a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters 

November 2003 STATE DEPARTMENT

Targets for Hiring, 

Filling Vacancies 

Overseas Being Met, 

but Gaps Remain in 

Hard-to-Learn 

Languages

GAO-04-139
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-139.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-139, a report to 

congressional requesters 

November 2003 

STATE DEPARTMENT 

Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies 

Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in 

Hard-to-Learn Languages 

State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify the number of 

junior officers it needs to hire within the next 5 to 10 years. State 

implemented key elements of workforce planning, including setting strategic 

direction and goals, identifying gaps in its workforce, and developing 

strategies to address these gaps. State’s analysis showed that it had a deficit 

of 386 positions, mainly at the mid level, and in 2001, State launched a $197 

million plan to address the gaps. State has met its 2002 to 2003 hiring targets 

for junior officers and is filling overseas positions with junior officers with 

the general skills and competencies required to do their job well. However, 

State officials said it will take up to 10 years to hire and promote junior 

officers in sufficient numbers to significantly decrease the shortage of midlevel officers. 

While State is able to fill overseas positions with junior officers who have the 

necessary general skills, the department continues to face challenges filling

the gaps in staff with proficiency in certain hard-to-learn languages, such as 

Arabic and Chinese. State has implemented a plan to target applicants who 

speak these difficult languages. However, this plan does not include numeric 

goals, and State has collected limited data to assess the effectiveness of its 

efforts. Other challenges include new officers’ public diplomacy skills and 

training in this area, increased supervisory and on-the job requirements 

when State assigns junior officers to positions above their experience level, 

and the impact of rotational assignments on junior officers’ performance and 

managers’ time. 

New Hires with Ability in Certain Languages as a Percentage of New Foreign Service Officers 

During the 1990s, the State 

Department lost more people than 

it hired. The resultant shortfalls in 

the number and skills of Foreign 

Service officers have endangered 

U.S. diplomatic readiness. 

Furthermore, recent studies, 

including several by GAO, have 

questioned whether State’s 

recruitment system identifies 

people with the appropriate skills 

and whether State is assigning 

officers with specialized skills, 

such as the ability to speak a 

difficult language, to positions 

where they can be utilized. 

GAO was asked to review State’s 

processes for determining the 

number and skills of junior officers 

the department needs and to 

determine whether it is hiring and 

assigning officers with the general 

skills to carry out foreign policy 

overseas. GAO was also asked to 

examine the challenges State still 

needs to address, especially 

regarding officers’ foreign language 

skills. 

GAO is recommending that the 

Secretary of State collect and 

maintain data on the effectiveness 

of the department’s efforts to 

address continuing gaps in officers 

with proficiency in certain hard-tolearn languages. State generally 

agreed with our findings and 

observations, but did not 

completely address our 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

State Uses Critical Elements of Workforce Planning and Is Hiring 

and Assigning Officers Overseas with the Necessary General 

Skills 6

Key Challenges Include Gaps in Certain Foreign Languages 13

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State 31

GAO Comments 39

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41

GAO Contacts 41

Acknowledgments 41

Tables Table 1: Number of Applicants Taking and Passing the Written and 

Oral Exams in Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003 5

Table 2: Foreign Service Generalists’ Surplus/Deficits across 

Career Tracks as of March 2003 9

Table 3: State Department Hiring Targets and Actual Hiring for 

Foreign Service Generalists, Fiscal Years 2002-2004 11

Figures Figure 1: Critical Elements of Workforce Planning 7

Figure 2: Number of New Hires with Working Proficiency in a Hard 

Language and Number of New Hires with Less than 

Working Proficiency in a Hard Language 17

Figure 3: New Hires with Hard Language Ability as a Percentage of 

New Foreign Service Generalists 18

Figure 4: Assignment Information for New Hires with Hard 

Language Ability in Fiscal Year 2001 20
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Abbreviations

AFSERS Automated Foreign Service Examination and Registry System

BEX Board of Examiners

DRI Diplomatic Readiness Initiative

FSI Foreign Service Institute

GEMS Global Employment Management System

MRV machine-readable visa

STMS Student Training Management System

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 19, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,

Emerging Threats, and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Vic Snyder

House of Representatives

In 2001 the Department of State launched a 3-year, $197.5 million initiative 

to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right people to carry out U.S. foreign 

policy. Under the initiative, State plans to hire more than 600 new Foreign 

Service officers above attrition—the department’s largest expansion in 

years. The initiative was designed to address several problems, including 

shortfalls in the number and skills of Foreign Service officers at the mid 

level that the department said endanger U.S. diplomatic readiness.1

 During 

the 1990s, State lost more people than it hired due to budget cuts. 

Furthermore, recent studies, including several conducted by GAO,2

 have 

questioned whether the State Department’s recruitment system identifies 

people with the appropriate skills and whether the assignment process 

places officers with specialized skills, such as the ability to speak a difficult 

language, in positions where they can be utilized. 

To determine whether the State Department is hiring the right people and 

assigning them to jobs where they can fully use their skills, you asked us to 

review State’s system for recruiting and assigning new Foreign Service 

officers. In this report we (1) discuss State’s processes for determining the 

number and skills of junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10 years 

and whether it is hiring and assigning officers with the general skills to 

1

State defines diplomatic readiness as its “ability to get the right people in the right place at 

the right time with the right skills to carry out America’s foreign policy.”

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to 

Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002); 

and U.S. General Accounting Office, State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective 

Assignment System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, GAO-02-626

(Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2002).
Page 2 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

meet the needs of overseas posts3 and (2) examine the challenges State still 

needs to address, especially regarding officers’ foreign language skills.

To conduct our review, we examined planning documents and information 

related to State’s processes for recruiting and assigning Foreign Service 

officers. We met with officials from State’s Office of Career Development 

and Assignments; the Office of Recruitment, Examination, and 

Employment; the Foreign Service Institute; and the Diplomatic Readiness 

Task Force. In addition, we met with officials in all of State’s regional 

bureaus and in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also conducted 

fieldwork in Mexico City and Moscow and interviewed selected officials 

from five U.S. embassies in Africa; this work included interviews with 

junior Foreign Service officers. We chose Mexico City and Moscow for our 

fieldwork because of the large number of junior officers assigned to those 

posts. We chose the embassies in Africa to obtain the opinions of Foreign 

Service officers at small and hard-to-fill posts. For further information on 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

Results in Brief State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify the number 

of junior officers it needs to hire within the next 5 to 10 years and is hiring 

and assigning officers overseas with the general skills, such as oral and 

written communication, to do the job. State implemented key elements of 

workforce planning, including setting strategic direction and goals, 

identifying gaps in its workforce, and developing strategies to address 

these gaps. In determining the skills it needs, State’s 2001 analysis—which 

focused on five career tracks4

—showed that it needed 386 new positions, 

mainly at the mid level. State determined it needed to hire and train about 

623 new Foreign Service officers above attrition through fiscal year 2004 to 

address the shortages and have sufficient staff for other purposes, such as 

to allow employees to seamlessly rotate in and out of positions abroad and 

to support necessary training in languages and other areas. In 2001, State 

began implementing a plan to address these shortfalls and has met its 2002 

to 2003 targets for hiring junior officers in all five of its career tracks. 

3

This report covers Foreign Service generalists, who are officers hired for broad-based skills 

to perform many types of jobs, rather than Foreign Service specialists hired for a specific 

job.

4

The five career tracks are management, consular, economic, political, and public 

diplomacy.
Page 3 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

However, based on its projected attrition and hiring, State anticipates that 

it will take up to 10 years to hire and promote junior officers in sufficient 

numbers to eliminate the shortage of mid-level officers in the various 

career tracks. Nearly every official with whom GAO spoke said that State 

was hiring and filling overseas positions with new Foreign Service junior 

officers with the general skills and competencies5

 required to do their jobs 

well. 

State continues to face challenges filling the gaps in staff with proficiency 

in certain hard-to-learn languages,6

 as well as challenges in several other 

areas. State officials at headquarters and overseas have stated that the 

department does not have enough Foreign Service officers with hard 

language skills, which has adversely affected State operations. State is 

currently seeking sufficient staff to support training in languages as 

needed. In addition, it has implemented a plan to target applicants for 

hiring who speak certain languages to increase the number of hard 

language speakers. However, this plan does not include numeric goals, and 

State has collected limited data to assess the effectiveness of its efforts. 

Several overseas post officials and new officers at the U.S. embassy in 

Moscow told us they were concerned that some junior officers lack 

sufficient training in languages considered hard to learn, thus hindering 

their ability to do their jobs effectively. State is now increasing the amount 

of language training to junior officers studying hard-to-learn languages. 

Other concerns regarding new Foreign Service officers included their lack 

of public diplomacy experience and insufficient training in this area, 

increased supervisory and on-the job requirements when State assigns 

junior officers to positions above their experience level, and rotational 

assignments that do not give participants enough time to learn their jobs 

and thus burden managers. To address some of these concerns, State has 

extended the length of public diplomacy training and is reviewing the 

practice of rotational assignments. 

5

By general skills and competencies we mean the 13 job dimensions, such as written and 

oral communication, information integration and analysis, initiative, and leadership that 

State has identified as important for Foreign Service officers to do their jobs.

6

The State Department pays incentives to encourage people to pursue the difficult languages 

that are used in posts that tend to have hard-to-fill positions. All of the “incentive” languages 

fall into one of two categories that State refers to as “hard and superhard” languages. Among 

those incentive languages we looked at were Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, 

Russian, and Cantonese Chinese. This report refers to those languages as “hard” languages. 
Page 4 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

This report recommends that the Secretary of State collect and maintain 

data on the effectiveness of State’s efforts to address language gaps. State 

should use these data to, among other things, report on filling such gaps 

through its outreach efforts to recruit more junior officers with hard 

language skills and its pilot programs to increase their training in these 

languages. State should also explore additional opportunities to maximize 

assignment of junior officers with skills in these languages to overseas 

posts where they can use these languages. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the State Department generally agreed with the report’s findings 

and observations and said that it is already addressing the first part of our 

recommendation. However, we do not believe that State is addressing this 

issue, because the data that State collects do not show the number of 

individuals it hires as a direct result of its outreach efforts. State did not 

completely address the second part of our recommendation, but stated that 

our approach, which focused on six specific languages, was too narrow. We 

disagree with State’s assessment. We focused on the six languages because 

of their strategic importance and findings from previous GAO reports that 

found that lack of staff with skills in some of these languages has hindered 

diplomatic readiness.

Background The State Department advances U.S. national interests through diplomatic 

relations with 163 countries at 263 posts worldwide. About 5,900 Foreign 

Service generalists stationed overseas and at State headquarters perform 

much of this work. To become a Foreign Service officer, an individual must 

be an American citizen between 20 and 59 years old on the date of the 

written examination; pass a written and oral examination; be able to obtain 

security and medical clearances; and be available for worldwide 

assignment, including in Washington, D.C. 

State recruits and hires candidates by administering a written and oral 

exam to individuals interested in becoming Foreign Service officers. The 

general skills identified by the department and the exams, which test for 

those skills, were validated during a 1997 to 1998 job analysis conducted by 

State employees and outside contractors. According to State officials and 

consultants, the results of the analysis should be valid for 10 years. In 

addition, State has updated the exam to reflect changing needs. For 

example, it added a section on management skills to the Foreign Service 

written exam to identify more candidates with knowledge useful in this 

career track. Moreover, the Board of Examiners reviews the exam annually, 

as required by the Foreign Service Act.
Page 5 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

The written exam tests for knowledge of 36 topics such as world historical 

events, geography, basic economic principles and statistics, and basic 

management principles. Applicants registering for the written exam can 

self-declare foreign languages spoken and must select a career track or 

cone. There are five from which to choose: management, consular, 

economic, political, and public diplomacy. The oral exam assesses a 

candidate for 13 general skills or competencies: written communication, 

oral communication, information integration and analysis, planning and 

organizing, judgment, resourcefulness, initiative and leadership, working 

with others, experience and motivation, composure, objectivity and 

integrity, cultural adaptability, and quantitative analysis. State does not test 

for language proficiency as a requirement for employment. Table 1 shows 

the number of applicants taking and passing the written and oral exams in 

fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

Table 1: Number of Applicants Taking and Passing the Written and Oral Exams in 

Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003

Source: Department of State.

After a candidate passes both the written and oral exams, he or she is 

placed on a register of eligible hires and will remain there for up to 18 

months or until being placed in an initial training, or A-100, class, according 

to State officials. There are five separate registers, one for each career 

track or cone, which rank candidates according to their scores on the oral 

assessment. To increase the chances that candidates on the register who 

have language skills are hired, a passing score on an optional telephonic 

assessment of a candidate’s foreign language skills will add points to the 

individual’s final score. Each register has a minimum cutoff point, which 

dictates an immediate conditional offer of employment to those candidates 

who receive that score on their oral exam. The cutoff points for receiving 

an immediate conditional offer vary according to each register. Registers 

with more candidates interested in serving in that career track have higher 

cutoff points. 

Year

Number of 

applicants who 

took written 

exam

Number who 

passed written 

exam

Number of 

applicants who 

took oral exam

Number who 

passed oral 

exam

2001 12,912 3,871 1,668 727

2002 31,442 9,258 6,295 1,547

2003 20,342 3,274 N.A. N.A.
Page 6 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Each A-100 class consists of between 45 and 90 junior Foreign Service 

officers who will be assigned as entry-level Foreign Service personnel in 

overseas or domestic posts. During training, junior officers are required to 

bid on a list of available jobs from which State’s Entry Level Division will 

assign them to an overseas post. The officers receive language and jobspecific training after they receive their assignments. 

State Uses Critical 

Elements of Workforce 

Planning and Is Hiring 

and Assigning Officers 

Overseas with the 

Necessary General 

Skills

State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify Foreign 

Service officer staffing and skill gaps within the next 5 to 10 years. The 

department determined that it needed to hire 623 new Foreign Service 

generalists above attrition hiring; to accomplish this, in 2001 it developed a 

3-year hiring plan. The department has met its hiring targets for fiscal years 

2002 and 2003 and is ready to implement 2004 hiring pending congressional 

funding. However, officials we interviewed projected that it would take up 

to 10 years to hire and promote enough junior officers to eliminate the 

shortfalls at the mid level. Almost all officials we interviewed said State has 

hired and was in the process of filling overseas positions with very talented 

and capable junior officers with the general skills and competencies 

required to do their jobs well. 

State Used Critical 

Elements of Workforce 

Planning 

State used critical elements of workforce planning, which include (1) 

setting strategic direction, (2) analyzing the workforce to determine if 

staffing and skill gaps exist, (3) developing workforce strategies to fill the 

gaps, and (4) evaluating the strategies and making needed revisions to 

ensure that strategies work as intended. Involving various staff (from top to 

bottom) is important across all the critical elements. (See fig. 1.)
Page 7 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Figure 1: Critical Elements of Workforce Planning

State Has Set Strategic Direction Before developing a workforce plan, an agency first needs to set strategic 

direction and program goals. State has done this by implementing a 

strategic plan, which contains 12 strategic goals and 44 performance goals. 

Overseas posts participate in the planning process by developing mission 

program plans that link their resource (including staffing) requests to the 

strategic goals. The overseas posts submit their plans to the regional 

bureaus in Washington, D.C. After review and prioritization, the regional 

bureaus incorporate elements from the mission plans into bureau 

performance plans, based on policy priorities and initiatives that are 

relevant to the strategic and performance goals. State has developed an 

overseas staffing model, which it uses to determine staffing requirements 

and allocate personnel resources worldwide. The model is linked to State’s 

strategic goals through the mission program planning process. 
Page 8 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

State Has Analyzed Its 

Workforce to Identify Gaps 

In 2001, State analyzed its workforce to identify staffing and skill gaps in 

the Foreign Service. State’s overseas staffing model served as the basis for 

the analysis, which is a key component of workforce planning. The staffing 

model, which State updates biennially, measures Foreign Service staffing 

needs overseas by the five career tracks or “cones.” The model places posts 

into categories by size and the post’s primary function and determines how 

many positions the post needs for each career track based on certain 

workload factors. For example, the model determines the number of 

administrative positions a post requires based on the number of Americans 

at the post and such factors as the level of service provided to each U.S. 

government agency at the post, the number of housing units, and the 

number of visitors.

To identify its Foreign Service staffing needs, State compared the number 

of officers it had in each career track with the total number of positions to 

be filled, including new overseas positions required according to post

workload categories projected by the staffing model. State used these 

analyses in determining total staffing needs. State’s analysis considered the 

level of experience needed for the officers by grade level.7

In 2001, State determined that it needed 623 new Foreign Service 

generalists to eliminate its mid-level Foreign Service staffing and skills 

shortfall. This number includes the 386 overseas positions identified by the 

overseas staffing model, as well as additional staff needed to manage 

crises; permit employees to step out of assignment rotation to receive 

training, including language training; allow employees to seamlessly rotate 

in and out of positions abroad; allow State to meet domestic 

responsibilities and fully staff the required details to other U.S. government 

agencies and offices; and provide employees with training in languages, 

leadership and management, and tradecraft, such as consular duties. This 

deficit affected all grade levels, with the majority at the mid level, 

according to State officials. 

As of March 2003, State had a combined mid-level deficit of 353 officers in 

all career tracks. The deficits also included domestic positions, such as 

desk officers, that Foreign Service officers occupy when they are assigned 

7

The Foreign Service career system has six levels. An officer may be hired at FS 06, FS 05, or 

FS 04 depending on his or her level of work experience, and progress through FS 01. The 

Senior Foreign Service includes Minister Counselor (MC) and Counselor (OC). There is also 

the rank of Career Minister above the ranks listed in the Senior Foreign Service.
Page 9 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

to headquarters. The largest deficit for these positions is in the public 

diplomacy career track, due mainly to deficits inherited from the U.S. 

Information Agency, which was folded into the State Department in 1999.

Table 2 shows the staffing deficits and surpluses for Foreign Service 

generalists by career track.

Table 2: Foreign Service Generalists’ Surplus/Deficits across Career Tracks as of March 2003

Source: Department of State.

a

FS 05 and FS 06 are training positions that are not counted against the deficit.

b

This number is not a true deficit because junior officers in all career tracks perform consular work.

State Developed and Is 

Implementing Workforce 

Strategies to Fill the Gaps

In 2001, the Secretary of State launched the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative 

(DRI), a $197.5 million plan to address the staffing and skills deficits to 

ensure diplomatic readiness. This initiative calls for hiring an additional 

1,158 employees over attrition, including 623 Foreign Service generalists, 

between fiscal years 2002 and 2004.8

 This hiring is in addition to the 852 

staff needed to fill gaps created by attrition. State’s plans call for the agency 

to continue hiring at least 200 officers above attrition through fiscal year 

2005. To accomplish the increased hiring under the DRI, State is 

implementing an aggressive recruitment program that incorporates its 

traditional recruitment at campuses and job fairs with new methods, such 

as an interactive Web site. State’s recruitment program is focused on 

addressing shortages in specific career tracks. For example, State is 

targeting business schools and other appropriate professional associations 

to recruit applicants with management skills. 

Grade Level Management Consular Economic Political

Public 

diplomacy

Total 

surplus/deficit

Surplus/deficit

 by grade level

Senior Level MC -14 3 7 31 -14 13

49

OC -7 3 7 33 -12 24

01 -10 34 25 75 -112 12

Mid Level 02 0 27 -2 39 -161 -97

03 -41 -97 -63 -26 -29 -256 -353

Junior Level 04a 147 -395b 85 53 70 -40 -40

 Total 75 -425 59 205 -258 -344

8

The DRI does not include additional consular positions.
Page 10 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

State Has Some Mechanisms for 

Evaluating Its Plan

State officials described a few ways in which they evaluate and revise the 

agency’s planning process. For example, Human Resources personnel said 

they frequently adjust the staffing model to ensure that its different 

components, such as the promotion, retirement, and attrition sections, 

accurately reflect the trends occurring in the Foreign Service. State also 

monitors its intake plans. A recruitment committee meets biweekly to 

review and adjust State’s recruitment and training plans. As a result of 

these reviews, the committee may move hiring from one career track to 

another or increase training resources to accommodate the workload. The 

officials said State also conducts quarterly reviews of bureau staffing to 

take into account changing priorities. 

Employee Involvement in 

Workforce Planning Varies

Involving employees at all levels and stakeholders in the workforce 

planning process is important to encourage support for and understanding 

of its outcomes. State’s workforce planning process involves managers at 

all levels. For example, all 37 bureaus as well as all overseas posts provide 

input. Managers at all levels help determine staffing needs in parts of the 

organization for mission program plans and bureau performance plans that 

are then factored into the overall plans. Managers at all levels assist in data 

gathering as well as assessing and validating the overseas staffing model. 

Senior management, including the Deputy Secretary and the 

Undersecretary for Management, reviews all bureau performance plans at 

formal annual hearings. Budget and human resources analysts also review 

the bureau performance plans. Further, employees at varying levels serve 

on committees, such as the recruitment committee, involved in workforce 

planning. Other nonmanagement employees participate in State’s 

workforce planning efforts, according to Bureau of Human Resources 

officials. For example, they said officers at all levels participated in the 

analysis done to validate Foreign Service skill needs, and junior and midlevel officers at the overseas posts provide data that are used to develop 

the mission program plans.

State Has Met Its Hiring 

Targets but Gaps in MidLevel Officers Will Take up 

to 10 Years to Fill

State has met its hiring targets for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. (See table 3.)
Page 11 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Table 3: State Department Hiring Targets and Actual Hiring for Foreign Service 

Generalists, Fiscal Years 2002-2004

Source: Department of State. 

State has eliminated staffing deficits at the entry level in all five of its career 

tracks, according to officials in State’s Office of Recruitment Examination 

and Employment. They said there is a sufficient number of candidates on 

the list of eligible hires to fill all junior officer positions coming vacant for 

fiscal year 2004. 

Since 2002 State has hired at over twice the level of attrition. It plans to hire 

an additional 209 new Foreign Service generalists9

 in fiscal year 2004 to 

provide a training “float” and to ensure that additional officers are available 

for crisis management. According to State, it must sustain the personnel 

“float” to ensure that training can continue at the appropriate levels. Most 

of these positions are new junior officers, who are hired at the entry level 

for their career tracks. State’s plan is to eventually promote the junior 

officers to the mid level in sufficient numbers to eliminate the current 

deficit of 353 mid-level officers. 

State anticipates that the mid-level gap will be eliminated within the next 9 

to 10 years, based on its attrition and hiring and provided it receives all DRI 

allocations through fiscal year 2004. Several officers said elimination of the 

mid-level gap depended on State’s ability to promote the junior officers. For 

example, they said that if State continues to hire large numbers of junior 

officers, eventually there would be a surplus of officers eligible for 

promotion. If all of these officers were not promoted quickly, they might 

leave the Foreign Service. In addition, a few officials stated that elimination 

Fiscal year 2002 2003

Total actual 

hiring for 

both years

2004 

(planned) Total

Diplomatic Readiness 

Initiative 205 209 414 209 623

Attrition and MRVfunded hiring 262 259 521 331 852

Total hiring target 467 468 935 540 1,475

Actual hiring 467 468 935 N.A. N.A.

9

State generally does not hire Foreign Service generalists at the mid level because such 

hiring has not been effective, according to State officials. 
Page 12 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

of the mid-level gap depended on State’s ability to continue hiring junior 

officers at the current rate. They feared a “feast or famine” situation in 

which increased hiring would be followed by years of no hiring. State

officials believe that, due to the current deficit at the mid level, it will be 

able to provide adequate promotion opportunities to satisfy the career 

expectations of recently hired junior officers as it eliminates the mid-level 

deficit. They also believe that to avoid the feast or famine situation it will 

be necessary to protect the personnel float so that additional officers 

continue to be available in a crisis.

State Has Hired and 

Assigned Foreign Service 

Officers with the General 

Skills and Competencies to 

Do the Job

Almost all officials we interviewed said State identified and hired very 

talented and capable junior officers with the general skills and 

competencies, such as written and oral communication, required to do 

their jobs well, noting that the examination process was identifying junior 

officers with the needed skills. Junior officers said the oral exam 

effectively measured the necessary general skills that they use on their 

jobs. Many said the group exercise administered during the oral 

assessment was a potent tool for assessing a candidate’s ability to lead and 

work with others. The current version of the oral assessment allows testtakers to present relevant information about previous work experience and 

skills that examiners would consider important. Junior officers we 

interviewed who had taken the oral exam twice—first when it did not allow 

candidates to present information about their background and skills and a 

second time when it did—said the latter version of the exam was an 

improvement in the oral assessment. Opinions about the effectiveness of 

the written exam to measure the same aptitude were mixed. Junior officers 

said the section of the written exam that focused on biographical, or 

personal, data did not identify skills needed to perform effectively. 

However, some junior officers said the written exam worked effectively as 

a knowledge screen for candidates to ensure that those hired had the broad 

intellectual skills needed for the job.

State is filling overseas positions with new officers who have the general 

skills that State requires, according to headquarters and overseas officials 

with whom we spoke. Officials said that overall, the assignment process 

was accomplishing its goals and that State was assigning junior officers 

with the appropriate skills and eliminating junior officer vacancies. Several 

overseas U.S. officials in Mexico City and Moscow cited interpersonal skills 

as particularly important and stated that the junior officers assigned to 

their posts had those skills. For example, one official said the number of 

junior officers entering the Foreign Service with excellent interpersonal 
Page 13 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

skills had increased dramatically in the past 3 or 4 years. An official at a 

small hardship post in Africa stated that flexibility and the ability to handle 

a variety of tasks were critical skills and that State carefully selected the 

junior officers assigned to his post. Several officers in Mexico City and 

Moscow commented on State’s success at filling positions in general and 

noted that there were no vacant positions in their sections. 

Junior Officers Are Pleased with 

Assignment Process

Junior officers generally spoke favorably about how State assigned them to 

their posts. They said they were pleased with the process because it 

allowed them to choose their top 25 jobs from an available list, and several 

junior officers told us they were assigned to one of their top locations. 

Some junior officers stated that although State did not necessarily take 

their previous work experience into account when assigning them to a 

post, they sometimes had opportunities to use their experience once they 

arrived overseas. For example, several junior officers said their legal 

backgrounds helped them perform their consular duties. Another junior 

officer commented that his past Army leadership and experience with the 

press directly related to his public diplomacy position. 

 The career development officers who assign junior officers to overseas 

posts stated that they are familiar with junior officers’ background and 

work experience and may consider them when they make assignments. 

However, they explained that the ultimate purpose of the assignment 

process to meet the needs of the Foreign Service and to prepare junior 

officers for tenure. To be tenured, the officers have to reach required levels 

of proficiency in foreign languages and demonstrate core competencies 

that indicate their ability to have a successful career in the Foreign Service. 

Thus, these criteria guide junior officers’ assignments.

Key Challenges Include 

Gaps in Certain 

Foreign Languages

State still faces challenges in recruiting, hiring, assigning, and training 

officers who are proficient in hard-to-learn languages. State officials at 

headquarters and overseas have stated that the department does not have 

enough Foreign Service officers with hard language skills. Three recent 

GAO reports also cited language skill gaps that adversely affected 

department operations.10 State has acknowledged that it needs more staff 

with skills in certain hard languages and, in addition to its efforts to ensure 

10See GAO-02-375, GAO-02-626, and U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: 

State Department Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges, GAO-03-951

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2003).
Page 14 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

adequate training in foreign languages, has begun an effort to recruit 

officers with hard language skills. However, State does not have data that 

link its outreach efforts to the number of people hired with skills in hard 

languages. In addition to the language issue, State officials and some junior 

officers expressed other concerns, including the junior officers’ public 

diplomacy skills, supervision, and on-the-job training requirements, as well 

as issues related to rotational positions. 

State Has Skill Gaps in 

Certain Hard Languages

Overseas post officials and several new officers told us that some junior 

officers who are assigned to hard language posts lack sufficient training in 

these languages. For example, in 2002, junior officers in Moscow sent a 

cable to State stating that they had not received sufficient language training 

to do their jobs effectively, which was weakening the post’s diplomatic 

readiness. The junior officers, as well as most senior officials at this post, 

said that many of the junior officers have difficulty participating in highlevel political meetings—which significantly impedes the political section’s 

work—and interviewing visa applicants because they lack language 

proficiency. The latter is of particular concern as the department moves 

toward heavier reliance on interviewing applicants as a basis for 

determining whether they will receive a visa. While State classified the 

junior officer positions as requiring level-2 proficiency in speaking, post 

management and junior officers said they need a level-3 proficiency to 

perform their jobs effectively.11

Our past work has also shown gaps in the numbers of officers with 

proficiency in certain hard languages. In September 2003, we reported that 

about 21 percent of the public diplomacy officers posted overseas in 

language designated positions have not attained the level of language 

speaking proficiency required for their positions, hampering their ability to 

engage with foreign publics.12 In January 2002 we reported that State had 

not filled all of its positions requiring foreign language skills, and we noted 

that lack of staff with foreign language skills had weakened the fight 

against international terrorism and resulted in less effective representation 

11While additional time and resources are needed to move an officer to the third level of 

proficiency, U.S. government research has shown that a level-3 speaker is up to four times 

as productive as a speaker at level 2. See GAO-02-375.

12GAO-03-951. 
Page 15 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

of U.S. interest overseas.13 We cited similar shortages during our review of 

staffing at certain hard-to-fill posts.14 We reported that some new junior 

officers did not meet the minimum language proficiency requirements of 

the positions to which they were assigned in several countries of strategic 

importance to the United States, including China, Saudi Arabia, and 

Ukraine. 

State’s Effort to Address 

Critical Languages Lacks 

Numerical Targets, Data on 

Effectiveness

State has acknowledged that it has gaps in the number of officers proficient 

in certain hard languages, but its workforce planning does not identify the 

number of officers to hire with those skills.15 The department has further 

acknowledged that languages are integral to its work and important to its 

mission. However, because its officers are required to do much more than 

use a foreign language, State’s philosophy is to hire officers with a wide 

range of skills it believes are predictors of success in the Foreign Service. It 

does not hire for skills that it can train for, such as languages. For example, 

State officials have told us that it is easier to train a person with good 

diplomatic skills to speak a language than it is to teach a linguist to be a 

good diplomat. Therefore, State officials do not believe the solution to the 

language skill gap is recruiting aimed only at filling this gap. According to 

State, increased staffing under the DRI will solve the problem. 

Nevertheless, the department has implemented efforts to identify 

candidates for the Foreign Service with hard language skills.

State has begun an effort to recruit more speakers of difficult languages. 

Since the DRI in 2001, the department has extended its outreach efforts by 

targeting professional associations, such as the American Council on the 

Teaching of Foreign Languages and the Modern Language Association, and 

specific universities and colleges that produce graduates with ability in 

hard languages. While State does track the language skills of its new hires, 

it has not established numerical targets for the number of individuals with 

hard language ability it aims to hire. Nor could it provide current or 

historical data showing the number of individuals it hired as a direct result 

of targeted outreach efforts at these professional associations and schools. 

13GAO-02-375.

14GAO-02-626.

15State does identify foreign language training needs each year and uses the results to 

determine language training capacity required as well as the size of the training float needed 

to attain it.
Page 16 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

While State has not set targets, our analysis of data from State’s Foreign 

Service Institute (FSI) on the number of junior officers who took a 

language proficiency test after they were hired indicates that the number of 

Foreign Service officers with ability in hard languages has increased since 

2001, with State hiring 51 Foreign Service generalists with these skills16 in 

fiscal year 2001, 74 in 2002, and 115 in 2003. While these figures include 

new hires with a broad range of hard language skills, a subset of these hires 

speaks hard languages at a more advanced skill level. New hires in this 

subgroup have speaking skills ranging from a minimum level of 2, or what 

State refers to as “limited working proficiency,” to a level of 5—equivalent 

to skills a native speaker would possess.17 The number of these officers has 

also increased from fiscal year 2001 to 2003. State hired 31, 43, and 78 

Foreign Service generalists who spoke languages at a level of working 

proficiency or higher from 2001 through 2003, respectively. (See fig. 2.)

16In our analysis of new hires with hard language ability, we included those officers who, at a 

minimum, possessed rudimentary skills in speaking or reading difficult languages, those 

who spoke or read at the level of a native speaker, and all those who fell somewhere in 

between these two categories.

17We used level 2 and above because that is the target of the department’s re-invigorated 

outreach efforts for officers with foreign language skills, according to a State official.
Page 17 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Figure 2: Number of New Hires with Working Proficiency in a Hard Language18 and 

Number of New Hires with Less than Working Proficiency in a Hard Language

State could not provide data to demonstrate how many junior officers with 

hard language skills were hired as a result of targeted recruitment. Thus it 

is unclear whether the increase is the result of expanded outreach or a 

steep increase in hiring of junior officers. According to our analysis, the 

number of new Foreign Service generalists with hard language ability as a 

percentage of the total population of new hires has fluctuated since 2001 

when it was 22 percent, compared with 16 percent and 25 percent in 2002 

and 2003, respectively. (See fig. 3.) 

18Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Cantonese Chinese.
Page 18 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Figure 3: New Hires with Hard Language Ability as a Percentage of New Foreign 

Service Generalists

Telephonic Assessment of 

Candidates with Language Skills 

In addition to outreach efforts, State uses a telephonic assessment—the 

Board of Examiners (BEX) test—to provide candidates with foreign 

language skills a competitive advantage in the hiring process, according to 

State officials. Candidates who have passed the written and oral exams can 

take the telephone test in their language of choice. If they pass, they are 

assigned additional points to their oral assessment score. The purpose of 

this tool is to raise the candidates’ oral assessment scores sufficiently for 

them to receive an immediate offer of employment. 

However, our analysis of 102 individuals who passed the telephonic 

assessment in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Russian in fiscal year 

2003 shows that, as of October 2003, only 32 received and accepted offers 

from the Foreign Service and were placed in A-100 training. Twenty-seven 

individuals are awaiting security or medical clearances; 6 are no longer 

junior officer candidates because they failed their security or medical 

clearances, withdrew their applications, or their candidate eligibility 
Page 19 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

expired; and 37 remain on the Foreign Service register. The 37 individuals 

in the latter category scored well enough to pass the oral assessment; 

however, the additional points they received from passing the BEX 

assessment were not sufficient for them to receive a job offer.19 Moreover, 

the State Department does not provide any additional points for BEX 

testees with hard languages versus other languages. However, State 

officials said the department is revising this system.

Junior Officers with Hard 

Language Skills Are Not 

Always Placed to Use Them

Although State is trying to increase the number of officers with hard 

language skills, it does not necessarily assign new hires to posts where they 

can use those skills during their first two tours.20 We analyzed the 

assignment of 31 new officers with hard language ability21 to determine if 

during their first two tours they were assigned to a post where they could 

use their language skills. According to our analysis, 45 percent of new hires 

with hard language ability were deployed to a post where they could use 

their language skills during their first two tours. For the 55 percent of 

junior officers who did not use their hard language skills during their first 

two tours, 20 percent were assigned to a post where they could use other 

foreign language skills they had acquired and 35 percent were assigned to 

posts that required foreign language training. (See fig. 4.) 

19Placement on the list of eligible hires for the Foreign Service register does not mean that a 

job offer will be made. Candidates may wait on the register until their eligibility expires or 

they may be called to serve before it expires, depending on the Service’s needs.

20A tour generally lasts 2 years.

21This analysis includes all those officers who, at a minimum, possessed at least rudimentary 

skills in speaking or writing difficult languages, indicated by a score of 1 from FSI.
Page 20 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Figure 4: Assignment Information for New Hires with Hard Language Ability in Fiscal 

Year 2001

Note: As of November 2003, State could provide first and second tour information for only 31 of the 51 

officers with hard language ability hired in fiscal year 2001. State has not yet assigned the remaining 

20 officers to their second tours. 

It is even less likely that officers will be assigned to hard language posts 

during their first tour. Our analysis of first tour officers with hard language 

ability shows that 24 percent of these officers were immediately deployed 

in fiscal year 2001 to posts where they could use those skills and 32 percent 

in fiscal year 2002 and 28 percent in fiscal year 2003. The vast majority of 

the new hires were immediately deployed to posts where other foreign 

languages were spoken or to English-speaking posts. 

The ability to speak a difficult language is one of many factors influencing a 

junior officer’s assignment to an overseas post. As a practical matter, there 

may not be openings at particular hard-language posts at the same time 

junior officers are being assigned to their first and second tours. The 

requirements for tenure, which include a variety of regions and jobs for 

junior officers to prepare them for careers as Foreign Service generalists, 

are also a major consideration. The emphasis on career development and 

achieving tenure sometimes limits the department’s ability to train and 

deploy a sufficient number of officers with the needed training in hard 

languages to do their jobs, according to several headquarters officials. For 

example, officials in one of State’s geographic bureaus stated that some 

hard languages require a level-2 speaking proficiency, for which officers 
Page 21 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

may get from 24 to 26 weeks of language training. However, if junior 

officers spend a longer period of time in training, they could be at a 

disadvantage for tenure at the first year of eligibility because they would 

have a narrower range of on-the-job experiences on which tenure decisions 

are based. Security requirements are also a consideration when assigning 

junior officers overseas. According to State officials, junior officers with 

hard language skills are sometimes precluded from serving at a post where 

they can use their hard language skills for diplomatic security reasons, 

such as having an immediate family member or close ties with individuals 

in a country. In fiscal year 2003, 8 percent, or 38 of the 468 new Foreign 

Service generalists State hired, were precluded from serving at hard 

language posts for security reasons. However, because of Privacy Act 

restrictions and some unavailable data, State could only provide partial 

information about the foreign language skills of these new hires. As a 

result, we are unable to determine how many of these preclusions were 

also hard-language speakers.

Our analysis was limited to an officer’s first two tours. State officials noted 

that when a new hire possesses strong language skills already, the 

employee and department may consciously use the first two tours to 

develop additional skills rather than existing ones. Skills brought into the 

Foreign Service are likely to be used later in a career if not immediately, 

according to the State officials.

Pilot Programs Under Way 

to Increase Training

State has been exploring options to provide additional training in hard 

languages for officers. State officials said their efforts to provide more 

language training while officers are in Washington at the FSI are affected by 

a tax regulation that limits the time officers can spend in temporary duty 

status to one year before they have to pay federal taxes on their per diem. 

To alleviate this situation, State is developing pilot programs to provide 

some officers with additional training in hard languages by sending them to 

training overseas. In one such pilot, an officer would spend a year studying 

Arabic at the FSI field school in Tunis prior to being sent to an Arabicspeaking post, according to an official of the Bureau of Near Eastern 

Affairs. Under another pilot, junior officers assigned to Moscow are taking 

an immersion course in Russia following their initial language training in 

Washington.
Page 22 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Some Officials Say On-theJob Training in Public 

Diplomacy Is Insufficient

In addition to the hard-language issues, some overseas officials expressed 

concern about the lack of on-the-job training opportunities for junior public 

diplomacy officers, citing overseas training as the single most important 

factor in building these officers’ skills and positioning them to succeed in 

public diplomacy. The FSI’s training did not include grant writing, program 

management, and basic supervisory skills, they said, and was not a viable 

substitute for overseas training. Moreover, about 58 percent of the officers 

responding to a GAO survey reported that the amount of time available for 

public diplomacy training was inadequate.22 Furthermore, State’s Inspector 

General reported that public affairs officers in Africa were often first-tour 

or entry-level officers with no prior public diplomacy experience and as 

such, their mistakes in dealing with the media have embarrassed the post.23

First-tour officers have also displayed poor judgment by not seeking advice 

from experienced local staff, the IG said. FSI has revised its public 

diplomacy training to address some of these issues. As of September 2003, 

public diplomacy officers are receiving from 9 to 19 weeks of training 

(depending upon the duties of their assignment) before they are sent to a 

post. Previously they received 3 weeks of training. State officials said the 

success of this effort depends on State’s ability to hire sufficient staff for a 

training float that would allow officers time to take the training.

Placement in Positions 

Traditionally Held by MidLevel Officers Yields Mixed 

Results 

Several post officials said State’s practice of filling positions traditionally 

held by mid-level officers with junior officers and assigning inexperienced 

junior officers to small posts where they would have increased 

responsibilities worked well. However, others expressed concern because 

junior officers in these positions require increased supervision and on-thejob training.

Benefits Cited at Smaller Posts, 

Hardship Posts

State has assigned a number of junior officers—new DRI hires—to 

positions formerly held by mid-level officers to fill unmet needs at that 

level. For fiscal years 2002 to 2003, 96 mid-level positions were downgraded 

to junior-level positions after consultations with posts, regional bureaus, 

and the Bureau of Human Resources. Career development officers 

explained that such positions have been restructured so that with more 

22GAO-03-951.

23U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections, Report of 

Inspection: Bureau of African Affairs, Report No. ISP-I-02-52 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2002).
Page 23 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

supervision and revised portfolios, junior officers should be able to do the 

work. Smaller posts often have very few American staff, and junior officers 

are frequently responsible for work in more than one career track. For 

example, a junior officer with whom we spoke at a small post in Africa was 

responsible for the political and economic sections and served as backup 

for the consular section. 

According to some officials, junior officers assigned to some smaller posts 

have been very qualified and have helped alleviate the burden of staffing at 

hardship posts. Several officials with whom we spoke at three embassies 

reported positive experiences with junior officers in positions that required 

more responsibility. Moreover, junior officers serving at smaller hardship 

posts can gain a multitude of Foreign Service experiences not available to 

other officers.

Assignments Require More 

Supervision, On-the-Job Training

Some post officials, however, noted that such assignments require more 

supervision and on-the-job training. Supervision is a particular issue at 

smaller posts where there may be few or no mid-level officers. According 

to several overseas officials, this situation creates a burden for the seniorlevel officers who have to mentor and provide on-the-job training as well as 

serve as backup for other jobs at the mission and manage the mission. For 

example, an official at one small African post said a mid-level supervisor 

would normally be responsible for training a junior officer to write cables. 

Because there are no mid-level officers to provide the training, more senior 

officials must provide it, leaving them less time to manage the embassy. 

One overseas embassy official told us a junior officer was having difficulty 

serving in a mid-level position at a small constituent post where the officer 

had very little training and supervision. Officials explained that while the 

position had been designated as a junior officer position, it still required an 

individual with significant related experience. Unfortunately, the junior 

officer assigned to this position did not have the requisite work experience 

or knowledge. Another official said that placing junior officers in positions 

formerly held by mid-level officers was not achieving the same results as 

hiring people with directly related management experience. Furthermore, 

State’s Inspector General reported that assigning inexperienced junior 

officers to mid-level consular positions in African posts with high levels of 

visa fraud was a serious problem. A Bureau of Human Resources official 

stated that this problem should ease as positions are filled under the DRI. 

In the meantime, according to State officials, the bureau tries to fill 

vacancies in mid-level consular positions with at least a second-tour 

officer.
Page 24 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Rotational Positions Have 

Value for Officers but Do 

Not Always Serve Posts’ 

Needs 

State established “rotational” positions that allow some junior officers to 

serve one year in one career track and another year in a different career 

track—for example, consular and public diplomacy. Several officials in 

Mexico City and Moscow said that the rotations were working well at their 

embassy and the length of the rotations was adequate for the junior officers 

to learn their jobs. Some officials said rotational assignments could benefit 

junior officers and the Foreign Service by increasing officers’ knowledge of 

how an overseas post operates. One official noted that working in different 

sections of the embassy becomes harder as an officer is promoted, so it is 

extremely important to have this experience at the junior level. 

Other officials, however, said that rotational assignments were not serving 

the posts’ needs. For example, one official stated that a year is not enough 

time for a person to learn the tasks of the job in the consular section and, as 

a result, local national employees carry much of the responsibility in the 

section. An overseas official stated that a 1-year consular rotation might 

not allow the junior officer to get the same breadth of experience as junior 

officers who spend 2 years in the consular section. In addition, State’s 

Inspector General reported that many consular supervisors said junior 

officers are not assigned to consular work long enough to acquire the skills 

to adjudicate visas under new performance requirements to improve U.S. 

border security.24

Rotational positions also increase managers’ training responsibilities. As 

one post official described it, managers have to “start from scratch” each 

time the position turns over. Some officials said the rotational program was 

hindering productivity in the Foreign Service because junior officers rotate 

soon after they master their current position. These issues led the 

Inspector General to recommend discontinuing the practice of assigning 

junior officers to 1-year rotational positions in consular sections. The 

Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Bureau of Human Resources have 

decided to continue the rotational program, according to a Bureau of 

Human Resources official. The official stated that the bureau continues to 

believe the program is beneficial and said that there are safeguards in place 

to address the Inspector General’s concerns. For example, the official 

stated that the two bureaus have reviewed all of the consular positions and 

24U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Review of Nonimmigrant Visa 

Issuance Policy and Procedures, Report No. ISP-I-03-26 (Washington, D.C.: December 

2002).
Page 25 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

have identified those that should not be filled as part of a rotation by firsttour junior officers.

Conclusions Critical gaps in the number and skills of Foreign Service staff endangered 

State’s ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. The department has 

addressed the numeric shortfall through its Diplomatic Readiness 

Initiative, which has been successful in expanding the candidate pool for 

Foreign Service positions. State has been able to hire junior officers with 

the general skills it requires and to fill overseas positions. However, State 

continues to face gaps in personnel who are proficient in speaking 

languages considered hard to learn. To address these gaps, State has 

undertaken outreach efforts to attract speakers with proficiency in certain 

hard languages, extended the time junior officers spend in training, 

established pilot programs to develop a cadre of speakers of hard 

languages, and assigned many junior officers with skills in hard languages 

to countries where they can use those skills. However, it is not clear to 

what extent these efforts will help eliminate the gaps, and State has little 

data to demonstrate their success. Furthermore, State’s process of 

assigning junior officers, with its emphasis on achieving tenure, may hinder 

the department’s ability to take advantage of the hard language skills that 

some of its officers have. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

This report recommends that the Secretary of State collect and maintain 

data on the effectiveness of State’s efforts to address language gaps. State 

should use these data to, among other things, report on filling such gaps 

through its outreach efforts to recruit more junior officers with hard 

language skills and its pilot programs to increase training in hard-to-learn 

languages for junior officers. State should also explore additional 

opportunities to maximize assignment of junior officers who have skills in 

these languages to overseas posts where they can use these languages.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

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

These comments and our response are reprinted in appendix II. State also 

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report 

as appropriate.

The State Department generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

observations, but did not completely address our recommendations. State 
Page 26 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

commented that it is already addressing our recommendation that it 

maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers of hard-to-learn languages. 

State said that the department collects and maintains extensive data to 

monitor its recruitment efforts. However, State has not used the data to 

determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing the number of hardlanguage speakers are effective or have helped decrease the gap in certain 

languages. State further said that it is confident that its overall hiring plan 

will address the language gaps over the next several years, but the plan 

does not provide specific milestones for achieving this goal. We believe 

State needs to more specifically link its efforts to its hard language needs. 

We have modified our recommendation to make this clearer. 

State did not completely address the second part of our recommendation, 

but stated that our approach, which focused on six specific languages, was 

too narrow. We disagree with State’s assessment. We focused on the six 

languages because of their strategic importance and findings from previous 

GAO reports that lack of staff with skills in some of these languages has 

hindered diplomatic readiness. In its comments, State also overstated a 

number of our findings, observations, and conclusions.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

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

State. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, 

this report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

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

on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix III.

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 27 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To report on State’s processes for determining the number and skills of 

junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10 years, we examined 

workforce planning documents and data, including the overseas staffing 

model.1

 We also interviewed officials from State’s Resource Planning and 

Compensation Division and Office of Resource Management and 

Organizational Analysis, Bureau of Human Resources. We reviewed and 

analyzed data from the Office of Resource Management and Organizational 

Analysis on projected promotions and hiring for fiscal years 2002 through 

2007 and the current deficit and surplus of Foreign Service generalists 

according to the five career tracks and grade levels. We also interviewed 

officials from all six of State’s regional bureaus, the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), and the U.S. embassies in 

Mexico City and Moscow. We selected these embassies because they 

contained the largest number of junior officers. During our fieldwork, we 

conducted interviews with senior level, mid-level, and junior officers. 

To determine whether State is hiring and assigning officers with the general 

skills to meet the needs of overseas posts, we reviewed information related 

to State’s recruiting program, including Diplomatic Readiness recruitment 

goals and hiring data from 2001 through 2003 and projected hiring through 

2007. We interviewed officials from the Office of Recruitment, 

Examination, and Employment; the Office of Career Development; the 

Diplomatic Readiness Task Force; all six of State’s regional bureaus; and 

the Bureau of Consular Affairs. In addition, we interviewed one of the 

consultants who helped perform State’s 1997 job analysis—-a 

comprehensive revalidation of the skills tested by the Foreign Service 

written and oral exams. We also reviewed the raw data in the form of 

survey responses by Foreign Service generalists about the skills that are 

most critical to their work, but we did not evaluate the validity of State’s 

analysis. We interviewed officials, including junior officers, at the U.S. 

embassies in Mexico City and Moscow and supplemented our fieldwork 

with telephone interviews of Foreign Service officers at U.S. embassies in 

Angola, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. We 

selected the first four countries to obtain the perspective of officers at 

small or hard-to-fill posts. We selected South Africa at the recommendation 

of a Bureau of Human Resources official. We also conducted in-person 

interviews with junior officers at headquarters.

1

We did not assess the validity of the staffing model.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

To examine the challenges State still needs to address, especially regarding 

officers with hard-to-learn language skills, we solicited data from three 

different State Department databases. We interviewed State officials who 

were authorities on each of the three databases and determined that the 

data obtained were reliable in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

• To determine the number of officers with hard language ability hired in 

2001, 2002, and 2003, we developed the “New Hires Database.” To create 

this database we used information drawn from FSI’s Student Training 

Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau of Human 

Resources’ Global Employment Management System (GEMS) database. 

The New Hires Database contains information on the number of junior 

officers with hard language ability hired in 2001, 2002, and 2003. It 

includes their levels of proficiency—as rated by the FSI’s School of 

Language Studies—in those hard languages, additional foreign 

languages spoken and their corresponding FSI rating of proficiency, A100 class information, and first—and in some cases second—tour 

assignment information. In our analysis of new hires with hard language 

ability, we included those officers who, at a minimum, possessed at least 

rudimentary skills in speaking or reading difficult languages, indicated 

by a score of 1 from FSI on these two dimensions (the FSI scale ranges 

from a score of 0 to a score of 5, with 5 indicating proficiency at the level 

of a native speaker). To determine the number of new hires with 

working proficiency, we considered only those officers with a level 2 or 

higher proficiency in both speaking and reading and writing. To 

determine the percentage of new hires with hard language ability in the 

population of new hires in fiscal years 2001 through 2003, we took the 

number of officers with hard language ability from the New Hires 

Database in fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and divided that number by 

the total number of Foreign Service generalists hired during those years. 

• To report the status of candidacy for individuals who had taken and 

passed the Board of Examiners Telephonic Assessment (BEX) test in 

fiscal year 2003, we developed the BEX Database. Categories in the 

table include: number assigned to A-100, pending clearance; name on 

foreign service register; no longer a junior officer candidate; and total 

number of BEX Passers. To create this database we used information 

from the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) School of Language Study’s 

Student Training Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau 

of Human Resources’ Global Employment Management System (GEMS) 

and Automated Foreign Service Examination and Registry System 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

(AFSERS) database. The BEX Database contains individuals who 

passed the Foreign Service’s telephonic assessment in hard-to-learn 

languages and, where applicable, their A-100 assignment information, 

and proficiency scores according to FSI in hard languages as well as 

additional languages they bring to the service. Names of individuals in 

the BEX Database for whom there was no A-100 information were 

resubmitted to the State Department to obtain their alternate outcomes. 

These individuals and their alternate outcomes were subsequently 

recorded on a separate spreadsheet. The alternate outcomes of these 

individuals were primarily derived from the AFSERS database and the 

following categories: expiration of eligibility dates, withdrawals, 

terminations, status on the Foreign Service Register, status of medical 

and security clearances, and employment start dates. 

To examine assignment location for new hires with hard language ability in 

fiscal year 2001, we used the New Hires Database to create three distinct 

categories of junior officers for whom we had information on two tours: (1) 

posted where hard language skills could be used, (2) posted where other 

foreign language skills were used, and (3) posted where other foreign 

language skills had to be acquired. To calculate the percentage of junior 

officers in each of the three categories, we divided the category total by the 

number of new hires with hard language ability for whom information was 

available about two tours. The total number for each category was defined 

as the number of those officers being sent to hard language posts who had 

at least basic speaking and writing skills in that language for the first 

category. For the second category, we used the number of officers with 

hard language skills assigned to a post where they could use other foreign 

language skills they brought to the service, and for the third category we 

used the number of officers assigned to posts during both their first and 

second tours where they did not have the relevant foreign language skills.

• We also used the New Hires Database to determine the number of junior 

officers with hard language ability assigned to hard language posts 

during their first tour for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. For each fiscal 

year, we divided the number of officers hired in that fiscal year and 

assigned to hard language posts during their first tour by the total 

number of officers hired in that fiscal year. 

In addition, we met with officials from all six of State’s regional bureaus 

and the Bureau of Consular Affairs; officials and junior officers at the U.S. 

embassies in Moscow and Mexico City, as well as junior officers at 

headquarters; and officials from the Office of Recruitment, Examination, 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

and Employment, the Office of Career Development, and the Diplomatic 

Readiness Task Force. We reviewed State Department recruitment data 

from the Diplomatic Readiness Task Force on efforts to recruit Foreign 

Service officers with hard language skills from the following targeted 

language schools: Brigham Young University, Columbia University-–

Columbia College, Cornell University, Harvard University, Indiana 

University--Bloomington, Middlebury College, Ohio State University, 

University of California Los Angeles, University of Chicago, University of 

Michigan-–Ann Arbor, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin-–

Madison, and Yale University. These data showed the number of individuals 

from each of these universities who had passed the Foreign Service written 

exam, but did not indicate whether these individuals possessed any hard 

language skills or if they were in fact even hired by the State Department. 

We conducted our work from December 2002 through August 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 31 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 32 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 33 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 34 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 5.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 35 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 6.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 36 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 7.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 37 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 8.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 38 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

See comment 9.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 39 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter 

dated November 11, 2003.

GAO Comments 1. State overstated our conclusions. The department wrote that “GAO 

found that [State’s] process is conducted using a skills assessment that 

is valid, a robust workforce planning process that determines hiring 

needs, a dynamic recruiting program that targets needed skills, [and] an 

examination process that accurately evaluates competency in those 

skills...” While we described State’s workforce planning and staffing 

processes, we did not validate its staffing model or its skills 

assessment. Furthermore, we did not describe the workforce planning 

process as “robust” and the recruiting program as “dynamic.” We 

reported that State used elements of workforce planning to determine 

its Foreign Service staffing needs, junior officers stated that the exam 

tested for the skills they used on the job, and State officials believed the 

department was hiring and assigning junior officers overseas with the 

skills they needed to do the job. 

2. While we reported on State’s processes for recruiting, hiring, and 

assigning new staff, we did not conclude that these processes are the 

best way to meet mission requirements. There may be other ways to 

accomplish State’s mission, but an evaluation of alternatives was 

beyond the scope of this report.

3. We did not conclude that the department is successfully meeting its 

staffing needs through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative. We 

concluded that State had met its hiring targets for Foreign Service 

generalists in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Also, State officials told us 

that it would take 9 to 10 years to eliminate its mid-level staffing gap. 

We did not assess whether this gap could be closed more quickly.

4. State mischaracterized what we wrote and thus did not address the 

second part of our recommendation. State further commented that our 

approach, which focused on six specific languages, was too narrow and 

implied that we believe increasing the number of speakers of selected 

languages will address diplomatic readiness needs. We focused on the 

six languages because of their strategic importance and findings from 

previous GAO reports that lack of staff proficient in these languages 

hinders diplomatic readiness. Moreover, senior officials at the U.S. 

embassy in Russia told us that some junior officers lacked sufficient 

Russian skills to effectively do their jobs.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 40 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

5. We are not suggesting that State supplant training as its main avenue 

for achieving its language goals as State’s comments infer. However, we 

believe that State should explore as many avenues as possible to 

eliminate its gaps in officers with proficiency in hard-to-learn 

languages. 

6. The intent of our analysis of the assignment of junior officers with 

preexisting hard language skills was to show the extent to which those 

officers were assigned to posts where they could use those skills. We 

had no basis to conclude that the results were positive as State 

commented. State also commented that we did not review officers’ 

assignments beyond their first two tours. We did not go beyond the first 

two tours because the scope of our review was the recruitment and 

assignment of junior officers. However, we have incorporated the 

department’s statements that many skills officers bring to the Foreign 

Service will be used throughout their careers, not just in the first two 

tours. 

7. State wrote that the department is making considerable progress in 

recruiting for language skills, along with all required skills. However, as 

we have previously noted, State has not set numerical targets for the 

number of individuals with hard language ability it aims to hire. 

Moreover, the department does not maintain data to demonstrate how 

many junior officers with hard language skills were hired as a direct 

result of its outreach efforts.

8. State commented that we understated the contribution that rotational 

assignments make toward accomplishing mission goals. We disagree. 

The report provides several examples of the benefits of the rotations. 

However, a number of officials raised the issue of increased 

supervisory requirements as a concern.

9. State commented that it is already addressing the first part of our 

recommendation that it maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers 

of hard-to-learn languages. As we noted in the report, State has not 

used the data to determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing 

the number of hard-language speakers are effective or have helped 

decrease the gap in certain languages.
Page 41 GAO-04-139 Foreign Service Recruiting and Assignments

Appendix III

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contacts Cheryl Goodman, (202) 512-6571 

La Verne Tharpes, (202) 512-5961

Acknowledgments In addition to the persons named above, Kaya Taylor, Julia Roberts, Martin 

de Alteriis, Monica Wolford, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to 

this report.

(320167)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 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

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs 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
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00