on a case-by-case basis. OPM has delegated this waiver authority to 

State every year since 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2010 also provided the Secretary of State (along 

with other specified Federal Agency heads) with authority to grant a limited number of dual 

compensation waivers to Civil Service retirees, if the head of the agency determines that 

reemployment is necessary to “fulfill functions critical to the mission of the agency” or to 

“respond to an emergency involving a direct threat to life or property.” 

State Hires Retirees for 

Both Full-Time and 

Temporary Overseas 

Assignments, but Their 

Use Is Limited
 

Page 23 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Office of Inspector General, the department has not formally sought 

expanded congressional authority to offer waivers to hire Foreign Service 

retirees.22

State hires many more Foreign Service retirees for temporary, part-time 

work than it does for full-time assignments. These retirees work on a 

“When Actually Employed” schedule and are commonly referred to as 

“WAEs.” WAEs do not fill vacant positions overseas but are an important 

means of addressing workforce gaps, according to State officials. For 

example, posts often rely on WAEs to fill staffing gaps during summer 

rotations of Foreign Service employees, according to State officials. 

Officials also noted that WAEs can be particularly helpful when short-term 

needs arise requiring special skills and expertise, such as helping posts 

prepare for a presidential visit or evacuating an embassy during a crisis. 

Newer staff also can benefit from the experience and expertise that 

WAEs share during their assignments.

The Office of Inspector General is seeking separate 

congressional authority for additional dual compensation waivers to help 

meet its staffing needs, including filling positions at its overseas posts in 

hardship locations, such as Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt; and Kabul, 

Afghanistan.

Federal rules, and high salary and travel costs, limit the extent to which 

State uses WAEs. State bureaus typically hire them for short assignments 

of 1 to 3 months. Federal law enables Foreign Service retirees to earn a 

salary while continuing to receive their retirement annuity as long as their 

total earnings do not exceed the greater of an amount equal to the basic 

pay they earned when they retired or the highest annual rate of basic pay 

for full-time employment in the position for which they have been reemployed.23 This limits the amount of time they can work in a calendar 

year. According to State officials, WAEs also have a cap of 1,040 hours of 

employment per calendar year.24

 

22OPM is responsible for policy related to Civil Service annuitants. 

In addition to rules in federal statute that 

limit their use, WAEs are also a relatively expensive option because of 

their high salaries and travel costs, according to State officials from the 

2322 U.S.C. § 4064(b). 

24State employs these WAEs under their authority to make a temporary limited 

appointment. As an exception to the general time limits for such a position, State fills the 

position with WAEs provided that each appointment does not exceed 1,040 hours in a 

calendar year. 5 C.F.R. § 316.401.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

geographic bureaus and the Bureau of Consular Affairs—the primary 

users of WAEs. Table 2 shows the number of WAE appointments these 

bureaus used in 2011 and the average duration of each appointment. 

Individual bureaus maintain their own lists of retirees and hire them as 

WAEs from their own budgets. State has no initiatives currently under 

way to expand its use of WAEs.

Table 2: WAE Appointments, by Bureau, in Fiscal Year 2011

Bureau Number of WAEs Average duration 

African Affairs 86 3.4 months

European and Eurasian Affairs 25 2.3 months

East Asian and Pacific Affairs 16 2.1 months

Near Eastern Affairs 52 2.5 months

South and Central Asian Affairs 28 2.2 months

Western Hemisphere Affairs 19 1.8 months

Consular Affairs 119 1.4 months

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Note: Number of WAE appointments includes instances in which the same individual had more than 

one appointment. 

As part of its effort to address Foreign Service experience gaps, State’s 

QDDR included the goal of expanding existing mentoring programs and 

piloting a new mentoring program for first-time supervisors. State 

currently offers mentoring for entry-level Foreign Service employees and 

situational mentoring, which offers advice for any State employee on a 

specific activity or issue. In addition, State officials noted that less 

experienced Foreign Service employees are increasingly being asked to 

fill supervisory roles earlier in their careers than in the past, which raises 

the need for targeting this group for additional mentoring.

In September 2011, the Human Resources Bureau began a pilot program 

offering training workshops designed to improve the skills of first-time 

supervisors overseas. Mentoring, both at and following the training, is a 

key component of the pilot workshops, according to bureau officials. The 

pilot involved two 5-day workshops—one in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and 

another in Frankfurt, Germany, delivered to a total of 49 first-time 

supervisors from three of the department’s geographic regions. The 

workshops focused on performance management and basic leadership 

skills. Retirees served as class mentors and established relationships 

with the participants at the sessions. The mentors are expected to follow 

State Began a Pilot 

Training Workshop for 

Overseas First-Time 

Supervisors to Help 

Mitigate Midlevel 

Experience Gaps
 

Page 25 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

up with the attendees for 1 year, with the possibility to travel to their 

overseas posts, if warranted.

According to Human Resources Bureau officials, the program included 

follow-up surveys of attendees and their supervisors to assess the 

usefulness of the workshops in improving participants’ management style 

and skills. The officials noted that the response among the participants 

and their supervisors has been positive. State plans to conduct two more 

sessions in September 2012 for first-time supervisors from the 

department’s other three geographic regions. State officials noted that the 

pilot needs to be completed before they can determine the effectiveness

of the program. A potential constraint is the cost of sending officers to 

these workshops.

Although State has undertaken efforts to carry out QDDR goals to 

address midlevel gaps, the department has not developed a strategic 

approach to guide these efforts. We have found in prior work that 

developing a strategy to address staffing gaps and evaluating its success 

contribute to effective workforce plans.25

In addition, our workforce planning model suggests that, to evaluate 

human capital strategies, agencies develop performance measures that 

can be used to gauge progress toward reaching human capital goals. 

State’s Five Year Workforce Plan does not indicate how it will evaluate 

efforts under way to address midlevel gaps. State plans to assess its two 

State’s Five Year Workforce 

Plan outlines its human capital strategies; however, the plan lacks a 

specific strategy for addressing midlevel experience gaps. In our prior 

work, we developed a workforce planning model that suggests that, when 

considering a strategy to address workforce gaps, agencies consider the 

full range of flexibilities available under current authorities, as well as 

flexibilities that might require additional legislation before they can be 

adopted. State’s efforts to draw on its pool of retirees and Civil Service 

employees to fill midlevel gaps are examples of the use of such 

flexibilities; however, it is not clear that State has developed a strategy to 

take full advantage of its authority to use them.

 

25GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003).

State Has Not Developed a 

Strategy to Address 

Midlevel Gaps
 

Page 26 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

pilot programs, but it has not developed performance measures to gauge 

the potential impact of these efforts on midlevel gaps.

State faces persistent Foreign Service experience gaps at overseas 

posts, particularly at the midlevels, and these gaps put its diplomatic 

readiness at risk. State has traditionally relied on hiring new Foreign 

Service employees to fill overseas gaps and significantly increased hiring 

in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. However, those new hires will not be 

eligible for promotion to the midlevels until at least fiscal year 2014 and 

projections for future annual hiring increases have been reduced due to 

budgetary constraints. As a result, State likely will continue to face 

staffing and experience gaps for the foreseeable future. These gaps will 

continue to affect diplomatic readiness as positions remain unfilled or are 

staffed by Foreign Service employees whose experience does not match 

the position requirements. In the meantime, State has taken steps to 

implement goals highlighted in the QDDR to address midlevel overseas 

gaps, including developing pilot programs for increasing the use of Civil 

Service employees overseas and providing new workshops with 

mentoring for first-time supervisors overseas. Although these efforts are 

currently small in relation to the size of the overall gaps, their impact and 

the extent to which they can be expanded in the future have yet to be 

analyzed by State and are, therefore, unclear. Since State has not 

developed a specific strategy for addressing midlevel gaps, it can neither 

fully assess the success of its efforts to close these gaps nor determine 

the optimal course of action for enhancing diplomatic readiness.

To help guide State’s efforts to address midlevel gaps in the Foreign 

Service, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Bureau of 

Human Resources to update its Five Year Workforce Plan to include a 

strategy to address these gaps and a plan to evaluate the success of this 

strategy.

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

comments, reproduced in appendix III, State agreed with our 

recommendation. State also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
 

Page 27 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report’s date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of State 

and other interested congressional committees. In addition, the 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 report 

are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Michael J. Courts

Acting Director

International Affairs and Trade 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

In this report, we assess: (1) the extent to which the Department of 

State’s (State) overseas midlevel Foreign Service experience gaps have 

changed since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps.

To assess the extent of the State’s overseas midlevel Foreign Service 

experience gaps and how these gaps have changed since 2008, we

• reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports, as well 

as State workforce planning and budget documents and its Diplomacy 

3.0 initiative;

• collected and analyzed staffing data on all overseas Foreign Service 

positions from State’s Global Employees Management System 

(GEMS) as of September 30, 2008, and October 31, 2011;1

• interviewed officials in State’s Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, and six regional bureaus regarding overseas 

experience gaps.

and

To determine the extent of overseas Foreign Service experience gaps, 

we analyzed State staffing data. We compared the number of positions 

that were vacant, filled with upstretch assignments, and filled at grade or 

higher with the total number of authorized overseas positions. We did not 

validate whether the total number of authorized overseas positions was 

appropriate or met State’s needs. We calculated total vacancy and 

upstretch rates across all overseas Foreign Service positions for both the 

2008 and 2011 data. We also calculated vacancy and upstretch rates for 

both data sets by each of the following characteristics: level (i.e., entry-, 

mid-, or senior-level); type (i.e., generalist or specialist); and function 

(e.g., consular or information management). For 2011 data only, we 

supplemented the GEMS data with additional State data on hardship 

differentials and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s 

Overseas Staffing Models and also calculated vacancy and upstretch 

rates by each of these characteristics.

 

1

We obtained position data as of October 31, 2011, because, according to State officials, 

most employees moving on to their next assignments have arrived at their new posts by 

that time and most promotions have taken effect. However, State officials noted that some 

positions may appear vacant in GEMS because incoming incumbents have not yet arrived 

at their new posts. We used data as of the end of fiscal year 2008 obtained for a prior 

GAO report at that time for similar reasons.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by 

the number of vacant positions. To calculate upstretch rates, we divided 

the total number of positions by the number of upstretch assignments. We 

considered any assignment in which the grade of incumbent was at least 

one grade lower than that of the position as an upstretch assignment, with 

one exception: According to State officials, tenured Foreign Service 

generalists with a position grade of 04 are not considered in an upstretch 

assignment if they encumber a position with an 03 grade because 

tenured 04 grade officers are expected to fill positions with an 03 grade, if 

possible. We, therefore, did not consider tenured 04 grade officers to be 

in an upstretch assignment when they filled positions graded as 03. We 

considered senior-level positions at the Career Minister, Minister 

Counselor, and Counselor level to be of a comparable grade and, 

therefore, did not consider officers with any of these grades to be in an 

upstretch assignment. According to State officials, the department does 

not consider any employee in an entry-level position to be in an upstretch 

assignment. However, for the purposes of our analysis, we defined any 

assignment in which the position’s grade is higher than the incumbent’s 

grade to be an upstretch assignment. Therefore, because State assigns 

different grades to positions within the entry levels, we considered entrylevel assignments where a position’s grade was higher than the 

employee’s grade to be upstretch assignments.

We eliminated a small number of positions from our analysis of each data 

set because we could not clearly or completely identify where the 

positions were located. We also eliminated 57 Security Protective 

Specialist positions from the 2011 data because, according to State 

officials, it was a new job category and was not intended for permanent 

Foreign Service Officers, but rather employees hired under short-term 

limited noncareer appointments. In total, we did not use 88 positions, or 

about 1 percent of the total, from the September 30, 2008, data and 207 

positions, or about 2 percent of the total, from the October 31, 2011, data, 

which we determined did not substantially affect our findings.

We also conducted an analysis of the likelihood of overseas positions 

being vacant or filled through upstretch assignments based on the various 

characteristics described above. For a detailed discussion of the 

methodology and results of that analysis, see appendix II.

We obtained staffing and position data from State’s GEMS database. 

Since we have previously checked the reliability of this database, we 

inquired if State had made any major changes to the database since our 

2009 report. State indicated that it had not made major changes to the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

system. We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general 

accuracy of the data with select overseas posts, and interviewed 

knowledgeable officials from the Office of Resource Management and 

Organizational Analysis concerning the reliability of the data. Data from 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan (AIP) posts often show higher vacancy 

rates than actually exist at the post; however, it does so because State 

relies heavily on short-term assignments to fill positions in these 

locations. These short-term assignments do not show up in GEMS, and 

the position, therefore, appears vacant. Positions in GEMS represent a 

need for full-time, permanent Foreign Service employees, and, therefore, 

we determined that the GEMS data accurately reflect State’s ability to fill 

positions in these locations with full-time, permanent Foreign Service 

employees. Additionally, because State often pulls staff from other 

overseas assignments to fill short-term temporary assignments in AIP 

countries, the vacancy rate for all overseas positions is most accurately 

captured when all posts are included. Therefore, based on our analysis of 

the data and discussions with the officials, we determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. However, when referring specifically 

to vacancy rates in AIP countries, we reference other State sources, 

which include positions filled through both permanent and temporary 

assignments.

To assess State’s approach to addressing midlevel Foreign Service gaps 

through expanded use of Civil Service employees, retirees, and 

mentoring, we

• reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General reports;

• reviewed relevant State documents, such as State’s Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), State’s Five Year 

Workforce Plan, and the Bureau of Human Resources’ Bureau 

Strategic and Resource Plan;

• reviewed federal laws, policies, and regulations governing Limited 

Non-Career Appointments (LNA) of Civil Service Employees, 

conversion from Civil Service to Foreign Service, and hiring of retired 

Foreign Service and Civil Service annuitants; and

• interviewed officials in State’s Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, and six regional bureaus, the American Foreign 

Service Association, and the American Academy of Diplomacy 

regarding overseas experience gaps and the potential to address 

gaps through the use of Civil Service, retirees, and mentoring.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

We collected and analyzed data on the retirees hired with dual 

compensation waivers in calendar year 2011. We also collected and 

analyzed data on the use of retirees hired for temporary, short-term 

assignments, referred to as “When Actually Employed” (WAE) in fiscal 

year 2011 from each of the six regional bureaus and the Bureau of 

Consular Affairs. We analyzed that data based on the number of 

assignments made, rather than the number of retirees used, as State 

officials noted that some individuals may be used in multiple assignments. 

In addition, we collected and analyzed data on overseas LNA 

assignments of Civil Service employees for fiscal years 2009 through 

2011 from State’s Bureau of Human Resources. Because these 

assignments may be for multiple years, the number of assignments made 

does not necessarily reflect the number of Civil Service employees 

serving overseas at any one time. We also collected data on the results of 

State’s 2010 and 2011 Foreign Service Conversion Program, including 

the number of positions available, the number of Civil Service applicants, 

and the number offered conversion opportunities. We found the data on 

the use of retirees and Civil Service employees overseas to be sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We focused only on efforts related to expanding 

the use of Civil Service employees, retirees, and mentoring because they 

were highlighted in State’s QDDR as key means of addressing overseas 

midlevel gaps.

To supplement our other analysis, we met with officials in Amman, 

Jordan; Kyiv, Ukraine; New Delhi, India; Santo Domingo, Dominican 

Republic; and Sao Paulo and Brasilia, Brazil, to obtain firsthand 

knowledge about experience gaps and use of Civil Service, retirees, and 

mentoring at overseas posts. We conducted this work in conjunction with 

a separate study on visa fraud and selected posts that met criteria 

established for both studies, including the size of staffing gaps and the 

level of visa fraud.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 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.
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 32 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

In this appendix, we describe the methods we used to determine what 

factors were related to whether positions at the State Department were 

vacant as of October 2011 and those that were filled by upstretch 

assignments—employees whose grades were lower than the grades of 

the positions filled. We first considered a set of bivariate tables (or twoway cross-classifications) that indicated what percentage of positions 

were filled and left vacant, across categories that reflected

• the level of the position (entry level, midlevel, and upper level);

• the hardship category associated with the position (least, medium, 

and greatest);1

• the type of position (generalist versus specialist);

• the Overseas Staffing Model ranking and type of post where the 

position was located (embassies ranked 1 or 2 were combined and 

contrasted with embassies ranked 3, 3+, 4, 5, 5+, and nonembassies 

of any rank);2

• region (Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Near 

East, South and Central Asia, and Western Hemisphere); and

• whether the position was in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan (collectively 

referred to as AIP) or elsewhere (non-AIP). 

We then calculated odds and odds ratios from the observed percentages 

in these tables, which allowed us to summarize the differences in the 

likelihoods of positions remaining vacant across the different types of 

positions, and conducted a series of bivariate and multivariate regression 

analyses to estimate the significance of those differences when we 

considered each of these six factors one at a time, when we considered 

 

1

“Least hardship” included posts with a hardship differential of 10 percent or less; “medium 

hardship” included posts with hardship differentials between 15 percent and 20 percent; and 

“greatest hardship” included posts with hardship differentials of 25 percent or more.

2

State’s Overseas Staffing Model assigns embassies a ranking of 1 through 5+, based on 

the requirements of the embassy. These levels are closely associated with the 

department’s foreign policy priorities, with higher numbers representing higher foreign 

policy priorities. Because nonembassies are provided functional rankings that are not 

necessarily associated with a location’s priority, we included them as a separate group. 

Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 33 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

five of them simultaneously (all but AIP), and finally when we considered 

all six of them simultaneously. Finally, we conducted parallel analyses 

that involved looking at the same types of two-way tables and estimating 

the same bivariate and multivariate regression models to determine, 

among those positions that were filled, whether they were filled by 

upstretch assignments as opposed to officers at or above grade. We 

describe these analyses as follows.

The first three columns of numbers in table 3 show the percentage of 

positions that were filled and vacant across the categories of the six 

factors just described, and the numbers of positions in each category on 

which those percentages were based. A slightly smaller percentage of 

upper-level positions than entry-level positions were vacant (12.6 percent 

versus 14.9 percent), and a much larger percentage of the positions in 

the greatest hardship category (20.5 percent) than in the least hardship 

category (10.4 percent) were left vacant. While there was little difference 

between generalist positions and specialist positions, there were some 

sizable differences across different posts with different rankings, with 

positions in the highest-ranked embassies (20.9 percent) and in 

nonembassies (16.4 percent) showing the highest percentages of 

vacancies. Higher percentages of positions in the Near East (22.3 

percent) and South and Central Asia (24.2 percent) were left vacant 

compared with other regions, and positions in AIP countries were much 

more likely to be vacant than those in non-AIP locations (39.5 percent vs. 

11.4 percent).3

 

3

State relies heavily on temporary assignments—which do not show up as filled, in State’s 

personnel database—to fill positions in AIP. Additionally, State continuously fills positions 

in AIP throughout the year, so vacancy rates may differ greatly at different points in time. 

According to State data as of February 2012, over one-quarter (27 percent) of the 

positions at AIP posts that were filled were filled with temporary assignments.
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 34 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Table 3: Percentages of Positions with Different Characteristics That Were Filled and Vacant, and Odds and Odds Ratios 

Indicating the Differences between Categories

Percentage of positions

Position characteristic Filled Vacant Number of positions Odds on vacant Odds ratios

Position level

Entry level 85.1 14.9 2,330 0.18 1.04

Midlevel 85.6 14.4 5,727 0.17 REF

Upper level 87.4 12.6 999 0.14 0.86

Missing 50.0 50.0 2 

Hardship category

Least hardship 89.6 10.4 3,993 0.12 REF

Medium hardship 86.4 13.6 2,280 0.16 1.36

Greatest hardship 79.5 20.5 2,785 0.26 2.22

Type of Position

Generalist 86.0 14.0 5,173 0.16 REF

Specialist 85.2 14.8 3,885 0.17 1.07

Post type/ranking

Embassy 1 or 2 89.2 10.8 742 0.12 0.46

Embassy 3 87.1 12.9 1,407 0.15 0.56

Embassy 3+ 90.0 10.0 1,718 0.11 0.42

Embassy 4 89.8 10.2 509 0.11 0.43

Embassy 5 90.7 9.3 814 0.10 0.39

Embassy 5+ 79.1 20.9 2,074 0.26 REF

Nonembassy 83.6 16.4 1,621 0.20 0.74

Missing 79.2 20.8 173

Region

Africa 91.0 9.0 1,182 0.10 0.78

East Asia and Pacific 87.7 12.3 1,446 0.14 1.10

Europe 88.8 11.2 2,231 0.13 0.99

Near East 77.7 22.3 1,347 0.29 2.25

South and Central Asia 75.8 24.2 1,085 0.32 2.51

Western Hemisphere 88.7 11.3 1,767 0.13 REF

AIP

Non-AIP 88.6 11.4 8,121 0.13 REF

AIP 60.5 39.5 937 0.65 5.07

Total 85.7 14.3 9,058 0.17

Source: GAO analysis of State Department Global Employee Management System Data on overseas positions, as of 

October, 31 2011.

Note: For each characteristic, we use one category as the referent category (REF). The resulting 

odds ratios can be interpreted in relation to that category. For example, midlevel positions are the 

referent category for position level. The odds ratios for entry-level positions indicate that those 

positions had slightly higher odds of remaining vacant than midlevel positions, by a factor of 1.04, 

while upper-level positions had slightly lower odds than midlevel positions of remaining vacant, by a 

factor of 0.86. 
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 35 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

In the last two columns of table 3, we show the odds on positions being 

vacant, and odds ratios that indicate the proportional differences in those 

odds across the different categories of positions. The odds on positions 

being vacant are calculated by dividing the percentage of positions that 

are vacant by the percentages that are filled, within each of the categories 

of the different positions. For entry-level positions, for example, we divide 

14.9 by 85.1 to obtain 0.18, which indicates that 0.18 positions were 

vacant for every one that was filled or, alternatively, that 18 were vacant 

for every 100 that were filled. Similar calculations for midlevel and upperlevel positions yield slightly smaller odds (equal to 0.17 and 0.14, 

respectively), and odds that differ quite substantially across other 

categories of positions, such as those with the greatest hardship (0.26) 

versus least hardship (0.12), and those in South and Central Asia (0.32) 

versus the Western Hemisphere (0.13).

The odds ratios in the final column of table 3 indicate the proportional 

differences in the odds of positions remaining vacant across the 

categories of each of the position characteristics. To estimate these odds 

ratios, we choose one category of each characteristic as the referent 

category (indicated by REF in the table), and divide the odds for the other 

categories by the odds for the referent category. For example, we chose 

midlevel positions as the referent category with respect to position level, 

divided 0.18 and 0.14 by 0.17, and the resultant odds ratios indicate that 

entry-level positions had slightly higher odds of remaining vacant than 

midlevel positions, by a factor of 1.04, while upper-level positions had 

slightly lower odds than midlevel positions of remaining vacant, by a 

factor of 0.86. Similar calculations using the different categories of the 

other position characteristics reveal that positions with greatest and 

medium hardship were more likely to be vacant than those with least 

hardship, by factors of 2.22 and 1.36, respectively, while specialist 

positions had only slightly higher odds than generalist positions of 

remaining vacant, by a factor of 1.07. Also, all of the lower-ranked 

embassies had roughly half or less than half the odds of embassies

ranked 5+ of remaining vacant, and nonembassies had odds that were 

lower than the highest-ranked embassies by a factor of 0.74. Finally, 

positions in Africa had lower odds on remaining vacant than positions in 

the Western Hemisphere (by a factor of 0.78), positions in East Asia and 

the Pacific and in Europe had odds that were very similar, and positions 

in the Near East and South and Central Asia had higher odds on 

remaining vacant than positions in the Western Hemisphere, by factors of 
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 36 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

2.25 and 2.51, respectively. As the final multivariate model in table 4 

shows, some of these regional differences were because AIP countries 

were more than five times as likely as those in other areas to be vacant.4

Odds ratios identical to those just discussed, apart from slight rounding 

error, are shown in the first column of table 4. The unadjusted odds ratios 

in the first column of table 4, however, were estimated using a series of 

bivariate logistic regression models, which allow us to test whether the 

different contrasts specified by the various odds ratios are significantly 

different than 1. Significant odds ratios are bolded in the table, and we 

can see the unadjusted ratios reflecting the differences in the odds on 

positions remaining vacant across position level categories and between 

generalist and specialist positions are not significant; in addition, the 

differences between positions in the East Asia and Pacific region, Europe, 

and the Western hemisphere are not significant. All of the other 

unadjusted (or bivariate) odds ratios are significant, though our judgment 

about both the size and significance of these differences is only tentative 

since they are unadjusted and fail to take into account that the different 

position characteristics—for example, hardship level and region—may be 

related to one another and, as such, the estimated unadjusted effect of 

one characteristic may be accounted for by the effect of another.

Table 4: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating the Differences in the 

Odds on Positions Being Vacant between Positions with Various Characteristics

Adjusted odds ratios

Categories contrasted

Unadjusted

odds ratios

Without

AIP 

indicator

With AIP 

indicator

Entry-level vs. midlevel positions 1.04 1.22 1.36

Upper-level vs. midlevel positions 0.86 0.87 0.88

Medium hardship vs. least hardship 1.36 1.21 1.22

Greatest hardship vs. least hardship 2.22 2.25 1.44

Specialist vs. generalist positions 1.07 1.06 1.06

Africa vs. Western Hemisphere 0.78 0.54 0.67

East Asia and Pacific vs. Western Hemisphere 1.11 0.85 1.09

 

4

State relies heavily on temporary assignments—which do not show up as filled, in State’s 

personnel database—to fill positions in AIP. Additionally, State continuously fills positions 

in AIP throughout the year, so vacancy rates may differ greatly at different points in time. 

According to State data as of February 2012, over one-quarter (27 percent) of the 

positions at AIP posts that were filled were filled with temporary assignments.
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 37 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Adjusted odds ratios

Categories contrasted

Unadjusted

odds ratios

Without

AIP 

indicator

With AIP 

indicator

Europe vs. Western Hemisphere 0.99 1.00 1.08

Near East vs. Western Hemisphere 2.26 1.54 1.23

South Central Asia vs. Western Hemisphere 2.52 1.28 0.90

Rank 1 or 2 embassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.46 0.61 1.00

Rank 3 embassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.56 0.62 1.14

Rank 3+ embassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.42 0.49 0.85

Rank 4 embassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.43 0.62 0.87

Rank 5 embassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.39 0.57 0.87

Nonembassy vs. Rank 5+ embassy 0.74 0.87 1.20

AIP vs. non-AIP positions 5.07 4.12

Source: GAO analysis of State Department Global Employee Management System data on overseas positions, as of October 31, 2011. 

Note: Bolding indicates odds ratios that are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 

In the middle column of the table, we show the results of re-estimating 

these odds ratios using a multivariate model that estimates the effects on 

positions remaining vacant of all of these factors simultaneously, except for 

the AIP indicator. Under this model, most of the effects remain significant, 

though the difference between nonembassy positions and embassy 

positions is diminished and insignificant, and the difference between entrylevel and midlevel positions increases and becomes significant.

In the final column, we show the results of re-estimating these odds ratios 

using a multivariate model that estimates the effects of all six factors 

simultaneously, including the war zone indicator. As can be seen, the 

adjusted difference between AIP and non-AIP positions is sizable (OR =

4.12), and allowing for that difference accounts for all of the differences 

between embassies of different ranks and nonembassies, and most of the 

differences between regions (the exception being the difference between 

positions in Africa and the Western Hemisphere). In summary, when all 

factors are considered simultaneously and the associations between 

characteristics are taken into account, the differences that are statistically 

significant are as follows:

• entry-level positions have higher odds of remaining vacant than 

midlevel positions, by a factor of 1.36;

• positions in the greatest hardship and medium hardship categories 

are more likely than those in the least hardship category to remain 

vacant, by factors of 1.44 and 1.22, respectively;
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 38 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

• positions in Africa are less likely to remain vacant than those in the 

Western hemisphere, by a factor of 0.67; and

• AIP positions are slightly more than four times as likely to remain 

vacant as non-AIP positions.

Table 5 shows similar bivariate results in which these six characteristics 

are cross-classified by whether the position was filled by employees 

whose grades were lower than the grades of the position they filled, and 

table 6 shows the significant and insignificant odds ratios from bivariate 

and multivariate models used to estimate the effects of those 

characteristics on this outcome. While there is no need to labor over a 

discussion of all of the percentages and odds and odds ratios in table 5, 

which show the unadjusted and sometimes sizable differences across 

categories of position in the likelihood of being filled by a lower-graded 

employee, they are there for the reader to see. Our bottom-line findings, 

from the multivariate model coefficients in the final column of table 6 in 

which all position characteristics are considered simultaneously and the 

effect of each is estimated net of the others, are as follows:

• Upper-level positions are more than twice as likely as midlevel 

positions to be filled by upstretch assignments.

• Positions in the greatest hardship and medium hardship categories 

are more likely than those in the least hardship category to be filled by 

lower-level employees, by factors of 1.81 and 1.47, respectively.

• Specialist positions are less likely than generalist positions to be filled 

by employees whose grades are lower than the positions, by a factor 

of 0.75.

• Positions in East Asia and the Pacific and Europe are less likely to be 

filled by upstretch assignments than those in the Western 

hemisphere, by factors of 0.80 and 0.72, respectively.

• The lowest-ranked embassies (ranks 1 and 2) are only about half as 

likely as the embassies ranked 5+ to be filled by upstretch 

assignments, while embassies with other ranks and nonembasssies 

are not significantly different from embassies ranked 5+.

• AIP positions are half as likely to be filled by upstretch assignments as 

non-AIP positions.
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 39 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Table 5: Percentages of Positions with Different Characteristics That Were Filled by Employees Below Grade Level Versus at 

or above Grade Level, and Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating the Differences between Them

Percentage of positions filled by employees

Position characteristic At or above grade level Below grade level Number of positions Odds on below Odds ratios

Position level

Low level 84.1 15.9 1,983 0.19 1.16

Mid level 86.0 14.0 4,905 0.16 REF

Upper level 73.1 26.9 873 0.37 2.26

Missing 100.0 0.0 1 

Hardship category

Least hardship 86.8 13.2 3,578 0.15 REF

Medium hardship 81.9 18.1 1,969 0.22 1.45

Greatest hardship 81.6 18.4 2,215 0.23 1.48

Type of position

Generalist 82.8 17.2 4,451 0.21 REF

Specialist 85.7 14.3 3,311 0.17 0.80

Post type/ranking

Embassy 1 or 2 89.4 10.6 662 0.12 0.64

Embassy 3 84.2 15.8 1,226 0.19 1.02

Embassy 3+ 82.9 17.1 1,546 0.21 1.12

Embassy 4 84.5 15.5 457 0.18 0.99

Embassy 5 79.0 21.0 738 0.27 1.44

Embassy 5+ 84.4 15.6 1,641 0.18 REF

Nonembassy 84.9 15.1 1,355 0.18 0.96

Missing 84.7 15.3 137

Region

Africa 80.9 19.1 1,076 0.24 1.10

East Asia and Pacific 84.5 15.5 1,268 0.18 0.85

Europe 87.4 12.6 1,981 0.14 0.67

Near East 83.6 16.4 1,047 0.20 0.91

South and Central Asia 83.3 16.7 822 0.20 0.93

Western Hemisphere 82.3 17.7 1,568 0.22 REF

AIP

Non-AIP 83.9 16.1 7,195 0.19 REF

AIP 86.1 13.9 567 0.16 0.84

Total 84.1 15.9 7,762

Source: GAO analysis of State Department Global Employee Management System data on overseas positions, as of October, 31 2011.

Note: For each characteristic, we use one category as the referent category (REF). The resulting 

odds ratios within that characteristic can be interpreted in relation to that category 
Appendix II: Analysis of Factors Associated 

with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments

Page 40 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Table 6: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating the Differences in the 

Odds on Positions Being Filled with Below-Grade Employees between Positions 

with Various Characteristics

Adjusted odds ratios

Categories contrasted

Unadjusted 

odds ratios

Without AIP 

indicator

With AIP 

indicator

Entry-level vs. midlevel positions 1.17 1.04 1.02

Upper-level vs. midlevel positions 2.27 2.24 2.23

Medium hardship vs. least Hardship 1.45 1.48 1.47

Greatest hardship vs. least hardship 1.47 1.62 1.81

Specialist vs. generalist positions 0.80 0.75 0.75

Africa vs. Western Hemisphere 1.10 1.07 1.02

East Asia and Pacific vs. Western 

Hemisphere

0.85 0.84 0.80

Europe vs. Western Hemisphere 0.67 0.74 0.72

Near East vs. Western Hemisphere 0.92 0.88 0.93

South Central Asia vs. Western Hemisphere 0.93 0.77 0.86

Rank 1 or 2 embassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 0.64 0.56 0.49

Rank 3 embassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 1.02 0.93 0.79

Rank 3+ embassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 1.12 1.12 0.97

Rank 4 embassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 1.00 1.13 1.03

Rank 5 embassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 1.44 1.41 1.25

Nonembassy vs. rank 5+ embassy 0.96 1.05 0.95

AIP vs. non-AIP positions 0.84 0.57

Source: GAO analysis of State Department Global Employee Management System data on overseas positions, as of October, 31 2011.

Note: Bolding indicates odds ratios that are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 41 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 42 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 43 GAO-12-721 Foreign Service Workforce Gaps

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

In addition to the contact named above, Anthony Moran, Assistant 

Director; Howard Cott; Kara Marshall; Grant Mallie; Doug Sloane; Martin 

De Alteriis; Karen Deans; and Grace Lui provided significant contributions 

to the work.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(320849)
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.