Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Committee on Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

December 2001 DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Status of Achieving

Key Outcomes and

Addressing Major

Management

Challenges

GAO-02-42
Page i GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 6

Assessment of State’s Progress and Strategies in Accomplishing

Selected Key Outcomes 7

Comparison of State’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and

Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan With the Prior Year Report

and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes 21

State’s Efforts to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Identified by GAO 25

Conclusions 26

Recommendations 26

Scope and Methodology 26

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I Observations on the Department of State’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges 29

Appendix II Comments From the Department of State 38

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

GAO Contact 39

Acknowledgments 39

Tables

Table 1: Major Management Challenges Confronting the

Department of State 30

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Contents
Page 1 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

December 7, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

As you requested, we reviewed the Department of State’s (State) fiscal

year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan

required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)1

to assess the department’s progress in achieving selected key outcomes

that you identified as important mission areas.2

 Our review includes a

discussion of State’s past performance and future performance targets for

counterterrorism and other key foreign policy efforts, which were

developed prior to the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington,

D.C., on September 11, 2001. We recognize the events of that day and

subsequent days may greatly alter State’s approach to its strategic goals

and objectives in many of the areas we examined for this review,

particularly those involving counterterrorism. We hope that this report

provides the department and others with insights that will assist them

when developing new efforts to counter terrorism and protect American

citizens, assets, and interests, both at home and abroad.

In this review, we focused on the same outcomes we addressed in our

June 2000 review of the department’s fiscal year 1999 performance report

and fiscal year 2001 performance plan to provide a baseline by which to

measure the department’s performance from year to year.3

 These selected

key outcomes are as follows:

• eliminate the threat from weapons of mass destruction;

• expand foreign markets for U.S. products and services;

• enhance the ability of American citizens to travel and live abroad securely;

 1

P.L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285.

2

This report is one in a series of reports on the annual GPRA documents required of the 24

agencies enumerated in the Chief Financial Officers Act.

3

Observations on the Department of State’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/NSIAD-00-189R, June 30, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

• reduce international crime and availability and/or use of illegal drugs; and

• reduce international terrorist attacks, especially against the United States

and its citizens.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for State as a framework, we

(1) assessed the progress State has made in achieving these outcomes and

the strategies the department has in place to achieve them and (2)

compared State’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan with the department’s prior year performance report

and plan for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how State

addressed its major management challenges, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of human capital and information

security, that we and State’s Inspector General identified. Appendix I

provides detailed information on how State addressed these challenges.

State reported little progress in eliminating the threat from weapons of

mass destruction during fiscal year 2000; however, it reports substantial

progress toward achieving the other four key outcomes by meeting many

of its performance goals and targets. Based on our analysis, it is difficult to

determine the level of progress on the five outcomes because the

performance report does not always clearly describe what State sought to

accomplish due to a lack of linkages between activity based performance

indicators and outcomes and a failure to report on many performance

indicators prescribed in the performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The

department provided little discussion on why certain indicators were not

reported, why others did not meet expected performance, and what

strategies would be used to achieve the unmet (and unreported)

performance targets. Finally, the report discussed information technology

as a strategy for achieving outcomes only for assisting Americans traveling

and living abroad, and it did not address human capital issues in the

context of achieving any outcome. State’s performance plan for 2002

clearly linked the department’s strategies and indicators to its key

outcomes and discussed how it will address some of the unmet and

unreported indicators in both 2001 and 2002.4

 The plan’s performance

 4

Due to many inadequacies with its Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2001, many of which

we highlighted in June 2000, State chose to revise its performance goals and indicators. The

Performance Plan for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 will be the basis for State to judge both 2001

and 2002 performance. In this report, we refer to the 2001-2002 plan simply as the

performance plan for 2002. Unless otherwise noted, references to State’s fiscal year 2001

performance plan refer to its original plan for that fiscal year issued in June 2000.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

goals and indicators are objective and measurable, although many are

activity rather than outcome oriented.

Planned Outcome: Eliminate the Threat From Weapons of Mass

Destruction - State reported little progress in eliminating the threat from

weapons of mass destruction, particularly reflected in its inability to

achieve the targets for three performance indicators: (1) establishing

nonproliferation export controls in the 12 countries formerly comprising

the Soviet Union (the Newly Independent States), (2) ratifying the

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty III, and (3) reaching agreement with

Russia on antiballistic missile defense and theater missile defense

demarcation. The department presented strategies for meeting these

indicators in the future. Progress toward achieving targets related to a

third indicator—countries joining the Chemical Weapons Convention—

was unclear because State did not demonstrate that the countries joining

the convention during fiscal year 2000 were the actual targeted nations.

Finally, the department reported no progress related to the Antiballistic

Missile Defense and Theater Missile Defense treaties. Although State’s

performance plan for 2002 greatly reduced the number of performance

goals and indicators, many of the performance targets lack valid measures

of progress.

Planned Outcome: Expand Foreign Markets for U.S. Products and

Services - State reported successes in expanding foreign markets for U.S.

products and services, saying it fully or partially achieved performance

targets for all seven indicators. However, we disagree with State’s

assessment on two of the seven indicators—the number of Newly

Independent States joining the World Trade Organization and the number

of countries maintaining a 90-day petroleum stock. In addition, it is

difficult to see the relationship between the latter indicator and the goal of

expanding foreign markets for U.S. products and services. State’s 2002

performance goals and indicators for its two major efforts—opening new

markets and expanding trade—are objective and measurable, and the

department’s strategies clearly link performance goals and indicators to

outcomes; however, many of the measures are activity based rather than

outcome oriented.

Planned Outcome: Enhance the Ability of American Citizens to Travel and

Live Abroad Securely - State reported substantial progress in achieving

this outcome; however, we found that only one of the two current

performance targets was achieved. Furthermore, the department did not

report on basic services it provides. State dropped two performance

indicators prescribed in the 2000 performance plan—memoranda of
Page 4 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

understanding between State and commercial airlines and status of Year

2000 compliance—because neither remained applicable during 2000. The

department achieved its primary targets associated with its indicator for

disseminating information via the Internet. However, success in achieving

the performance target for reducing the caseload of child abduction

caseworkers was overstated because the department did not achieve the

actual levels of cases per worker outlined in the performance plan for

2000. In addition, State did not report on two of its most prominent

activities—the issuance of passports and the treatment of U.S. citizens in

foreign prisons—although the performance plan for 2000 did not list either

as specific indicators for these areas. The department stated it would

address the partially met indicator related to child abduction caseloads by

developing a new case-tracking system. In addition, in 2002, the

department will continue using its consular Web site; implement

computerized tracking systems for international adoptions and American

citizens incarcerated abroad; and report on other prominent services, such

as passport services.

Planned Outcome: Reduce International Crime and the Availability and/or

Use of Illegal Drugs - State reported success in achieving performance

targets; however, it is difficult to determine progress achieving the

outcome because State’s indicators were output rather than outcome

oriented and presented no data related to stemming the flow of illegal

drugs. State presented data on the number of people trained and the

number of international law enforcement academies established, but it did

not report how this training affected the levels of international crime and

its impact on the United States and its citizens. In 2002, State is to focus on

new anticrime and antismuggling operations; begin negotiating an

anticorruption agreement; and take actions to make progress on

investigating, prosecuting, and convicting major narcotics criminals. While

some of the indicators associated with the international crime

performance goals are not easily measurable, they are generally results

oriented.

Planned Outcome: Reduce International Terrorist Attacks, Especially

Against the United States and Its Citizens - State reported it successfully

achieved its performance targets on all indicators; however, it is difficult

to determine progress toward achieving the outcome because linkages

between the outcome and its related activities and indicators were not

clear. In addition, indicators were output based, generally reporting the

number of people trained or training sessions held. Moreover, the

department did not report on the two basic measures that define the

outcome—the number and severity of terrorist attacks. In 2002, State’s
Page 5 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

goals are to reduce the number of attacks, bring terrorists to justice,

reduce or eliminate state-sponsored terrorist acts, delegitimize the use of

terror as a political tool, enhance international response, and strengthen

international cooperation and operational capabilities to counter

terrorism. In addition, the department will report on the number of

terrorist attacks and the number of human casualties, as it did for fiscal

year 1999.

The fiscal year 2000 performance report has not changed significantly

from the fiscal year 1999 report. Although State has improved the report’s

clarity and readability, the report has numerous weaknesses, many of

which we reported in June 2000, most notably:

• Indicators continue to measure outputs rather than outcomes.

• The relationship between some indicators and strategies is unclear, as is

the relationship between some strategies and outcomes.

• Baselines, results of past performance, and methodologies for measuring

indicators were changed without discussion.

In addition, State once again failed to report on many of the indicators

prescribed by the 2000 performance plan, did not discuss strategies for

addressing unmet and unreported goals, and provided no assessments of

how fiscal year 2000 performance could affect performance in fiscal year

2001.

State’s performance plan for 2002 is a significant improvement over its

earlier GPRA products. State used a more unified, agencywide approach

rather than the regional focus used in the fiscal year 2001 plan. This

approach resulted in more clarity and the elimination of redundant

material. In addition, the 2002 plan more clearly delineates the

relationships among the various key outcomes, performance goals,

strategies, and performance indicators. However, some weaknesses

remain, such as the output orientation of many indicators, vague

performance targets, and a lack of clear descriptions of how State’s efforts

relate to efforts of other agencies and where interagency activity is taking

place.

State’s fiscal year 2000 performance report discussed progress in resolving

its major management challenges that we identified. The report discussed

seven major management challenges, including two governmentwide and

five others related specifically to the department. State’s performance plan

has performance goals and measures that are directly related to six of

these challenges and does not have performance goals, strategies, or
Page 6 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

measures to address one of these challenges—rightsizing U.S. overseas

presence. However, State subsequently addressed its rightsizing plans in

an August 2001 report that assessed recommendations of the Overseas

Presence Advisory Panel.5

 Moreover, the President has announced the

realignment of overseas presence as 1 of 14 management priorities for

fiscal year 2002. The department also stated it successfully achieved all

eight performance targets under its strategic human capital management

performance goals; however, it failed to fully report on at least three of the

eight indicators.

In this report, we recommend that in future years the Secretary of State

report on fiscal year performance for all performance goals and indicators

outlined in corresponding performance plans, provide clear and specific

explanations for why performance goals and targets were not achieved,

and discuss actions the department will take to achieve the unmet goals.

The department indicated it would implement these recommendations in

its 2001 performance report.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,

management, and accountability from activities and processes to results

and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable

information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been

provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA,

annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the

public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs

and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3)

the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals,

and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate

performance information. These annual plans, issued after transmittal of

the President’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s

longer-term goals and mission and day-to-day activities.6

 Annual

performance reports are to subsequently describe the degree to which

performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance

reports, due by March 31 of each year, represents a new and potentially

more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity

to assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and

 5

Final Report on Implementing the Recommendations of the Overseas Presence Advisory

Panel (OPAP), U.S. Department of State, August 2001.

6

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans under GPRA.

Background
Page 7 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

to consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce

costs in the future.7

The Department of State is the lead government agency representing U.S.

interests overseas. As such, it is vested with a wide range of

responsibilities, including formulating U.S. policy on diverse international

issues, coordinating and implementing U.S. government programs and

activities overseas, and influencing other countries to adopt policies and

practices consistent with U.S. interests. The department, among other

things, monitors and reports political, economic, and other developments

in foreign countries; assists U.S. business overseas; provides services to

U.S. citizens abroad; issues passports and visas; participates in

international drug control programs; and manages facilities and provides

security for U.S. personnel stationed at embassies and consulates.

This section discusses our analysis of State’s performance in achieving its

selected key outcomes and the strategies the department has in place,

particularly regarding human capital8

 and information technology, for

accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have

also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to

which State verified and validated its performance data.

It is difficult to determine the level of progress toward achieving the five

key outcomes that are discussed in the performance report for fiscal year

2000. For some key outcomes, it is unclear what State was trying to

accomplish, due to a lack of linkages between activity-based performance

measures and outcomes and a failure to report on many of the

performance indicators outlined in the plan for 2000. The department

provided little discussion on why progress in meeting certain performance

targets was not reported, why other performance targets were not met,

and what strategies would be used to achieve the unmet (and unreported)

performance targets. State’s performance plan for 2002 discusses

strategies to meet performance goals and more clearly links the key

 7

The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual reports under

GPRA.

8

Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human capital

planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and

creating results-oriented organizational cultures.

Assessment of State’s

Progress and

Strategies in

Accomplishing

Selected Key

Outcomes
Page 8 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

outcomes to strategies and performance indicators. In addition, the

department developed new performance indicators for some key

outcomes. However, as we reported in June 2000, many indicators

continue to be output rather than outcome oriented, and some indicators

are not readily measurable.

The performance report for 2000 and the performance plan for 2002

discussed issues of data verification and validation for four of the five

outcomes. In the performance report, State discussed data sources and the

unit responsible for verifying data quality for four outcomes, but it did not

discuss the frequency of data collection and the efforts taken to validate

the data for three of those four outcomes (weapons of mass destruction,

Americans traveling and living abroad, and counterterrorism). The 2002

plan discussed (1) the sources and management of performance data for

four outcomes (weapons of mass destruction, Americans traveling and

living abroad, international crime, and counterterrorism); (2) the

frequency of data collection for two outcomes (international crime and

counterterrorism); and (3) the validation of data for two outcomes

(weapons of mass destruction and Americans traveling and living abroad).

The department did not discuss how it will collect and validate

performance data for the outcome of expanding foreign markets for U.S.

goods and services.

The performance report and performance plan provided detailed

discussions of departmentwide strategic human capital and information

technology efforts under the Diplomatic Readiness initiatives. However,

other than for a few instances—such as State’s efforts to use the Internet

for disseminating information on consular services and travel safety—the

report generally did not discuss these issues within the context of

achieving the key outcomes. The performance plan for 2002 listed the

number of staff positions the department requested for all five key

outcomes, but it did not explain how changes in the number of these

positions would affect the achievement of the outcomes. The performance

plan included a detailed discussion of information technology issues

related to providing services to American citizens traveling and living

abroad, but it did not do so for the remaining four outcomes.

State reported it achieved one of its four planned performance targets for

this outcome, made progress toward achieving a second, did not achieve a

third target, and made no progress toward its fourth target. However, for

the two indicators for which State reported progress, one performance

target was not achieved and progress toward the other was unclear

The Threat From Weapons

of Mass Destruction
Page 9 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

because State did not provide a full description of its actual

accomplishment.

State’s strategic goal for this key outcome was to eliminate the threat to

the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction and

destabilizing conventional arms. State’s fiscal year 2000 performance plan

identified one performance goal regarding the negotiation and

implementation of nonproliferation treaties, agreements, and controls with

Russia and the other Newly Independent States.9

 To measure achievement

of this goal, State focused on four performance indicators: (1)

establishment of nonproliferation export controls in Russia and the other

Newly Independent States, (2) progress on the Strategic Arms Reduction

Treaty III (START III) with Russia, (3) accession of Newly Independent

States to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and (4) agreement between

the United States and Russia on antiballistic missile defense and theater

missile defense demarcation. Under nonproliferation activities, State’s

target was to have export controls in place in all 12 Newly Independent

States, with a majority of these countries enforcing them. Actual

performance showed that five countries (Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,

Kazakhstan, and Ukraine) have the controls in place, and one (Ukraine)

enforces them. State did not explain why the targets under this outcome

were not met. For the second performance indicator, State reported that

the United States and Russia held preliminary discussions about arms

reductions under START III during 2000. While important, the result does

not meet the target for 2000 of having a treaty signed by the United States

and Russia. Under the third indicator, the department stated that 12

additional countries ratified or acceded to the Chemical Weapons

Convention, but it is unclear whether this achievement meets the planned

target of 2 additional Newly Independent States joining the convention

because the department did not report the countries that joined. Finally,

State reported it made no progress related to antiballistic missile defense

and theater missile defense demarcation because Russia was not willing to

engage in formal discussions.

The performance report discussed strategies to achieve the unmet

performance goal of having all 12 Newly Independent States institute

nonproliferation export controls and having the majority enforce them.

The department stated that it has expanded into two distinct export

control offices—one focused on policy and the other on sanctions and

 9

Russia and the 11 other Newly Independent States formerly comprised the Soviet Union.
Page 10 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

assistance. However, State did not report why the performance targets

were not met; thus it is difficult to determine how this strategy will help

the department achieve the unmet target in the future. The report did not

discuss why the START III negotiations were delayed or a likely time

frame for when the negotiations would be completed and the treaty

signed, nor did the report discuss the actions State will take to meet its

targets for theater and antiballistic missile defense demarcation.

Overall, the fiscal year 2002 plan provides a more clear definition of State’s

intended strategies and performance regarding weapons of mass

destruction by organizing the performance goals and indicators in a more

logical fashion. State’s unified approach eliminated many goals and

indicators that resulted from State’s prior year approach that was devolved

to the regional level. By focusing on agencywide, rather than regional,

objectives and limiting its planning to nonmandated activities, State

reduced the number of performance goals for this key outcome from 75

for fiscal year 2001 to 7 for 2002 and the number of performance indicators

from 64 to 15. In addition, State will continue to use two categories for

judging 2002 performance for this outcome—successful and minimally

successful—each of which has specific associated levels of performance.

However, some of the performance indicators and targets identified

continue to lack valid measures of progress. For example, one new

indicator measuring performance toward missile defense defines

“successful” performance as “undertak[ing] appropriate actions to

implement U.S. Government decisions on missile defense.” As in prior

plans, State identified the agencies with which coordination is needed for

each performance goal, yet failed to discuss the nature and extent of the

coordination necessary or the new strategies that may be needed.

In the performance report, State addressed data verification by stating the

sources of data. The performance plan for 2002 provided the same

information on data verification, in addition to the units responsible for

data collection and management. However, the department did not

indicate how it would verify the data. In the 2002 plan, State requested an

increase of 20 full-time staff for this outcome, but it did not say how the

additional positions would be allocated.

State reported it achieved performance targets for all seven indicators

outlined in the performance plan for 2000. However, for three indicators

that State reported as having been achieved, we found the department

only partially met its targets. Finally, the linkage between one of the

Foreign Markets for U.S.

Products and Services
Page 11 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

performance indicators and the outcome was unclear. State has deleted

that indicator from its subsequent performance plan.

State has two strategic goals in the trade area that we treated as one key

outcome: (1) opening foreign markets to increase trade and free flow of

goods, services, and capital and (2) expanding U.S. exports to $1.2 trillion

by early in the 21st century. Performance goals and indicators were

generally objective and measurable. Under the first of the selected

outcomes—opening markets—four of five indicators were results

oriented. However, it was difficult to see the relationship between one

performance indicator—number of countries maintaining a 90-day stock

of petroleum—and the outcome of opening markets to U.S. goods and

services. Performance indicators for the second selected outcome,

expanding U.S. exports, were also objective and measurable. Neither the

performance report nor the performance plan discussed data verification

and validation for this outcome.

The performance plan indicated the department will reduce the number of

staff positions by about 27 percent (256 positions), but it did not state

which functions within the 2 strategic goals would be affected.

State reported that it had fully achieved its targets for four of its five

performance indicators and partially met the fifth indicator. However,

from our assessment, State had successfully achieved only three targets—

the number of countries signing more liberal aviation agreements; the total

sales of U.S. telecommunication and information technology equipment;

and the total foreign operations revenues of U.S. telecommunications,

including satellite services. For another indicator, the number of Newly

Independent States and former Communist countries acceding to the

World Trade Organization, State targeted four countries—Georgia,

Croatia, Lithuania, and Moldova. State said it successfully met the target

because three countries joined the organization in 2000. However, only

one of the targeted countries, Georgia, joined the organization during

fiscal year 2000, while another joining country, Albania, was not on State’s

initial list. Croatia completed its entry requirement during fiscal year 2000,

but did not formally join until November 30, 2000. Lithuania and Moldova

did not join until well into fiscal year 2001.10 On the final indicator, the

number of countries maintaining a 90-day petroleum stock reserve, we

 10Lithuania was voted as a member on December 8, 2000, and formally joined on May 31,

2001. Moldova formally joined the organization on July 27, 2001.

Open Foreign Markets to

Increase Trade and the Free

Flow of Goods, Services, and

Capital
Page 12 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

agree that State successfully met the target of having two target

countries—the Czech Republic and South Korea—maintain 90-day

petroleum reserves. However, the fact that seven other countries

previously maintaining the desired level of oil stocks fell out of

compliance with the standard negates this achievement. Regardless of

whether State achieved the performance target, as we reported in June

2000, it is difficult to see a linkage between the number of countries

maintaining a 90-day petroleum stock and the goal of expanding foreign

markets for U.S. products and services. As such, State has dropped this

indicator for both 2001 and 2002 performance.

Although State did not establish clear fiscal year 2002 performance goals

for this part of the key outcome, it did discuss the strategies to achieve the

outcome and the indicators and performance targets it will use to judge

progress. State will continue to work toward strengthening international

frameworks for open markets for goods, services, and investment;

integrating social policy goals into the international agenda for reforming

economic policies and rules; ensuring openness of international markets

for e-commerce and biotechnology; and integrating developing and

transition economies into the world economy. To monitor performance,

State will focus on 11 indicators. These indicators are generally objective

and measurable and linked to the outcome, but performance targets for

three indicators are not clearly defined: (1) needs met in Integrated

Framework for Trade-Related Capacity Building Roundtables, (2) status of

bilateral investment dialogues, and (3) status of multilateral policy

dialogues.

State reported success in achieving both performance indicators outlined

for this outcome; however, the department did not report on one of the

performance targets prescribed by the plan. State’s one performance goal

and two reported indicators were objective and measurable. The

performance goal focused on U.S. government export promotion to the

“best international market prospects,” and State reported it successfully

achieved the targets for two performance indicators—the total level of

U.S. exports (goods only) and the attainment of bilateral investment

treaties. In developing the 2000 performance plan in 1998, State set 3

targets related to bilateral investment treaties to be achieved in fiscal year

2000: (1) sign 4 additional treaties with undetermined countries, (2)

conduct 8 ongoing treaty negotiations, and (3) engage in preparatory

discussions with 50 countries. The target for the number of treaties signed

was actually achieved during 1999, and State concentrated its efforts in

2000 “on obtaining advice and consent from the Senate on 10 previously

signed treaties and engag[ing] in negotiations with 8 countries.” The

Expand U.S. Exports to $1.2

Trillion by Early in the 21st

Century
Page 13 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

department did not indicate whether it was preparing discussions with

additional countries. For the other indicator, State reported sales of $755

billion in total U.S. exports of goods, surpassing the 2000 target of $720

billion.

State’s performance goals, strategies, indicators, and performance targets

outlined in the performance plan for 2002 are more clearly linked to the

key outcome of expanding U.S. exports to $1.2 trillion than they were in

the 2000 performance report. State’s two performance goals are to (1)

provide support to U.S. businesses competing worldwide and (2) increase

exports of oil and gas field equipment and services, telecommunications

equipment and services, and agricultural produce. Strategies include

promoting business and exports, supporting U.S. foreign direct

investments, and promoting corporate responsibility and best practices.

State will assess progress toward achieving the outcome using eight

performance indicators that are generally objective and measurable.

Although all of the indicators have specific baselines for 2000 and

performance targets for 2002, most, such as the number of presentations

to business audiences, are activity based. However, two indicators—(1)

telecommunications and information technology equipment sales and (2)

agricultural exports—are outcome oriented. A third indicator—oil and gas

sector exports—is also outcome oriented; however, State provided no

baseline for this indicator, and its performance target is vague and not

measurable.

State reported that it had fully met two of its performance targets for this

key outcome and explained that it did not report on the two other

indicators outlined by the 2000 performance plan because these indicators

had become obsolete. Based on our assessment, although State made great

strides toward achieving planned performance for one of the two

indicators discussed, it did not fully achieve the target prescribed by the

2000 plan.

State’s strategic goal for this key outcome was to protect the safety and

security of American citizens who travel and live abroad, and its

performance goal for 2000 was to deliver information and services needed

to travel and live abroad knowledgeably, efficiently, and courteously. This

performance goal was clearly defined, results oriented, and measurable.

Furthermore, State established four measurable and objective

performance indicators. However, one of the key services that State

provides American citizens traveling abroad—timely, effective passport

issuance—is not an indicator under this key outcome. Neither the

The Ability of American

Citizens to Travel and Live

Abroad Securely
Page 14 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

performance plan for fiscal year 2000 nor the fiscal year 2000 performance

report provides performance information on this prominent activity,

although the 2000 report provides a narrative description of what State

considers improved passport service.

State dropped two of the four indicators prescribed by the performance

plan for fiscal year 2000. The department reported that one of the

indicators, status of the American Citizen Services system’s Year 2000

compliance, is no longer applicable. For the other indicator, memoranda

of understanding between State and commercial airlines serving U.S.

citizen passengers in the event of an air disaster, State reported that

specific memoranda are no longer necessary because new legislation and

regulations serve the same purpose and that the target has been

successfully achieved. In the report, State did not specifically cite the

relevant legislative and regulatory changes.

For the performance indicator of Internet usage to disseminate

information on consular services and travel safety, State surpassed its

target of receiving 150,000 hits per day on its Web page, averaging 240,000

hits per day. State also said it achieved its customer satisfaction targets for

this indicator. However, it is difficult to determine whether the 2000 target

for percent of users who found the information helpful was met. State

reported that user satisfaction with consular Web site information was 90

percent, which was 5-percentage points below the target for 2000. State

cited three primary sources of user dissatisfaction: (1) inability to get

questions answered by telephone, (2) unwillingness or inability to call the

passport information 900 (toll) telephone number, and (3) no listing of the

winners of the Diversity Visa lottery. However, two of the reasons cited

reflected dissatisfaction with telephone-based customer service rather

than Web site content. Nonetheless, State said it met the target and

therefore all aspects of the indicator. Further complicating the issue, State

did not provide data on the relative influence the three sources of

dissatisfaction had on the overall user satisfaction rate. Thus, the

explanations seem incomplete.

State also reported that it successfully met the final performance target,

reducing the case workload per officer to left-behind parents in child

abduction cases from 140 cases to 80, despite an actual reduction to 90

cases per worker. State officials told us they declared success for this

performance indicator because the reduction was significant. However,

State provided no explanation of why it was not successful in reducing the

workload to 80 cases per officer. The department stated that progress
Page 15 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

toward achieving this target was due in large part to increasing the

number of full-time staff from 11 to 26.

In addition, State’s strategy for enhancing American citizen services under

the performance plan covering fiscal year 2000 indicated that the

department would work closely with foreign governments to improve

treatment of U.S. citizens incarcerated abroad, promote greater

participation in multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party,

and help other agencies provide efficient distribution of benefits overseas.

Yet State provided no indicators or targets to measure progress in these

areas. The 2000 performance report does not include these activities as

strategies State used in fulfilling this goal. The plan also states that

ratification of the Hague Convention on International Adoptions was

expected and that State must make preparations for dealing with the

increased workload the convention would entail. But State did not report

on what preparations, if any, had been made for the convention’s

ratification or a resulting increase in workload.

Although one of the key services State provides American citizens

traveling abroad is the timely and effective issuance of passports, neither

the 2000 performance plan nor the 2000 performance report provides

performance information on this service. However, the 2000 report said

that a governmentwide satisfaction survey showed that the service

passport customers received exceeded their expectations and that the

majority of customers were more satisfied than they were in 1998.

Under its performance plan for 2002, State replaced its past indicator for

child abductions—reducing the workload level of caseworkers—by

focusing on a new, automated case-tracking system. Performance targets

for 2002 include pilot testing and deploying systems that track

international parental child abduction cases and international adoption

cases. In addition, the system will track U.S. citizens who have been

arrested overseas and instances of their mistreatment. State also will

report on two passport service indicators: the number issued and the

status of efforts to introduce digital passport photos. Finally, State will

continue to track consular information activities through the use of the

Consular Activities Web site. State will continue to use two alternative

levels of measure—successful and minimally effective—for the indicators

associated with this outcome. For each performance indicator, the

alternative levels of measure have specific results-oriented targets.

In the performance report, State addressed data verification by stating the

sources of performance data and the units responsible for data collection
Page 16 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

and management. The performance plan for 2002 also provided a brief

description of how and by whom the data will be verified and validated.

State reported success in achieving performance targets associated with

three indicators presented in the 2000 performance plan. However, overall

progress under this outcome is unclear because the department did not

discuss progress toward achieving the planned targets for three additional

indicators prescribed by the 2000 plan. In addition, the linkages between

the outcome and some of the strategies and indicators are unclear, and the

indicators on which the department reported were output rather than

outcome oriented.

State’s 2000 performance plan and prior GPRA products treated

international crime and drug trafficking as one strategic goal: to minimize

the impact of international crime on the United States and its citizens and

reduce significantly, from 1997 levels, the entry of illegal drugs into the

United States. State’s performance report for 2000 presented one

performance goal covering both key outcomes and addressed only the

indicators related to international law enforcement training programs

outlined in the performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The report did not

discuss performance results for its remaining three indicators outlined in

the 2000 plan: (1) foreign spending on and commitment to crime control

efforts, (2) agreements to counter international organized crime, and (3)

antinarcotics awareness campaigns. The report also did not present

indicators related to the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. No

explanation was provided on why the other indicators and measures were

excluded.

For the international training program indicators, the performance plan

for fiscal year 2000 identified three performance targets; however, the

performance report for fiscal year 2000 addressed only two—the number

of academies established and the number of foreign officials trained. State

gave no explanation on why “help[ing] countries establish their own

national-level law enforcement training institutions” was not discussed.

Furthermore, the report did not demonstrate how establishing training

academies and training foreign officials help State combat international

crime and reduce the availability of illegal drugs.

State reported that targets for the two performance indicators related to

law enforcement training were successfully achieved. The department

stated that it completed development of two international law

enforcement academies but only cited one partnered country—Botswana.

International Crime and

the Availability and/or Use

of Illegal Drugs
Page 17 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

State also worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development and

the Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial

Development, Assistance, and Training, as we reported in October 2000

and April 2001,11 in addition to other U.S. agencies and host countries, to

achieve its target of training 10,500 foreign officials in law-related areas.

Both of these indicators were output oriented, and State did not

demonstrate tangible effects of training on reducing international crime.

The 2002 performance plan treats international crime and reducing entry

of illegal drugs into the United States as two separate strategic goals. This

approach provides more clarity and better linkages between State’s

performance goals and the outcomes than previous performance plans. To

minimize the impact of international crime on the United States and its

citizens, State has two general goals—strengthening international

cooperation against transnational crime and improving law enforcement

and criminal justice institutions in targeted countries. To achieve these

goals, State plans to continue using training-related items as strategies. In

addition, State plans to work with other countries to develop new

anticrime and antismuggling/trafficking operations, begin negotiating an

international anticorruption agreement, and work with multilateral

agencies to implement the Transnational Organized Crime Convention and

related protocols. While some of the associated indicators are not easily

quantifiable, performance requirements are generally results oriented.

To achieve the objective related to reducing the entry of illegal drugs into

the United States, State plans to employ numerous strategies to reduce the

cultivation of illicit coca and opium poppy and foreign cultivation of

marijuana. These strategies are generally results oriented, and the

indicators tracking progress are objective, measurable, and directly

related to the performance goal and key outcome. Strategies related to a

second goal—criminal justice sectors of foreign governments break up

major drug trafficking organizations and effectively investigate, prosecute,

and convict major narcotics criminals—are aimed at diplomatic initiatives

to get foreign countries to approve and implement the 1988 United Nations

Drug Convention, as well as assist others with legislative, training, and law

enforcement activities. The two performance indicators—the number of

countries adhering to the convention and the number of foreign officers

 11Foreign Assistance: Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System Should Be Linked to

Performance-Related Conditions, (GAO-01-24, Oct. 17, 2000) and Former Soviet Union:

U.S. Rule of Law Assistance Has Had Limited Impact, (GAO-01-354, Apr. 17, 2001).
Page 18 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

trained—are objective and measurable and clearly linked to the

performance goals and key outcome; however, they apply to only two of

State’s many planned activities.

In the performance report, State addressed data verification by discussing

the sources of performance data, the frequency of data collection, the

units responsible for data collection and management, and how the data

were validated. Although the performance plan for 2002 addressed the first

three items for data verification, it did not discuss how the data would be

validated.

The performance plan stated that the department will increase staffing for

its anticrime efforts by 18 percent (76 positions), but it did not provide

specifics on how these positions will be allocated. The plan also stated

that the number of positions for combating the illegal flow of drugs would

be reduced by about 22 percent (28 positions), but it did not state how this

would affect activities associated with this strategic goal.

The events of September 11, 2001, heightened the awareness and

importance of this outcome and could affect the strategies the department

utilizes to combat terrorism. While the events have no bearing on fiscal

year 2000 results that the department presented in its performance report,

they could lead to changes to State’s fiscal year 2002 counterterrorism

performance goals, strategies, and indicators. The department’s 2002

performance goals, strategies, and indicators were generally results

oriented; however, performance targets for the some of the indicators

were not well defined. Although the goals, strategies, and indicators

remain relevant even after the September 11 events, State officials said

they plan to revise the performance targets and may consider altering,

replacing, and adding some strategies and indicators.

State reported that it successfully achieved its performance targets on all

indicators prescribed by the performance plan for fiscal year 2000.

However, progress toward achieving the outcome is difficult to determine

because linkages between the outcome and its strategies and indicators

were not clear. In addition, indicators were output rather than outcome

oriented. Moreover, the department did not report on two basic measures

associated with the outcome—the number and severity of terrorist

attacks.

State’s strategic goal for this key outcome was to reduce the incidence and

severity of international terrorist attacks, particularly against American

International Terrorist

Attacks
Page 19 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

citizens and interests. For fiscal year 2000, State reduced the number and

type of performance goals (from two in 1999 to one in 2000) and

performance indicators (from seven in 1999 to five in 2000), as outlined in

the department’s performance plan for 2000. The outcome, performance

goal, and indicators were objective and measurable; however, the

performance goal and performance indicators were output rather than

outcome oriented. The department’s objective was to reduce the severity

and incidence of international terrorist attacks against American citizens

and interests by minimizing human casualties, physical destruction of

property, and the political effects of terrorism. To accomplish this, State

focused predominantly on training—altering the performance goal to

“train[ing] foreign governments in methods and techniques of combating

terrorism.” All five of the indicators and performance targets involved

either holding conferences, coordinating interagency terrorism response

exercises and deployments, or training personnel. State reported it

achieved each of the performance targets. Although these measures are

outputs, some do operate as proxies for outcomes. For example, the 2000

performance report’s number of exercises and deployments are outputs

that serve as proxies to outcomes—in this case, high readiness to respond

to international terrorist incidents.

The fiscal year 2000 report lacks the single most important and easily

quantifiable performance indicator for this performance goal: the number

of terrorist attacks, especially against American citizens. These figures are

readily available and published annually by the Department of State.12 The

fiscal year 1999 report included “level of terrorist attacks” as a

performance indicator, but it only discussed the trends in such attacks, not

the actual figures. The fiscal year 2000 report dropped the level or number

of attacks as a performance indicator.

For 2002, State’s performance goals are to reduce the number of attacks,

bring terrorists to justice, reduce or eliminate state sponsored terrorist

acts, delegitimize the use of terror as a political tool, enhance international

response, and strengthen international cooperation and operational

capabilities to counter terrorism. To achieve these goals, State has

developed strategies that strengthen international conventions and

resolutions and U.S. laws; isolate sources of support, including freezing

 12The Department of State annually publishes Patterns of Global Terrorism, which

provides extensive detail on the number of terrorist attacks, attacks on Americans, types of

attacks, attacks by region, number of casualties in attacks, and number of facilities

attacked.
Page 20 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

financial assets; and train foreign officials in counterterrorism through

bilateral exercises. State will measure progress in 2002 using seven new

indicators. State said it will report on the number of terrorist attacks and

the rate of deaths and casualties against baseline data for fiscal year 2000,

with performance targets to reduce the levels of each. The department

also established an indicator and baseline for the number of countries

signing and implementing international treaties on counterterrorism;

however, part of the performance target for this indicator is unclear,

focusing on “increased effective recourse to treaties for extraditions and

renditions.” Two indicators—the level of cooperation and coordination

among friendly governments and the level of professionalism, training, and

quality of key equipment in key friendly countries—are not easily

measurable. State established baselines for each, stating the current level

is fair or good, but it does not explain what is meant by these categories,

nor how one measures “increased professionalism” or “improved

coordination.” State used a similar baseline for another indicator, the

successful collection of evidence and obtaining witness cooperation for

prosecutions under U.S. laws, but the performance target—increased use

of foreign collected evidence and witnesses in U.S. prosecutions—seems

quantifiable and, we believe, should have a consistent baseline.

Due to the sensitive nature of the information for the remaining two

indicators—(1) identification of terrorist threats and prevention of

terrorist attacks and (2) the level of fund-raising activity on behalf of

terrorist groups—State reported no baseline data. Performance for the

former indicator will be measured by assessing the number and lethality of

attacks. The target for the latter indicator is a reduction in funds raised

through front organizations.

In the performance report, State addressed data verification by discussing

the sources of performance data and the units responsible for data

collection and management. The performance plan for 2002 also included

a statement of the frequency of data collection, but it did not discuss how

the data would be validated. The performance plan also stated that the

number of staff positions for this outcome would be reduced by 23 percent

(58 positions), but it did not state which areas would be affected by the

cuts.
Page 21 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements

or remaining weaknesses in State’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report

compared with its fiscal year 1999 report and (2) fiscal year 2002

performance plan compared with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also discusses

the degree to which State’s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan

address concerns and recommendations by the Congress, GAO, and

State’s Inspector General.

Despite efforts to improve the clarity and readability of its performance

report, State’s report for 2000 suffered from many of the same weaknesses

of the 1999 report. Two major weaknesses are that (1) many indicators

continue to be activity based rather than outcome oriented and (2)

relationships between some key outcomes and strategies and indicators

remain unclear. In addition, State changed some indicators, or the

methodologies for measuring them, with little or no discussion on why it

did so; and like 1999, the department failed to report on many of the

performance indicators defined by its plan for 2000. Moreover, State did

not discuss strategies for addressing unmet (and unreported) performance

targets and did not provide assessments of how performance in fiscal year

2000 could affect estimated performance levels for 2001.

The 2000 performance report continues to rely on activity- or output-based

indicators, rather than outcome-oriented indicators; and State did not

establish connections between its actions and the success or failure of key

outcomes. We recognize that the nature of State’s mission and operating

environment makes it difficult for the department to avoid either having

very broad key outcomes that are then not addressed sufficiently by the

indicators or broad indicators that make it difficult to assess State’s role in

the outcome. Given this difficulty, we find it commendable that most

reported indicators are quantifiable and that all reported indicators have

baselines and targets. Nevertheless, as we suggested in 1999, there are

opportunities to better describe State’s outputs and clarify how they affect

outcomes. For example, assessing whether terrorist attacks were reduced

requires either a comparison of the relative number of terrorist attacks or

a count of instances when specific attacks were prevented. In the 1999

Comparison of State’s

Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

and Fiscal Year 2002

Performance Plan

With the Prior Year

Report and Plan for

Selected Key

Outcomes

Comparison of

Performance Reports for

Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

Little Connection Between

State’s Actions and the

Achievement of Key Outcomes
Page 22 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

report, one of the indicators for this issue was the “level of terrorist

attacks against American citizens and interests.” This indicator provided a

direct measure of whether the goal was met (outcome), but it is unclear on

what action the United States took (output) to influence the outcome.

Rather than linking an action or strategy to the indicator, as noted above,

in its 2000 report State did not report the number or severity of terrorist

attacks.

The relationships between some strategies and key outcomes were not

always apparent. For example, State does not clearly explain how some

strategies, such as establishing law enforcement academies in southern

Africa and New Mexico, related to the key outcome of minimizing the

impact of international crime and stemming the flow of illegal drugs. State

also reported on some indicators that were not clearly linked to key

outcomes. For example, it is not clear how a nation maintaining a 90-day

stock of petroleum reserves becomes a more open market for U.S. goods

and services. In addition, reducing the caseload of overseas childabduction investigators appears more closely related to reducing the

impact of international crime on American citizens than providing

efficient, knowledgeable, and courteous services to Americans traveling

and living abroad.

Furthermore, the relationship between performance indicators and

strategies were not always clear. In particular, it is unclear whether each

strategy is designed to pursue specific indicators under a performance

goal or whether the strategies are part of a more general effort. For

example, three of the five indicators for the key outcome, “opening foreign

markets” to U.S. goods and services, related to a single strategy—

”advancing civil aviation, transport, telecommunications, and energy

initiatives”—while most of the remaining nine strategies had no readily

associated indicators.

Some indicators to measure performance in 1999 were changed in 2000

without explanation, which makes it difficult to track performance from

one year to the next. For some indicators used in 1999, measurement

methodologies were altered with no discussion in either the performance

plan or performance report for 2000, resulting in orders of magnitude

differences. For the indicator “sales of U.S. telecommunications and

information technology equipment,” State’s 1999 performance report

showed a 1998 baseline of $18.9 billion in sales and a 1999 target of $20.6

billion, but it did not provide actual performance for 1999. For the same

indicator in 2000, State reported a 1998 baseline of $111 billion in sales, a

1999 actual level of $123 billion, a 2000 target of $120 billion, and a 2000

Unclear Relationships Among

Key Outcomes, Strategies, and

Indicators

Little or No Explanation for

Changes to Performance

Indicators
Page 23 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

actual level of $140 billion. It is apparent that State changed the

methodology for assessing this indicator, but the department did not

explain why it did so.

In addition, State changed past performance results for some indicators.

For example, regarding expansion of markets for U.S. products and

services, the actual level for the total exports of goods for 1999 cited in

State’s 1999 performance report was $693 billion. However, the 2000

performance report adjusted the 1999 actual level for the total exports of

goods to $673 billion. State provided no explanation for this change. If the

fiscal year 2000 report’s actual level for 1999 is correct, then State did not

reach its 1999 performance target of $685 billion that it reported it had

successfully met in its 1999 performance report.

In contrast to the performance report, State’s 2002 plan represents a major

improvement over 2001 by (1) focusing more on the overall agency level,

rather than upon geographic regions; (2) eliminating redundant

performance goals and indicators, and goals and indicators that were not

clearly linked to outcomes; and (3) associating performance with

necessary resources. However, the plan still has certain weaknesses. Many

performance goals and indicators continue to be activity based rather than

outcome oriented, and some performance indicators remain vague and

unmeasurable. Furthermore, although State listed its partner agencies,

offices, and bureaus; it did not explain its roles and responsibilities in

these partnerships.

State’s performance plan for 2002 uses a more unified, agencywide

approach than the regional focus used in the 2001 plan. This approach

resulted in more clarity and the elimination of redundant material. State

agreed with our 2000 assessment that the goals and objectives in the 2001

performance plan were overly scattered. State formed key outcome teams

that identified performance goals for the department, rather than have the

various bureaus set their own goals. Using this approach, State achieved a

drastic reduction in the number of performance goals and indicators

across all outcomes. For example, in 2000, we reported that State’s plan

for 2001 had 75 performance goals and 64 performance measures over 5

regions for its efforts to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction.

In the 2002 plan, State reduced the number of performance goals and

measures to 7 and 15, respectively. By deleting redundancies, combining

related or subsidiary goals and indicators, and eliminating goals and

indicators not clearly linked to key outcomes, State devised a performance

plan for 2002 that is more focused and is more useful for understanding its

intentions and for monitoring progress against baselines.

Comparison of

Performance Plans for

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 24 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Another improvement over the plan for fiscal year 2001 is the inclusion of

a resources summary for the selected outcomes. The performance plan for

2002 presented a summary chart showing the actual funding and number

of positions for fiscal year 2000 and the estimated funding and number of

positions for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for each key outcome. However,

the plan did not indicate how these resources would be applied to the

various goals and strategies within the outcomes.

Nonetheless, some deficiencies remain with State’s 2002 plan. Many

indicators continue to be activity based rather than outcome oriented. For

example, regarding expansion of U.S. exports by $1.2 trillion, five of eight

indicators describe outputs of activities, four of which tallied the number

of meetings, conferences, and training opportunities, while the fifth

indicator measured the status of the launching of an intranet Web site. In

addition, a number of performance targets are vague and not measurable.

For example, the target for “status of bilateral investment policy

dialogues” for the opening of foreign markets outcome is undefined

(“measurable progress on improvement of investment climates”).

Similarly, it is unclear how progress will be measured for the

counterterrorism indicator “level of coordination among friendly

governments” (“improved coordination in countries, including close allies,

countries with major terrorist presence, and those receiving [antiterrorism

and Foreign Emergency Support Team] training”). In addition, it will be

difficult to measure a “[d]eepening of new energy investment. . . resulting

in increased flows of energy equipment and service exports from U.S.

firms” for oil and gas exports, even assuming a baseline for judging was

provided. A better performance target would be the total value of oil and

gas sector exports.

Finally, although State provides a list of the agencies, offices, and bureaus

working together to achieve the outcomes, it does not explain how the

organizations interact or their respective roles. State’s role in establishing

international law enforcement academies and increasing the technical

capabilities of law enforcement and judicial institutions, for example, is

not as apparent as the roles played by some of its partnered agencies, such

as the Department of Justice. Although State may be involved in

negotiating agreements for establishing law enforcement academies and

other training institutions, other organizations, such as the Department of

Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development and Assistance

Training, actually provide the training services.
Page 25 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

We have identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human

capital management and information security. Regarding human capital,

we found that State’s 2002 performance plan has performance goals and

measures related to human capital, and its 2000 performance report

explained its progress in resolving human capital challenges. The

department reported that one of its performance goals for 2002 is to be

staffed with a fully skilled workforce. State reported the number of

employees in training and related programs and other efforts to better

prepare its existing workforce, declaring these efforts to be successful.

However, it did not address efforts to recruit new staff, including possible

incentives for information technology and other hard-to-attract staff.

Regarding information security, we found that State’s performance plan

has performance goals and measures related to information security, and

the department’s performance report explained its progress in resolving its

information security challenges. State said that, primarily based on our

recommendations, it has undertaken efforts to improve information

technology security to close several material weaknesses. However, we

have not determined the effectiveness of these programs. Also, the

independent auditor who reviewed State’s 2000 principal financial

statements said that implementing our recommendations does not

necessarily mean that the related material weaknesses have been

corrected.

In addition, we have identified five other major management challenges

facing State: (1) enhancing overseas communications, information

technology, and knowledge management; (2) rightsizing U.S. overseas

presence; (3) improving the security of overseas facilities and enhancing

the management of overseas security programs; (4) improving financial

management capabilities; and (5) improving visa processing and

enhancing border security. We found that the department’s performance

report discussed its progress in addressing all of these challenges. Of these

major management challenges, State developed performance goals and

measures for 2002 that are directly related to four of these challenges.

State did not detail performance goals, strategies, or measures to address

one of these challenges—rightsizing U.S. overseas presence—in the

performance plan. For that challenge, State reported it had been unable to

achieve a consensus with other agencies, which is essential since

rightsizing is an interagency effort. However, in August 2001, State

reported on actions it plans to take to address the recommendations of the

Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. Moreover, the President identified

rightsizing overseas presence as 1 of 14 initiatives in his management

agenda for fiscal year 2002.

State’s Efforts to

Address Its Major

Management

Challenges Identified

by GAO
Page 26 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Appendix I provides detailed information on how State addressed these

high-risk areas and other major management challenges, as identified by

both GAO and State’s Office of the Inspector General.

Weaknesses in State’s fiscal year 2000 performance report made it difficult

to determine the department’s progress toward achieving the key

outcomes. These weaknesses are rooted in performance goals and

indicators established in its performance plan for 2000, which was

prepared in 1998 and which we have criticized in a prior report. State

acknowledged flaws in its previous GPRA products and sought to correct

many of them in its performance plan for 2002. State has taken a major

step toward implementing GPRA requirements by producing a fiscal year

2002 plan that is superior to earlier efforts. Although we identified several

areas where improvements can be made, such as developing indicators

that are focused on results instead of outputs, we believe that the

improved plan lays the groundwork for State to provide a more clear

assessment of its performance and progress next year. In its future

performance report, State will need to focus its efforts on reporting on all

indicators in the plan and, if targets are not achieved, providing clear

explanations of the reasons why and what actions State plans to achieve

the targets in the future.

We recommend the Secretary of State ensure that performance reports for

2001 and subsequent years (1) address all performance goals and

indicators outlined in State’s performance plans, (2) provide clear and

specific explanations for why performance goals and performance targets

were not met, and (3) outline the actions the department will take to

achieve unmet goals.

As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on (1) the requirements of

GPRA, (2) the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, (3) guidance to agencies

from OMB for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular

A-11, part 2), (4) previous reports and evaluations by us and others, (5) our

knowledge of State’s operations and programs, (6) our identification of

best practices concerning performance planning and reporting, and (7) our

observations on State’s other GPRA-related efforts. We discussed our

review with officials in the Office of Management Policy and Planning,

which is responsible for preparing the performance reports and plans

required by GPRA. We also discussed our work with State’s OIG. The

department outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were

Conclusions

Recommendations

Scope and

Methodology
Page 27 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs as important mission areas for the department and

generally reflect the outcomes for all of State’s programs or activities. The

major management challenges confronting State, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security, were identified by us in our January 2001

performance and accountability series and high-risk update and by State’s

Office of the Inspector General in December 2000. We did not

independently verify the information contained in the performance report

and plan, although we did draw from our other work in assessing the

validity, reliability, and timeliness of State’s performance data. We

conducted our review from April 2001 through November 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the

Department of State (see app. II). The department indicated that it is

taking action to improve its GPRA processes and products and would

implement our recommendations in its fiscal year 2001 performance

report. The department also provided technical comments, which we have

appropriately incorporated into this report.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

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

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate

congressional committees; the Secretary of State; and the Director, OMB.

Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

Agency Comments
Page 28 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-4128.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director

International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 29 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

The following table identifies the major management challenges

confronting the Department of State, including the governmentwide highrisk areas of human capital and information security. The first column lists

the challenges identified by our office and State’s Office of the Inspector

General (OIG). The second column discusses what progress, as discussed

in its fiscal year 2000 performance report, State made in resolving its

challenges. The third column discusses the extent to which State’s fiscal

year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and measures to

address the challenges that we and OIG identified. We found that State’s

performance report discussed State’s progress in resolving most of its

challenges, but it did not discuss State’s progress in resolving the

following two challenges: (1) enhancing emergency preparedness and

conducting crisis management exercises and (2) correcting weaknesses in

federal financial assistance management. Of the agency’s 10 major

management challenges, its performance plan for fiscal year 2002 included

goals and measures applicable to 5 of the challenges and partly applicable

to 3 additional challenges. The plan does not address the remaining two

challenges and therefore does not include goals and measures for them.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 30 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: Major Management Challenges Confronting the Department of State

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

GAO-designated governmentwide

high-risk major management

challenges:

Human Capital: GAO has identified

shortcomings at multiple agencies

involving key elements of modern

human capital management, including

strategic human capital planning and

organizational alignment; leadership

continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staff whose

size, skills, and deployment meet

agency needs; and creating resultsoriented organizational cultures.

(GAO identified this as a major

management challenge specific to

State in January 2001. State’s Office

of the Inspector General (OIG) also

identified this area as a major

management challenge.)

State reported that it is developing a human

resource strategy. The first element of this strategy,

the Diplomatic Readiness Plan, has been

completed. State plans to develop a domestic

staffing model by early 2002. State said the

strategy would address recruitment, development,

and retention problems. In addition, State

developed a recruitment plan emphasizing skills

and diversity needs. State also created a new

School of Leadership and Management at the

Foreign Service Institute that offers numerous

leadership courses and seminars. It is also

addressing retention issues, such as overseas

spousal employment, by negotiating 137 bilateral

work agreements with foreign countries to make it

easier for spouses to seek employment abroad.

The OIG found that State has made significant

progress in hiring foreign service specialists, but

since many months may elapse before candidates

for these positions are hired, some may tend to lose

interest.

State has two Diplomatic Readiness performance

goals addressing human capital workforce issues.

The first is to develop an integrated workforce plan

for determining the size, distribution, composition,

and recruitment needs of State’s American

workforce through 2010. Two of the three

performance indicators deal with integrating the

U.S. Information Agency’s workforce into State and

incorporating public diplomacy functions into State’s

overseas staffing model. State declared it had done

both of these and therefore was successful at

meeting its targets. It also declared that the third

target, to seek funding to develop the domestic

staffing model, was successfully met. State

reported that it sought funding to develop a staffing

model, but the report did not say whether State

received this funding or the types of activities it

plans to fund. Further, State did not address steps

to meet its recruitment and retention needs, such

as improving the quality of life overseas and

reforming evaluation and feedback systems.

The second performance goal is that State is

staffed with a fully skilled workforce and is ready to

The performance plan said that State

needs to attract, train, promote, and

retain the best employees. The plan

includes four performance goals with

specific and measurable indicators. The

first goal is to hire and retain an

adequate number of talented and

diverse employees. Although State did

not specify how many employees would

be adequate, it did set three specific

and measurable indicators for (1) the

number of registrants for Foreign

Service exams and specialist and

student programs, (2) hiring levels, and

(3) resignation rates. Starting in fiscal

year 2002, State expects to hire 1,250

new employees to provide training float.

Resignation rates are expected to

remain constant through 2002.

The second goal is to develop training

and professional development

programs for full-time employees. The

three indicators address the numbers of

Civil Service employees expected to be

in career development programs, the

percent of language students who meet

their training goal, and the number of

Foreign Service national employees

receiving training. For language

training, State’s targets for fiscal year

2002 are to “maintain and improve” on

the 2000 rate of 66 percent, but no

specific improvement target is given.

Also, the indicator for training Foreign

Service nationals gives no indication of

what type or amount of training each

employee should receive.

The third goal is to configure and equip

the Foreign Service Institute to provide

the full range of distance-learning

offerings and support via at least two

delivery systems to every post and

facility worldwide by the end of fiscal

year 2002, and ensure that the National
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 31 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

handle the surge of “baby boomer” retirements

without major disruptions. State has five

performance indicators for this goal: (1) employee

enrollment in leadership and management courses,

(2) implementation of leadership competencies, (3)

establishment of Civil Service overseas mobility

initiative positions, (4) development of programs to

fulfill organizational skill requirements, and (5)

status of support for career development and

resource needs. The five targets are based on

objective and measurable indicators, and State has

declared implementation of all five to be successful.

However, State did not address two of its targets.

For the target that 15 percent of State’s Civil

Service employees will enroll in the Leadership

Competencies Development Initiative, State reports

success because 1,030 employees enrolled; but it

does not say what percentage this represents

compared with the target. The target for new or

current programs to meet organizational skill

requirements was to continue the Senior Executive

Service Candidate Development Program for five

additional participants. State declared that this

target was successfully met, although it said only

that “candidates were selected and enrolled,” not

how many candidates were actually in the program.

Foreign Affairs Training Center is

adequate to support staff and student

needs. The two indicators are status of

upgrade of analog multimedia

laboratories to digital multimedia

laboratories and preparation of a formal

capacity review of the National Foreign

Affairs Training Center. Targets are that

a second digital lab be made

operational and that the

recommendations in the capacity

review be made and reviewed.

State has one indicator for the fourth

performance goal—to maintain current

work-life programs and introduce new

ones to improve workplace quality for

all employees and improve quality of life

for Foreign Service employees and their

dependents overseas to foster the

recruitment, hiring, and retention of

talented personnel. The performance

indicator for this goal is that resignation

rates remain constant—there is no

specific retention indicator. There are

no indicators for the satisfaction of

employees working overseas or for

specific programs, such as improving

spousal employment, which would be

one indication of ability to retain

employees.

Information Security: Efforts to

strengthen information security have

gained momentum and have

expanded both at individual agencies

and at the governmentwide level.

However, recent audits continue to

show that federal computer systems

are riddled with weaknesses that make

them highly vulnerable to computerbased attacks and place a broad range

of critical operations and assets at risk

for fraud, misuse, and disruption.

(GAO identified this as a major

management challenge specific to

State in January 2001. State’s OIG

also identified this area as a major

management challenge.)

State said it has undertaken initiatives designed to

strengthen the security of its information

technology, closing a number of material

weaknesses, including mainframe and information

systems security. State also said it has developed

an agencywide Systems Security Program Plan.

State added that the OIG concurred with the

closure of material weaknesses concerning the

security of information systems networks for

domestic operations, if there first was independent

validation that improvements would prevent

unauthorized access and abuse. However, the

independent auditor who reviewed State’s 2000

principal financial statements noted that closing

these weaknesses on paper does not necessarily

mean that the weaknesses themselves have been

corrected. The independent auditor believes that

State’s information systems security networks for

domestic operations remain vulnerable to

unauthorized access and that other systems,

including State’s financial management systems,

State’s performance plan indicated that

protection of classified and sensitive

information is a continued priority. State

set a fiscal year 2002 target that 100

percent of its network intrusion

detection systems would be installed

abroad and domestically for OpenNet—

its main network for storing and

processing sensitive but unclassified

information. The plan does not address

the installation of detection systems for

classified or other department networks.

State discussed plans for providing

security awareness training for its

employees and testing software used

on department networks to reduce

security risks. The plan did not provide

performance goal indicators or targets

for these planned actions.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 32 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

may also be vulnerable. State, working with the

OIG and GAO, plans an independent review of

system security vulnerabilities in 2001.

State reported on two indicators related to keeping

information technology systems and the information

processed and stored in them safe from

unauthorized access and abuse: (1) implementing

GAO recommendations and (2) performing

information systems penetration testing, which

included three target levels for 2000. The

department said it had addressed all eight GAO

recommendations in fiscal year 1999. We agree

that State has made progress in improving its

information security program, but note that the

extent and effect of its improvements have not been

determined.

State provided a narrative on its accomplishments

but did not characterize whether it was successful

in meeting its targets. State indicated that it

modified its Foreign Affairs Manual to include

critical computer security policies to show it had

made progress in establishing and enforcing these

policies. However, State did not address

enforcement of these policies.

GAO-identified major management

challenges:

Enhance overseas communication,

information technology, and

knowledge management capabilities:

U.S. agencies located overseas have

great difficulty communicating

electronically with each other and

sharing available information with

other agencies located domestically as

well as abroad.

State reported it is addressing two of its biggest

information technology problems—unreliable E-mail

and antiquated computer equipment—by continuing

to connect its workforce to one network. To track

progress against this goal, State has three

performance indicators:

• Complete the unclassified overseas

modernization effort. State reported success in

meeting this indicator. However, it did not report

whether the modernization was fully

implemented.

• Connect all unclassified users to the Internet.

State reported partial success in meeting this

indicator because not all users have a desktop

connection.

• User satisfaction with the modernized

equipment. State reported success in meeting

this indicator based on formal and informal

assessments at a sample of locations. However,

it did not mention, for example, whether the

sample is representative of the entire user

population.

State set a performance goal of

providing secure, commercial-quality

information technology support for the

full range of U.S. international affairs

activities. The plan identifies four

measures for this goal:

• percentage of commercial

networking facilities completed,

• percentage of desktop computers

that are older than 4 years,

• reduction of overseas servers and

progress toward eliminating the

cable system.

Performance targets for three of the

measures were precisely defined:

• beginning deployment of a

commercial-style network and

infrastructure to all domestic and

overseas posts,

• reducing the number of overseas

servers by 25 percent each year, and

• completing a comprehensive

requirements analysis concerning
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 33 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

State’s fiscal year 2000 performance report does

not address an important initiative. State is leading

an interagency effort to devise a system that meets

the collective knowledge management and

collaboration needs of the overseas foreign affairs

community. State has begun to work with other

federal agencies that have a significant overseas

presence and is in the early stages of planning for

this system. A system is scheduled to be

prototyped and piloted at two overseas locations.

While State originally planned to complete a

prototype evaluation by April 2001 and pilot testing

by December 2001, these dates have slipped to

April 2002 and September 2002, respectively,

because of funding restrictions.

elimination of the current cable

system and processes.

However, the performance target for

out-of-date computer technology is

somewhat vague: “the deployment of

classified computers to a significant

number of overseas posts.”

The plan might be enhanced if this

target was more precise. For example,

instead of reporting a “significant”

number of posts, it could provide a

schedule of posts where classified

computers are to be deployed.

State’s plan has no specific

performance goal addressing the

interagency effort to devise a system

that meets the collective knowledge

management and collaboration needs

of the overseas foreign affairs

community. However, it describes an

ongoing activity to develop a prototype

and pilot to enable information access

and sharing capabilities for the

international affairs community.

Efforts needed to realign the U.S.

workforce overseas with the U.S.

government’s mission: The U.S.

presence at embassies and consulates

needs to be adjusted to reflect the

emerging economic, political, security,

and technological requirements of the

21st century.

In response to numerous recommendations, State

reported that it has begun a process to evaluate the

existing mix and size of agencies’ overseas staffing.

In 2000, interagency teams assessed staffing at six

missions. The studies concluded that a centralized

process to review overseas staffing, as proposed

by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, would

not be effective or workable. The studies did not

result in a methodology for staffing subsequent

rightsizing reviews, nor did it identify opportunities

to significantly reduce staff.

State said there is agreement that the U.S.

government footprint overseas should be limited to

that required to carry out the government’s key

outcomes. However, State noted that other

agencies believe their staffing is commensurate

with the government’s interests. State also said it

had limited authority and influence over the staffing

of other agencies operating overseas.

State did not include performance goals or

measures for rightsizing.

The plan does not include goals or

measures that specifically address this

challenge. However, an agency

objective is that State’s workforce be at

an optimum number, distribution, and

configuration to respond to the foreign

policy priorities identified in the strategic

plan. The related performance goal is

that State will hire and retain an

adequate number of staff. However, in

our opinion, this agency objective and

goal do not address rightsizing the

overall U.S. presence overseas.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 34 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

GAO- and State OIG-identified major

management challenges:

Improve the security and maintenance

of U.S. facilities overseas and enhance

the management of overseas security

programs: State faces many

challenges and risks in its program to

replace its most vulnerable facilities,

improve security at all posts, and

improve facility maintenance.

Although State’s performance report addressed

efforts to replace its most vulnerable posts

worldwide, it did not address State’s ability to run a

large construction program or the need for longterm planning that could help State effectively plan

its resource use and control costs. According to the

OIG, the department could have difficulty managing

its major overseas construction projects over the

next 5 years. The OIG also said that none of the 42

embassies it evaluated met all of the government’s

physical security standards. The lack of a 30-meter

setback was the most prevalent deficiency.

State listed quantitative indicators for the status of

new construction projects. State said it was

successful in fulfilling the three performance

indicators: acquire/obtain options for sites,

initiate/design construction projects, and complete

construction. However, it did not meet the last

target since it completed only four of its seven

planned projects. In January 2001, we reported on

State’s embassy construction program and

recommended that State develop a long-term

capital plan to enhance program decisionmaking

and accountability.a

In August 2001, State completed a detailed longterm plan that establishes performance targets for

building new embassies and maintaining existing

buildings.

State also continued other security upgrade

projects overseas under two diplomatic readiness

performance goals. These upgrades included (1)

deployment of additional security officers overseas,

(2) provision of fully and lightly armored vehicles,

(3) provision of updated security equipment, and (4)

acquisition of additional facilities’ setback. The

report provided fiscal year 2000 targets for these

programs and for the number of physical security

upgrade projects started, funded, and completed.

The targets for all indicators were measurable,

calling for either numbers of security officers

deployed, number of armored vehicles ordered or in

process of delivery, number of projects started and

completed, number of posts with added setback, or

percentage of projects completed. The report

declared that all six indicators were successful,

although State did not meet the target levels for two

of these indicators. The report stated that smaller

State’s plan has four performance goals

that address security, maintenance, and

management of U.S. facilities overseas.

These goals are (1) to continue the

worldwide security upgrade program;

(2) to expeditiously relocate staff into

safe, secure, and functional facilities;

(3) to extend, through rehabilitation, the

useful lives of facilities and enhance

their functionality; and (4) to heighten

security for formerly lower-threat posts

to meet standards used at higher-threat

posts. There are seven specific

performance indicators for these goals.

One addresses the number of projects

completed and the number of posts with

added security setback; however, there

is no indicator for the number of

projects started, although there was

such an indicator provided in the fiscal

year 2000 report. Two other indicators

are the status of new construction

projects and major rehabilitation

projects. These indicators all have

specific targets based on numbers of

projects addressed.

Performance indicators for the goal of

heightening security at formerly lowerthreat posts deal with the percentage of

38 projects that have been completed,

the percentage of posts with technical

security equipment upgrades, and the

number of Foreign Service Nationals

trained in crisis management. The last

indicator is that no Accountability

Review Board will find that a serious

injury, loss of life, or destruction of a

U.S. government mission was due to

inadequate security management or

countermeasures. The plan does not

include specific indicators on number of

security officers deployed overseas and

percentage of embassies/consulates

with fully and lightly armored vehicles,

as did the 2000 report.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 35 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

projects were combined into larger ones in both

instances, implying that the targets were met.

The report does not address facility maintenance,

although both GAO and State’s OIG have identified

it as a major long-standing management challenge.

State’s unfunded maintenance and repair

requirement in 1999 exceeded $100 million for

more than 650 buildings. The OIG stated that while

the department has made progress in maintaining

its facilities, fundamental challenges remain. State

officials largely attributed cost-cutting over several

years as a reason for the poorly maintained

properties. The OIG agreed that funding is an issue

but reported that State needs to do more to address

maintenance as a management concern.

Improve financial management

capabilities: GAO and State’s OIG

agree that State has long-standing

shortcomings related to the absence of

an effective financial management

system.

Financial management continues to be a major

management challenge for State. However,

according to the OIG, State has made significant

improvements in recent years. For the first time,

State submitted its principal financial statements

(for fiscal year 2000) to the Office of Management

and Budget by the required March 1 deadline.

These statements received an unqualified

opinion—the independent auditor said the

statements were presented fairly in all material

aspects. The OIG and the independent auditor

identified several significant outstanding issues,

including the security of information systems

networks for domestic operations and weaknesses

in managerial cost accounting and State’s financial

and accounting systems. The independent auditor’s

report also stated that the department’s financial

management systems do not comply with at least

five federal laws and regulations, including the

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.

State has one performance goal aimed at improving

financial management capabilities, with four

performance indicators. State declared it was

successful in implementing two of these indicators

and partially successful in implementing the other

two. The two partially successful targets dealt with

percentage of domestic and overseas financial

services transactions conducted electronically.

State declared the domestic indicator partially

successful, although the department fell 9 percent

below the target. It declared the overseas indicator

partially successful because it met one of the two

targets set for that indicator.

One performance goal is to obtain

funding to achieve all of the

department’s foreign policy and

diplomatic readiness goals and to

effectively administer the funds

obtained. The second goal is to improve

financial management infrastructure

and operating capacity responsive to

departmental needs. State established

three performance indicators to fulfill

the first goal: (1) timeliness of budgets,

(2) department’s resources allocated by

GPRA Plan goals; and (3) status of joint

program planning with the national

security community. Only the last

indicator that State and partner

agencies negotiate changes in

programs and budgets, does not

include a specific, measurable target.

For the second goal, State established

12 performance indicators, which

include some of the following: the audit

opinion on the previous year’s financial

statement, status of the yearly

accountability report, quantity and

amount of debt collections, amount of

credit-card collections, and security

orientation and training. While all but

one indicator (data used for effective

decisionmaking) have specific and

measurable targets, there is no

indication how these measures will help

overcome State’s problems with its

financial management systems, such as
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 36 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

State said it was successful in complying with

federal financial management system requirements.

However, since the department is still not in

compliance with federal financial laws and

regulations, it appears State has not successfully

met this indicator.

noncompliance with federal financial

laws and regulations.

Improve the visa processing system

and enhance border security: Staffing

shortages, insufficient training, and

other problems need to be addressed

to better prevent entry of those who

are a threat to Americans at home or

are likely to remain in the United

States illegally.

State reported that staffing shortages,

inexperienced staff, and insufficient training for

consular line officers have had a negative impact

on visa processing operations and fraud prevention.

According to the OIG, a more fully integrated

lookout system between State and the Immigration

and Naturalization Service would make visa fraud

easier to deal with. State has initiatives under way

or completed to improve visa processing while

countering fraud, for example by issuing machinereadable visas, advising overseas posts about

fraudulent document problems, and upgrading

consular training.

Another challenge to controlling illegal immigration

is timely implementation of the border biometric

crossing-card program. State said it took several

steps during fiscal year 2000 to address this issue,

including expanding its capacity to process

applications in Mexico and along the U.S. border.

Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service

does not have the capacity to produce the number

of cards required by statute, State has developed a

pilot program to produce cards in Mexico.

State discusses one performance goal, to replace

5.5 million border-crossing cards by October 1,

2001, and 1 agency objective, that all persons

using border-crossing cards to enter the United

States after October 1, 2001, will use a card issued

after April 1, 1998. Both the goal and the

department objective are specific and measurable.

However, the targets for the 2 performance

indicators address the number of applications

received and processed, but only at 2 of the 16

locations processing applications. Furthermore, the

report does not address whether enough cards can

be made by October 1, 2001, to satisfy existing law.

The OIG does not believe these targets can be met

and that State and the Immigration and

Naturalization Service will need to pursue some

legislative remedy to this deadline. In addition, the

report does not address visa fraud and other

immigration problems occurring outside Mexico.

State has one agency objective

concerning border security: the travel

and immigration to the United States of

legitimate visa applicants and denial of

visas to ineligible applicants. State has

six performance goals to achieve this

outcome, including meeting anticipated

workload increases, ensuring training of

consular personnel, sharing data with

law enforcement and intelligence

agencies, and reducing the risk of

illegitimate entry of foreign terrorists,

criminals, and others hostile to our

interests. However, there is no goal

concerning issuance of border-crossing

cards.

State has two performance indicators

under this agency objective: the number

of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa

applications to be processed. Although

the targets for these two indicators are

specific and measurable, they only

address the first two performance goals

dealing with increased workloads. Also,

they do not address how State will deal

with increased workload, saying only

that it will have more visas to process.

There are no targets that address any

of the other four performance goals.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of State’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 37 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges discussed in State’s fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

State’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

State OIG-identified major

management challenges:

More effectively oversee and monitor

the drug eradication program in Plan

Colombia: State’s OIG designated

more effective oversight and

monitoring of the drug eradication

program in Plan Colombia as a

management challenge for State.

State reports that it continued to address the

management challenge of drug control during fiscal

year 2000. The most significant development

discussed was U.S. involvement in Plan Colombia,

which included providing equipment and training for

a new Colombian helicopter battalion.

State also addressed these efforts under the key

outcome to reduce entry of illegal drugs into the

United States.

The plan addresses drug control under

the key outcome of reducing entry of

illegal drugs into the United States.

There are nine performance goals and

six measurable indicators under this

goal, but none deals specifically with

overseeing, monitoring, or managing

Plan Colombia.

Pay greater attention to enhancing

emergency preparedness and

conducting crisis management

exercises: State’s OIG designated

paying more attention to emergency

preparedness and the importance of

conducting crisis management

exercises overseas as a management

challenge. The OIG found that most

posts are not conducting missionwide

exercises of all required drills at all

facilities and recommended that State

direct immediate attention to security

awareness and emergency

preparedness training of domestic and

overseas personnel.

State did not report on this management challenge. The plan includes one performance

indicator that addresses this

management challenge: the number of

Foreign Service Nationals trained in

crisis management. The plan also

includes several strategies for

improving emergency preparedness

and crisis management under the

diplomatic readiness goal infrastructure

and operations. Proposed tactics

include conducting crisis management

exercises at overseas posts, providing

collaborative training with other foreign

affairs and national security personnel,

and implementing a distance learning

component for crisis management

training.

Correct weaknesses in federal

financial assistance management:

State’s OIG designated management

of the department’s billion-dollar

federal financial assistance program

as a significant management

challenge. It stated that the

department does not use standardized

systems, policies, or procedures to

manage programs funded through

grants, cooperative agreements, and

transfers, resulting in heightened

potential for loss or fraud. It found

examples of disputed and

undocumented claims under selected

contracts concerning overhead and

fringe benefits that could result in

substantial reimbursements to the

government.

State did not report on this management challenge. The plan does not include performance

goals or indicators that specifically

address this management challenge.

However, the plan does address

improving financial management of its

grants management program as part of

the diplomatic readiness goal

infrastructure and operations. Proposed

tactics to improve grant management

include maximizing electronic fund

transfer to grant recipients, reducing the

administrative burden on grantees, and

developing measures for determining

the extent of improper payments.

a

Embassy Construction: Better Long-Term Planning Will Enhance Program Decisionsmaking,

(GAO-01-11, Jan. 22, 2001).
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of State

Page 38 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of State
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-02-42 State: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

John Brummet (202) 512-5260

In addition to Mr. Brummet, Claude Adrien, David G. Bernet, Stephen

Caldwell, Janey Cohen, Albert Huntington III, Cynthia Jackson, Edward

Kennedy, Beth Sirois, and Eve Weisberg made key contributions to this

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(320037)
The General Accounting Office, the 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 is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (301) 413-0006

Fax: (202) 258-4066

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs