Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

February 2004 UNITED NATIONS 

Reforms Progressing, 

but Comprehensive 

Assessments Needed 

to Measure Impact 

GAO-04-339 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-339. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Joseph 

Christoff at (202) 512-8979 or 

christoffj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-339, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2004 

UNITED NATIONS

Reforms Progressing, but 

Comprehensive Assessments Needed to 

Measure Impact 

As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 

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

In general, reforms under the Secretary General’s authority were progressing 

more quickly than those requiring member states’ approval. Since 1997, the 

Secretariat has implemented reforms to provide more unified leadership and 

coordination across departments and offices. However, the Secretariat has 

implemented other reforms, such as developing a written plan or 

establishing a new office, that are only the first step in achieving the 

Secretary General’s overall goals. 

Reforms in four key areas of U.N. operations are in various stages. First, the 

Secretariat has taken positive steps to strengthen its human capital 

management, but reforms in this area are ongoing and additional challenges 

remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to adopt results-oriented budgeting, but 

its monitoring and evaluation system does not measure program impact. 

Third, although the Secretariat reorganized its public information 

department, reforms of library management and publications are not fully in 

place. Fourth, the Secretariat’s human rights office implemented the 

majority of its management reforms but does not have the authority to 

implement reforms outside the Secretariat. 

U.N. reform faces several challenges. For example, the Secretariat does not 

conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of U.N. 

reforms. In addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated priorities, 

interim goals, and target dates for overall completion. Other challenges 

include resistance to change from program managers and possible resource 

constraints. 

Status of Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations 

The U.N. Secretary General 

launched two reform agendas, in 

1997 and 2002, to address the 

U.N.’s core management 

challenges—poor leadership of the 

Secretariat, duplication among its 

many offices and programs, and the 

lack of accountability for staff 

performance. In 2000, GAO 

reported that the Secretary General 

had reorganized the Secretariat’s 

leadership and structure, but that 

the reforms were not yet complete. 

As the largest financial contributor 

to the United Nations, the United 

States has a strong interest in the 

completion of these reforms. 

GAO was asked to assess the (1) 

overall status of the 1997 and 2002 

reforms, (2) implementation of 

reforms in four key areas, and (3) 

potential challenges to reform. 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of State and the 

Permanent Representative of the 

United States to the United Nations 

work with other member states to 

encourage the Secretary General to 

(1) report regularly on the status 

and impact of reforms; (2) identify 

short- and long-term goals and 

establish target end dates for 

remaining reforms; and (3) conduct 

assessments of the resulting 

resource implications. 

We received comments from the 

Department of State and the United 

Nations, both of which generally 

agreed with our conclusions and 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, 

but Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms 8

Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, 

but Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear 12

Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms 33

Conclusion 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38 

Appendix II Status of U.N. Reforms 43 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 54 

Appendix IV Comments from the United Nations 58 

Tables 

Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status 39

Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and 

the Status of Their Implementation 43

Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary 

General and the Status of Their Implementation 46

Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation 50

Figures 

Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the 

Present 7

Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms 9

Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms 10

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform 14

Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for 

Deploying Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 

2002-2003 and 2004-2005 21

Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets 24

Figure 7: Human Rights Office’s Funding Trends 30

Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program 31

Abbreviations 

DPI Department of Public Information 

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council 

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee 

JIU Joint Inspection Unit 

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

OHRM Office of Human Resources Management 

OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services 

OPPBA Office of Program Planning, Budget, and Accounts 

UNCTAD U.N. Conference on Trade and Development 

UNDP U.N. Development Program 

UNFPA U.N. Population Fund 

UNICEF U.N. Children’s Fund 

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-04-339 U.N. Reform 

February 13, 2004 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar 

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Michael Enzi 

United States Senate 

The United Nations’ regular budget for the 2004-2005 biennium exceeds 

$3 billion for the first time. U.N. officials, including the Secretary General, 

have stated that additional funding will be needed to upgrade U.N. security 

worldwide and expand current programs in Iraq. In light of these 

increasing demands, the Secretary General and member states have called 

on the Secretariat to better define priorities and eliminate outdated 

activities. These calls have also highlighted the need for more accountable 

leadership and improvements in key management practices. In 1997, the 

Secretary General launched a major reform initiative to restructure U.N. 

leadership and operations, develop a results-oriented human capital 

system, and introduce a performance-based programming and budgeting 

process. In May 2000,1

 we reported that, while the Secretary General had 

substantially reorganized the Secretariat’s leadership and structure, he had 

not yet completed reforms in human capital management and planning 

and budgeting. To encourage the full implementation of the 1997 reforms 

and highlight reforms in public information activities and the human rights 

program, the Secretary General launched a second round of reforms in 

September 2002. 

As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations,2

 the United 

States has a strong interest in the completion of these reforms. In response 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, United Nations: Reform Initiatives Have Strengthened 

Operations, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been Met, GAO/NSIAD-00-150

(Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000). 

2

The United States is assessed to pay 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget. The United 

States also is assessed 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and makes voluntary 

contributions to the United Nations and its specialized agencies that are primarily for 

humanitarian and development programs and activities. Overall, the United States 

contributed more than $3 billion to the U.N. system in 2002. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

to your request, we assessed (1) the overall status of the U.N. reforms 

proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the Secretariat’s 

efforts to implement specific reforms in four key areas:3

 human capital 

management, performance-oriented budgeting,4

 public information 

activities, and the human rights program; and (3) overall challenges facing 

the implementation of U.N. reforms. 

To address these issues, we reviewed the Secretary General’s 1997 and 

2002 reform plans and interviewed senior officials from several Secretariat 

departments in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. We met with 

officials from the Offices of the Deputy Secretary General, the Acting High 

Commissioner for Human Rights, the Departments of Management and 

Public Information, and the Office of Internal Oversight Services. In 

addition, we reviewed reports and bulletins of the Secretariat, relevant 

U.N. resolutions, and related budget documents. During the course of our 

review, we discussed the status of U.N. reforms with officials from the 

Department of State in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Geneva (see app. 

I for more information on our scope and methodology). 

The Secretary General launched two major reform initiatives, in 1997 and 

2002, to address the U.N.’s core management challenges—poor leadership 

of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs, and 

the lack of accountability for staff performance. The 1997 reform plan 

consisted of initiatives that the Secretary General could implement on his 

own authority and those that required the approval of member states. As 

of December 2003, we found that, overall, 60 percent of the 88 reform 

initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda were in place. Of the 1997 reforms, 

the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of the reforms under his 

authority, while 44 percent of the reforms requiring member state approval 

are in place. In addition, we found that 38 percent of the 66 reform 

initiatives in the 2002 reform agenda—which did not differentiate between 

 3

We did not examine U.N. peacekeeping reform in detail other than to assess the status of 

specific reforms in the 1997 and 2002 agendas (see app. II). In September 2003, GAO 

reported on some U.N. peacekeeping reforms, including performance-oriented planning 

and programming. See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.N. Peacekeeping: Transition 

Strategies for Post-Conflict Countries Lacked Results-Oriented Measures of Progress, 

GAO-03-1071 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003). 

4

Performance-oriented budgeting is the process by which budgeted activities are linked to 

expected results, programs are monitored and evaluated regularly, and resources are 

shifted to meet new priorities. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

the Secretary General’s and member states’ authority—are in place. Since 

1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms to provide more unified 

leadership and coordination across departments, programs, and offices. 

The Secretariat has also implemented other reforms, such as developing a 

written plan or establishing a new office, that are only the first steps in 

achieving the Secretary General’s goals. However, it is the completion of 

additional efforts, such as providing staff and financial resources, and 

creating performance goals, that will contribute to building an effective 

department or office. 

The United Nations is in various stages of implementing reforms in four 

key areas—human capital management, performance-oriented budgeting, 

public information activities, and the human rights program. 

• Both U.N. officials and external observers have identified long-standing 

weaknesses in the Secretariat’s personnel—or human capital—

management, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire 

staff, and the need to hold managers and staff more directly accountable 

for their performance. In response to these concerns, the Secretariat 

developed a reform strategy that included a new recruiting and placement 

system, which decentralized hiring authority and, according to U.N. 

sources, significantly reduced the average time to hire staff. The Secretary 

General also introduced new accountability mechanisms, including annual 

performance agreements for senior managers and a new staff performance 

appraisal system. Further steps are needed, however, to implement other 

human capital reforms. For example, U.N. officials cited the need to 

develop a system to efficiently screen the increased number of 

applications received through the online hiring system. 

• The United Nations recognized that it lacked a system to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its activities and eliminate programs that were obsolete 

and did not address immediate priorities. In response, it began to adopt 

performance-oriented budgeting in December 2000. A performanceoriented budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget 

that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted 

activities to performance expectations; (2) a system to regularly monitor 

and evaluate the impact of programs; and (3) procedures to shift resources 

to meet program objectives. The United Nations has the first key element 

in place but does not systematically monitor and evaluate program 

performance to determine the relevance of programs so that it can 

eliminate obsolete programs and move resources to priority programs. 

However, the Secretariat is implementing a strategy to strengthen program 

monitoring and evaluation. The General Assembly also adopted an 

initiative to strengthen the role of one of its oversight committees 
Page 4 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

responsible for program monitoring and evaluation, but the General 

Assembly does not evaluate the Secretariat’s program results to reallocate 

resources to new priorities. 

• Several internal and external management reviews concluded that the 

Secretariat should manage its public information activities—including the 

U.N.’s worldwide information offices, libraries, and publications—in a 

more efficient, cost-effective manner. The 2002 reform agenda called for 

the reorganization of the Department of Public Information, both at 

headquarters and in the field, to reduce duplicative activities, leverage 

cost-saving technology, and focus its staff on achieving and measuring 

results. These reforms are substantially in place. However, reforms to 

improve outdated library technology and streamline the Secretariat’s 

duplicative publications are only partly in place. The success of the latter 

will depend on the willingness of Secretariat officials and the General 

Assembly to identify unneeded publications and discontinue duplicative 

mandated activities. 

• Based on internal management reviews, the Secretary General called for 

reforms of the Secretariat’s human rights office to improve its financial, 

human capital, and program management. Although we found that these 

reforms are substantially in place, the Secretary General does not have the 

authority to implement other human rights reforms outside the Secretariat. 

For example, the Secretary General called for improvements to the quality 

of reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights by individuals 

and groups that monitor and report on human rights situations worldwide. 

In response, the Secretariat’s human rights office requested and received 

funding for additional staff to assist these reporters. However, the 

Secretary General cannot implement other proposed improvements, such 

as setting selection criteria for the reporters or rating their performance in 

producing reports. 

We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat’s ability 

to meet the overall goals of the reforms. First, the Secretariat does not 

conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of 

reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat cannot determine if it 

is meeting the Secretary General’s overall reform goals or identify areas 

where further improvements are needed. Second, the 2002 reform agenda 

did not differentiate between short- and long-term goals. Setting 

implementation goals and a timeline is a key practice for organizations 
Page 5 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

engaged in change management initiatives.5 Third, some managers have 

resisted implementing certain reforms, but their support is critical for the 

institutionalization of reforms in the long term. Fourth, several U.N. 

officials we spoke with stated that reforms were delayed because 

additional resources were not made available for their implementation. 

The Secretary General stated that departments would need to implement 

reforms within existing resources because additional funding would not be 

available in the regular budget. 

This report makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and the 

Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to 

work with other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1) 

report regularly on the status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and 

other reforms that may follow; (2) differentiate between short- and longterm reform goals and establish expected time frames for completion of 

those reforms that are not in place; and (3) conduct assessments of the 

financial and personnel implications associated with the implementation 

of the reforms. 

We received written comments from the Department of State and the 

United Nations, which we have reprinted in appendixes III and IV. Both 

State and the United Nations generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations and commented on ongoing reform efforts. 

The United Nations comprises (1) the Security Council, the General 

Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other governing bodies 

of member states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for U.N. 

programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary 

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

funds and programs, such as the U.N. Development Program, which are 

authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work. 

Many funds and programs have their own governing bodies and budgets 

(mainly paid for by voluntary contributions from participating nations). 

The Secretary General’s reform initiatives do not apply to specialized 

agencies—such as the World Health Organization and the Food and 

 5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to 

Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 

2, 2003). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Agricultural Organization—and programs that have their own governing 

bodies. 

Calls to reform the United Nations began soon after its creation in 1945. 

Despite cycles of reform, U.N. member states have had concerns about 

inefficient operations; problems of fragmentation, duplication, and poor 

coordination; and the proliferation of mandates. As one of the 191 member 

states, the United States played a significant role in promoting U.N. 

reform, calling for financial, administrative, and programmatic changes. 

The State Department and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations actively 

promoted these reforms such as establishing inspector general’s offices, 

many of which have been implemented. The State Department continues 

to promote further reforms and reports on the status of major reform 

initiatives to the U.S. Congress (see fig. 1). 

In July 1997, the Secretary General proposed a broad reform program to 

transform the United Nations into an efficient organization focused on 

achieving results as it carried out its mandates. Although the Secretary 

General does not have direct authority over specialized agencies and many 

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

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

Secretariat had substantially restructured its leadership and operations 

and partly implemented a performance-oriented human capital 

management system. However, performance-oriented programming and 

budgeting proposals had not yet been adopted. 
Page 7 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present 

In September 2002, the Secretary General released a second set of reform 

initiatives with 36 reform actions, some expanding on previous reform 

initiatives introduced in 1997 and others reflecting new priorities for the 

organization. The overall goal was to align U.N. activities with the 

priorities defined by the Millennium Declaration6

 and the new security 

environment. 

 6

In 2000, the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration, which contains a set 

of priorities and specific time frames for meeting development goals. The Millennium 

Declaration and the Secretary General’s Road Map toward implementation of the U.N. 

Millennium Declaration provide the overall priorities for all U.N. activities. 
Page 8 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 1997 reforms and 38 percent of the 

2002 reforms were fully or substantially in place—or 51 percent overall 

(see app. II for the status of U.N. reforms). The Secretary General set a 

target date of 1999 for the implementation of reforms in the 1997 agenda, 

which consisted of initiatives that he could implement on his own 

authority and those that required member states’ approval. Of these 

reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of those reforms 

under his authority, while 44 percent of reforms requiring member states’ 

approval were in place. However, the outputs of many reforms, such as 

developing a written plan or establishing a new office, are only the first 

step in achieving the Secretary General’s overall reform goals. Although 

many of these reforms are in place, departments and offices in the 

Secretariat are still institutionalizing these new plans to improve U.N. 

operations in the long term. 

Since our May 2000 report, the United Nations continued to implement 

reforms from the Secretary General’s 1997 reform agenda and began to 

implement initiatives from the 2002 agenda (see fig. 2). We found that 60 

percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda were in place, 

compared with 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the 2002 agenda. 

Overall, 51 percent of reforms from the 1997 and 2002 agendas were in 

place. We identified a total of 154 reform initiatives from the 1997 and 2002 

reform agendas. This number differs from U.N. figures because many of 

the Secretary General’s reform action items had several components that 

we identified and counted as separate initiatives. To determine the 

implementation status of these reforms, we interviewed senior U.N. 

officials and reviewed relevant reports, bulletins, and resolutions. We then 

rated the reforms as 

• in place or substantially so—that is, the reform had been approved and 

most key and minor elements were in place; 

• partly in place—that is, the reform had been approved, and some key 

elements, as well as some or most minor elements, were in place; or 

• not in place—that is, the reform had not been formally approved and 

minor elements could be in place, but no key elements were in place (see 

app. I for a more detailed description of our methodology). 

Implementation of 

U.N. Reforms Has 

Advanced in Recent 

Years, but Further 

Actions Are Needed 

to Complete Reforms 

Secretariat Is 

Implementing Reforms, 

but Those Requiring 

Member State Approval 

Take Longer to Implement 
Page 9 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms 

The implementation of reforms under the Secretary General’s authority 

advanced faster than those under the authority of the member states. We 

found that 70 percent of the 56 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform 

agenda under his authority are fully or substantially in place, compared 

with 44 percent of the 32 initiatives requiring member state approval (see 

fig. 3). The 2002 agenda did not differentiate between initiatives that the 

Secretary General could implement on his own authority and those that 

required member states’ approval. 
Page 10 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms 

In particular, the Secretariat made the most progress on the 1997 reforms 

to 

• restructure U.N. operations to provide more unified leadership and 

coordination across departments, programs, and offices; 

• institute a new human capital management system that sets expectations 

and rates staff performance; and 

• adopt results-based budgeting. 

However, the General Assembly did not adopt many reforms, such as 

those to 

• further shorten the length and reduce the cost of its annual meetings; 

• focus the assembly’s yearly debates on a few priority areas; and 

• institute time limits, or sunset provisions, for all new U.N. programs. 
Page 11 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Delays in acquiring member state approval are due, in part, to the longer 

time needed for the General Assembly to reach agreement. To pass 

resolutions in favor of most specific reforms, the General Assembly 

generally requires a majority vote from the 191 member states.7 Although 

the Secretary General acknowledged that these reforms would take longer 

to implement, he set the end of 1999 as the target date to complete the 

1997 reforms. However, we found that approximately 40 percent of these 

reforms are not fully in place. 

More than one-quarter of the Secretary General’s completed reforms, such 

as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, only represent 

the first steps in achieving longer-term and more important goals. The 

Secretariat’s departments and offices must then use these new plans and 

offices to improve U.N. operations for the long term. For example, the 

Secretary General directed the Secretariat to develop a plan to improve its 

information technology systems. We found that the Secretariat 

implemented a plan to upgrade software programs, enhance inter-office 

communication between headquarters and the field, and train staff in the 

use of these new systems. However, member states must continue to 

invest the necessary resources for the plan’s implementation to ensure 

that the technology does not become obsolete and to have an impact on 

U.N. operations in the long term. 

In addition, the Secretary General created several new offices as part of 

his reform initiatives. These include a strategic planning office in the 

Secretariat, an office to coordinate emergency humanitarian relief 

programs, and an office in Vienna to manage the U.N.’s interrelated 

programs to combat crime, drugs, and terrorism. Although the 

establishment of any new office can be counted as a completed reform, it 

is only the first step toward impacting the effectiveness of U.N. operations 

and achieving the Secretary General’s overall reform goals. GAO has 

previously reported that building an effective department that can meet 

overall objectives requires several components, including a staff, financial 

resources, and performance goals to measure progress toward objectives.8

 7

Reforms to change the budgeting process require a two-thirds majority vote of member 

states. 

8

U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: 

Department of Homeland Security, GAO-03-102 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

Secretariat Will Need to 

Take Additional Steps to 

Achieve the Secretary 

General’s Overall Goals 
Page 12 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

We found that the U.N. has implemented many reforms in four key areas: 

(1) human capital management, (2) performance-oriented budgeting, (3) 

public information activities, and (4) the human rights program. Although 

numerous key initiatives are in place, other tasks are not yet complete, 

such as strengthening the U.N.’s monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to 

measure program impact and issuing additional guidelines on the new 

worldwide staff rotation, or mobility, policy. Therefore, the impact of 

these reforms on the effectiveness of U.N. operations is unclear. 

In response to human capital concerns raised by U.N. officials and outside 

observers, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire staff, 

the Secretariat developed a reform strategy to address the key elements of 

human capital management. The strategy included the implementation of a 

new recruitment and placement system that decentralized hiring authority 

and, according to U.N. officials, significantly reduced the average time to 

hire staff. Additional steps are needed, however, to fully implement 

reforms and address remaining challenges. For example, U.N. officials 

cited the need to develop a system to efficiently screen the increased 

number of applications received through the online hiring system. 

The Secretary General’s reform strategy called for changes to the 

Secretariat’s human capital management to create a results-oriented 

organizational culture supporting high performance, increased training, 

and more effective management. The United Nations’ human capital 

management had long been criticized by U.N. officials and external 

observers for the extensive time required for recruiting and hiring, the 

need for increased accountability for performance, and limited 

development and promotion opportunities. In his 1997 plan, the Secretary 

General stated that human capital management has been characterized by 

labor-intensive day-to-day staff administration and cumbersome rules and 

processes. He further stated that these rules and processes were seen as 

impeding program delivery and not maximizing staff contributions. The 

reform initiatives also attempted to bring human capital policies up to date 

with changes that had taken place within the organization, such as the 

move from being primarily headquarters-based to having an increasingly 

large field presence. 

In 2000, the Secretariat expanded the reforms by developing a broader 

human capital reform strategy. GAO has developed a human capital model 

that highlights the steps that organizations can take in managing human 

capital strategically. This model encompasses four human capital 

Reforms in Four Key 

Areas of U.N. 

Operations Are 

Progressing, but 

Overall Impact Is Still 

Not Clear 

Positive Steps Taken to 

Strengthen Human Capital 

Management, but 

Implementation of 

Reforms Is Ongoing and 

Additional Challenges 

Remain 

Secretariat’s Reform Strategy 

Addresses Key Elements of 

Strategic Human Capital 

Management 
Page 13 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

cornerstones that, when taken together, embody an approach to human 

capital management that is fact-based and focused on program results and 

mission accomplishment. We found that the Secretariat’s reform strategy 

includes actions in the areas of GAO’s four cornerstones of strategic 

human capital management—leadership; strategic human capital planning; 

acquiring, developing, and retaining talent; and results-oriented 

organizational cultures (see fig. 4).9

 9

U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, 

GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002). 
Page 14 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform 

Leadership is defined as the demonstrated commitment of top leaders to 

continuously improve human capital management and support efforts to 

integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals. Soon after 

taking office, the Secretary General developed the 1997 reform plan for the 

Secretariat. He established a new leadership and management structure 

and began overhauling human capital policies to align the organization’s 

human capital capacity with its mission and structure. The Secretary 

General also established core organizational values and competencies to 

develop a results-oriented culture and has used this model to improve 

Leadership 
Page 15 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

recruitment, staff development, and performance management processes. 

The Secretary General’s 2002 reform plan further emphasized the need for 

human capital improvements, including increased opportunities for staff 

mobility and expanded career prospects for support staff. 

The leadership cornerstone also emphasizes that human capital 

professionals have an expanded role, beyond paperwork processing, to 

become more integrated in the work of the organization. The Secretariat’s 

Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has begun to take on 

additional responsibilities, including developing human capital policies, 

monitoring compliance with these policies, and providing guidance on 

human capital issues. In addition, OHRM has begun to provide more 

automated services to employees. For example, the office has streamlined 

human capital rules and procedures and has made the Human Resources 

Handbook and personnel forms available online. U.N. employees reported 

in a survey that the streamlining of rules and procedures was the most 

successful human capital reform implemented since 2000. 

To improve strategic human capital planning, the second cornerstone, the 

Secretariat is developing its workforce planning activities through analysis 

of the demographic characteristics of Secretariat staff, while departmental 

staffing goals are being integrated with the organization’s broader human 

capital objectives. The Secretariat’s departments and offices also are 

preparing action plans, which incorporate human capital goals and 

indicators. OHRM holds planning sessions with the head of each 

department to develop measurable targets for achieving human capital 

goals, including targets for hiring staff from unrepresented or 

underrepresented countries. OHRM monitors the implementation of these 

action plans through semiannual reviews of the departments’ progress in 

meeting their goals. 

The Secretariat also is making increased use of information technology in 

implementing reforms. The electronic Human Resources Handbook, the 

online hiring system, and the electronic performance appraisal system are 

new technology tools that the Secretariat is using to manage human 

capital. Historically, the Secretariat had unique job profiles for most 

positions, but the new recruiting and placement system makes use of 

generic job descriptions in advertising job openings. U.N. officials stated 

that these generic job profiles have increased the accessibility and 

transparency of the application and hiring process and have facilitated 

staff’s ability to move to positions in other departments or offices. 

Strategic Human Capital 

Planning 
Page 16 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

To acquire, develop, and retain talent, the third cornerstone, the 

Secretariat introduced a new recruitment and placement system in 2002 

that entrusts program managers with the responsibility and accountability 

for hiring decisions. U.N. officials stated that the new hiring system has 

streamlined the hiring process, contributing to a significant reduction in 

the average time to hire an employee. In addition, an online tool allows 

individuals to submit their applications through the Internet. U.N. officials 

stated that this tool provides information on the status of applications and 

on management indicators, such as the gender balance and geographic 

distribution of applicants. 

The Secretariat also increased the emphasis on training and developing 

managers’ skills. Although U.N. officials acknowledged that more 

resources are needed for training, the organization is providing mandatory 

people management training for supervisory staff. The Secretariat also has 

implemented a career development policy based on the newly developed 

core competencies for managers and staff. Under this policy, managers 

must demonstrate support for their staff’s development and career 

progress. Finally, the Secretariat has implemented new initiatives to 

improve the work environment for staff. For example, employees now 

have more flexible work arrangements to address their personnel needs. 

The key to developing results-oriented organizational cultures, the fourth 

cornerstone, is to create a clear link between individual performance and 

organizational success.10 To do this, the Secretary General is holding 

senior managers accountable for accomplishing human capital goals 

through the use of annual performance agreements. On an annual basis, 

the Secretary General meets individually with department heads to discuss 

human capital priorities and goals for the upcoming year and to review 

indicators, such as the percentage of women in staff and management 

positions and the percentage of vacant positions. For these indicators, the 

managers’ departments are measured against the Secretariat’s overall 

average and their targets for the year. Program managers have been able 

to electronically track these and other indicators daily using a new tool 

developed by the Department of Management. 

 10U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage 

between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003). 

Acquiring, Developing, and 

Retaining Talent 

Results-Oriented 

Organizational Cultures 
Page 17 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

The Secretary General also implemented a new electronic performance 

appraisal system, introduced in 2002. Rather than having performance 

management take place once a year, the new system emphasizes regular 

conversations and feedback between staff and supervisors related to staff 

performance. Under the system, staff also are assessed against newly 

developed organizationwide competencies. Examples of the Secretariat’s 

core staff competencies include communication, teamwork, commitment 

to continuous learning, and technological awareness. Managers also are 

assessed under additional competencies such as leadership, empowering 

others, and building trust. In addition, the new performance appraisal 

system links the individual’s performance to departmental or team goals 

and provides mechanisms for dealing with poor performers. Staff that 

have not met performance expectations under the appraisal system may 

have their salary increases withheld or could face the termination of their 

employment contracts. 

The Secretariat has made progress in implementing its reform agenda, but 

it must address additional human capital challenges if it is to meet the 

Secretary General’s overall reform goals. Key challenges include (1) 

delegating increased authority and accountability for personnel actions to 

managers, (2) implementing the organization’s staff mobility policy, (3) 

developing a long-range workforce planning capacity, and (4) screening 

the significant increase in applications received through the new recruiting 

system. In addition, although the Secretariat has an overall reform strategy 

in place, this strategy does not include specific time frames to complete 

reform actions. Establishing time frames at the outset provides a baseline 

for assessing the Secretariat’s progress in implementing reforms and 

achieving its overall human capital reform goals. 

First, U.N. officials we met with stated that OHRM has not gone far enough 

in delegating authority for personnel decisions to program managers, a 

component of the leadership cornerstone. For example, U.N. officials 

stated that offices and programs working on humanitarian or development 

assistance often needed to hire staff quickly during crisis situations around 

the world. However, according to these officials, U.N. rules and 

procedures have been a barrier to the hiring process. These officials 

pointed out that the delegated hiring authority is only for employees under 

regular budget positions11 on longer-term contracts. Field-based programs 

and offices often hire staff under short-term contracts. U.N. officials stated 

 11Regular budget positions are those funded from the U.N. regular budget. 

Secretariat Faces Challenges in 

Its Efforts to Achieve Its 

Human Capital Reform Goals 
Page 18 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

that the authority to hire these staff has not been decentralized. In his 2002 

reform plan, the Secretary General also acknowledged the need to further 

delegate responsibilities to managers. 

Second, one of the Secretary General’s major reform initiatives was the 

implementation of a staff mobility policy intended to facilitate the 

movement of staff within and between offices and duty stations. The 

policy establishes time limits of either 5 or 6 years for staff to occupy a 

position, depending on the staff’s grade level. Although the human capital 

office is developing incentives for staff to move to hardship duty stations, 

U.N. officials have identified key challenges that may impede the 

successful implementation of the mobility policy when the requirements 

go into effect in 2007. U.N. staff, for example, are employed under 

different types of contracts, some of which place restrictions on the 

duration of employment and the type of work an employee can undertake. 

U.N. officials stated that the differences in employment contracts would 

make it difficult to move staff to certain positions or locations. Another 

barrier to staff mobility is spousal employment. Some countries place visa 

and work permit restrictions on hiring U.N. employees’ spouses. The 

Secretary General has begun to negotiate with countries to ease the 

restrictions on the employment of U.N. spouses. 

A related challenge is the need for further improvements in strategic 

workforce planning, linked to strategic goals and objectives. Long-range 

workforce planning will enable the organization to remain aware of and be 

prepared for its current and future needs as an organization. The Secretary 

General has recognized the need for building this capacity, emphasizing 

the need for more systematic succession planning to account for the 

expected increase in retirement of U.N. staff. Ultimately, the success of an 

organization’s workforce planning process can be judged by its results—

how well it helps the agency attain its mission and strategic goals.12 We 

have reported that other countries’ succession planning and management 

initiatives have addressed specific human capital challenges, such as 

retention and the identification of staff with critical skills.13

 12U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 

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

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other 

Countries’ Succession Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003).
Page 19 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Finally, U.N. officials stated that the Secretariat’s new recruiting and 

placement system has made screening the increased number of incoming 

applications a challenge. These officials stated that the organization now 

receives an average of approximately 1,000 applications for each vacancy 

announcement, compared with a previous average of about 100 

applications per opening. U.N. officials have recognized that it will be a 

challenge to develop an electronic mechanism to effectively and 

accurately screen the growing numbers of applications received. 

The United Nations has begun to adopt performance-oriented budgeting, 

but it lacks an adequate monitoring and evaluation system to measure 

program performance and results. GAO has reported that a performanceoriented budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget 

that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted 

activities to performance expectations; (2) a monitoring and evaluation 

system; and (3) procedures for shifting resources to meet program 

objectives.14 In December 2000, the United Nations adopted a results-based 

structure for its budgets. We found that this format at the United Nations 

has resulted in clearer linkages between program activities and expected 

results, but some performance indicators lack clear measures to assess 

results. We also found that existing U.N. monitoring and evaluation 

activities do not systematically measure program performance and impact. 

Consequently, the Secretariat has developed and is implementing a 

strategy to improve performance monitoring and evaluation. In December 

2003, the General Assembly also adopted an initiative to strengthen the 

role of one of its oversight committees responsible for monitoring and 

evaluating programs, but the General Assembly does not evaluate the 

Secretariat’s program results to reallocate resources to new priorities. 

The Secretariat has implemented the first key element of the U.N.’s 

performance-oriented budgeting framework by adopting a budget that 

reflects a results-based budgeting format, which involves specifying 

program costs, objectives, expected results, and specific performance 

indicators to measure the results. GAO previously reported that linking 

 14U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency Progress in Linking 

Performance Plans with Budget and Financial Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, 

D.C.: January 2002); Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain 

Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000); 

Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 19, 2002). 

Performance-Oriented 

Budgeting Is Being 

Adopted, but Monitoring 

and Evaluation System 

Does Not Measure 

Program Impact and 

Results 

U.N. Budget Reflects New 

Results-Based Focus, but Some 

Performance Indicators Do Not 

Measure Results 
Page 20 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

funding to specific performance goals is a critical first step in supporting 

the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable organization.15

Expected results and performance indicators are intended to allow the 

Secretariat to track the progress its programs make to meet objectives. By 

approving the budget, the General Assembly can hold the Secretariat 

accountable for meeting expected results. 

The Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts, which prepares 

and reviews the Secretariat’s budget, issued guidelines and provided 

training sessions to assist program managers and other staff in preparing 

budget proposals in a results-based format. This office also created a Web 

site, which is updated regularly, to post information on best practices and 

lessons learned. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and 

Budgetary Questions16 noted an improvement in the clarity and detail of 

expected results and performance indicators between the 2002-2003 

biennium budget, which was the first submitted in a results-based format, 

and the 2004-2005 budget.17 Figure 5 compares the 2002-2003 performance 

indicators for the deployment of peacekeeping police units with those 

developed for the 2004-2005 budget. For the first time, the 2004-2005 

budget includes specific performance targets and baseline data for many 

performance indicators that can help measure performance over time and 

could allow program managers to compare actual achievements to 

expected results. For example, the Department of Peacekeeping 

Operations plans to use baseline data at the end of the budget period to 

determine whether it will be able to deploy police units for peacekeeping 

operations more quickly. 

 15U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency Progress in Linking 

Performance Plans with Budget and Financial Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, 

D.C.: January 2002). 

16The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reviews financial 

documents submitted by the Secretariat to the General Assembly. 

17See First Report on the Proposed Program Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005, 

Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (New York: United 

Nations, Aug. 5, 2003). 
Page 21 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying Police Units 

for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 

However, oversight committees18 also reported that some programs still 

lack clear and concise expected outcomes and performance indicators. 

For example, the Secretariat established an indicator to measure increased 

coordination among U.N. agencies and programs, the Bretton Woods 

institutions, and the World Trade Organization, and called for “closer 

collaboration” to improve the delivery of economic assistance and 

development projects. The associated performance target consists of the 

estimated number of meetings among these institutions, but does not 

describe what these meetings are to accomplish or how they will improve 

coordination. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions reported that it cannot determine the impact of these activities, 

which would cost close to $10 million in the 2004-2005 budget period. It 

 18In this report, U.N. oversight committees refer to the Committee for Program and 

Coordination, which reviews the U.N.’s planning and budgeting documents and the work 

planned under each program, and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and 

Budgetary Questions. These committees report to the Fifth Committee, which is the 

General Assembly committee responsible for financial oversight of the Secretariat. 
Page 22 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

recommended that indicators, such as “closer collaboration” or “full 

utilization of resources,” should be replaced with more specific and 

concrete measurements. The vagueness of some of these indicators, 

however, stems from the fact that baseline information has not been 

collected or is missing due to inconsistent monitoring of program 

activities, according to officials from the Office of Program Planning, 

Budget and Accounts. 

The Secretariat does not systematically monitor and evaluate program 

impact or resultsthe second key element of performance-oriented 

budgeting. U.N. regulations require that programs should be regularly 

monitored and evaluated to determine their relevance, effectiveness, and 

impact in relation to their objectives.19 Program managers are responsible 

for monitoring and evaluating programs to assess their impact and to 

determine the extent to which changes are needed to meet expected 

results. However, in 2002, the Office of Internal Oversight Services20

(OIOS) found that program managers and department and office heads 

were not complying with U.N. regulations. For example, both OIOS and 

oversight committees reported in 2002 that nearly half of program 

managers were not regularly monitoring and evaluating program 

performance. In addition, program managers were not held directly 

accountable for meeting program objectives because U.N. regulations 

prevent linking program effectiveness and impact with program managers’ 

performance. U.N. officials told us that a more mature program monitoring 

and evaluation system is needed before program managers can be held 

responsible for program performance. 

We found that there were a variety of problems related to the Secretariat’s 

monitoring and evaluation of program results and impact. Most programs 

do not have comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plans and, in many 

cases, no systematic management review of evaluations. For example, 

department heads and program managers did not directly review the 

results of evaluation activities, consistent with U.N. guidance, in 13 out of 

25 programs surveyed in 2001.21 OIOS reported that, overall, evaluation 

 19See Regulations and Rules Governing Program Planning, the Program Aspects of the 

Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods of Evaluation (New York: 

United Nations, Apr. 19, 2000). 

20OIOS is the United Nations’ audit and internal evaluation unit. 

21Statistics are current as of Jan. 1, 2004. OIOS will review the Secretariat’s monitoring and 

evaluation activities for the 2002-2003 biennium in 2004. 

Secretariat’s Monitoring and 

Evaluation Inadequate to 

Measure Program Impact, but 

Strategy Developed to 

Strengthen System 
Page 23 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

findings were not used to improve program performance. In some cases, 

such as with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

monitoring and evaluation responsibilities were assigned to low-level staff 

with minimal oversight from program managers. Further, adequate levels 

of staff time and other resources needed to conduct evaluations have 

never been assessed and programs were not regularly monitored and 

evaluated, according to the U.N.’s oversight office. For example, all U.N. 

programs supporting the economic and social development of Asia and the 

Pacific, which cost approximately $25 million for the biennium, were not 

evaluated in 2000 and 2001. Lastly, for the majority of programs, no 

resources have been specifically allocated for activities related to 

monitoring and evaluation. 

To address these weaknesses, the Secretary General tasked the 

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Consulting Division of OIOS to develop a 

strategy to systematically monitor and evaluate program results and to 

introduce information systems needed to implement results-based 

budgeting. The division began to implement its strategy in 2002 and 

expects to have a complete system by 2006. As part of its strategy, OIOS 

introduced an Internet-based system that allows program managers to 

prepare periodic assessments of program impact against stated objectives. 

Program managers are required to submit performance assessments after 

12 and 18 months, and at the end of the budget period. OIOS officials 

stated that this would allow them to adjust the direction of their program 

to meet objectives before the end of the budget cycle. In addition, OIOS is 

updating its guidelines on monitoring and evaluation, which describe new 

data collection methods, such as online surveys, to monitor results and 

evaluation methods to report on results. 

We found that the final component of performance-oriented budgeting—

procedures to review evaluation results, eliminate obsolete programs, and 

move resources to new priority programs—is not in place. The Advisory 

Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reported in 2003 

that it did not receive systematic information from the Secretariat on 

program impact and effectiveness to determine whether a program was 

meeting its expected results. The Secretariat’s strategy to improve 

program monitoring and evaluation is part of an effort to provide the 

General Assembly with better program assessments. However, in 2003, the 

Secretary General reported that the General Assembly’s oversight system 

was ill-suited to review the Secretariat’s evaluation results and to 

determine how best to distribute resources. 

General Assembly Lacks 

System to Evaluate Program 

Results to Shift Resources to 

New Priorities 
Page 24 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General proposed redefining the 

roles of U.N. oversight committees to focus on reviewing program results. 

In December 2003, the General Assembly passed a resolution changing the 

role of the Committee for Program and Coordination, the first step toward 

shifting the focus of oversight responsibility to assessing program impact. 

The committee now focuses exclusively on reviewing activities planned to 

meet program objectives and no longer reviews budgeting information. 

Although several committees review the U.N.’s planning and budgeting 

documents for the next biennium period, these committees do not 

systematically review programs to assess the impact of previous activities 

and determine the appropriate level of funding (see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets 

According to the Joint Inspection Unit,22 the planning and budgeting 

review process was duplicative and redundant. In addition, the costs of 

preparing and printing documents, servicing close to 300 meetings, and 

staff time for this review have exceeded $20 million a biennium, with little 

emphasis placed on evaluating program performance. To shift the focus to 

evaluating results, the General Assembly in December 2003 required the 

Committee for Program and Coordination to submit a proposal on ways to 

 22The Joint Inspection Unit is an investigative unit with broad authority to examine the 

efficiency of all U.N. organizations. 
Page 25 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

improve its ability to monitor and evaluate program impact. The Secretary 

General recommended that the committee assess the results achieved at 

the end of the budget period and establish priorities to guide the allocation 

of resources. This would support performance-oriented budgeting, 

according to Joint Inspection Unit officials. 

In August 2003, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 

Questions concluded that the General Assembly could not eliminate 

programs and shift resources until it received evaluations that addressed 

program impact. Performance information is necessary for decisionmaking bodies to determine whether programs are meeting their stated 

objectives.23 Program performance reports provided to member states 

focused on outputs (such as the number of staff recruited, reports issued, 

meetings held, or computers purchased), instead of measuring program 

impact. To address this concern, OIOS changed the format of the 

performance report, which now requires program managers to link 

resources to program activities and to use performance indicators to 

measure program impact. The program performance report for the 2002-

2003 biennium, which will be submitted by March 2004, will be the first 

prepared using the new format. 

In December 2003, the General Assembly approved the elimination of 912 

outputs in the 2004-2005 program budget based on the Secretariat’s review 

of program activities and more than 50,000 outputs. In addition, as a result 

of this review, the General Assembly has shifted resources from these 

activities—deemed obsolete and inefficient by the Secretariat—to more 

immediate U.N. priorities. In 2003, the Advisory Committee on 

Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Committee for Program 

and Coordination recommended that program managers in the Secretariat 

continue to identify obsolete outputs in U.N. budgets in compliance with 

U.N. regulations. The committees also reported that many sections in the 

budget lacked justifications for continuing certain outputs. 

We found that the Secretariat had implemented some reforms related to 

U.N. public information activities, but most were still in the early phases. 

With a biennium budget of approximately $156 million, the Department of 

Public Information undertakes news coverage of U.N. events through 

radio, video, and the Internet in six official languages; manages the U.N. 

 23U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges, 

GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002). 

Majority of Reforms of 

U.N. Public Information 

Activities Still in Early 

Phases 
Page 26 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Web site; manages its overseas branch offices;24 and oversees the Dag 

Hammarskjold library and coordinates with depository libraries 

worldwide.25 Following a series of management reviews of U.N. public 

information activities, the Secretary General restructured the department 

to improve its ability to develop coherent, cost-effective communications 

strategies to promote the U.N.’s priorities. In addition, the Secretary 

General consolidated department branch offices in Western Europe into a 

regional branch office in Brussels, Belgium. However, we found that 

reforms of other public information activities are not yet in place. For 

example, reforms related to the Department of Public Information’s 

program monitoring and evaluation and library management, as well as the 

Secretariat’s publications oversight, are still in the early stages of 

implementation and have had a limited effect on the effectiveness of 

public information activities, according to U.N. officials. 

Since 1948, internal oversight bodies and external groups have conducted 

at least seven periodic management reviews of public information policies 

and activities. However, these reviews resulted in few changes to the 

Department of Public Information’s operations. Member states continued 

to criticize the department, claiming that it did not adequately assess the 

impact of its activities. In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General 

highlighted that fact that the department suffered from fragmented 

programs because of too many mandates and missions. 

To better align the Department of Public Information’s structure with its 

mandated activities, highlight priorities, and reduce fragmentation, the 

Secretary General reorganized the department into three divisions in 

November 2002: (1) the Outreach Division, which focuses on relationships 

with civil society, including outreach to educational institutions, and 

manages the Dag Hammarskjold Library in New York; (2) the News and 

Media Division, which aims to expand the United Nations’ access to media 

organizations worldwide; and (3) the Strategic Communications Division, 

which develops the U.N’s communications strategies in partnership with 

the Secretariat’s departments and manages the network of overseas 

branch offices. Within this third division, the department created focal 

points that work across the Secretariat’s departments in priority areas—

 24In this report, we refer to U.N. Information Centers as branch offices. 

25The department also maintains relationships and establishes partnerships with media 

groups and civil society groups, including nongovernmental organizations and educational 

institutions, and organizes special events and exhibits with other U.N. partners. 

Reorganization of Headquarters 

and Branch Offices 

Substantially in Place 
Page 27 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

including development, peace and security, Africa, human rights, 

Palestine, and decolonization—to identify communications strategies and 

reduce duplicative programs. In its spring 2003 session, delegates to the 

Committee on Information26 commented that the department’s new 

structure should help focus the department’s activities and maximize the 

use of its resources. 

To improve the cost efficiency of the department’s field operations, the 

Secretary General proposed changes to the structure of public information 

branch offices. Branch offices in developed countries—including the 

United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union—accounted for 

40 percent of all branch office expenditures, as of September 2002. 

Therefore, the Department of Public Information was devoting a large 

amount of funding to information activities in countries where available 

technology permitted greater online access to its services in the field. In 

2003, internal auditors concluded that the department should evaluate 

these offices and consider options such as consolidation, regionalization, 

or closure. Based in part on these findings, the Secretary General created a 

regional branch office in Brussels in January 2004 and consolidated offices 

in nine European Union countries as part of his 2002 reform agenda.27 At 

its spring 2004 session, the Committee on Information will review a 

progress report on the implementation of the regionalization proposal to 

determine the feasibility of applying the initiative in other regions. 

The Secretariat has begun implementing additional reforms of other public 

information activities, but we found that these initiatives are only partly in 

place. The Secretary General stated that the department had historically 

devoted minimal attention to assessing the impact of its activities and that 

a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of its activities had never been 

conducted. Therefore, in 2003, the Department of Public Information and 

internal auditors began a 3-year joint process to evaluate the effectiveness 

and impact of the department’s activities through an annual review 

process.28 As part of its efforts to promote monitoring and evaluation, the 

department provides ongoing training for staff in results-based 

 26The General Assembly’s oversight Committee on Information meets annually to examine 

the U.N.’s public information activities. 

27The offices in Athens, Bonn, Brussels, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Paris, and 

Rome were consolidated. 

28The Department of Public Information will report the results from its first program impact 

review to the Committee on Information in 2004. 

Additional Reforms of Public 

Information Activities Are 

Partly in Place 
Page 28 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

management within existing resources—a challenge, according to public 

information officials. Although these activities are still under way, an 

official from the Deputy Secretary General’s office stated that the 

department had taken positive steps to implement reforms to improve its 

monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. 

Reforms of U.N. libraries are also in the early phases. The United Nations 

has library collections in each of its headquarters offices and regional 

commissions, as well as libraries in many of the 62 branch offices and 

other depositories worldwide. The Secretary General reported in 2002 that 

the public information department needed to centralize library policy 

management and increase its use of technology in providing library 

services. In response, it established a steering committee in March 2003 to 

oversee the implementation of reforms, such as increasing the use of 

online archival systems for library collections and expanding information 

sharing among libraries to reduce duplication. The department plans to 

report to the Committee on Information in 2004 on its progress in 

implementing these reforms. 

Lastly, the implementation of reforms of publications activities is still 

under way. The Secretary General directed all departments to identify 

outdated or duplicative publications from more than 1,200 produced 

annually. We reported in 2000 that a review of U.N. publications in the 

economic and social affairs area found considerable redundancy and 

overlap.29 Publications activities are also extremely costly. For example, 

the U.N. Chronicle—a publication for teachers and students of world 

affairs—produced by the public information department—costs more than 

$1 million annually to publish. In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary 

General called for a review of the feasibility and cost of increasing online 

publications delivery, as opposed to printing certain publications. This 

review is not yet complete. To improve publications oversight, the relevant 

executive committees30 must approve all new publications proposed by the 

Secretariat pursuant to the 2002 reform plan. Overall, officials stated that 

the implementation of publications reform will depend on the willingness 

 29GAO/NSIAD-00-150. 

30There are four executive committees—Peace and Security, Humanitarian Affairs, 

Economic and Social Affairs, and the Development Group—headed by Under Secretaries 

General, who oversee the activities of the Secretariat’s departments and offices. For 

example, the Executive Committee on Peace and Security oversees the Department of 

Political Affairs. A representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights serves on all 

four committees. 
Page 29 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

of Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to identify unneeded 

publications and discontinue duplicative mandates. On a positive note, in 

December 2003, the General Assembly approved the Secretary General’s 

2004-2005 budget proposal calling for the discontinuation of 192 

publications and reports. 

In recent years, management of the Secretariat’s human rights office has 

been complicated by several factors, such as weak financial and program 

management and a heavy reliance on voluntary funding to administer core 

activities. In addition to technical assistance, training, publications, and 

human rights advocacy, the office provides support to other parts of the 

human rights program outside the Secretariat, such as the U.N. 

Commission on Human Rights. We found that the office has implemented 

reforms to address its management deficiencies. In addition, we found that 

the human rights office has implemented reforms to improve its support to 

the actors outside the Secretariat, including requesting funding for 

additional staff. However, the Secretary General only has authority over 

the management of the Secretariat’s human rights office and cannot 

implement reforms across the entire U.N. human rights program, 

according to human rights officials. 

Several factors affect the management of the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights—the Secretariat’s human rights office. 

For example, in 2002, OIOS concluded that the human rights office had 

poor financial controls and human capital management, as well as weak 

internal oversight procedures. According to a senior human rights official, 

for example, the office did not accurately track its unused voluntary 

funding in the past.31 According to the human rights office, this problem 

has been rectified and the office is tracking voluntary funding levels. In 

addition, the office relies heavily on voluntary funding to administer its 

core activities. Regular budget funding accounted for about 38 percent, or 

$24.2 million, of the office’s activities in 2002, whereas voluntary 

contributions accounted for about 62 percent, or $40 million (see fig. 6 for 

funding trends for the human rights office). Human rights officials stated 

that the heavy reliance on voluntary funding poses management 

 31Donors, including governments, foundations, and private companies, provide voluntary 

contributions toward activities outlined in the human rights office’s annual appeals. Ten 

major donors provided 81 percent of the office’s total voluntary contributions in 2002. 

Reforms of the U.N. 

Human Rights Program 

Outside the Secretariat’s 

Authority Are Incomplete 

Management of the U.N. 

Human Rights Program Is 

Complicated by Several Factors 
Page 30 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

challenges, including the resulting uncertainty of funding for future 

projects and low morale among staff unsure about job security. 

Figure 7: Human Rights Office’s Funding Trends 

As shown in figure 8, the human rights office also provides administrative, 

technical, and substantive support to parts of the human rights program 

outside the Secretariat, including 

• the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is a functional commission 

of the Economic and Social Council that meets annually to discuss human 

rights issues and standards and governments’ adherence to them; 

• independent reporters and working groups, appointed by the commission 

to examine, monitor, and publicly report on human rights situations in 

specific countries or territories or on major human rights themes—there 
Page 31 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

are reporters who focus on the right to education and on the situation of 

human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;32 and 

• independent committees, established by international human rights 

treaties, comprising independent experts that monitor governments’ 

compliance with treaty obligations.33

Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program 

 32The human rights reporters, or Special Rapporteurs, and working groups are known 

collectively as the Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights. In this report, 

we refer to them as human rights reporters and working groups. 

33There are seven committees or treaty-monitoring bodies. The committee members are 

elected by national governments that are party to the treaties. The human rights office 

provides support to all the committees except the Committee on the Elimination of 

Discrimination against Women, which receives support from the Division for the 

Advancement of Women in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in New York.

U.N. system

Secretariat General Assembly

Secretary General Economic and Social Council Other bodies

191 member states

Office of the High 

Commissioner 

for Human Rights

Commission 

on Human 

Rights

Treaty-monitoring bodies

Human rights 

field presences

Sources: GAO; and Nova Development (clip art).

Subcommission

Working groups

Rapporteurs

• Committee on Economic, Social 

and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

• Human Rights Committee (HRC)

• Committee against Torture (CAT)

• Committee on the Elimination of 

Racial Discrimination (CERD)

• Committee on the Elimination of 

Discrimination against Women 

(CEDAW)

• Committee on the Rights of the 

Child (CRC)

• Committee of Migrant Workers 

(CMV)

Working

groups
Page 32 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

The workload generated by these independent groups affects the human 

rights office’s management. For example, the office provides 

administrative support, such as report processing, to the monitoring 

committees and national governments to ensure compliance with treaty 

reporting requirements. As the number of signatories increases, the 

Secretariat’s administrative burden increases. In addition, the Secretary 

General reported in 2002 that the more than 40 human rights reporters and 

working groups pose a management burden for the human rights office 

because they have grown in recent years in an ad hoc fashion and without 

clear rules for their responsibilities. The fragmentation and lack of clear 

working guidelines complicated the office’s support to these individuals 

and groups in the preparation of reports to the commission. As an 

independent body, the Commission on Human Rights appoints new human 

rights reporters. However, OIOS reported that the General Assembly has 

not provided commensurate additional regular budget funding to the 

human rights office for their support. As a result, the office has 

increasingly resorted to using voluntary funding to recruit additional staff 

to fulfill its responsibilities to the commission and monitoring committees. 

The Secretary General’s reform agendas called for the Secretariat’s human 

rights office to develop a strategy to strengthen its financial and human 

capital management and internal oversight procedures, among other 

things. We found that the office has developed and is implementing this 

strategy. For example, it established both the senior-level Management 

Board and Project Review Committee, in 1997 and 1998, respectively, to 

monitor the planning, budgeting, and implementation of the office’s 

programs and to identify outdated or nonpriority activities. The human 

rights office reported that it strengthened its program oversight and 

planning throughout 2003. Officials stated that the 2004 annual appeal, for 

example, presented a more strategic work plan than in prior years, which 

resulted in a 12 percent decline in voluntary funding requirements for the 

2004 annual appeal, from $62.5 million in 2003 to $54.8 million in 2004. In 

addition, the office established the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues in 

March 1999 to evaluate the office’s use of temporary staff and staff funded 

with voluntary resources and ensure the equitable geographic distribution 

of staff from member states. It also restructured its three main branches to 

reduce duplicative activities and leverage its personnel and financial 

resources. 

We found that the human rights office has also implemented reforms that 

indirectly address areas of the U.N. human rights program outside the 

Secretary General’s authority. For example, to help improve the quality of 

human rights reports, the office developed an induction kit for human 

Secretary General Does Not 

Have Authority to Implement 

Reforms of Human Rights 

Activities outside Secretariat 
Page 33 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

rights reporters and working groups. The kit is updated regularly and used 

to brief new reporters on their rules and procedures. In addition, the office 

is working to keep them informed about the latest General Assembly 

resolutions that may affect reporting procedures, such as page limits and 

submission deadlines. In December 2003, the General Assembly also 

approved the Secretary General’s request for funding in the 2004-2005 

budget for additional staff to improve the office’s ability to respond to 

increasing demands from the Commission on Human Rights and its human 

rights reporters and working groups. 

Nevertheless, the implementation of the Secretary General’s proposals is 

incomplete because he does not have authority over human rights 

activities outside the Secretariat’s human rights office. For example, 

because the majority of human rights reporters are selected by the chair of 

the Commission on Human Rights, the Secretariat’s human rights office 

could only recommend that the commission consider developing criteria 

for their selection. Moreover, only the commission can determine standard 

entrance criteria for its reporters and working groups. Thus, any reform 

related to the human rights reporters is dependent upon the support of 

commission members. In addition, in his September 2002 reform agenda, 

the Secretary General stated that governments should be allowed to 

submit a single report to the monitoring committees summarizing their 

adherence to human rights treaty obligations. Given his lack of authority 

over the monitoring committees, the Secretary General requested that the 

human rights office consult with the committees on methods of 

streamlining the governments’ various treaty-reporting requirements. The 

monitoring committees, however, resisted the concept of a single report, 

according to the human rights office. The proposal resulting from these 

consultations instead calls for an expanded core report containing 

standard information pertinent to all of the monitoring committees, with 

separate, more detailed reports going to individual committees. 

We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat’s ability 

to meet the overall reform goals: (1) the Secretariat does not conduct 

periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of reforms; 

(2) the Secretary General did not differentiate between short- and longterm goals in the 2002 reform plan; (3) resistance from managers and staff 

has slowed the implementation of reforms; and (4) potential financial and 

personnel resource implications are associated with some reforms. 

First, we found that the Secretariat does not conduct systematic, 

comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of the Secretary 

Various Factors May 

Impede Full 

Implementation of 

U.N. Reforms 
Page 34 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

General’s reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat is not able to 

determine where further improvements are needed. In 1998 and 2003, the 

Secretary General issued reports on the status of the 1997 and 2002 

reforms, respectively. These reports, however, did not include a 

comprehensive impact assessment.34 We found that individual departments 

and offices within the Secretariat oversee specific reforms within their 

area of work; for example, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights oversees the implementation of reforms of the U.N. human rights 

program. However, the Deputy Secretary General, who is responsible for 

overseeing the overall reform process, has only one full-time professional 

staff member dedicated to this effort. The Steering Committee on Reform 

and Management—comprising department heads within the Secretariat 

and chaired by the Deputy Secretary General—also tracks key reform 

issues and policy implementation. However, the Deputy Secretary 

General’s office neither systematically assesses departments’ performance 

in implementing reforms nor holds managers directly accountable. 

Furthermore, OIOS only monitors and evaluates the impact of select 

reforms and is not responsible for overseeing the implementation of the 

overall reform agendas. 

Second, the Secretary General has not differentiated between short- and 

long-term goals in his 2002 reform plan, and he has not consistently 

established time frames or milestones for their completion. GAO has 

identified the setting of implementation goals and a timeline to build 

momentum and show progress as key practices for organizations 

undertaking change management initiatives. We found that a few reforms 

required departments and offices to conduct evaluations and report their 

findings to the Secretary General by a certain date, but many reforms did 

not specify time frames for completing these actions. For example, the 

Secretary General called for the Department of Public Information and 

OIOS to complete an evaluation of the impact and cost effectiveness of the 

department’s activities within a three-year period (which started in 2003). 

However, when the Secretary General called for a review of the feasibility 

and cost of increasing the Secretariat’s delivery of online versus printed 

publications, he did not specify a deadline. Without prioritizing efforts and 

establishing deadlines, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for 

completing the reforms. 

 34Officials from the Deputy Secretary General’s office stated that they were unsure if that 

office would issue additional status reports. 
Page 35 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Third, according to budget and human capital officials, some program 

managers and staff have resisted implementing certain reform initiatives. 

Human capital officials stated that program managers, for example, have 

raised concerns about the staff mobility policy because they fear losing 

expertise when staff rotate to new positions. In addition, OIOS reported 

that about half of program managers across the Secretariat have not 

complied with U.N. regulations to monitor and evaluate the performance 

of program activities. The Secretariat lacks clear rules and procedures for 

conducting regular monitoring and evaluation exercises, according to 

OIOS officials. Some managers also stated that they lacked resources to 

support this work and were concerned that these evaluation requirements 

would detract time and money from their regular work responsibilities. 

Consequently, the Secretariat is providing training to all departments to 

assist managers and staff in conducting self-monitoring and evaluation 

exercises to comply with performance-oriented budgeting and overcome 

resistance. Managers’ support is critical for the institutionalization of 

reforms in the long term. 

Fourth, U.N. officials stated that they have encountered delays in 

implementing reforms due to a lack of available regular budget resources. 

For example, public information officials stated that their department did 

not have a specific budget for new monitoring and evaluation activities—a 

key aspect of public information reform. In addition, human capital 

officials stated that they developed the online recruiting and hiring system 

after receiving resources from another department in the Secretariat. The 

Secretary General stated that departments would need to implement 

reforms within existing resources because additional funding would not be 

available in the regular budget. He also stated that program managers 

should streamline operations and eliminate obsolete activities to make 

resources available to implement reforms. According to U.N. officials, the 

Secretariat did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the personnel 

and budgetary implications during the development of his 2002 reform 

agenda. Rather, departments have conducted resource assessments for 

individual reforms on a case-by-case basis as a part of the budget process. 

In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary General proposed sweeping reforms of the 

United Nations in response to recurring calls to improve its efficiency and 

effectiveness in spending member states’ contributions. Many reforms 

have been completed since our 2000 report, including key measures to 

improve human capital management, focus the United Nations on resultsbased management, and strengthen the management of the human rights 

program. However, the United Nations faces many challenges to 

Conclusion 
Page 36 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

completing reforms, including potential resource constraints. Moreover, 

the Office of the Deputy Secretary General does not periodically and 

comprehensively assess the impact of reforms on the effectiveness of U.N. 

operations. Given that the Secretary General does not provide regular, 

comprehensive reports on the overall status and impact of reforms, it is 

difficult to hold staff accountable for implementing these reforms and 

their impact is unclear. In addition, the 2002 reform agenda did not specify 

short- and long-term goals or establish expected time frames for their 

completion—practices that increase the transparency and accountability 

of the reform process. Adopting key practices in management, oversight, 

and accountability for reforms, such as systematic monitoring and 

evaluation, could facilitate the achievement of the Secretary General’s 

overall reform goals. As the U.N.’s largest financial contributor and a 

proponent of reform, the United States would also benefit from the 

adoption of these practices. 

To promote full implementation and accountability of the Secretary 

General’s overall reform actions, we recommend that the Secretary of 

State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 

Nations work with other member states to encourage the Secretary 

General to 

• report regularly through an existing U.N. reporting mechanism on the 

status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and other reforms that 

may follow; 

• differentiate between short- and long-term reform goals and establish time 

frames for completion for those reforms that are not in place; and 

• conduct assessments of the financial and personnel implications needed to 

implement the reforms. 

The Department of State and the United Nations provided written 

comments on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV). State agreed with 

our recommendations, stating that it will continue to encourage the full 

implementation of all reform initiatives at the United Nations. In 

particular, State noted several efforts it is pursuing through the General 

Assembly, including further reforms related to human capital management 

and the Department of Public Information, among others. Moreover, State 

agreed with our conclusion that many reforms from the 1997 and 2002 

agendas are first steps in achieving the Secretary General’s overall reform 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 37 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

goals. State also said that the report provides a comprehensive analysis of 

the status of U.N. reforms and the challenges affecting their 

implementation. State noted that our report did not contain an in-depth 

analysis of reforms of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations—a 

point that we acknowledge in our scope and methodology (see app. I). In 

addition, State provided technical comments on our draft report, which 

were incorporated into the text, where appropriate. 

The United Nations also provided written comments on a draft of this 

report. Although we did not make recommendations directly to the United 

Nations, it generally agreed with the report’s findings. In particular, the 

United Nations acknowledged that the implementation of certain reforms 

is proceeding more slowly than others. The United Nations also provided 

observations regarding its efforts to implement its ambitious reform 

agenda. In addition, the United Nations provided technical comments, 

which were incorporated into the text where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 

Congress. We are also providing copies of this report to the Secretary of 

State, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United 

Nations, and the United Nations. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov, or Phyllis Anderson at (202) 512-

7364 or andersonp@gao.gov. In addition to the persons named above, 

Jeremy Latimer, Leland Cogliani, Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Kathryn 

Hartsburg, and Monica Wolford made key contributions to this report. 

Joseph A. Christoff 

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

Methodology 

Page 38 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign 

Relations and Committee member Michael Enzi, we examined the status 

of U.N. reform activities to follow up on GAO’s 2000 report.1

 Specifically, 

we assessed (1) the overall status of U.N. reforms proposed in 1997 and 

2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the Secretariat’s efforts to implement 

reforms in four key areas: human capital management, performanceoriented budgeting, public information activities, and the human rights 

program; and (3) the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. 

reforms. 

We focused our work on the Secretary General’s 1997 and 2002 reform 

agendas. These reforms applied to the Secretariat and member state 

governing bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and 

Social Council, and the Security Council. We did not include U.N. 

specialized agencies or funds and programs in our review. We did, 

however, meet with officials and collect information from the 

International Labour Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner 

for Refugees, and the World Health Organization to discuss their progress 

and challenges in implementing management reforms similar to those that 

the Secretary General is undertaking. 

Overall, we identified 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda and 

66 in the 2002 agenda, for a total of 154 reform initiatives. This number 

differs from U.N. figures because many of the Secretary General’s reform 

action items had several components that we identified and counted as 

separate initiatives. For example, one of the Secretary General’s action 

items called for improving the information technology systems of the 

United Nations, which involved upgrading the U.N.’s Web site; 

modernizing internal systems that produce, store and disseminate 

documents; and adopting an information technology strategy for New 

York headquarters and field offices. We counted each one of those actions 

as separate initiatives, while the Secretariat grouped them into one action 

item. 

To determine the overall status of the reforms, we developed a 

methodology to code them as (1) substantially or completely in place, 

(2) partly in place, or (3) not in place (see table 1 for our definitions). We 

discussed our methodology with U.N. officials, and they agreed to its 

utility for assessing the status of U.N. reforms. 

 1

GAO/NSIAD-00-150. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 39 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status 

Rating Scale 

Substantially or completely in place The reform has been approved. Most key and 

minor elements are in place. 

Partly in place The reform has been approved. Some key 

elements, as well as some or most minor 

elements, are in place. 

Not in place The reform has not been formally approved. Minor 

elements may be in place, but no key elements 

are in place. 

We defined a key element as one that is critical or central to the reform. 

We considered that reforms could not be implemented or institutionalized 

without these key elements (e.g., staff or budget). All other elements were 

considered as minor. We considered a reform to be in place if it had 

moved from the planning stage to implementation. Implementation should 

have been well under way, though it may not have been completed and the 

reform may not have been institutionalized. For reforms with more than 

one key element, we considered the following factors to determine 

whether some or most key elements were in place: (1) the number of 

elements, (2) the relative importance of the elements, (3) the relative 

difficulty of implementation, and (4) the degree of implementation of each 

of the elements. 

To assess the status of the reforms, we reviewed the Secretary General’s 

1997 and 2002 reform plans and obtained and reviewed official reports of 

the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), 

budget documents, General Assembly resolutions, Secretary General 

bulletins, Web sites, and statements from U.N. officials. We interviewed 

senior officials from U.N. departments in New York City and Geneva. 

Specifically, we met with the Deputy Secretary General and her staff, and 

officials from the Department of Management, the Office of Human 

Resources Management (OHRM), the Office of Program Planning, Budget, 

and Accounts (OPPBA), the Department of Public Information (DPI), and 

the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights. We also met with 

officials from OIOS and the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). During the course 

of our review, we also discussed the status of U.N. reforms with U.S. 

Department of State officials in Washington, D.C.; New York; and Geneva. 

We selected reforms in the areas of human capital management, the 

performance-oriented budgeting system, public information activities, and 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 40 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

the human rights program to assess in more detail. In our discussions with 

U.N. and U.S. officials, and in our review of U.N. documents, we 

determined that these were key areas of the Secretary General’s 1997 and 

2002 reform plans. A detailed assessment of the reforms for peacekeeping 

and improving the coordination among U.N. departments and offices and 

between the U.N. and civil society was beyond the scope of this review. 

To assess the status of human capital management reforms, we compared 

the Secretariat’s human capital reform strategy with criteria from GAO’s 

model of strategic human capital management.2

 This model provides a 

framework for examining an organization’s human capital practices and is 

based upon the actions that are characteristic of high-performing 

organizations. To collect information on the Secretariat’s progress in 

implementing its reform strategy, we reviewed internal and public human 

resources documents detailing the new recruitment and hiring system, the 

performance appraisal system, human resources action plans, and a 

survey of U.N. staff views on human capital reforms. We discussed human 

capital management reforms with OHRM officials who are planning and 

implementing the office’s reform initiatives. We also met with the chief 

personnel officer for the U.N. Geneva Office, as well as personnel officers 

at the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N. High 

Commissioner for Refugees, and the Internal Labour Organization, to 

discuss the status and problems of human capital reforms in their 

organizations. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of implemented 

human capital reforms. 

To assess the implementation of budgeting and monitoring and evaluation 

reforms, we analyzed the last three U.N. biennium budget documents 

(2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005) to determine changes in the 

budget’s format after the adoption of a results-based budgeting format. We 

also examined budget-related documents prepared by the Committee for 

Program and Coordination and the Advisory Committee on Administrative 

and Budgetary Questions. In addition, we examined Secretariat documents 

on program monitoring and evaluation activities to determine the U.N.’s 

ability to report on and assess program results and impact, as well as 

strategies the Secretariat developed to strengthen the monitoring and 

evaluation system. We discussed performance-oriented budgeting reforms 

with OPPBA, JIU, and OIOS officials from the Monitoring, Evaluation, and 

Consulting Division. We also met with budget officers at the International 

 2

GAO-02-373SP. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Labour Organization and the World Health Organization to discuss the 

status and lessons learned from implementing performance-oriented 

budgeting at their organizations. 

To determine the status of reforms of U.N. public information activities, 

including DPI’s reorganization, the restructuring of the department’s 

branch offices, library management, and publications, we reviewed reports 

from OIOS, the General Assembly’s Committee on Information, and the 

Secretary General. We also spoke with DPI officials, including the Under 

Secretary General, the department’s senior managers, and senior library 

officials in New York. In addition, we interviewed officials from DPI’s 

branch office and U.N. library in Geneva to determine the extent to which 

operations in the field have been affected by these reforms. 

To determine the status of efforts to reform the U.N. human rights 

program, we reviewed official reports from the Office of the High 

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)— including annual appeals 

and reports—detailing the steps the office is taking to implement these 

reforms. We also reviewed internal audit reports and external reviews by 

independent contractors highlighting the key management challenges 

facing OHCHR and its efforts to improve in these areas. In addition, we 

interviewed human rights officials in Secretariat offices in Geneva and 

New York. To assess the Secretariat’s efforts to improve the management 

of the human rights program, we spoke with the Acting High 

Commissioner for Human Rights and senior management officials 

responsible for implementing the Secretary General’s reforms. To 

determine the status of reforms related to the monitoring committees and 

human rights reporters and working groups, we analyzed relevant 

Secretary General, General Assembly, and Commission on Human Rights 

reports, resolutions, and other official documentation, and we spoke with 

OHCHR officials. We did not review the work or membership of the 

Commission on Human Rights or the performance of individual human 

rights reporters. 

To determine the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. reforms, 

we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General 

Assembly, OIOS, and JIU. We also reviewed reports from outside 

observers of the U.N. system, including nongovernmental organizations 

and members of academia. In addition, we spoke with U.N. officials in 

New York and Geneva. These included officials from the Office of the 

Deputy Secretary General, the Department of Management, OHRM, 

OPPBA, DPI, OHCHR, OIOS, and JIU. We also spoke with U.S. officials in 

Washington, New York, and Geneva. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 42 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

We conducted our work from June 2003 through January 2004, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 43 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the Status of Their Implementation 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

New leadership and management 

Establish the post of Deputy Secretary General X 

Working methods of the General Assembly 

Increase the public’s interest in and effectiveness of the 

General Assembly by deciding, 2 years in advance, the 

subject for a special high-level session of meetings on an 

important issue or theme X 

Organize General Assembly meetings in the same fashion 

as U.N. conferences X 

Identify an annual thematic focus for the work of each of the 

main committees X 

Organize the agenda around the eight priority areas of the 

medium-term plan X 

Issue recommendations to member states in the form of 

resolutions, while requests for reports by the Secretary 

General and other procedural work would be in the form of 

simple decisions X 

Limit the General Assembly’s annual sessions from 

extending beyond November X 

Peace, security, and disarmament 

Member states establish the practice of providing 

information to the Secretary General to strengthen his 

efforts to deter conflicts X 

General Assembly and Security Council consider measures 

to enhance the rapid reaction capacity of the United Nations

 

X 

When establishing a peacekeeping operation, urge the 

Security Council to prescribe a time frame for the 

conclusion of a status-of-forces agreement with the host 

government; pending the conclusion of such an agreement, 

the model status-of-forces agreement would apply 

 

X 

Review the work of the Disarmament Commission and the 

First Committee to update and streamline their work 

 

X 

Economic and social affairs 

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) considers 

holding its various sessions at different, preestablished 

periods during the year and extending the duration of the 

sessions to provide effective policy guidance to the different 

programs and funds X 

 

Replace the Committee for Development Planning with 

panels of experts set up by ECOSOC X 

 

Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 44 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Extend the time allotted to discuss development work in 

informal discussions between ECOSOC and heads of U.N. 

funds and programs and establish a trust fund to encourage 

participation of officials from the least developed countries X 

Establish the Commission on Sustainable Development, 

consolidating the Committee on New and Renewable 

Sources of Energy and Energy for Development and the 

Committee on Natural Resources X 

Make the Commission on Science and Technology for 

Development a subsidiary body of the U.N. Conference on 

Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD) Trade and 

Development Board X 

Consolidate the functions of the Commission on Crime 

Prevention and Criminal Justice and the Commission on 

Narcotic Drugs into a single commission, and the 

International Narcotics Control Board would report to this 

new commission X 

Maintain the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on 

International Standards of Accounting and Reporting as an 

expert body reporting through the UNCTAD Commission on 

Investment, Technology and Related Financial Issues X 

Review the work of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts in 

International Tax Matters after it finishes its mandated 

activities X 

The Committee on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights 

should report to ECOSOC through the Commission on 

Human Rights X 

ECOSOC should review the regional commissions to 

determine core competencies and the most appropriate 

division of labor for standard-setting and technical 

cooperation activities X 

Development cooperation 

Convene joint meetings of the U.N. Development Program 

(UNDP), U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and U.N. 

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) executive boards to discuss 

issues and matters of common concern 

 

X 

Establish a new system to finance U.N. funds and programs 

consisting of voluntary contributions and negotiated pledges 

paid in multiyear tranches X 

Environment, habitat, and sustainable development 

Discontinue the High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable 

Development 

 

X 

 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 45 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Humanitarian affairs 

Designate the Emergency Relief Coordinator to oversee 

U.N. humanitarian assistance and transfer natural disaster 

mitigation activities to UNDP 

 

X 

Establish a humanitarian affairs segment of ECOSOC X 

Enhancing support capacities 

Establish a revolving credit fund with up to $1 billion from 

voluntary contributions X 

Retain any unspent balances under the regular budget X 

Review the mandate, membership, and procedures of the 

International Civil Service Commission X 

Approve the Secretariat’s Code of Conduct X 

Establish an account funded from savings in administration 

and other overhead costs 

 

X 

Adopt performance-oriented budgeting X 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information. 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 46 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and the Status of Their Implementation 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

New leadership and management 

Establish a senior management group to set and direct 

unified Secretariat strategies 

 

X 

Establish a strategic planning unit X 

Peace, security, and disarmament 

Develop a plan to end the use of gratis personnel in the 

Secretariat 

 

X 

Make the Special Representative of the Secretary General 

the ranking U.N. country official 

 

X 

Make the Department of Political Affairs the focal point for 

postconflict peace building and the Executive Committee 

on Peace and Security responsible for the design and 

implementation of peace-building initiatives 

 

X 

Create a Department for Disarmament and Arms 

Regulation 

 

X 

Economic and social affairs 

Establish a secretariat, or staff office, for the Department of 

Economic and Social Affairs to better support the Economic 

and Social Council 

 

X 

Review activities shared by the Department of Economic 

and Social Affairs and UNCTAD in the macroeconomic 

area to increase cooperation and reduce duplication 

 

X 

Establish the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, 

comprising the Center for International Crime Prevention 

and the U.N. International Drug Control Program, in 

Vienna, to consolidate crime, drug, and terrorism issues 

into a single office 

 

X 

Development cooperation 

Establish the U.N. Development Group; the Development 

Group Executive Committee will be composed of UNDP, 

UNICEF, and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) 

 

X 

The Development Group Executive Committee will develop 

counterpart arrangements at the country level 

 

X 

Create a development assistance framework for developing 

countries to coordinate efforts at the country level X 

Establish resident coordinators to coordinate activities of 

different funds and programs at the country level 

 

X 

Implement common premises, or “U.N. Houses,” at the 

country level X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 47 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Issue a proposal detailing ways to have more predictable 

and consistent financial contributions from member states 

to meet development goals 

 

X 

Establish an Office for Development Financing to seek new 

and additional resources for development programs 

 

X 

Environment, habitat, and sustainable development 

Develop plans to strengthen the U.N. Environment 

Program and the U.N. Center for Human Settlements 

 

X 

Humanitarian affairs 

Establish an Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator to 

replace the Department of Humanitarian Affairs 

 

X 

Designate an Emergency Lead Coordinator to lead and 

coordinate all U.N. action on complex emergencies 

 

X 

Transfer responsibility for disaster prevention and 

preparedness to UNDP and for demining activities to the 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations 

 

X 

Strengthen the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) 

on humanitarian affairs and establish an IASC Steering 

Committee to coordinate its activities X 

IASC will work to improve the consolidated appeal process 

for U.N. humanitarian affairs agencies 

 

X 

Give the Emergency Relief Coordinator authority to 

designate a lead agency to coordinate complex 

emergencies 

 

X 

Human rights 

Establish an Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights (OHCHR) 

 

X 

Integrate human rights’ concerns into the broad range of 

U.N. activities, including development operations and 

humanitarian affairs, and assign a representative from the 

High Commissioner’s office to participate in executive 

committee meetings 

 

X 

OHCHR will issue recommendations to increase the 

coordination of human rights technical assistance activities 

provided to member states 

 

X 

Increase the representation of the High Commissioner’s 

office at headquarters in New York 

 

X 

OHCHR will review human rights programs across the U.N. 

and recommend ways to simplify their work and improve 

their efficiency 

 

X 

Restructure OHCHR to provide better substantive and 

technical support to U.N. legislative bodies and monitoring 

committees. 

 

X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 48 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Partnerships with civil society and the private sector 

Meet with members of civil society to strengthen 

partnerships and enlist their support 

 

X 

Designate a nongovernmental organization liaison officer 

for all U.N. departments and offices; facilitate cooperation 

between the U.N., member states, and civil society; and 

add training programs for U.N. staff that involve 

cooperation with civil society 

 

X 

Establish a business liaison service to provide information 

to business groups on U.N. activities and on investment 

opportunities X 

Increase participation of business groups in U.N. decisionmaking activities  

X 

Human resource and financial management 

Encourage movement of personnel across functions, 

departments, and duty stations X 

Create a simplified, flexible, and cost-effective system of 

recruitment and placement X 

Establish accountability standards for program managers to 

improve the efficiency of program delivery X 

Strengthen the performance appraisal system to reward 

high-performing staff and provide accountability for 

performance X 

Improve channels of communication between staff and 

management X 

Give managers greater flexibility in making permanent and 

fixed-term staff hiring decisions X 

Establish a one-time training and redeployment program for 

staff affected by the reform process X 

 

Establish an informal group of independent advisers to 

comment on senior-level appointments 

 

X 

Issue specific savings targets for departments and offices 

to reduce administrative and other overhead costs X 

Review management practices to implement program 

activities more efficiently, improve services to member 

states, and reach targets set to reduce overhead costs X 

Delegate maximum authority to line managers in the areas 

of human resources and financial management X 

Streamline administrative rules and procedures X 

Simplify human resources and financial management 

policies, rules, and processes X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 49 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Consolidate headquarters’ procurement services by 

expanding the use of electronic procurement and 

organizationwide competitive contracts 

 

X 

Develop a unified management structure to provide 

information technology and telecommunications 

infrastructure and services on a cost-effective basis X 

Establish one or more common service facilities at U.N. 

headquarters in New York, Geneva, and Vienna 

 X 

Modernizing information technology 

Upgrade the U.N.’s Web site, home page, and other 

electronic postings 

 

X 

Modernize internal systems that produce, store, and 

disseminate documents 

 

X 

Enhance the use of the Intranet to facilitate internal 

communication and administrative simplification and 

streamlining 

 

X 

Adopt an information technology strategy for New York 

headquarters and field offices 

 

X 

Introduce methods to share information across agencies 

and identify lead agencies that would establish issue 

management networks X 

U.N. university, research institutes, and related bodies 

Improve coordination between the United Nations 

University and other U.N. research institutes 

 

X 

Coordinate activities of the United Nations Staff College 

and other U.N. research institutes when preparing courses 

for U.N. civil servants 

 

X 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information. 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 50 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Strengthening human rights 

Strengthen human rights-related actions at the country 

level X 

Develop recommendations to streamline reporting 

procedures to the treaty monitoring bodies by September 

2003 X 

Review human rights special procedures to find ways to 

enhance their effectiveness and report to the Secretary 

General by 2003 

 

X 

Develop a plan to strengthen the management of the Office 

of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

 

X 

Enhancing public information 

Establish a Division of Strategic Communications in the 

Department of Public Information (DPI) to disseminate and 

evaluate U.N. messages around the world 

 X 

Establish an Outreach Division in DPI to group together 

services for delegations, civil society, and the general 

public 

 

X 

Strengthen DPI’s News and Media Division X 

Transfer DPI’s Cartographic Section to the Department of 

Peacekeeping Operations 

 

X 

Conduct an evaluation of the impact and cost-effectiveness 

of all of DPI’s activities X 

Centralize U.N. information activities around regional hubs, 

starting with the creation of a Western European hub 

 

X 

The Dag Hammarskjold Library will set policy and 

coordinate the work of all U.N. libraries X 

Develop a plan to integrate the library services of various 

U.N. locations X 

Develop and implement a plan to improve electronic 

access to U.N. collections, move from paper-based to 

electronic-based files, and provide training to depository 

librarians X 

Executive Committees will organize publications to reduce 

their number and improve their coherence and focus X 

Reestablish the Publications Board, which will establish 

standards and quality controls for publications X 

Review the feasibility and cost of online publications 

delivery X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 51 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Discontinue publication of The Repertory of Practice of 

United Nations Organs

 

X 

Streamlining reports 

Consolidate duplicative reports on related subjects X 

Publish clearer and more focused reports with specific 

recommendations X 

Adhere to mandated page limits X 

Encourage the General Assembly to establish a system to 

review the relevancy of existing reporting requirements X 

Managing conferences and meetings 

Strengthen the planning and management of General 

Assembly meetings and documentation X 

Coordinating U.N. field activities 

Develop a plan to strengthen field coordination in 

developing countries X 

Clarifying the Secretariat’s leadership roles and staff 

responsibilities 

Prepare a document clarifying roles and responsibilities in 

the area of technical cooperation 

 

X 

Propose the addition of an Assistant Secretary General 

position in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs 

 

X 

Establish a policy planning unit in the Department of 

Economic and Social Affairs 

 

X 

Transfer resources allocated to the Office of the Special 

Coordinator for Africa and the Least Developed Countries 

to the Advisor for Special Assignments in Africa, who would 

coordinate the preparation of Africa-related reports 

 

X 

Promoting partnerships with civil society and the 

private sector

 

Establish a panel to review the relationship between the 

U.N. and civil society and offer recommendations for 

improving their interaction X 

Establish a Partnerships Office to integrate the activities of 

the Global Compact Office and U.N. Fund for International 

Partnerships X 

Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 

evaluation system 

Link the program budget to Millennium Declaration X 

Submit a shorter, more strategic medium-term plan, 

covering 2 years rather than 4, and submitted closer to the 

time of implementation 

 X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 52 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Submit a budget outline with the medium-term plan X 

Prepare a shorter, more strategic budget X 

Give program managers greater flexibility to reallocate 

resources among programs and between program and 

personnel activities 

 

X 

Strengthen the program monitoring and evaluation system X 

Assign responsibility for reviewing U.N. budgeting 

information to the Fifth Committee instead of both the Fifth 

Committee and the Committee for Program and Evaluation 

 

X 

Streamline and shorten peacekeeping budgets X 

Consolidate and reduce the number of trust funds X 

Harmonize the rules and requirements for trust fund 

management and reporting X 

 

Revise the system used to account for administrative and 

other overhead support costs X 

 

Streamline procedures for accessing trust fund monies X 

Human capital management 

Review contractual arrangements and benefits offered to 

Secretariat staff in field locations to make them comparable 

to those of the U.N. funds and programs X 

Review mobility arrangements between the Secretariat and 

the U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies X 

Create longer-term contractual arrangements for staff in 

field missions X 

Identify special recruitment and reward incentives for duty 

stations with high vacancy rates X 

Review arrangements between the Secretariat and the 

U.N. funds, programs, and specialized agencies to assist 

spouses of U.N. staff applying for posts in field locations X 

Explore possibilities to renegotiate host country 

agreements to allow U.N. spouses to work in those 

countries X 

Lift restrictions on the numbers of general service staff 

eligible for promotion to the professional category X 

Review general service functions, responsibilities, and 

competencies X 

Improve general service induction and career planning 

systems X 

Provide more opportunities and incentives for staff mobility 

across functions, offices, and services in the field and 

peacekeeping missions X 
Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms 

Page 53 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Status 

Reform actions Not in place Partly in place In place or substantially so 

Refer to all employees of the Secretariat as international 

civil servants X 

Introduce flexible working arrangements in Secretariat 

departments and offices X 

Increase opportunities of part-time employment for 

Secretariat staff X 

Improve planning for replacing departing staff members X 

Develop more targeted recruitment systems X 

Enhance existing departure packages to include career 

placement assistance and transition arrangements X 

Recommend a significant increase in resources allocated 

to training in the 2004-2005 biennium budget X 

Review flexibility given to program managers to manage 

resources X 

Redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Department of 

Management and those of the executive offices to increase 

delegation of authority X 

Provide more and better training for managers across the 

U.N. X 

Implement fully the U.N.’s policy on HIV/AIDS X 

Review the current system of internal justice to improve the 

system’s efficiency, and to allow staff fair and due process X 

Encourage the International Civil Service Commission to 

submit its proposals for a more competitive pay and 

benefits system X 

Encourage an independent review of the operations and 

functions of the International Civil Service Commission X 

Managing reform 

Assign responsibility for overseeing the implementation of 

reforms to the Deputy Secretary General 

 

X 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 

Page 54 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 

Page 55 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 

Page 56 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State 

Page 57 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 
Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

Nations 

Page 58 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform 

Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

Nations 
Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

Nations 

Page 59 GAO-04-339 U.N. Reform (320202) 
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. 

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. 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs