a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on National Security, Emerging Threats, 

and International Relations, Committee 

on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

June 2006 OVERSEAS 

STAFFING

Rightsizing 

Approaches Slowly 

Taking Hold but More 

Action Needed to 

Coordinate and Carry 

Out Efforts

GAO-06-737
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

OVERSEAS STAFFING

Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking 

Hold but More Action Needed to 

Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts 

Highlights of GAO-06-737, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats, and 

International Relations, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

Almost five years into the President’s Management Initiative on rightsizing, 

the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the size of the U.S. 

overseas presence. At various times, we received estimates ranging from 

66,000 to 69,000 American and non-American personnel. In addition, State 

estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government positions 

overseas, as of December 2005. State Department (State) officials said that 

they are working on a unified database which, if periodically updated by 

posts, will provide an accurate depiction of the overseas presence. State 

officials indicated that the database will be completed later this year. 

Because of the importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and 

the length of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight 

may be needed to ensure completion of this task. Several agencies reported 

that they have added staff overseas as a result of new mission requirements, 

and other agencies reported that they have repositioned their personnel to 

better meet mission needs and in response to rightsizing efforts. 

State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing the 

United States Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) in 2004, 

which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall direction to the 

government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the office’s activities have

included coordinating staffing requests of U.S. government agencies,

developing guidance for and analyzing post rightsizing reviews, and 

formulating a rightsizing review plan. We found that coordination on 

rightsizing issues between State and other agencies with an overseas

presence was initially slow, but has since improved. Nevertheless, non-State 

agencies have voiced a number of concerns regarding their interaction with 

the Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more included in the 

rightsizing process.

Congress requires Chiefs of Mission to conduct rightsizing reviews at every 

overseas post at least once every 5 years. Between late 2004 and summer 

2005, about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews. However, the 

Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts on how the reviews

should be conducted and did not have a systematic process for reporting the 

outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005, officials in the Office of Rightsizing 

developed more comprehensive guidance, which posts we interviewed found 

useful. We found that cost was not considered a key element in the post 

reviews. Nevertheless, the Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million in 

cost savings or avoidance to the U.S. government based on its analysis of 

these reviews. Although we have not been able to independently assess the 

Office of Rightsizing’s estimates, it has presented evidence to show that 

some major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Management 

officers identified various challenges to the review process, such as 

resistance from non-State agencies and a lack of time to conduct the review. 

It is unclear how posts will implement the rightsizing review decisions, such 

as elimination of duplicative functions, according to post officials and 

officials in State’s regional bureaus. 

In 2001, the administration

identified the rightsizing of

embassies and consulates as one of

the President’s management 

priorities. Rightsizing initiatives

include: aligning staff overseas with 

foreign policy priorities and 

security and other constraints; 

demonstrating results by moving

administrative functions from posts 

to regional or central locations; and 

eliminating duplicative functions at

posts. This report (1) discusses the 

size and recent trends in the U.S. 

government overseas presence, (2)

assesses the congressionally

mandated Office of Rightsizing’s 

progress in managing the U.S.

government’s overseas rightsizing 

efforts, and (3) assesses the

process and outcomes of the 

legislatively mandated rightsizing 

reviews of overseas posts. 

What GAO Recommends

We recommend that the Secretary 

of State provide management 

oversight to complete and maintain 

a unified database to accurately 

capture and validate U.S. overseas

staffing numbers, increase 

outreach activities with non-State 

agencies, and require that posts 

develop rightsizing action plans.

State indicated that it has either

recently implemented or is taking

steps to implement all of our 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-737.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Accurate Data on Personnel Overseas Not Yet Available; U.S. 

Government Rightsizing Efforts Under Way 10

State Has Established an Office of Rightsizing, but More Interaction 

Needed between Office of Rightsizing and Agencies 18

Office of Rightsizing Initiates Rightsizing Reviews, but Reviews 

Have Not Realized Full Potential 29

Conclusion 41

Recommendations for Executive Action 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 44

Appendix II: GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at U.S. Embassies 

and Consulates 47

Appendix III: GAO Rightsizing Framework and Corresponding Questions 48

Appendix IV: The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule 51

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State 57

GAO Comments 65

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 67

Tables Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type 

of Space in Embassy or Consulate 10

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by 

Select Agency 17

Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing 

Reviews, September 2005 32

Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule 51

Figures Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing 7

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas 

under Chief of Mission Authority by Agency, December 

2005 12

Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 

2005 20
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps 23

Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed 34

Abbreviations

ICASS International Cooperative Administrative Support Services

NEC New Embassy Compound

NSDD-38 National Security Decision Directive-38

State Department of State

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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

United States. 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-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 30, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,

Emerging Threats, and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

After the 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, two key 

studies recommended that the U.S. government evaluate and realign the 

number and location of U.S. personnel working at embassies and 

consulates overseas, and consider staff reductions where practical to 

reduce security vulnerabilities.1

 In 2001, the administration showed its 

support for the realignment of personnel and stressed the importance of 

security, efficiency, and accountability in U.S. government staffing overseas 

by identifying the rightsizing of embassies and consulates as one of the 

President’s management priorities.2

 Rightsizing initiatives include 

establishing mechanisms and processes to align the number and location of 

staff assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, and security and cost

constraints; moving administrative functions away from posts to remote3

locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts. In 2002 we 

developed a framework for assessing embassy staff levels to help support 

rightsizing initiatives for existing facilities overseas.4

 Our framework 

identified critical elements of embassy operations—physical security, 

mission priorities and requirements, and cost—and also included 

rightsizing options for consideration. According to the State Department’s 

1

Department of State, America’s Overseas Presence in the 21st Century, the Report of the 

Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); and Department of State, 

Report of the Accountability Review Boards: Bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, 

Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1999).

2

See the Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management Agenda, Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001) for a description of the President’s management 

priorities. 

3

Remote locations include overseas and domestic regional centers and headquarters offices.

4

We defined “rightsizing” as aligning the number and location of staff assigned overseas with 

foreign policy priorities, and security and other constraints. Rightsizing may result in the 

addition or reduction of staff, or a change in the mix of staff. Appendix III provides further 

information about our framework. 
Page 2 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

(State) Office of Inspector General, rightsizing is likely to remain at the top 

of State’s management agenda in the coming years because of high 

construction and operating costs overseas, security vulnerabilities, and 

continuing problems in assigning U.S. government personnel overseas. 

Over the past five years, we have provided the subcommittee with 

numerous reports and testimonies on staffing and operations at U.S. 

embassies and consulates overseas (see app. II for a list of these reports). 

In this report, we (1) discuss the size and recent trends in the U.S. 

government’s overseas presence, (2) assess the progress that the 

congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing the United States 

Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) within State has 

made in managing and coordinating the U.S. government’s overseas 

rightsizing efforts, and (3) assess the process and outcomes of the 

legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts. 

To address these objectives, we analyzed the activities of State’s Office of 

Rightsizing, as well as rightsizing activities of some of State’s regional and 

functional bureaus. In addition, we met with seven agencies—the 

Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland 

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

(USAID)—which, including State, account for over 90 percent of personnel 

at embassies and consulates. To determine if there was a systematic 

process for reporting information in the first cycle of reviews, we reviewed 

and analyzed 20 out of about 35 rightsizing reviews that were conducted by 

posts from late 2004 through summer 2005, and which were provided to us 

by the Office of Rightsizing. We also sought to complete structured 

telephone interviews with all 22 posts that were conducting reviews in the 

fall of 2005. Between February 2006 and March 2006, we conducted 

structured telephone interviews with management officers from 20 of these 

22 posts overseas on issues related to their review experience. In addition 

to the telephone interviews, we visited three posts—Mexico City, Mexico; 

Valetta, Malta; and Frankfurt, Germany—that had previously conducted a 

rightsizing review or analysis. We conducted our overall work from May 

2005 through May 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards (see app. I for more information on our scope and 

methodology). 

Results in Brief Almost five years into the President’s Management Initiative on rightsizing, 

the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the size and 

composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and consulates. At 
Page 3 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

various times, we received estimates ranging from 66,000 to 69,000 

American and non-American personnel. In addition, State estimated that 

there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government positions overseas, as of 

December 2005. Difficulties faced in developing accurate data include 

varying practices among agencies and posts in accounting for positions. In 

the absence of accurate data, it is difficult to track how rightsizing actions 

are affecting overseas staffing levels. Moreover, lack of accurate staffing 

data makes it more difficult to determine requirements for new embassy 

construction and to assess each agency a fair share of the cost of the 

embassy construction program. State is working on a unified database 

which, if periodically updated by posts, should provide an accurate 

depiction of the overseas presence. State officials indicated that the 

database will be completed later this year. Because of the importance of 

having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length of time it has 

taken to develop this data, management oversight may be needed to ensure 

completion of this task. Several agencies reported that they have added 

staff overseas as a result of new mission requirements, and other agencies 

reported that they have shifted their personnel to better meet mission 

needs and respond to rightsizing efforts. For example, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture recently determined that it had overstaffed some locations 

and understaffed others and, as a result, is repositioning its personnel. 

Some agencies reported that they have reduced overseas staff largely 

because they are now required to pay a share of the costs of building new, 

secure embassy buildings. 

State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing in 

2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall direction to the 

government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the office’s activities have 

included coordinating rightsizing staffing requests from U.S. government 

agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post rightsizing reviews, 

and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We found that coordination on 

rightsizing issues between State and other agencies with an overseas 

presence was initially slow, but has since improved—though several nonState agencies have voiced a number of concerns regarding their 

interaction with the Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more 

included in the rightsizing process. In addition, some post management 

officers indicated that the lack of interagency coordination in Washington, 

D.C., makes it difficult for the posts to make decisions and implement 

rightsizing actions. 

To move the rightsizing process forward, Congress required that rightsizing 

reviews be conducted at every overseas post at least once every 5 years in 
Page 4 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

order to eliminate or justify any duplicative or parallel functions at the 

post, and consider the possibility for reducing U.S. government personnel. 

Between late 2004 and summer 2005, about 35 posts participated in the first 

cycle of reviews. However, the Office of Rightsizing provided limited 

guidance to posts on how the reviews should be conducted and did not 

have a systematic process for reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 

2005, officials in the Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive 

guidance, which post officials we interviewed said were useful. The Office 

of Rightsizing reported over $150 million of savings or costs avoided based 

on their analysis of the first and second cycles of the rightsizing reviews. 

Although we have not been able to independently assess the Office of 

Rightsizing’s estimates, it has presented evidence to show that some major 

cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Seventeen out of the 

twenty management officers we interviewed said that the review helped 

them better understand how post personnel meet mission objectives. 

However, management officers identified various challenges in conducting 

their fall 2005 reviews and ensuring that their post is rightsized. For 

example, management officers said that rightsizing challenges included 

resistance from non-State agencies on rightsizing measures, lack of 

direction and opportunities for regionalization and outsourcing measures, 

and a lack of time to conduct the review due to a number of competing data 

requests from headquarters. In addition, while a number of management 

officers told us that they had conducted some type of cost analysis as part 

of their review, some said that they could have benefited from additional 

guidance on conducting cost analysis. It is unclear how the rightsizing 

review decisions, such as elimination of duplicative functions, will be 

implemented, according to post officials and officials in State’s regional 

bureaus. Moreover, the Office of Rightsizing has not tasked posts to 

develop a rightsizing action plan to implement decisions made in the 

rightsizing study.

We are making recommendations to strengthen the U.S. government’s 

rightsizing process. To ensure that the U.S. government overseas presence 

under chief of mission authority is accurately accounted for and to ensure 

that the U.S. government’s rightsizing goals are being coordinated and that 

posts can maximize savings and gain efficiencies through rightsizing, we 

recommend that the Secretary of State take the following three actions: 

• Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a single 

database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel staffing 

numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and 

agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date;
Page 5 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

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

agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share information 

on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous basis; and

• Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the 

agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include 

developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining 

and eliminating duplicative functions. 

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State indicated that 

it has either recently implemented or is taking steps to implement all of our 

recommendations. We received technical comments from State and the 

Departments of Homeland Security, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, and 

USAID, which we have incorporated throughout the report, where 

appropriate.

Background The U.S. government maintains more than 260 diplomatic posts—including 

embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices—in about 180 

countries worldwide. In addition, according to various estimates, there are 

over 66,000 personnel overseas, including both U.S. direct hires and locally 

employed staff under chief of mission authority,5

 representing more than 30 

agencies and government entities. Agencies represented overseas include, 

among others, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, 

Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State and USAID. According to 

the Office of Management and Budget, the average cost across all agencies 

of having one U.S. direct hire overseas for 2007 is $491,000, including direct 

and indirect personnel costs as well as support costs such as security, 

office leases and furnishings, and field travel.6

 According to State’s Bureau 

of Resource Management, State’s average cost of having one U.S. direct 

hire overseas for 2007 is approximately $400,000. 

5

A Chief of Mission is the principal officer, usually the Ambassador, in charge of a U.S. 

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

supervision of all U.S. government executive branch employees in that country. See 22 

U.S.C. 3927.

6

The Office of Management and Budget’s cost is based on an average of cost submissions 

from more than 30 agencies with an overseas presence. However, we have not verified the 

cost figures. The cost of having a U.S. direct hire overseas for an agency can vary 

significantly, depending on where agency officials are located. 
Page 6 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

The White House, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our 

own agency have emphasized rightsizing as a key initiative to ensuring that 

the overseas presence is at an optimal and efficient level to carry out 

foreign policy priorities. The President’s Management Agenda has 

identified rightsizing as one of the administration’s priorities.7

 The agenda 

stipulates that all agencies with an overseas presence should integrate 

rightsizing into their workforce plans and reconfigure overseas staff 

allocations to the minimum amount necessary to meet U.S. foreign policy 

goals. Figure 1 illustrates the various levels of involvement in U.S. 

government overseas rightsizing.

7

The President’s Management Agenda is a set of management initiatives designed to 

improve management throughout the government by emphasizing performance and results. 
Page 7 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing 

President’s Management Agenda 

Agenda

Improving 

government 

performance

Initiative

Rightsizing oversight

Overseas interaction Headquarters interaction

Rightsizing implementation

To rightsize the 

U.S. government’s

overseas presence

Office of Management and Budget 

State Department (Under Secretary for Management)

The lead agency for rightsizing

Office of Rightsizing:

• manages the process by which Chiefs of 

Mission conduct 5-year reviews on the staffing 

of their missions

• coordinates overseas staffing requests and all 

policy issues concerning chief of mission 

authority

Chiefs of Mission at posts:

• certify that the resources and staffing 

requirement identified within the 

rightsizing reviews are appropriate to 

the achievement of mission goals

Non-State agencies:

• responsible for determining 

staffing levels overseas

• assessing and validating 

rightsizing reviews

Flow of information 

Sources: GAO (data); Map Resources (logos). 
Page 8 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

In fiscal year 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of 

Rightsizing within State.8

 The office was directed to lead State’s effort to 

develop internal and interagency mechanisms to better coordinate, 

rationalize, and manage the deployment of U.S. government personnel 

overseas, under chief of mission authority. The Office of Rightsizing 

reviews and approves rightsizing reports for all capital construction 

projects for new embassy compounds or facilities, as well as the staffing 

composition of 20 percent of all U.S. missions annually, so that each 

mission is reviewed once every 5 years. According to the Office of 

Rightsizing, without an approved rightsizing report based on these reviews, 

the Office of Management and Budget will not forward to Congress a 

programming notification for construction. 

In addition to the Office of Rightsizing, a number of entities within State at 

the Washington, D.C. and post levels are involved in initiatives and efforts 

related to rightsizing. State’s regional bureaus are involved with posts’ 

rightsizing reviews as well as the administration of regional service 

centers.9

 In addition, State’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is 

responsible for the worldwide overseas buildings program for State and the 

U.S. government community serving abroad under chief of mission 

authority. The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is directing an 

expanded new embassy construction program to provide safe, secure, and 

functional work places for the diplomatic and consular missions overseas. 

At the post level, the Chief of Mission is responsible for the security and 

safety of every U.S. government and foreign national employee at the 

mission.10 The precise structure of a mission is determined by the Chief of 

Mission through the National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38) 

process, which provides authority for the Chief of Mission to determine the 

8

P.L. 108-199, Div. B, Title IV. Congress made $3 million in funding available for the 

establishment and operations of the Office of Rightsizing. 

9

State has six regional bureaus, each of which is responsible for working with posts in a 

specific geographic region of the world. State’s regional bureaus include the Bureaus of 

African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near Eastern 

Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs. State has two 

regional centers—one is in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and the other in Frankfurt, Germany—as 

well as a number of other regional operations.

10In accordance with 22 USC 3927, the President’s Letter of Instruction to Chiefs of Mission 

gives the Chief of Mission full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision 

of generally all U.S. government executive branch employees within the host country, and 

also allows him or her to make decisions on the levels of staffing at the mission. See 2FAH-2 

H-112.1. 
Page 9 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

size, composition, or mandate of personnel operating at the mission.11 See 

figure 1 for a depiction of the Chief of Mission’s involvement in the 

rightsizing process. 

The operation of embassies and consulates overseas requires basic 

administrative support services for overseas personnel. The management 

section, which is normally headed by a management counselor or officer, is 

the section responsible for overseeing the administrative functions at a 

post and generally serves as the recipient of requests from Washington, 

D.C., pertaining to staffing and rightsizing. Administrative support services 

at posts are generally provided through the State-managed International 

Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) system, which 

provides more than 30 services—including financial management 

vouchering, human resources, travel services, housing, vehicle 

maintenance, and motor pool—with costs of the services divided among 

the agencies and sub-agencies with staff at the post, based on the level of 

ICASS services used.12

Cost Sharing and New 

Embassy Compounds

To address the security and other deficiencies of overseas embassies, 

consulates, and other buildings, Congress established an interagency 

Capital Security Cost Sharing Program to generate almost $18 billion over a 

14-year period to accelerate the construction of approximately 150 new, 

secure, and functional embassy and consular compounds.13 The main 

objectives of the program are to generate funds for new embassy 

compound construction and to encourage State and other agencies to 

rightsize their staff by requiring that all agencies with an overseas presence 

bear some of the costs for building construction.14 Capital security cost 

sharing is based on the total number of existing or authorized positions that 

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

approval from the Chief of Mission is sought, in coordination with State, before making any 

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

the post.

12The ICASS basic package, which includes securing diplomatic credentials from the host 

country and services provided by the post’s Community Liaison Office, is mandatory for all 

agencies at the post. Other cost centers are optional.

13P.L. 108-447, Div. B, Title VI, §629.

14Historically, funding for new embassies was provided under State’s appropriations, and 

costs for new construction were not distributed to other agencies.
Page 10 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

an agency has overseas in U.S.-government-owned or leased facilities, as 

well as any projected staff growth positions. Cost sharing is also based on 

the type of space occupied by post personnel.15 Charges are being phasedin over 5 years with the fiscal year 2005 per capita charges being 20 percent 

of the fully phased-in amount and fiscal year 2009 per capita charges 

representing the full amount.16 Table 1 illustrates the fully phased-in per 

person charges for Capital Security Cost Sharing.

Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type of Space in 

Embassy or Consulate

Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations.

Accurate Data on 

Personnel Overseas 

Not Yet Available; U.S. 

Government 

Rightsizing Efforts 

Under Way

Almost 5 years into the President’s Management Initiative on rightsizing, 

the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the size and 

composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and consulates; 

however, State is working on a unified database which, if periodically 

updated by posts, should provide an accurate depiction of the overseas 

presence. Several agencies have undertaken efforts to examine and adjust 

their staffing configurations, which have been driven by various factors, 

such as congressional mandates; the rising costs of building new, secure 

embassy buildings; and other shared costs. 

15The types of spaces in new embassy compounds that are charged under Capital Security 

Cost Sharing include controlled access areas, non-controlled access areas, and non-office 

space.

16The per capita charge for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are 40 and 60 percent of the full 

charge, while the charge for fiscal year 2008 will be 80 percent of the full position charge.

Type of space Cost per person

Principal officer $186,886

Controlled access area $50,724

Non-controlled access area $20,488

Non-office space $3,546
Page 11 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Accurate Data on Size and 

Composition of the U.S. 

Overseas Presence 

Currently Unavailable

According to State officials, there is not yet an accurate picture of the size 

and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and 

consulates. In order to be able to make informed staffing and rightsizing 

decisions, and conduct accurate analysis of overseas staffing changes, it is 

important that the U.S. government have an accurate account of all 

overseas positions under chief of mission authority. Moreover, accurate 

staffing data is needed to assess each agency a fair share of the cost of the 

embassy construction program. Depending on the data’s source and time, 

estimates of the total overseas presence under chief of mission authority 

run from 66,000 to about 69,000 American and non-American personnel, 

such as locally employed staff, from more than 30 agencies.17 In addition, 

State estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government 

positions overseas, as of December 2005.18 Some of these positions have 

been eliminated or are in the process of being eliminated or reconciled, 

according to an Office of Rightsizing document. Further, according to 

State’s estimates, there are almost 22,000 direct-hire American positions 

overseas. Figure 2 provides the estimated percentage breakdown of the 

total American positions overseas under chief of mission authority by the 

key agencies, according to the Office of Rightsizing. 

17Based on agencies’ 2007 budget submissions, the Office of Management and Budget 

estimates the total personnel overseas under chief of mission authority for 2006 as 66,854. 

18The estimate is based on information in State’s Post Personnel database.
Page 12 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas under Chief of 

Mission Authority by Agency, December 2005 

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

According to State officials, State has faced various difficulties in 

developing accurate data. For example, overseas staffing information is 

recorded in a number of different databases at a post, depending on the 

purpose of the information.19 In addition to the databases from Washington, 

D.C., posts have created their own databases, resulting in information not 

being uniform from post to post. Moreover, a State official reported that 

some agencies have failed to provide human resources data to individual 

posts. State officials added that changes made in one database do not 

automatically populate others. Therefore, posts need to make changes in a 

number of databases in order to ensure a full updating and, in particular, to 

ensure the new information will show up accurately at State headquarters. 

19Database applications utilized by posts include Post Profiles, ICASS, Mission Performance 

Plan, Capital Security Cost Sharing, and Post Personnel. 

36%

32% Defense

State

5%

6%

5%

14%

<1%

2%

Other

Justice

Treasury

Source: Department of State.

Homeland Security

Commerce (1%)

Agriculture (1%)

USAID
Page 13 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

As a result, State’s numbers might include positions that have been 

eliminated or are vacant; or some positions might be entered more than 

once. 

Officials in the Office of Rightsizing also said that there are large numbers 

of employment categories overseas and that each agency might categorize 

its personnel overseas in a different manner or use different 

methodologies. They pointed out that, in some cases, agencies hire and 

count employed family members as U.S. direct hires while, in other 

instances, employed family members are counted as locally employed staff. 

They further explained that State’s current databases have not kept pace 

with changes in nomenclature. For example, although new agencies and 

components were established as part of the formation of the Department of 

Homeland Security, overseas positions might still appear in databases, for 

example, as part of the old Immigration and Naturalization Services. The 

incorrect reporting of staff positions could create problems for agencies, 

such as being incorrectly charged for positions under Capital Security Cost 

Sharing, according to non-State officials. 

Since 2004, State has required posts to utilize the Post Personnel database 

to account for overseas staffing positions for both American personnel and 

locally employed staff, according to the Office of Rightsizing. The 

Executive Director of the Bureau of Human Resources told us that, if used 

properly, this database has the potential to provide the staffing data that 

could lead to accurate overseas staffing numbers. However, officials in the 

Office of Rightsizing stated that the database is only as complete as the 

information that the posts enter into it, and that some posts might not fully 

understand how to use the software properly. The Executive Director of 

the Bureau of Human Resources indicated that his bureau has been 

developing training modules to educate post officials on using the Post 

Personnel database correctly. 

State Developing Unified Staffing 

Accounting System

State’s Office of Rightsizing has been working with the Bureau of Human 

Resources to develop an improved database that will enable State to 

present a more accurate picture of all personnel and agencies assigned 

overseas under chief of mission authority. According to the Office of 

Rightsizing, the improved database will result in one complete and 

accurate database of all U.S. government agencies overseas and will 

eliminate the need for multiple requests to posts to update staffing data. 

State has been working toward making the Post Personnel database 

application the exclusive database for the entry of all staffing information 

at posts. In addition, State has been devising standardized organizational 
Page 14 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

codes for post personnel for all agencies overseas. According to State 

officials, the Post Personnel database will be linked to other existing 

applications and will populate a number of other databases, including Post 

Profiles, ICASS, and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations database 

for Capital Security Cost Sharing, thus eliminating potential errors 

associated with duplicative and incorrect entries. 

The Office of Rightsizing reported that the data in Post Personnel will soon 

be made available to agencies with an overseas presence so that they can 

verify it regularly to ensure consistency. Non-State agency officials 

expressed the need for transparency in overseas staffing data since they 

contended that often the data inputted at posts was not verified by them. 

The Executive Director of the Bureau of Human Resources expressed 

concern that there needs to be some type of accountability mechanism in 

place that ensures posts are inputting information regularly and accurately 

into Post Personnel. He added that without a mechanism in place, the 

quality and validity of the data will be in question. State officials said that 

the integrated staffing database is scheduled to be completed and 

operational by fall 2006. However, State has not provided guidance to posts 

that ensures staffing information in the Post Personnel database will be 

continuously updated or that outlines the accountability mechanisms for 

ensuring that staffing information is complete, according to a State official. 

Agencies Rightsizing Efforts 

Lead to Increases or 

Decreases in Staff

Over the past several years agencies with an overseas presence have 

undertaken initiatives to assess their overseas staffing configurations. 

Several agencies reported that they have added staff overseas as a result of 

new mission requirements, and others reported that they have relocated or 

reduced their personnel to better meet mission needs and respond to the 

rightsizing efforts. Many agency officials with whom we spoke indicated 

that they have conducted comprehensive internal reviews or hired 

consultants to assess their overseas programs and workload. For example, 

the Department of Agriculture recently completed a global rightsizing 

review and found that the department is overstaffed in some countries and 

understaffed in others. As a result, the Foreign Agricultural Service is 

repositioning its personnel to better accomplish organizational goals. In 

addition, Department of Homeland Security officials indicated that they 

have been working to fully assess their overseas presence and to identify 

redundancies within the various Department of Homeland Security 

components overseas. State also recently announced plans for the global 

repositioning of its overseas presence, which entails moving hundreds of 

positions across the world—primarily from Washington and Europe to 
Page 15 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

critical missions in regions such as Africa, South and East Asia, and the 

Middle East.

Rightsizing Efforts Driven by 

Security and Administrative 

Costs

Some agency officials said that their decisions on the numbers of overseas 

staff needed are guided by a number of factors, including congressional 

mandates, mission requirements, and budget constraints, including Capital 

Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs. Officials with whom we spoke with 

at several agencies said that they have increased staff overseas as a result 

of the global war on terror, border security activities, and efforts to combat 

drug trafficking and weapons of mass destruction. For example, officials in 

the Department of Justice said that the department’s various components 

have increased their overseas presence due to these factors, and, in fact, 

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials reported that they 

increased their presence by almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2005. In 

addition, Customs and Border Protection officials told us that they have 

been increasing their personnel overseas since 2002 due to requirements 

for the Container Security Initiative program. While a number of agencies 

have been increasing their presence overseas, a few agencies have 

decreased or are projected to maintain the current level of their overseas 

presence due to cuts in program budgets. For example, the Foreign 

Commercial Service reported that it reduced its overseas staffing levels by 

approximately 13 percent since the beginning of fiscal year 2001. In 

addition, Foreign Agricultural Services officials said that their overseas 

presence is likely to remain static. 

A number of agencies we spoke with cited that costs of overseas 

operations, which include increasing Capital Security Cost Sharing 

program and ICASS costs, have caused them to examine their overseas 

presence.20 Department of Commerce officials reported that, while Capital 

Security Cost Sharing costs represented 7 percent of their overseas costs in 

fiscal year 2006, by fiscal year 2009 the cost is expected to be 21 percent of 

the agency’s overseas costs. In addition, agency officials said that, because 

the Capital Security Cost Sharing costs are based on every existing or 

planned authorized overseas position, regardless of whether the position is 

filled or not, agencies have effectively been encouraged to eliminate vacant 

20We have reported on agency concerns about Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS 

costs in the past. See GAO, Embassy Construction: Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could 

Speed Construction and Reduce Staff Levels, but Some Agencies Have Concerns, GAO-05-

32 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004); and GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed 

to Increase Efficiency and Improve Delivery of Administrative Support Services, GAO-04-

511 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004). 
Page 16 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

positions or keep their projected numbers low. For example, Department 

of Commerce officials said that costs associated with Capital Security Cost 

Sharing has forced the agency to keep its projected overseas numbers low 

rather than develop more realistic projections since program costs are 

based in part on projected as well as existing staffing numbers, and they do 

not want to estimate and pay for positions that might not be needed in the 

future. Some agency officials also indicated that rising ICASS costs have 

affected their budgets and caused them to reevaluate their overseas 

presence. For example, Department of Homeland Security officials said 

that because of the high costs of using ICASS, they are currently 

reevaluating their use of the services and stressed the importance of having 

flexibility to opt out of ICASS services. 

Some agency officials with whom we spoke raised several concerns about 

the impacts of Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs on staffing 

configurations. For Capital Security Cost Sharing, officials expressed 

concern that it is difficult for them to accurately project their overseas 

staffing numbers, since potential unforeseen events overseas, such as 

natural disasters, could necessitate a reduction or increase in personnel. 

Some agency officials expressed concern that, as the Capital Security Cost 

Sharing costs increase, they might be priced out of an overseas presence or 

have to tap into their program funds to sustain such a presence. Table 2 

depicts the Capital Security Cost Sharing charges for fiscal year 2007 that 

appear in the President’s budget for the agencies that we spoke with. 
Page 17 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by Select Agency

Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations.

a

The total charge includes building costs for each agency’s personnel and ICASS employees that 

provide services to an agency, as well as rent offsets. For example, USAID’s Capital Security Cost 

Sharing position total is $105,653,422, of which $10,737,155 is for ICASS contributions. However, a 

rent offset of $16,041,520 reduces USAID’s total cost figure to $100,349,057.

Moreover, in order to mitigate the effects of ICASS fees coupled with 

agency budget cuts, some agency officials indicated that officials overseas 

are doing more administrative activities themselves, which takes time away 

from accomplishing their mission. In addition, agencies have sought other 

cost-effective ways of operating overseas, including hiring family members 

of staff, hiring local Americans, or utilizing locally employed staff (this final 

option has limitations, however). For example, according to the U.S. 

Marshals Service, utilizing locally employed staff over U.S. direct hires has 

resulted in considerable savings to the agency, and it estimates that the 

savings in relocation expenses, foreign housing, and other foreign 

entitlements, which direct hires receive but locally employed staff do not, 

would exceed $1 million every 3–4 years. However, agency officials 

indicated that there are limitations to using locally employed staff at posts 

to carry out some duties due to national security concerns. For example, 

Department of the Treasury officials said that they are not able to utilize 

locally hired foreign nationals to carry out the work of U.S. direct hires due 

to the sensitive investigative nature of their work and privacy laws. In 

addition, officials in the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice 

indicated that, due to the sensitive nature of their work, they can only allow 

American citizens with a security clearance to perform most of their 

overseas duties. As an alternative to sending additional U.S. direct hires to 

posts, some agencies employ eligible family members of agency staff or 

Agency Total chargea

Agriculture Department $8,968,013

Commerce Department 20,678,269

Defense Department 134,893,425

Homeland Security Department 24,052,046

Justice Department 45,635,505

State Department 674,155,851

Treasury Department 2,796,268

USAID 100,349,057

Other 26,594,272

Total $1,038,122,706
Page 18 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

hire U.S. citizens already living in the host country to carry out some of the 

agency functions. Department of Homeland Security officials explained 

that utilizing U.S. citizens living in the host country is much cheaper than 

sending a U.S. direct hire to a post because the department does not have 

to pay benefits such as housing, school costs, and other allowances to 

locally hired U.S. citizens. 

State Has Established 

an Office of 

Rightsizing, but More 

Interaction Needed 

between Office of 

Rightsizing and 

Agencies 

In early 2004, State established the congressionally mandated Office of 

Rightsizing to primarily coordinate all agency staffing requests, administer 

rightsizing and staffing reviews, and work with State entities and other 

agencies on rightsizing. The basic mission of the office is to better 

coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment of U.S. government 

personnel overseas, under chief of mission authority. Since its formation, 

some of the activities of the office have included coordinating staffing 

requests of U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and 

analyzing post rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review 

plan. Non-State agencies have voiced a number of concerns related to 

interactions with the Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more 

involved in the rightsizing process. To better involve all agencies in 

rightsizing efforts and better understand their priorities, the Office of 

Rightsizing co-hosted an interagency summit in March 2006. 

Office of Rightsizing 

Established within State

In February 2004, the Office of Rightsizing was established within State. 

The roles and responsibilities of the office include coordinating all agency 

NSDD-38 requests; administering rightsizing and staffing reviews; and 

working with State entities and other agencies on rightsizing, 

regionalization, and shared service initiatives. The office started as a small 

operation with only a few staff; however, over the past 2 years it has grown 

in size. As of early May 2006, the office includes a director, three NSDD-38 

analysts, and three rightsizing analysts. According to State officials, 

additional staffing is needed to handle the growing number of initiatives 

that the office is involved with. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing 

told us that he has requested two additional staff to work on analyzing 

rightsizing reviews and compiling rightsizing data, and hopes that the 

positions will be filled by summer 2006. 
Page 19 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Office of Rightsizing Is 

Involved in a Number of 

Initiatives

Since the Office of Rightsizing was established, it has initiated a number of 

processes and has been involved in a number of efforts. These efforts have 

included administering and analyzing post reviews, formulating a review 

plan, developing instructions for post Mission Performance Plans, 

automating the NSDD-38 application process, and issuing a number of 

quarterly reports summarizing State’s rightsizing actions and 

accomplishments. In addition, the office has been involved with two State 

initiatives on rightsizing, which include demonstrating results achieved by 

moving administrative functions away from posts to remote locations; and 

eliminating duplicative functions at posts, also known as sharing support 

services.

Rightsizing Reviews One of the principal activities of the Office of Rightsizing has been 

administering and analyzing post rightsizing reviews. In 2005, the office 

established a formal review process and guidance for all posts overseas, 

including new embassy construction projects. The process focuses on 

linking staffing to mission goals, eliminating duplication, and promoting 

shared services. In fiscal year 2005, about 35 reports were submitted by 

posts and analyzed by the Office of Rightsizing. Figure 3 shows the 

missions that conducted a rightsizing review in fiscal year 2005, according 

to the office. All of these reports pertained to posts scheduled to have 

construction projects for a new embassy compound or office building in 

the near future.21 According to the Office of Rightsizing, the final reports 

that have been analyzed by the office have been or will be submitted to 

Congress as State seeks budget appropriations for these projects. In fiscal 

year 2006, the office has tasked over 40 posts to conduct reviews—more 

than 20 posts for both the fall and spring cycles. 

21Many of the missions that were tasked to do a review are scheduled for planned capital 

projects for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Page 20 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 2005 

Mexico 

Jamaica 

Haiti 

Colombia 

Ecuador 
Page 21 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Bosnia 

Herzegovina 

Macedonia 

Ethiopia 

Sudan 

Mali 

Nigeria 

Libya 

Gabon 

Malta 

Ghana 

Burkina 

Faso 

Republic of 

the Congo 

Democratic 

Republic of 

the Congo 

Georgia 

Iraq 

R u s s ia 

Norway 

Latvia 

Nepal

Micronesia 

Palau 

Source: Office of Rightsizing. 

Rwanda

Indonesia

South

Africa

Madagascar

Zambia Malawi

Lebanon

Djibouti Philippines
Page 22 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Post Rightsizing Review Plan The Office of Rightsizing has developed a 5-year plan, which includes the 

schedule of when missions will be asked to conduct reviews by fiscal year 

(see appendix IV). The plan is largely driven by State’s Bureau of Overseas 

Buildings Operations’ building schedule, but also includes consideration of 

posts participating in State initiatives, missions of highest priority, and 

countries with multiple missions, according to an official in the Office of 

Rightsizing. For fiscal year 2005, all of the reviews were conducted in 

anticipation of the post receiving a new embassy compound or building in 

the future. For reviews scheduled to be conducted in fiscal years 2006 

through 2009, the yearly schedule dictates that posts with planned capital 

projects will generally perform their rightsizing reviews in the fall of the 

fiscal year, while those without planned projects will perform their reviews 

in the spring. Figure 4 provides additional information on the review cycle 

and steps. 
Page 23 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 

Spring rightsizing review cycle 

(posts not receiving a new embassy compound) 

Process is identical and repetitive 

Fall rightsizing review cycle 

(posts receiving a new embassy compound) 

Rightsizing review cycle 

1. Posts identified: M/R identifies posts scheduled to conduct 

spring rightsizing reviews

2. Guidance sent: M/R sends guidance to posts

3. Reviews conducted: Posts conduct review with continuous

dialogue with M/R

a. Review to include the Capital Security Cost Sharing 

 spreadsheet

4. Forwarded to bureaus: Posts forward reviews to regional bureaus

5. Vetted by bureaus: Regional bureaus vet reviews and send to M/R

6. Shared with other agencies: M/R shares review package with 

 other non-State agencies

7. Analyzed by M/R: M/R conducts analysis and completes

assessment of post reviews

8. Staffing numbers authorized: M/R authorizes post staffing numbers

and forwards to bureaus in State and OMB

1. Posts identified: M/R and others develop list of top 80 posts

 to conduct rightsizing reviews

2. Guidance sent: M/R and OBO send guidance to posts

3. Reviews conducted: Posts conduct review with continuous dialogue 

with M/R

a. Review to include the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan

 spreadsheet

4. Forwarded to bureaus: Posts forward reviews to regional bureaus

5. Vetted by bureaus: Regional bureaus vet reviews and send to M/R

6. Shared with other agencies: M/R shares review package with 

 other non-State agencies

7. Analyzed by M/R: M/R conducts analysis and completes

assessment of post reviews

8. Staffing numbers authorized: M/R authorizes post staffing numbers

and forwards to bureaus in State, OBO, OMB, and Congress

9. Forwarded to Congress: Reviews sent to Congress along 

 with the budget submission

M/R Department of State, Office of Rightsizing 

OBO Department of State, Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Source: GAO. 
Page 24 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Rightsizing in Post Mission 

Performance Plans

The Office of Rightsizing has issued guidance to posts to include rightsizing 

statements in their Mission Performance Plans, starting with the fiscal year 

2007 submission.22 The guidance states that the plans must include a brief 

discussion of the rightsizing reviews or other rightsizing initiatives 

undertaken by the mission and should summarize the results, resource 

implications, and actions taken to implement review recommendations. 

However, we reviewed nine Mission Performance Plans for fiscal year 2007 

and found that only one post had included discussion of any rightsizing 

elements that the post had undertaken. Officials in the Office of Rightsizing 

indicated that initially there had not been a serious effort to push for posts 

to provide analysis on rightsizing in their fiscal year 2007 Mission 

Performance Plans and, as a result, not all posts have done so. However, 

they said that there has been more emphasis by the office to have posts 

include rightsizing discussions in their 2008 plans. In May 2006, the 

Director of the Office of Rightsizing reported that his office is participating 

in the reviews of the recent Mission Performance Plans submitted by posts.

NSDD-38 Application Process The Office of Rightsizing has been working with agencies and coordinating 

with Chiefs of Mission at posts on NSDD-38 requests, particularly those 

related to new programs. These requests are submitted to the Chief of 

Mission for approval of any proposed changes in agencies’ staffing 

elements at the post. Officials in the office said that they act in an advisory 

capacity between the agencies that are looking to establish or increase 

personnel at a post and the Chief of Mission to determine if the function 

needs to be performed overseas. However, they told us that it is ultimately 

the Chief of Mission’s decision to accept or deny an agency’s request to 

send personnel to post. In fall 2005, the Office of Rightsizing implemented a 

NSDD-38 Web-enabled application so that agencies can now submit their 

overseas staffing requests via the Internet. According to an Office of 

Rightsizing document, since the application process is now standardized 

online—which ensures that agency NSDD-38 submissions are correct and 

complete—Chiefs of Mission at posts can now immediately consider the 

submissions.

22A Mission Performance Plan is an annual performance plan that outlines the goals and 

priority initiatives of all agencies in a mission. Guidance on including rightsizing 

considerations in the post Mission Performance Plan was sent out for the fiscal year 2007 

and 2008 plans. 
Page 25 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Quarterly Rightsizing Reports Since spring 2005, the Office of Rightsizing has published three quarterly 

reports that highlight State’s overall rightsizing efforts and performance, as 

well as summarize the accomplishments and publications of the office.23 

The quarterly reports have also included copies of State cables sent to 

posts pertaining to rightsizing related issues, the Office of Management and 

Budget’s President’s Management Agenda rightsizing score card and 

summary, as well as the guidance and sample report that the Office of 

Rightsizing has sent to posts.24 The Director of the Office of Rightsizing 

stated that the quarterly reports are intended to provide both State bureaus 

and non-State agencies with an understanding of rightsizing measures and 

processes. 

State Regionalization Efforts The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State’s efforts to ensure that 

those administrative functions that do not need to be conducted at posts 

are carried out from remote locations. According to State officials, 

potential advantages to providing support to posts from remote locations 

include potential cost savings, enhanced security for American personnel, 

and improved quality of administrative support. State currently provides 

remote support to many agencies at posts, primarily in the areas of 

financial management and human resources, from two dedicated regional 

service centers—the Florida Regional Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

and the Regional Support Center in Frankfurt, Germany. In addition, State 

also provides remote support of some administrative functions through 

partnering arrangements whereby one post with the personnel and 

expertise in certain administrative function assists a smaller post. In order 

to further expand remote support, State’s fiscal year 2006 operational plan, 

Organizing for Transformational Diplomacy: Rightsizing and 

Regionalization, identifies additional post functions that can be performed

23Department of State, Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by the Office of 

Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence – Volume I (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 

2005); Department of State Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by the Office of 

Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence – Volume II (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

24, 2005); and Department of State Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by the Office 

of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence – Volume III (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 10, 2006). 

24The most recent Office of Management and Budget scorecard gave a “green light” to State’s 

progress toward key rightsizing milestones.
Page 26 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

remotely to minimize the U.S. overseas footprint and reduce costs.25 The 

plan focuses on first removing non-location-specific functions—or 

functions that could potentially be removed from posts and carried out 

either from the United States or a regional center—from critical danger 

missions,26 where State officials said it is crucial to have as few personnel 

at posts as possible due to security concerns. The plan envisions eventually 

removing those functions from all overseas posts. We provide a more 

detailed discussion on State’s efforts and challenges to provide support 

remotely in a separate report.27

State/USAID Shared Support 

Services

The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State’s efforts to increase 

efficiencies in overseas administrative functions by identifying and 

eliminating duplicative management support functions among agencies, as 

well as overlapping or redundant program functions. Although increasing 

efficiencies by streamlining functions applies to all overseas agencies, 

State has been working primarily with USAID to reduce the duplication of 

overseas support services. In 2004, State, along with USAID, launched pilot 

programs aimed at consolidating support functions such as motor pool, 

warehousing, residential maintenance, and leasing services at posts in 

Jakarta, Indonesia; Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Cairo, Egypt; and Dar es 

Salaam, Tanzania. The focus of the pilot programs was to determine how 

State and USAID could best collaborate to realize significant savings and 

improved service quality. However, only one of the pilot posts succeeded in 

consolidating all four support functions. According to State, the pilots have 

established that significant operational efficiencies and some cost savings 

can be realized through the consolidation of duplicative services. Since the 

pilots at the four posts, State and USAID have identified additional 

consolidation opportunities. We will provide a more detailed discussion 

and evaluation of State and USAID’s consolidation efforts in a report that 

will be coming out later this year. 

25Department of State, Organizing for Transformation Diplomacy: Rightsizing and 

Regionalization FY 2006 Operational Plan (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2005).

26State has identified Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan 

as the most critical danger posts that will be initially affected by State’s operational plan 

focusing on non-location specific functions. However, plans for operations in Iraq, also 

considered a critical danger post, are proceeding separately.

27GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are Needed to 

Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support Remotely, GAO-06-479

(Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006). 
Page 27 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Agencies Cite Limited 

Interaction with Office of 

Rightsizing; More 

Coordination Under Way

One of the responsibilities of the Office of Rightsizing is to coordinate and 

manage interagency rightsizing initiatives. However, during our discussions 

with non-State agencies in late 2005 and early 2006, a number of agencies 

with an overseas presence told us that they had limited interaction with 

State’s Office of Rightsizing on matters aside from NSDD-38 requests. 

Furthermore, some non-State agency officials told us that they were not 

aware of the rightsizing mandate or guidance provided to posts by the 

Office of Rightsizing. According to the Director of the Office of Rightsizing, 

his office has made an effort over the last couple of months to visit or talk 

with many of the agencies with an overseas presence. However, we found 

that, in some cases, the pertinent offices were not reached. For example, 

officials in Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services told us that State entities tend to coordinate through 

one office and do not reach the various entities within the department. 

Both U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border 

Protection officials indicated that they would like to be included in any 

discussions that State, in particular the Office of Rightsizing, has with the 

Department of Homeland Security, and suggested that State designate a 

focal point within each Department of Homeland Security office with an 

overseas presence. The Office of Rightsizing indicated that the Department 

of Homeland Security requested that it coordinate through the 

department’s Office of International Affairs. It is important that agency 

components are receiving the necessary information to ensure that 

rightsizing efforts are understood. The Department of Homeland Security 

and the Office of Rightsizing share responsibility for developing a 

mechanism to get this done. 

Furthermore, during our discussions with agency officials in late 2005 and 

early 2006, non-State agencies indicated that they would like more 

transparency in the rightsizing review process. For example, some agencies 

told us that they would like to know the outcomes of the reviews at each 

post and know ahead of time when posts will be conducting reviews. 

Moreover, some agency officials stated that they are looking for an overall 

U.S. government strategy or vision from the Office of Rightsizing so that, as 

they move ahead on their own rightsizing planning and efforts, they will be 

in line with what the Office of Rightsizing is planning. Finally, some nonState agency officials indicated that, in order to be able to contribute to the 

process, they would like to see more clearly stated standards and unified 

processes that relate to rightsizing at posts. For example, officials said that 

they would like to understand how posts determine the number of staffing 

positions available at any given time and would like to ensure that the 
Page 28 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

requests for information coming from Washington, D.C., to posts are more 

consistent. 

State Holds Rightsizing 

Interagency Summit

In order to address rightsizing in context with non-State agencies' agendas 

and priorities, the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of Management and 

Budget co-hosted an interagency summit in early March 2006. According to 

the Office of Rightsizing, participants included representatives from a 

number of foreign affairs and non-foreign-affairs agencies; discussions 

focused on key initiatives coordinated and managed by State, such as 

consolidation of duplicative functions, rightsizing reviews, the NSDD-38 

process, and State regionalization efforts. 

While some officials from State’s regional bureaus feel that having an 

interagency conference is a good start at getting all agencies involved with 

rightsizing, they believe that additional interagency dialogue is needed. In 

addition, some non-State agency officials told us that the interagency 

summit did not provide them with a sense of a strategy for how they should 

move forward with their own rightsizing plan to make sure that it does not 

conflict with State’s rightsizing efforts. Moreover, in the course of our 

structured interviews, 7 out of 20 management officers identified the need 

for interagency involvement and agency “buy-in” at the Washington, D.C., 

and post level to ensure that rightsizing can move ahead at each post. For 

example, one management officer with whom we spoke said that he would 

like to see a firm, written commitment from other agency headquarters, 

other than State, that consolidation of services is in the best interest of 

every agency and is expected of posts overseas. One post noted in its 

rightsizing report that the success of posts’ rightsizing studies is closely 

linked to interagency efforts to agree on initiatives to maximize efficiency 

at posts. In addition, another management officer with whom we spoke 

said that it would be helpful to have interagency guidance on what to do 

when eliminating duplicative services results in overall savings to the U.S. 

government, but increased costs to an agency, at the post level.

Some non-State agency officials said that it would be beneficial to have 

more frequent interagency meetings or summits, rather than just once a 

year. For example, a USAID official said that having an interagency summit 

before each rightsizing review cycle starts—one in the fall and another in 

the spring—could help inform non-State agencies of rightsizing changes 

and activities at posts that effect their agency overseas. The Director of the 

Office of Rightsizing told us that, while there are no immediate plans to 

hold more frequent interagency summits involving all agencies with an 

overseas presence, he plans to continue holding a rightsizing summit 
Page 29 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

annually. The Office of Rightsizing also reported that it plans to implement 

a Washington, D.C.-based forum whereby officials from foreign affairs 

agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, USAID, and the 

Department of Agriculture, can meet regularly to share information on 

programs and ensure that there is a greater consistency in the information 

coming from headquarters. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us 

that the office could be doing more with other non-State agencies to 

address rightsizing issues at posts, particularly on the issue of 

consolidation of functions, but would first like to address issues raised as 

part of the joint State–USAID shared services efforts. 

Office of Rightsizing 

Initiates Rightsizing 

Reviews, but Reviews 

Have Not Realized Full 

Potential

Post rightsizing reviews are a key element of State’s rightsizing efforts. 

These reviews are designed to link post staffing to the mission’s goals, 

eliminate unnecessary duplication, and encourage shared services between 

agencies at posts. Our analysis of the first round of the reviews showed that 

there was limited guidance to posts and that there was not a systematic 

process for how the posts structured their reviews, though State improved 

its guidance for the second round of reviews. In reviewing the first and 

second rightsizing cycles, the Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 

million dollars of cost savings or avoidance based on the result of their 

analysis of the reviews. Posts used a variety of methods to conduct their 

rightsizing reviews. Some management officers with whom we spoke 

identified various challenges in conducting their fall 2005 reviews and 

ensuring that their post is rightsized. Additionally, the Office of Rightsizing 

did not consider the need for posts to conduct a cost analysis as part of 

their reviews. It is unclear how the rightsizing review decisions, such as 

elimination of duplicative functions, will be implemented at each post, 

according to officials at post and in State’s regional bureaus. 

Rightsizing Review 

Structure and Guidance 

Have Evolved

In October 2004, the Office of Rightsizing began instructing overseas 

missions scheduled to receive a new embassy compound to perform 

rightsizing reviews. The reviews are intended to eliminate or justify any 

duplicative or parallel functions at posts and consider the possibility for 

reducing U.S. government employees at posts through such means as 

remote services, more utilization of locally employed staff, and 

outsourcing. Between late 2004 and summer 2005, about 35 posts 

participated in the first cycle of reviews, and the office conducted formal 

analyses of the posts’ reviews in late 2004 and early 2005. The Office of 

Rightsizing reported over $50 million in costs saved or avoided to the U.S. 
Page 30 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

government based on its analysis of the first cycle of reviews. Based on the 

analysis that the Office of Rightsizing conducted of post reviews 

representing eight new embassy compounds, the average reduction in desk 

positions for each project was 18, which resulted in 145 desk reductions 

overall.28 The office identified many of the removed desk positions in 

cooperation with posts and regional bureaus. According to the Office of 

Rightsizing, these desks represent significant partially or fully avoided 

costs. Of the 145 reduced positions, 50 were U.S. direct hires. Assuming an 

average saving of $400,000 per year for each position, the office estimated 

that these 50 positions represent as much as $20 million in potential costs 

avoided.29 Furthermore, the office stated that the desk positions removed 

represented approximately an additional $20 million in savings to the 

Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in capital security construction 

costs, as well as approximately $18 million in savings due to not needing to 

build separate annexes in three cases. The actual cost avoidance achieved 

will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be avoided and whether 

recommended staff reductions are implemented. 

However, based on our analysis of 20 out of about 35 rightsizing reviews 

that were part of the spring 2005 review cycle, we observed that there was 

not a systematic approach for how the posts structured their reports or 

how the Office of Rightsizing evaluated them. For example, the information 

presented within the reports varied from post to post, and the rightsizing 

elements that the posts evaluated and reported were not consistent. Some 

posts provided narratives discussing various rightsizing elements, such as 

outsourcing and post security, while other posts did not. Furthermore, we 

found that none of the posts showed that they had conducted a cost 

analysis as part of the post’s rightsizing efforts. In addition, we found that 

the Office of Rightsizing did not have a systematic process to quantify costs 

saved or avoided as a result of post staffing reductions stemming from 

reviews in the spring 2005 cycle. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing 

agreed that the office needs to implement a systematic process of 

collecting data and determining cost savings and cost avoidance for future 

28Desk positions were for U.S. direct hires and locally employed staff. A desk position refers 

to any position in a post where a desk or office space is needed. For example, an economic 

officer at a post would need a desk to work at, while a gardener or a driver would not.

29However, the Office of Rightsizing indicated that it is very difficult to make a judgment 

about the eventual disposition of an individual projected position that has been eliminated. 

In some cases, it might be possible and necessary to substitute a locally employed individual 

for a U.S. direct-hire position, or have a U.S. direct hire do the work in the United States, so 

the cost avoided could be less than the average cost of $400,000 per year for each position. 
Page 31 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

rightsizing cycles, and has asked the rightsizing analysts in the office to 

document the positions that are eliminated or costs saved due to posts 

taking rightsizing measures into consideration. Finally, we also found that, 

although the goal of the President’s Management Agenda and the Office of 

Rightsizing is to limit the overseas presence to the minimum level 

necessary to accomplish the U.S. government’s mission, overseas staffing is 

increasing. Our analysis of the 20 reviews from the spring 2005 cycle 

revealed that net staffing numbers will increase for 15 posts. Increased 

levels in staffing abroad can be attributed to high-priority national security 

interests, such as the global war on terror, anti-narcotics efforts, and 

HIV/AIDS projects, which have implications on U.S. staffing and space at 

posts abroad, according to the Office of Rightsizing as well as post 

management officers. 

The Director of the Office of Rightsizing agreed that the first round of 

reviews was not conducted systematically, and said that the process and 

format has evolved since the initial guidance was provided to posts for the 

spring 2005 cycle. In particular, based on feedback from posts that 

participated in the spring 2005 review cycle, the Office of Rightsizing 

changed the guidance to be more systematic for the fall 2005 cycle. All 

management officers that we interviewed at 20 posts which had conducted 

a review as part of the second cycle in fall 2005 stated that the guidance 

was either very useful or moderately useful, and several commented that 

the guidance was clear, succinct, and easy to discern. Table 3 below 

specifies the elements that the fall 2005 cycle posts were asked to address 

when completing their reviews. 
Page 32 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing Reviews, September 2005

Source: Office of Rightsizing.

a

In subsequent rightsizing cycles, “alternative sourcing” has been replaced by “competitive 

sourcing,” which is a methodical way of evaluating whether commercial services should be 

performed using government employees or contractors. 

b

The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations has reorganized and developed a planning 

tool, called the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan, to annually publish a 6-year plan that 

lays out projects, priorities, and costs for the upcoming year.

Seventeen of the twenty management officials with whom we spoke who 

conducted a rightsizing review in fall 2005 said that the review helped them 

better understand how post personnel meet mission objectives. When 

asked whether they had additional comments, several management officers 

stated that they found the review at their post to be a useful exercise. For 

example, a management officer posted in Eurasia stated that the review 

was an interesting and useful process, which helped the post focus on parts 

of the Mission Performance Plan that they would otherwise not have 

concentrated their efforts on. The Office of Rightsizing reported over $100 

million in costs saved or avoided to the U.S. government based on their 

analysis of the fall 2005 cycle of reviews. The estimate was based on an 

analysis that the Office of Rightsizing conducted of post reviews 

representing 21 missions. According to the office, its rightsizing efforts for 

Section Description

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

specific achievements in meeting the objectives. 

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

resource levels, and identify activities which require increased resources to achieve their objectives. 

Alternate sourcinga Identify all services which are currently outsourced including services that are contracted by the 

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

Regionalized services Identify all activities that are performed by regional or U.S. based government personnel such as 

financial management and human resources services.

Substitution of locally employed 

staff for U.S. direct-hire positions

Identify U.S. direct-hire positions for which locally employed staff may be substituted. 

Current and projected staffing Complete the summary staffing table, including all sections and/or agencies, showing current staffing 

levels, projected staffing levels, and the net change.

Long range overseas buildings 

plan staffing projectionsb

For posts receiving a new embassy compound, complete the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan 

spreadsheet, which should include a count of all projected staff, American and locally employed staff, 

desk and non-desk, controlled access areas and non-controlled access areas. For posts not receiving 

a new embassy compound, use the Capital Security Cost Sharing spreadsheet and add or reduce 

positions accordingly.

ICASS service matrix Complete the ICASS service matrix which should clearly show which services are provided to which 

agencies, and which are not. 
Page 33 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

the fall 2005 cycle will result in a potential reduction of 683 total desk 

spaces in new embassy compounds, of which 170 are U.S. direct hires. The 

Office of Rightsizing estimated that each eliminated U.S. direct-hire 

position would result in a cost avoidance of about $400,000. The actual cost 

avoidance achieved will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be 

avoided and whether recommended staff reductions are implemented. In 

addition, the Office of Rightsizing reported that the rightsizing actions for 

the fall 2005 cycle have resulted in approximately $90 million in savings to 

the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in capital security 

construction costs, which includes cost saved by not needing to build four 

annexes. Although we have not been able to independently assess the 

Office of Rightsizing’s estimates, it has presented evidence that some major 

cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Figure 5 illustrates the 

posts from the fall 2005 review cycle where we interviewed officials as part 

of our analysis. 
Page 34 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed

Dominican 

Republic 

Paraguay 

Chad 

Mozambique 

South Africa 

Zimbabwe 

Burundi 

Brunei 

Indonesia

Taiwan 

Italy 

Azerbaijan 

Iceland 

Romania 

Poland Ukraine 

R u s s ia 

Tunisia 

Pakistan 

Sri Lanka 

Source: GAO. 
Page 35 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Approach to Conducting 

Rightsizing Reviews Varies 

by Post

Posts used a variety of means to conduct their reviews. The approach used 

by 19 of the 20 posts (all of which were included in the fall 2005 review 

cycle where we interviewed officials) incorporated the participation of the 

post management officer, Deputy Chief of Mission, or both. The Office of 

Rightsizing suggested that posts, in conducting rightsizing reviews, use the 

ICASS Council, working groups, or any ad hoc arrangement as a vehicle for 

discussion and formulation of the report and corresponding data. In 

addition, the Office of Rightsizing instructed posts to include all State and 

non-State agencies, constituent posts, and embassy offices in the posts’ 

rightsizing analyses. However, posts took diverse approaches to carrying 

out their reviews. Some posts conducted their reviews using rightsizing 

committees, and others directed their review to existing goal oriented 

discussion groups such as those that created the post’s Mission 

Performance Plan. 

The Office of Rightsizing also offered posts the opportunity to participate 

in digital video conferences to answer any questions that they had about 

the review. However, officials at 13 of the 20 posts mentioned above stated 

that they did not participate in a video conference with the office. 

Management officers said that their posts did not participate because, 

among other reasons, they did not find it necessary; other posts did not 

have the technological capabilities to participate. Moreover, several posts 

did not participate in a digital video conference because officials did not 

think that the Office of Rightsizing required it. Nonetheless, the Director of 

the Office of Rightsizing stated that he found that those posts that took 

advantage of this option had more success with their rightsizing reviews; 

thus, starting with the spring 2006 cycle, the office will require that every 

post participate in a conference. He also stated that he hopes other nonState agencies will participate in video conferences as posts conduct their 

rightsizing reviews. Moreover, State, as well as the Office of Management 

and Budget, expects all agencies at each post to understand that rightsizing 

is government-wide and not just a State-oriented process. In the course of 

our structured interviews, 7 out of 20 management officers identified the 

need for interagency involvement, including agency “buy-in” to ensure that 

rightsizing can move ahead at each post. For example, a management 

officer in Europe stated that it would be very helpful if there was a onepage summary that non-State agency officials at each post received from 

their headquarters in Washington, D.C., that describes what they need to do 

as part of the rightsizing review. However, we found that the Office of 

Rightsizing provided posts with very little guidance on interagency 

participation. 
Page 36 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated that he also encourages 

posts to utilize the resources and knowledge within the office and 

recommends that posts, as they conduct the review, share sections of it 

with the office for feedback. The posts participating in the fall 2005 cycle 

generally took this approach, as 13 of 20 posts reported that they shared 

sections of their report with the office during the review process. The 

Office of Rightsizing also indicated that this approach may lead to more 

expeditious approval of reviews and that they will therefore strongly 

recommend that posts participating in the spring 2006 rightsizing cycle 

share sections of their report prior to final submission. Additionally, 15 

management officers we interviewed stated that sharing best practices 

with other posts through online forums or receiving a visit from an expert 

to help guide the post through the rightsizing review process would be very 

useful for enhancing the rightsizing review process. 

Posts Identified Challenges 

in Conducting Rightsizing 

Reviews

A number of management officers identified various challenges in 

conducting the reviews at their post, including resistance by non-State 

agencies at posts to address rightsizing measures. Another challenge 

mentioned was a lack of direction and opportunities for regionalization and 

outsourcing of services. In addition, overlapping data requests from 

agencies’ headquarters, as well as redundant personnel databases, 

complicated the review process. 

Resistance by Non-State 

Agencies at Posts

Several posts that conducted a fall 2005 rightsizing review stated that they 

encountered resistance from non-State agencies when trying to obtain 

interagency involvement during the process. Specifically, four post 

management officers stated that other agencies were not receptive to the 

request to conduct a rightsizing review. According to a management officer 

posted in Europe, non-State agencies at the post did not want to share 

information on future staffing numbers for the review. The management 

officer added that there was a lack of recognition by agencies that 

rightsizing was not just a State initiative, but a government-wide initiative. 

Moreover, some management officers explained that they had difficulties in 

getting agencies to buy into the rightsizing review process and faced 

interagency resistance regarding the consolidation of post services. 

Consolidation of services proved to be a common challenge at posts, as 14 

of the 20 management officers we interviewed identified duplication of 

post services or programs, such as motor pool and cashiering, as a result of 

the rightsizing review. Although these posts have identified duplicative 

services or programs, 10 of 20 management officers stated that the post has 

not taken action on consolidating the services and programs. According to 
Page 37 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

management officers, common reasons why some posts have not yet 

consolidated these duplicative functions is because they are waiting to 

merge their functions once they move into their new embassy compound or 

because the agencies at the post could not come to an agreement about 

consolidation. For example, a management officer posted in Africa stated 

that USAID headquarters provided its staff at the post with conflicting 

instructions about retaining duplicative administrative support services, 

which countered the ongoing efforts to eliminate duplicative services at the 

post.

Posts Lack Direction and 

Opportunities for the 

Regionalization and Outsourcing 

of Services 

Several posts that participated in the spring and fall 2005 cycle of reviews 

stated that they lacked direction and opportunities for the regionalization 

and outsourcing of services. The guidance for the rightsizing review 

requested posts to consider regionalization options. However, while 18 of 

20 posts we interviewed stated that they rely on regional support services 

to meet posts’ needs, a few management officers indicated that they found 

it difficult to consider all regionalization options without having a base 

understanding of what regional services are available. For example, 

management officers posted in Asia and Africa stated that they lack 

information on what types of regional support could be provided remotely 

and how to access that support. Another management officer in Eurasia 

stated that posts should be provided a baseline listing of services so that 

post officials have a good sense of which services are available regionally. 

Though posts were instructed to assess outsourcing possibilities within 

their reviews, several posts that participated in the spring 2005 cycle of 

rightsizing reviews reported that outsourcing of services is not a good 

alternative due to the lack of choice, quality, and sophistication in the 

marketplace. Another management officer posted in Asia, whose post 

participated in the fall 2005 cycle of reviews, stated that outsourcing is a 

concept that the post is not accustomed to using and that the rightsizing 

review led them to examine which post functions can be outsourced. To 

ascertain current outsourced functions at posts, State’s Office of Global 

Support Services and Innovation administered an outsourcing survey to 

which 119 posts responded. According to the survey results, the services 

most likely to be outsourced were copier maintenance as well as packing 

and shipping, while those services least likely to be outsourced were 

procurement, property management, and phone billing. Officials at the 

Office of Global Support Services and Innovation stated that the results of 

the survey will serve as the Office of Rightsizing’s baseline for outsourcing. 
Page 38 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Rightsizing Reviews Overlap 

with Additional State Data 

Requests

All of the management officers we interviewed stated that, within the last 2 

years, they have received other requests or reviews from agency 

headquarters seeking information similar to that requested for the 

rightsizing review. Ten of twenty management officers we interviewed 

identified the Mission Performance Plan as another headquarters request 

for information similar to that of the rightsizing review, and several of these 

posts indicated that there was a high degree of overlap between these two 

data requests. Moreover, more than half of the management officers 

indicated that there was a high or moderate degree of overlap between the 

rightsizing review and other requests from the Bureau of Overseas 

Buildings Operations, such as the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program 

and the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan data requests. 

As explained by several posts, it was difficult to complete and keep track of 

all of these overlapping data requests given the limited resources at each 

post. For example, a management officer at a post in Africa stated that it 

took approximately 3 months to complete the Capital Security Cost Sharing 

request and approximately 2 months to complete the Mission Performance 

Plan, with both requests requiring interagency staff collaboration. The 

officer added that the post did not have time to focus on all of the requests 

tasked to the post. Another management officer in Africa stated that the 

post would have liked to have one database that was responsive to the 

needs of all the requests from headquarters. In addition, 5 of the 20 posts 

that we interviewed stated that it would be beneficial to streamline the 

rightsizing review by including it with other data and information requests,

and, moreover, several management officers stated that the rightsizing 

review should draw from information that currently exists in databases 

that are centrally located in Washington, D.C.

The Office of Rightsizing has recognized the need for a single database and 

told us that State has been working on developing an integrated Post 

Personnel database. According to State officials, this database is expected 

to populate all other databases currently maintained by overseas posts to 

ensure all databases contain the same information. Furthermore, Office of 

Rightsizing officials stated that—once there is one authoritative database 

for all staffing data—they will no longer rely on multiple databases and, 

therefore, will not have to spend as much time verifying overseas staffing 

numbers projected in rightsizing reviews.
Page 39 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Cost Analysis Was Not a 

Primary Factor in 

Rightsizing Reviews

The Office of Rightsizing did not consider the need for posts to conduct 

cost analyses as an essential supplement to the spring 2005 and fall 2005 

reviews. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated that he did not 

want the post reviews to become a cost cutting exercise, but rather to 

focus more on identifying the needed resources to meet the posts’ mission 

and goals and justify current and projected staffing compositions. 

Moreover, he stated that actual cost savings at the post level would be hard 

to determine and that sometimes rightsizing requires an increase in staff. 

The guidance for the spring 2005 and fall 2005 rightsizing reviews did not 

require posts to evaluate costs or perform cost analyses for the review 

process. While none of the 20 post reports we reviewed for the spring 2005 

cycle illustrated within their rightsizing report the results of a cost analysis 

in association with rightsizing efforts at posts, 11 of 20 posts for the fall 

2005 cycle told us that they conducted some or limited cost analyses for 

various post staffing scenarios, such as the outsourcing of services and 

substitution of locally engaged staff for U.S. direct-hire positions. In 

addition, one management officer stated that the post conducted an 

analysis to determine which service provider at the post would be more 

cost effective. However, a management officer stated that it was difficult to 

perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost effectiveness of service 

providers because the post did not have comparable data for each provider. 

Moreover, another management officer in Asia stated that the post’s cost 

analysis was not comprehensive because post staff did not have the 

necessary expertise to conduct such an analysis. Moreover, a management 

officer added that the post would need more guidance if it were to conduct 

a formal cost analysis with accurate cost data. 
Page 40 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

With the upcoming cycles of reviews, the Office of Rightsizing is 

increasingly emphasizing the need to consider costs associated with 

rightsizing. For example, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing directed 

that additional analyses should be undertaken by posts to determine the 

overall cost impact to the U.S. government and all customer agencies 

before actual consolidation of shared administrative support services can 

occur. This analysis should also assess whether the formation of the single 

service provider will, over time, be a more viable and effective option for 

the U.S. government. The Office of Rightsizing has not yet provided formal 

guidance to posts on how to conduct an analysis to determine the most 

cost effective service provider, but it is continually developing its guidance 

for posts, and in particular, has developed guidance for a rightsizing 

competitive sourcing business case analysis, which is being incorporated 

into the spring 2006 cycle of reviews.30 Subsequently, all posts will be 

required to complete this cost module as part of their rightsizing reviews, 

according to the Office of Rightsizing. 

Implementation of 

Rightsizing Review Results 

Unclear

Some management officials we interviewed, as well as officials in State’s 

regional bureaus, were unclear about the outcomes of the reviews. 

Although the reviews are intended to eliminate or justify any duplicative or 

parallel functions at posts and consider the possibility for reducing U.S. 

government employees at each post, some executive directors in State’s 

regional bureaus pointed out that there is no implementation plan with 

timelines to track rightsizing-related changes that have been identified. 

Most executive directors in regional bureaus believe that it should be the 

Office of Rightsizing’s responsibility to follow-up with posts to ensure 

resources have been consolidated in line with rightsized staffing levels, 

while one executive director in a regional bureau believes that it should be 

both the Office of Rightsizing as well as the bureau’s own responsibility. 

The Office of Rightsizing stated that it has informed posts what their 

staffing configurations should be as a result of their reviews and that it is 

the post’s responsibility to carry out corresponding staffing changes. 

Furthermore, the office has asked posts to include the distribution of 

services and schedules of when consolidation will occur within their 

30The competitive sourcing module was developed to address State’s Program Assessment 

Rating Tool obligation. A Program Assessment Rating Tool review helps identify a program’s 

strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making 

the program more effective.
Page 41 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Mission Performance Plans. The office also expects posts to establish 

reduction in force plans, which, according to the Office of Rightsizing, 

should consider attrition, retirement, and vacant positions. Moreover, 

Office of Rightsizing officials stated that they are planning to send a yearly 

cable to posts that have already completed rightsizing reviews to remind 

them of the need to meet agreed-upon staffing levels and to ensure that 

rightsizing action has been taken before the post moves into a new 

embassy compound. In early May 2006, the Director of the Office of 

Rightsizing told us that, in lieu of sending a cable, his office will be tasking 

posts that conducted reviews in the spring and fall 2005 cycles to develop a 

rightsizing action plan leading up to the completion of their new embassy 

compound. However, as of May 9, 2006, the office has not sent an action 

plan tasking to posts. 

As the Office of Rightsizing expects posts to develop their own rightsizing 

implementation plan, some posts may not adhere to the staffing figures 

agreed upon within their reviews. Specifically, some management officers 

we interviewed stated that their posts are waiting to move into a new 

embassy compound before taking any action to configure their post 

staffing numbers. For example, a management officer posted in Asia stated 

that the post’s plan to configure the staffing numbers as reflected in the 

rightsizing review is not connected to any immediate time frame, but rather 

will happen when the post moves into the new embassy compound. 

Another management officer stated that, because the construction of the 

post’s new embassy compound has been postponed, and because agencies 

at the post have not agreed to the staffing changes made by the Office of 

Rightsizing, no immediate post staffing changes are being contemplated. In 

addition to a lack of an implementation plan for those posts receiving a 

new embassy compound, it is also unclear what approach or incentives the 

Office of Rightsizing will use to enforce implementation of rightsizing 

measures for those posts not scheduled to receive a new embassy 

compound. According to an official in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 

Operations, it is important for posts to have an implementation plan of how 

they will reconfigure their staffing, particularly for those posts that will be 

moving into a new embassy compound, because the new embassy or 

consulate will be built based on the staffing numbers approved by the 

Office of Rightsizing for that post. 

Conclusion Progress has been made in implementing the President's Management 

Agenda initiative to rightsize the U.S. government’s overseas presence at 

embassies and consulates. Agencies are generally adjusting their presence 
Page 42 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

based on mission, security, and cost factors. State is seeking ways to 

reduce support staff overseas and overseas posts are conducting 

rightsizing reviews required by legislation. Moreover, after a slow start, 

State’s Office of Rightsizing is beginning to achieve momentum in 

coordinating government-wide rightsizing efforts. However, more needs to 

be done. Of foremost importance is the need to develop accurate staffing 

data with which to measure staffing trends and the effects of rightsizing 

activities. We recognize that efforts are currently under way to develop 

accurate data; however because of the importance of having accurate data 

on overseas staffing and the length of time it has taken to develop this data, 

management oversight may be needed to ensure completion of this task. 

State’s Office of Rightsizing also needs to aggressively reach out to 

agencies at the headquarters level, and to overseas posts, to ensure that the 

positive initiatives under way are implemented effectively. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure that the U.S. government’s overseas presence under chief of 

mission authority is accurately accounted for and to ensure that the U.S. 

government’s rightsizing goals are being coordinated and that posts can 

maximize savings and gain efficiencies through rightsizing, we recommend 

that the Secretary of State take the following three actions:

• Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a single 

database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel staffing 

numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and 

agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date;

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

agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share information 

on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous basis; and

• Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the 

agreed upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include 

developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining 

and eliminating duplicative functions. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State’s comments, 

along with our responses to them, can be found in appendix V. State 

indicated that it has either recently implemented or is taking steps to 

implement all of our recommendations. 
Page 43 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

We received technical comments from State, the Departments of Homeland 

Security, the Treasury, Defense, and Justice and USAID, which we have 

incorporated throughout the report, where appropriate. In addition, the 

Department of Justice stated that it endorses our recommendation that 

State continue to expand its outreach to agencies and departments with an 

overseas presence to enhance discussion and information sharing on 

rightsizing initiatives. Furthermore, the Department of the Treasury stated 

that it would be helpful if agencies with personnel at posts developing 

rightsizing action plans have the opportunity for their personnel to 

participate in the rightsizing reviews and the development of the action 

plans. 

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

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

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

interested members of Congress, the Library of Congress, and the 

Secretary of State. 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) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in 

appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 44 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To ascertain the size of the U.S. government’s overseas presence we spoke 

with officials in State Department’s (State) Office of Rightsizing the U.S. 

Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) and the Executive 

Director of State’s Bureau of Human Resources; we also discussed the 

limitations that State faces in portraying an accurate number for the 

overseas presence. In addition, we spoke with an official in the Office of 

Management and Budget to determine the methodology used to report the 

size and cost of the overseas presence. To determine the U.S. government’s 

efforts to rightsize its overseas presence we spoke with officials at a 

number of agencies in Washington, D.C., that have a presence at overseas 

posts. We spoke with officials from the the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice; as well 

as officials from the General Services Administration and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development. In addition, we reviewed staffing 

documents from numerous agencies, reports by State’s Office of Inspector 

General, and rightsizing documents from State’s Office of Rightsizing. We 

did not conduct a comprehensive review of each agencies’ rightsizing 

efforts. 

We spoke with officials in the Office of Rightsizing about the rightsizing 

process and reviewed rightsizing guidance and related documentation. We 

reviewed and analyzed nine Mission Performance Plans for fiscal year 

2007, which we were able to obtain from State, to determine whether 

rightsizing considerations were reported in the plans. We also spoke with 

officials in each State regional bureau—Western Hemisphere Affairs, 

European and Eurasian Affairs, African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific 

Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and South and Central Asian Affairs—to 

gauge their involvement with post rightsizing reviews and their interaction 

with the Office of Rightsizing. In addition, we spoke with officials in State’s 

Office of Global Support Services and Innovation about State’s initiatives 

on regionalization and shared services. To determine costs saved or 

avoided as a result of rightsizing exercises, we reviewed cost data from 

State’s Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 

Operations. To assess the reliability of State’s data, we interviewed officials 

in the Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 

Operations to ascertain how the data were captured and analyzed and 

whether there were any limitations to the data. We determined the data to 

be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

To determine if there was a systematic process for reporting information in 

the first cycle of reviews, we reviewed and analyzed 20 out of about 35 

rightsizing reviews that were conducted by posts from late 2004 through 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 45 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

summer 2005. The Office of Rightsizing provided us with over 20 reviews 

for our analysis. However, we analyzed only those reviews for which we 

had received both the post rightsizing review as well as the corresponding 

analysis of the review conducted by the Office of Rightsizing. Between 

February 2006 and March 2006 we administered 20 structured interviews 

regarding post rightsizing review experiences. The interviews were 

conducted by telephone primarily with management counselors or officers 

at embassies. In one case we spoke with the Deputy Chief of Mission at the 

post. The interviews involved 20 of the 22 posts that were part of the fall 

2005 cycle and which had completed their rightsizing reviews by the time 

we talked to the post. The posts were located in: Asuncion, Baku, Bandar 

Seri Begawan, Bucharest, Bujumbura, Colombo, Harare, Jakarta, 

Islamabad, Kiev, Warsaw, Maputo, N’djamena, Pretoria, Reykjavik, Rome, 

Santo Domingo, Moscow, Taipei, and Tunis. We did not conduct interviews 

with two posts—Monrovia and Ankara—because these posts did not follow 

through with our request for interviews.

The structured interview contained open- and closed-ended questions 

about guidance, timing, the review process, rightsizing considerations, 

headquarters’ involvement and feedback, and the impact of the review on 

the post. We developed the interview questions based on our review of 

rightsizing documentation and discussions with post officials during our 

fieldwork in Mexico City and Valletta. We provided an early version of the 

questions to the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of Global Support 

Services and Innovation for their review and comment, and we also 

pretested the interview with three current management officers to ensure 

that the questions were clear and could be answered. We modified the 

interview questions on the basis of the pretest results and an internal 

expert’s technical review. We provided the management officers and 

Deputy Chief of Mission with the interview questions in advance to allow 

them time to gather any data or information necessary for the interview. We 

initiated follow-up discussions with 13 posts by telephone. We 

subsequently sent posts follow-up questions by E-mail if we were not able 

to reach them by telephone. The responses of the structured interviews are 

not intended to be representative of all posts. We did not talk with 

management officers or look at rightsizing reviews for those posts that 

were part of the spring 2006 review cycle. 

We conducted fieldwork at the embassies in Mexico City, Mexico, and 

Valletta, Malta; and the consulate in Frankfurt, Germany, to gain a better 

understanding of the rightsizing process. We chose these posts because 

both Mexico City and Valletta had been asked by the Office of Rightsizing 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 46 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

to conduct a rightsizing review as part of the spring 2005 cycle. We chose to 

visit Frankfurt because the consulate had conducted an informal 

rightsizing exercise in response to a report from State’s Office of Inspector 

General and because it is a regional hub in Europe. At each post we met 

with State officials as well as other agency officials involved in the 

rightsizing process to discuss their approach and outcomes of the review. 

In addition, we met with the Ambassadors in Mexico City and Valletta, as 

well as the Consul General in Frankfurt to understand their views and 

involvement in the rightsizing process. 

We conducted our work from May 2005 through May 2006, in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 47 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix II

GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at 

U.S. Embassies and Consulates ApendxiI

GAO, Overseas Presence: Observations on a Rightsizing Framework, 

GAO-02-659T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002).

GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff Levels 

Can Support Rightsizing Initiatives, GAO-02-780 (Washington, D.C.: July 

26, 2002).

GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Framework Can Be Applied at U.S. 

Diplomatic Posts in Developing Countries, GAO-03-396 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 7, 2003).

GAO, Embassy Construction: Process for Determining Staffing 

Requirements Needs Improvement, GAO-03-411 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 

2003).

GAO, Overseas Presence: Systematic Processes Needed to Rightsize Posts 

and Guide Embassy Construction, GAO-03-582T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 

2003).

GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Is Key to Considering Relocation of 

Regional Staff to New Frankfurt Center, GAO-03-1061 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 2, 2003).

GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed to Increase Efficiency 

and Improve Delivery of Administrative Support Services, GAO-04-511

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004). 

GAO, Embassy Construction: Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could 

Speed Construction and Reduce Staff Levels, but Some Agencies Have 

Concerns, GAO-05-32 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004).

GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are 

Needed to Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support 

Remotely, GAO-06-479 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006). 
Page 48 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix III

GAO Rightsizing Framework and 

Corresponding Questions ApendxiI

This appendix lists the questions pertaining to mission, security, and cost 

that we developed in 2002 to help support rightsizing initiatives for existing 

facilities overseas.

Physical/Technical Security of Facilities and Employees

What is the threat and security profile of the embassy?

Has the ability to protect personnel been a factor in determining staffing 

levels at the embassy?

To what extent are existing office buildings secure?

Is existing space being optimally utilized?

Have all practical options for improving the security of facilities been 

considered?

Do issues involving facility security put the staff at an unacceptable level of 

risk or limit mission accomplishment?

What is the capacity level of the host country police, military, and 

intelligence services?

Do security vulnerabilities suggest the need to reduce or relocate staff?

Do health conditions in the host country pose personal security concerns 

that limit the number of employees that should be assigned to the post?

Mission Priorities and Requirements

What are the staffing levels and mission of each agency?

How do agencies determine embassy staffing levels?

Is there an adequate justification for the number of employees at each 

agency compared with the agency’s mission?

Is there adequate justification for the number of direct-hire personnel 

devoted to support and administrative operations?
Appendix III

GAO Rightsizing Framework and 

Corresponding Questions

Page 49 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

What are the priorities of the embassy?1

Does each agency’s mission reinforce embassy priorities?

To what extent are mission priorities not being sufficiently addressed due 

to staffing limitations or other impediments?

To what extent are workload requirements validated and prioritized, and is 

the embassy able to balance them with core functions?

Do the activities of any agencies overlap?

Given embassy priorities and the staffing profile, are increases in the 

number of existing staff or additional agency representation needed?

To what extent is it necessary for each agency to maintain its current 

presence in-country, given the scope of its responsibilities and its mission?

Could an agency’s mission be pursued in other ways?

Does an agency have regional responsibilities or is its mission entirely 

focused on the host country?

Cost of Operations

What is the embassy’s total annual operating cost?

What are the operating costs for each agency at the embassy?

To what extent are agencies considering the full cost of operations in 

making staffing decisions?

To what extent are costs commensurate with overall embassy strategic 

importance, with agency programs, and with specific products and 

services?

1

Embassy priorities are the U.S. government’s priorities in that country.
Appendix III

GAO Rightsizing Framework and 

Corresponding Questions

Page 50 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Consideration of Rightsizing Options

What are the security, mission, and cost implications of relocating certain 

functions to the United States, regional centers, or to other locations, such 

as commercial space or host-country counterpart agencies?

To what extent could agency program and/or routine administrative 

functions (procurement, logistics, and financial management functions) be 

handled from a regional center or other locations?

Do new technologies and transportation links offer greater opportunities 

for operational support from other locations?

Do the host country and regional environments suggest there are options 

for doing business differently, that is, are there adequate transportation and 

communications links and a vibrant private sector?

To what extent is it practical to purchase embassy services from the private 

sector?

Does the ratio of support staff to program staff at the embassy suggest 

opportunities for streamlining?

Can functions be reengineered to provide greater efficiencies and reduce 

requirements for personnel?

Are there best practices of other bilateral embassies or private 

corporations that could be adapted by the U.S. embassy?

To what extent are there U.S. or host country legal, policy, or procedural 

obstacles that may impact the feasibility of rightsizing options?
Page 51 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule ApendxiIV

Table 4 illustrates the 5-year rightsizing schedule, by fiscal year, that the 

Office of Rightsizing has developed. The schedule also depicts those posts 

that are proposed to receive a new embassy compound (NEC) and the 

fiscal year that the facilities are scheduled to be built. 

Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule

Mission Planned capital projects

Fiscal year 2005

Bosnia and Herzegovina Sarajevo NEC FY06

Burkina Faso Ouagadougou NEC FY07

Congo, Democratic Republic of Kinshasa NEC FY07

Congo, Republic of Brazzaville NEC FY06

Djibouti Djibouti NEC FY06

Ethiopia Addis Ababa NEC FY07

Fiji Suva NEC FY05

Gabon Libreville NEC FY06

Georgia Tbilisi Annex FY06

Indonesia Surabaya NEC FY06

Latvia Riga NEC FY07

Lebanon Beirut NEC FY06

Macedonia Skopje Annex, Warehouse, and Marine 

Security Guard Quarters FY06

Madagascar Antanarivo NEC FY07

Malta Valletta NEC FY08

Mexico Mexico City NEC FY06

Tijuana NEC FY10

Micronesia Interim Office Building FY05

Nigeria Abuja Annex FY06

Norway Oslo NEC FY07

Palau Interim Office Building FY05

Philippines Manila NEC FY07

South Africa Johannesburg NEC FY06

Sudan Khartoum Annex and Marine Security Guard 

Quarters FY06

Juba NEC FY07

Yugoslavia Belgrade NEC FY07

Zambia Lusaka NEC FY07
Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule

Page 52 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Fiscal year 2006

Algeria

Azerbaijan Baku NEC FY08

Bermuda

Brazil

Brunei Bandar Seri Begawan NEC FY08

Burundi Bujumbura NEC FY09

Chad N’djamena NEC FY09

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Denmark

Dominican Republic Santo Domingo NEC and Annex FY09

Eritrea Asmara NEC FY09

Finland

Germany

Holy See

Iceland

Indonesia Jakarta NEC FY09

Ireland

Italy Milan MEC FY09

Jordan

Korea Seoul NEC FY09

Liberia Monrovia NEC FY08

Libya Tripoli NEC FY08

Luxembourg

Malaysia

Morocco

Mozambique Maputo NEC and Annex FY08

New Zealand

Pakistan Karachi NEC FY08

Peshawar NEC FY08

Paraguay Asuncion NEC FY08

Poland Krakow NEC FY08

Romania Bucharest NEC FY09

Russia St. Petersburg NEC FY09

Saudi Arabia Jeddah NEC FY08

(Continued From Previous Page)

Mission Planned capital projects
Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule

Page 53 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Riyadh NEC FYa

Dhahran NEC FYa

Singapore

South Africa Pretoria Annex FY08

Sri Lanka Colombo NEC FY09

Switzerland

Taiwan Taipei NEC FY07

Tunisia Tunis Language School FY09

Turkey Ankara NEC FY09

Ukraine Kiev NEC and Annex FY09

United Kingdom

U.S. Mission to the United Nations 

Agencies for Food and Agriculture, Rome

U.S. Permanent Mission to the United 

Nations Office and Other International 

Organizations in Geneva

Zimbabwe Harare NEC and Annex FY08

Fiscal year 2007

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Benin Cotonou NEC and Annex FY10

Botswana

Burma

Canada Toronto NEC FY10

Cape Verde

China Guangzhou NEC FY08

Shanghai NEC FYa

East Timor Dili NEC FY10

Equatorial Guinea

Estonia

Grenada

Guinea

Guinea Bissau

Guyana

(Continued From Previous Page)

Mission Planned capital projects
Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule

Page 54 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Hong Kong

India Calcutta NEC FY11

Chennai NEC FY10

Hyderabad NEC FYa

Israel Tel Aviv NEC and Annex FY10

Jerusalem Jerusalem NEC FY10

Kenya

U.S. Permanent Mission to United Nations 

Environment Program and United Nations 

Center for Human Settlements, Nairobi

Kosovo Pristina NEC FY10

Kyrgyzstan

Lithuania

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania Nouakchott NEC FY10

Mauritius

Mongolia

Nepal

Sierra Leone

Slovak Republic Bratislava NEC FY10

Slovenia

Surinam Paramaribo NEC FY10

Syria Damascus NEC FY10

Tajikistan

Thailand Chiang Mai NEC FY10

Turkmenistan

Uruguay

U.S. Mission to the International Civil 

Aviation Organization, Montreal

Vietnam Hanoi NEC FY

Fiscal year 2008

Angola

Argentina Buenos Aires NEC FY11

Armenia

Australia

Belgium

(Continued From Previous Page)

Mission Planned capital projects
Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule

Page 55 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Bolivia

Brazil Rio de Janeiro LFO FY11

Cambodia

Cameroon

Central African Republic Bangui NEC FY11

Cote d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cuba

Czech Republic

Ecuador Guayaquil LFO FY11

France

Gambia

Ghana

Greece Thessaloniki NEC FYa

Guatemala

Laos Vientiane NEC FY11

Lesotho

Moldova Chisinau NEC FY11

Namibia Windhoek NEC FY11

Netherlands The Hague NEC FY11

Netherlands Antilles

Niger

Oman

Panama

Senegal Dakar NEC & Annex FY11

Seychelles

Spain Madrid NEC FY11

Swaziland Mbabane NEC FY11

Tanzania

Togo

Trinidad and Tobago

United Arab Emirates Dubai NEC FY11

U.S. Mission to the European Union

U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization

U.S. Mission to the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Paris

(Continued From Previous Page)

Mission Planned capital projects
Appendix IV

The Office of Rightsizing’s Five-Year 

Rightsizing Schedule

Page 56 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Source: Office of Rightsizing. 

a

The Office of Rightsizing does not yet know the scheduled date of the capital project.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization, Paris

Fiscal year 2009

Afghanistan

Albania

Austria

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Egypt

El Salvador

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iraq

Jamaica

Japan

Kazakhstan

Kuwait

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Nicaragua

Niger

Papua New Guinea

Peru

Portugal

Qatar

Rwanda

(Continued From Previous Page)

Mission Planned capital projects
Page 57 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 58 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

See comment 1.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 59 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 60 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 61 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 62 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

See comment 8.

See comment 9.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 63 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 64 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 65 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

The following are our comments on State’s letter dated June 9, 2006.

GAO Comments 1. We modified our text to show that, although we have not been able to 

independently assess the Office of Rightsizing’s estimates, it has 

presented evidence to show that some major cost avoidance and cost 

savings have occurred.

2. We recognize that State has a standard methodology by which it 

performs cost analyses using the International Cooperative 

Administrative Support Services software. However, when we talked 

with management officers at posts that had conducted a rightsizing 

review, we were informed that these posts did not have comparable 

cost data for each service provider. In addition, we were informed that 

the posts did not have the necessary tools to make informed decisions 

about how to conduct analysis to determine the most cost effective 

service provider.

3. We provided the draft report to State on May 18, 2006. About two weeks 

later, State instructed posts to develop implementation action plans. We 

believe that the action that the Office of Rightsizing has taken largely 

addresses our recommendation. However, until the Office of 

Rightsizing has received all implementation action plans with the posts’ 

milestones, due on July 18, 2006, the office will not know what 

additional action might still be needed to ensure that posts meet the 

agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews.

4. We understand that if a position is eliminated at a post it is not counted 

as part of Capital Security Cost Sharing. Our statement was simply 

meant to illustrate that eliminated or vacant positions could be 

reflected in databases used to count overseas staffing numbers.

5. Our statement reflects non-State agency views. We have amended the 

draft by attributing the statement to non-State agency officials. In 

addition our statement reflects information we obtained from a 

February 2006 State cable to all posts about staffing data and position 

charges under Capital Security Cost Sharing. 

6. We have modified our text to illustrate the varying estimates of the size 

of the U.S. overseas presence. We have received numerous conflicting 

estimates on the number of U.S. government officials overseas. One 

source estimated that there are approximately 66,000 U.S. government 
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of State

Page 66 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

personnel under chief of mission authority, while another indicated that 

there are approximately 69,000. We understand that some of the 

numbers may come from different estimates and data sources. State’s 

discussion on staffing data illustrates the difficulty of obtaining an 

accurate count of overseas personnel. We recognize that that there are 

vacant positions and that the total number of positions is higher than 

the number of filled positions. We also note in our report that State is in 

the process of eliminating vacant positions. It is important that State 

continue to update its staffing database to ensure that a more accurate 

accounting of U.S. government personnel overseas is available. 

7. We acknowledge that State has sent several messages since 2004 to 

posts instructing them that Post Personnel is the official database for 

documenting all U.S. government staffing overseas. However, in 

February 2006, State reported that not all posts are using Post 

Personnel as their main human resources system. In addition, we were 

told that the guidance provided to posts did not include accountability 

mechanisms for ensuring that the staffing information is updated and 

complete.

8. It is important that all components of each agency receive information 

from the Office of Rightsizing that pertains to rightsizing review efforts 

and initiatives. During the course of our work at the Department of 

Homeland Security it became clear that certain components within the 

department had not received information on rightsizing. We understand 

that the Department of Homeland Security has a central focal point that 

the Office of Rightsizing works with. The Department of Homeland 

Security and the Office of Rightsizing share responsibility in ensuring 

that agency components are receiving the necessary information to 

ensure that rightsizing efforts are understood. We have modified the 

text to indicate that the Office of Rightsizing was asked by the 

Department of Homeland Security to coordinate through one focal 

point.

9. We believe that the actions and measures that the Office of Rightsizing 

is taking, particularly the Interagency Rightsizing Summit, are useful 

steps to implementing our recommendation. However, based on our 

discussions with non-State agencies, we maintain that more outreach is 

needed pertaining to areas involving rightsizing review efforts, strategy, 

and vision.
Page 67 GAO-06-737 Overseas Rightsizing

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Jess Ford (202) 512-4128

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant 

Director, Ann Baker, Joseph Carney, Virginia Chanley, Lyric Clark, Martin 

De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Beth Hoffman León, Ernie Jackson, Andrea 

Miller, and Deborah Owolabi made key contributions to this report.

(320338)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548