GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight 

of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Comprehensive Plan 

Needed to Address 

Persistent Foreign 

Language Shortfalls 

September 2009 

GAO-09-955 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent 

Foreign Language Shortfalls

Highlights of GAO-09-955, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

As of October 31, 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service officers in overseas 

language-designated positions (LDP) did not meet both the foreign languages 

speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions. State 

continues to face foreign language shortfalls in regions of strategic interest—

such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, where about 40 percent of 

officers in LDPs did not meet requirements. Despite efforts to recruit 

individuals with proficiency in critical languages, shortfalls in supercritical 

languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, remain at 39 percent. Past reports by 

GAO, State’s Office of the Inspector General, and others have concluded that 

foreign language shortfalls could be negatively affecting U.S. activities 

overseas. Overseas fieldwork for this report reaffirmed this conclusion. 

State’s approach to meeting its foreign language requirements includes an 

annual review of all LDPs, language training, recruitment of languageproficient staff, and pay incentives for language skills. For example, State 

trains staff in about 70 languages in Washington and overseas, and has 

reported a training success rate of 86 percent. Moreover, State offers bonus 

points for language-proficient applicants who have passed the Foreign Service 

exam and has hired 445 officers under this program since 2004. However, 

various challenges limit the effectiveness of these efforts. According to State, 

a primary challenge is overall staffing shortages, which limit the number of 

staff available for language training, as well as the recent increase in LDPs. 

State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements have yielded some 

results but have not closed persistent gaps and reflect, in part, a lack of a 

comprehensive, strategic approach. State officials have said that the 

department’s plan for meeting its foreign language requirements is spread 

throughout a number of documents that address these needs; however these 

documents are not linked to each other and do not contain measurable goals, 

objectives, or milestones for reducing the foreign language gaps. Because 

these gaps have persisted over several years despite staffing increases, we 

believe that a more comprehensive, strategic approach would help State to 

more effectively guide its efforts and assess its progress in meeting its foreign 

language requirements. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Western

Hemisphere

South/

Central

Asia

Africa East Asia Europe Near East

Positions

Location

Vacant LDPs

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

LDPs filled by officers who don't

meet requirements

LDPs filled by officers meeting

requirements

Proficiency in foreign languages is 

a key skill for U.S. diplomats to 

advance U.S. interests overseas. 

GAO has issued several reports 

highlighting the Department of 

State’s (State) persistent foreign 

language shortages. In 2006, GAO 

recommended that State evaluate 

the effectiveness of its efforts to 

improve the language proficiency 

of its staff. State responded by 

providing examples of activities it 

believed addressed our 

recommendation. In this report, 

which updates the 2006 report, 

GAO (1) examined the extent to 

which State is meeting its foreign 

language requirements and the 

potential impact of any shortfall, 

(2) assessed State’s efforts to meet 

its foreign language requirements 

and described the challenges it 

faces in doing so, and (3) assessed 

the extent to which State has a 

comprehensive strategy to 

determine and meet these 

requirements. GAO analyzed data 

on State’s overseas languagedesignated positions; reviewed 

strategic planning and budgetary 

documents; interviewed State 

officials; and conducted fieldwork 

in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and 

Turkey. 

What GAO Recommends

To address State’s persistent 

foreign language shortfalls, GAO 

recommends that the Secretary of 

State develop a comprehensive, 

strategic plan that links all of 

State’s efforts to meet its foreign 

language requirements. State 

generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

View GAO-09-955 or key components.

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-955 

Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

State Continues to Face Shortfalls in Meeting Its Foreign Language 

Requirements, with Potentially Adverse Effects on Department 

Operations 8 

State Efforts to Meet Foreign Language Requirements, Which 

Include Training, Recruitment, and Incentives, Face Several 

Challenges 16 

State Lacks a Comprehensive Strategic Plan to Address Foreign 

Language Requirements 25 

Conclusions 27 

Recommendations for Executive Action 27 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 30 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 32 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36 

Tables 

Table 1: Overseas Language-Designated Positions, by Language 

Type and Region as of October 31, 2008 6 

Table 2: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements 7 

Table 3. Examples of the Potential Impact of Language Shortfalls 

from GAO Fieldwork, Previous GAO Reports, and Reports 

by Other Organizations 14 

 Department of State 
Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Overseas LDPs Filled by Officers Meeting the 

Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the 

Requirements, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2008 9 

Figure 2: Number of Overseas LDPs, by Region, Filled by Officers 

Meeting the Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not 

Meet the Requirements, and Vacant, as of October 31, 

2008 11 

Figure 3: Percentage of Foreign Service Officers Who Do Not Meet 

the Language Requirements for Their Positions, by 

Language Type and Selected Languages 12 

Abbreviations 

FSI Foreign Service Institute 

FSO Foreign Service officer 

HR Bureau of Human Resources 

ILR Interagency Language Roundtable 

LDP language-designated position 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

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. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-955 Department of State
Page 1 GAO-09-955 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 17, 2009 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

 Management, the Federal Workforce, 

 and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. Foreign Service 

officers (FSO) to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests 

overseas. The Department of State (State) seeks to develop employees 

who are able to competently and credibly convey America’s message to 

foreign audiences and understand the perspectives of our interlocutors in 

foreign languages and requires foreign language proficiency for thousands 

of positions overseas. In 2008, approximately 45 percent of all Foreign 

Service positions overseas were designated as requiring foreign language 

skills. Over the years, we have issued several reports highlighting State’s 

persistent shortages in staff with critical foreign language skills,1

 including 

most recently in 2006, when we reported that almost one-third of staff in 

language-designated positions did not meet the language requirements of 

their positions despite a number of initiatives to improve the department’s 

foreign language capabilities. We recommended that State systematically 

evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to increase the language 

proficiency of its officers. State responded by providing examples of 

activities it believed addressed our recommendation. In fiscal year 2009, 

State received funding for 300 additional positions to rebuild its training 

1

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

Initiatives to Address Gaps, GAO-07-1154T (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2007); Department 

of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address 

Gaps, GAO-06-894 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2006); State Department: Targets for Hiring, 

Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages, 

GAO-04-139 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003);, Foreign Languages: Human Capital 

Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002); and, More Competence In Foreign Languages Needed By 

Federal Personnel Working Overseas, ID-80-31 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 1980). 

 Department of State 
 

capacity, or “float,” to limit the number of overseas positions that are 

vacant while employees are in language training.2

You asked us to build on and update our previous studies on State’s 

foreign language proficiency challenges and measures to address them. 

Specifically, this report (1) examines the extent to which State is meeting 

its foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any 

shortfalls on U.S. diplomacy, (2) assesses State’s efforts to meet its foreign 

language requirements and describes the challenges it faces in doing so, 

and (3) assesses the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to 

determine and meet these requirements. 

To identify the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language 

requirements, we analyzed data provided by State that listed all overseas 

language-designated positions and the language skills of the incumbents 

filling the positions as of October 31, 2008.3

 To describe the potential 

impact of language proficiency shortfalls on U.S. diplomacy, we reviewed 

previous GAO reports, as well as reports by State’s Inspector General, the 

National Research Council, the Congressional Research Service, the 

Department of Defense, and various think tanks, and interviewed several 

current and former senior State officials. To assess State’s efforts to meet 

its foreign language requirements and related challenges, and the extent to 

which State has a comprehensive strategy to determine and meet its 

foreign language requirements, we reviewed State’s planning documents, 

including strategic plans, performance reports, and budget justifications 

and compared these documents with guidance on comprehensive 

workforce planning developed by GAO and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). For all three objectives, we interviewed officials from 

State’s Bureaus of Human Resources (HR), Consular Affairs, Diplomatic 

Security, and the geographic bureaus; the Foreign Service Institute (FSI); 

and officials at overseas posts in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. 

Appendix I provides a detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to September 2009 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 

2

“Float” is an informal term to describe having additional staff on hand to cover the 

workload given a percentage of staff not present because of training or transition. 

3

A large number of Foreign Service officers transfer from one post to another over the 

summer. Most officers have arrived at post by October; thus, according to State officials, 

data as of October 31 provide the best snapshot available. 

Page 2 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

State continues to have notable gaps in its foreign language capabilities, 

which could hinder U.S. overseas operations. As of October 31, 2008, 31 

percent of officers in all worldwide language-designated positions did not 

meet both the foreign language speaking and reading proficiency 

requirements for their positions, up slightly from 29 percent in 2005. In 

particular, State continues to face foreign language shortfalls in areas of 

strategic interest—such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, 

where about 40 percent of officers in language-designated positions did 

not meet requirements. Gaps were notably high in Afghanistan, where 33 

of 45 officers in language-designated positions (73 percent) did not meet 

the requirement, and in Iraq, with 8 of 14 officers (57 percent) lacking 

sufficient language skills. Shortfalls in supercritical needs languages, such 

as Arabic and Chinese, remain at 39 percent, despite efforts to recruit 

individuals with proficiency in these languages. Past reports by GAO, 

State’s Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, and 

various think tanks have concluded that foreign language shortfalls could 

be negatively affecting U.S. national security, diplomacy, law enforcement, 

and intelligence-gathering efforts. Our fieldwork for this report indicates 

these conclusions are still relevant. For example, consular officers at a 

post we visited said that because of a lack of language skills, they make 

adjudication decisions based on what they “hope” they heard in visa 

interviews, consistent with findings of State’s Office of the Inspector 

General and our 2006 report, altogether covering seven posts. 

Results in Brief 

State’s current approach to meeting its foreign language proficiency 

requirements involves an annual review process, training, recruitment, and 

incentives; however, the department faces several challenges to these 

efforts, particularly staffing shortages. State’s annual language designation 

process results in a list of positions requiring language skills. State 

primarily uses language training to meet its foreign language requirements, 

and does so mostly at FSI in Arlington, Virginia, but also at field schools 

and post language training overseas. In 2008, the department reported a 

training success rate of 86 percent. In addition, the department recruits 

personnel with foreign language skills through special incentives offered 

under its critical needs language program, and pays bonuses to encourage 

staff to study and maintain a level of proficiency in certain languages. The 

Page 3 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

department has hired 445 officers under this program since 2004. 

However, various challenges limit the effectiveness of these efforts. 

According to State, two main challenges are overall staffing shortages, 

which limit the number of staff available for language training, and the 

recent increase in language-designated positions. The staffing shortages 

are exacerbated by officers curtailing their tours at posts, for example to 

staff the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has led to a decrease in 

the number of officers in the language training pipeline. These departures 

often force their successors to arrive at post early without having 

completed language training. As part of its effort to address these staffing 

shortfalls, in fiscal year 2009 State requested and received funding for 300 

new positions to build a training capacity, intended to reduce gaps at post 

while staff are in language training. State officials said that if the 

department’s fiscal year 2010 request for 200 additional positions is 

approved, the department’s language gaps will begin to close in 2011; 

however, State has not indicated when its foreign language staffing 

requirements will be completely met. Another challenge is the widely held 

perception among Foreign Service officers that State’s promotion system 

does not consider time spent in language training when evaluating officers 

for promotion, which may discourage officers from investing the time 

required to achieve proficiency in certain languages. Although HR officials 

dispute this perception, the department has not conducted a statistically 

significant assessment of the impact of language training on promotions. 

State’s current approach to meeting its foreign language proficiency 

requirements has not closed the department’s persistent language 

proficiency gaps and reflects, in part, a lack of a comprehensive strategic 

direction. Common elements of comprehensive workforce planning—

described by GAO as part of a large body of work on human capital 

management—include setting strategic direction that includes measurable 

performance goals and objectives and funding priorities, determining 

critical skills and competencies that will be needed in the future, 

developing an action plan to address gaps, and monitoring and evaluating 

the success of the department’s progress toward meeting goals.4

 In the 

past, State officials have asserted that because language is such an integral 

part of the department’s operations, a separate planning effort for foreign 

language skills was not needed. More recently, State officials have said 

that the department’s plan for meeting its foreign language requirements is 

 

4

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

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

Page 4 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

spread throughout a number of documents that address these 

requirements, including the department’s Five-Year Workforce Plan. 

However, these documents are not linked to each other and do not contain 

measurable goals, objectives, resource requirements, and milestones for 

reducing the foreign language gaps. We believe that a more comprehensive 

strategic approach would help State to more effectively guide and assess 

progress in meeting its foreign language requirements. 

To address State’s long-standing foreign language proficiency shortfalls, 

this report recommends that the Secretary of State develop a 

comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals, objectives, 

milestones, and feedback mechanisms that links all of State’s efforts to 

meet its foreign language requirements. 

State generally agreed with the report’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and described several initiatives that address elements 

of the recommendations. In addition, State recently convened an interbureau language working group, which will focus on and develop an 

action plan to address GAO’s recommendations. State also provided 

technical comments, which we have included throughout this report as 

appropriate. 

State is the lead agency for the conduct of American diplomacy, and its 

foreign affairs activities seek to promote and protect the interests of 

American citizens. State requires that Foreign Service officers assigned to 

certain positions worldwide meet a specified level of proficiency in the 

language or languages of the host country. As of October 31, 2008, State 

had about 3,600 positions worldwide that required language proficiency 

and 530 positions where such proficiency was preferred but not required 

(language-preferred positions). (See table 1.) State categorizes these 

languages as “world” (for example, Spanish or French), “hard” (for 

example, Urdu), or “superhard” (for example, Arabic or Chinese) based on 

the time it generally takes individuals to learn them. State has also defined 

its need for staff proficient in some languages as “supercritical” or 

“critical,” based on criteria such as the difficulty of the language and the 

number of language-designated positions in that language, particularly at 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

hard-to-staff posts.5 About 970, or 27 percent of, language-designated 

positions are for supercritical or critical needs languages. 

Table 1: Overseas Language-Designated Positions, by Language Type and Region 

as of October 31, 2008 

Number of languagedesignated positions

Language type 

Critical 373

Supercritical 600

Other 2,626

Total 3,599

Region 

Africa 301

East Asia/Pacific 532

Europe 1,033

Near East 377

South/Central Asia 206

Western Hemisphere 1,150

Total 3,599

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Proficiency Scale State uses the foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal 

Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) to rank an individual’s language 

skills.6

 The scale has six levels, from 0 to 5—with 5 being the most 

proficient—to assess an individual’s ability to speak, read, listen, and write 

in another language. State sets proficiency requirements only for speaking 

and reading, and these requirements tend to congregate at proficiency 

 

5

Currently, supercritical needs languages are Arabic (Modern Standard, Egyptian, and 

Iraqi), Chinese (Mandarin), Dari, Farsi, Hindi, and Urdu. Critical needs languages are 

Arabic (forms other than Modern Standard, Egyptian, and Iraqi), Azerbaijani, Bengali, 

Chinese (Cantonese), Kazakh, Korean, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Nepali, Pashto, Punjabi, Russian, 

Tajik, Turkish, Turkmen, and Uzbek. 

6

The ILR is an unfunded federal interagency organization established for the coordination 

and sharing of information about language-related activities at the federal level. State is a 

member of ILR’s steering committee, and FSI officials said that they occasionally host ILR 

meetings. According to ILR, its guidelines are accepted by all agencies of the federal 

government and are used as a primary reference in the different government tests of 

language ability. 

Page 6 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

levels 2 and 3.7 Table 2 shows the language skill requirements for each 

proficiency level. 

Table 2: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements 

Proficiency level Language capability requirements 

0–None No practical capability in the language. 

1–Elementary Sufficient capability to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements. 

2–Limited working Sufficient capability to meet routine social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with 

concrete topics in past, present, and future tense. 

3–General professional Able to use the language with sufficient ability to participate in most formal and informal discussion on 

practical, social, and professional topics. Can conceptualize and hypothesize. 

4–Advanced professional Able to use the language fluently and accurately in all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. 

Has range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, and counseling. 

5–Functionally native Able to use the language at a functional level equivalent to that of a highly articulate, well-educated 

native speaker. 

Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents. 

The difference between the second and the third proficiency levels—the 

ability to interact effectively with native speakers—is significant in terms 

of training costs and productivity. For example, State provides about 44 

weeks of training to bring a new speaker of a so-called superhard language 

such as Arabic up to the second level. Moving to level-3 proficiency usually 

requires another 44 weeks of training, which is generally conducted at 

field schools overseas. 

 

7

Proficiency levels are often abbreviated. For example “S-3/R-3” or “3/3” refers to level-3 

proficiency in speaking and reading. 

Page 7 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

State Continues to 

Face Shortfalls in 

Meeting Its Foreign 

Language 

Requirements, with 

Potentially Adverse 

Effects on 

Department 

Operations 

State faces notable shortfalls in meeting its foreign language requirements 

for overseas language-designated positions. Overall, 31 percent of Foreign 

Service generalists and specialists in language-designated positions 

worldwide did not meet the speaking and reading proficiency 

requirements of their positions as of October 31, 2008. While the extent of 

these shortfalls varies, they are found in all regions, in all languages, and in 

all types of positions. These shortfalls may have adverse impacts on 

security, public diplomacy, consular operations, economic and political 

affairs, and other aspects of U.S. diplomacy. 

Some Foreign Service 

Officers Do Not Meet the 

Language Requirements 

for Their Positions 

As of October 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service generalists and 

specialists in language-designated positions worldwide did not meet both 

of the speaking and reading proficiency requirements of their positions, up 

from 29 percent in 2005. The percentage decreases to 25 percent if officers 

who meet at least one of the requirements are included. Overall, 1,005 

officers in language-designated positions did not meet both of the 

requirements of their positions, and an additional 334 language-designated 

positions were vacant (see fig. 1). The persistence of these shortfalls is 

partially attributable to an overall increase of 332 overseas languagedesignated positions between 2005 and 2008, many of which are in hard 

and superhard languages. At the same time, State increased the overall 

number of language-proficient officers who meet the requirements for 

their positions by about 240 officers between 2005 and 2008. 

Page 8 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

Figure 1: Number of Overseas LDPs Filled by Officers Meeting the Requirements, 

Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the Requirements, and Vacant, as of October 

31, 2008 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Total

Positions

Vacant LDPs

LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements

LDPs filled by officers meeting requirements

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

State reports annually to Congress on foreign language proficiency in the 

department; however, its methodology for calculating the percentage of 

officers who meet the requirements is potentially misleading and 

overstates the actual language proficiency of FSOs in language-designated 

positions. For example, State has reported that over 80 percent of 

employees assigned to vacant language-designated positions met or 

exceeded the proficiency requirement in each year since fiscal year 2005. 

According to HR officials responsible for compiling and analyzing these 

data, however, this figure is not the percentage of officers currently in 

language-designated positions who have tested scores at or above the 

requirements for the position; rather, it measures the percentage of 

officers assigned to language-designated positions who are enrolled in 

language training, regardless of the outcome of that training. Because 

several officers do not complete the entire training, while others do not 

achieve the level of proficiency required even after taking the training, the 

actual percentage of officers meeting the requirements for their positions 

is likely lower. 

Page 9 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

While the extent of language deficiencies varies from post to post, some of 

the greatest deficiencies exist in regions of strategic interest to the United 

States (see fig. 2). For example, about 40 percent of officers in languagedesignated positions in the Middle East and South and Central Asia did not 

meet the requirements for their positions. Further, 57 percent (or 8 

officers) and 73 percent (or 33 officers) of officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

respectively, did not meet the requirements for their positions.8

 Other 

missions with notable gaps include Pakistan (45 percent/5 officers), Egypt 

(43 percent/13 officers), India (43 percent/12 officers), and Saudi Arabia 

(38 percent/12 officers). 

 

8

Staffing has increased at posts in these countries. For example, positions in Baghdad 

increased from 216 in 2006 to 329 in 2009 and positions in Afghanistan increased from 100 

in 2006 to 170 in 2009. 

Page 10 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

Figure 2: Number of Overseas LDPs, by Region, Filled by Officers Meeting the 

Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the Requirements, and Vacant, 

as of October 31, 2008 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

 Western

Hemisphere

 South/

Central Asia

Near East

Europe

East Asia

Africa

Positions

Location

Vacant LDPs

LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements

LDPs filled by officers meeting requirements

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Despite State’s recent efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency in 

supercritical and critical languages, and some improvement in filling 

language-designated positions in certain critical languages since 2005, the 

department continues to experience notable gaps in these languages (see 

fig. 3). In 2008, 73 more positions in supercritical needs languages were 

filled by officers meeting the requirements than in 2005. However, 

39 percent of officers assigned to LDPs in supercritical languages still do 

not meet the requirements for their positions, compared with 26 percent in 

critical languages and 30 percent in all other languages. Specifically, 

43 percent of officers in Arabic language-designated positions do not meet 

the requirements of their positions (107 officers in 248 filled positions), 

nor do 66 percent of officers in Dari positions (21 officers in 32 positions), 

38 percent in Farsi (5 officers in 13 positions), or 50 percent in Urdu 

(5 officers in 10 positions). 

Page 11 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

Figure 3: Percentage of Foreign Service Officers Who Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions, by 

Language Type and Selected Languages 

Percentage

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Language type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Noncritical Critical Supercritical

Percentage

Selected languages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Arabic Chinese Dari Korean Russian Turkish French Spanish

Shortfalls vary by position type. Foreign Service specialists—staff who 

perform security, technical, and other support functions—are less likely to 

meet the language requirements of their position than Foreign Service 

generalists. More than half of the 739 specialists in language-designated 

positions do not meet the requirements, compared with 24 percent of the 

2,526 generalists. For example, 53 percent of regional security officers do 

not speak and read at the level required by their positions.9

 According to 

officials in Diplomatic Security, language training for security officers is 

often cut short because many ambassadors are unwilling to leave security 

positions vacant. Further, among Foreign Service generalists, 58 percent of 

officers in management positions do not meet the language requirements, 

compared with 16 percent of officers in consular positions and 23 percent 

of officers in public diplomacy positions. 

 

9

Regional security officers are special agents operating out of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security assigned to U.S. diplomatic missions overseas, responsible for the protection of 

personnel and their families, facilities, and classified information. 

Page 12 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

When posts are unable to fill language-designated positions with langu

qualified officers, they must decide whether to request a language waive

and staff the position with an officer who does not meet the language

requirements or to leave the position unstaffed until an officer with the 

requisite skills is available. In some cases, a post chooses to leave a 

language-designated position vacant for a period of time while an officer i

getting language training. In other cases, when a post has requested 

repeated language waivers for a specific position, it may request that the 

language requirement be eliminated for the position. According to St

2008 the department granted 282 such waivers—covering about 8 percent 

of all language-designated positions—down from 354 in 2006. State 

granted a disproportionate number of waivers for South and Central

where the language requirement for about 18 percent of th

ager 

s 

ate, in 

 Asia, 

e region’s 206 

language-designated positions was waived in 2008, compared with 

 percent in both East Asia and the Western Hemisphere. 

ign 

. 

ome 

current fieldwork, previous GAO 

reports, and reports by State’s Inspector General, the National Research 

ouncil, and the Department of Defense. 

 May 

Negatively Affect Aspects 

of U.S. Diplomacy 

5

Our fieldwork for this report, in addition to past reports by GAO, State’s 

Office of the Inspector General, the National Research Council, the 

Department of Defense, and various think tanks, has indicated that fore

language shortfalls could be negatively affecting several aspects of U.S

diplomacy, including consular operations, security, public diplomacy, 

economic and political affairs, the development of relationships with 

foreign counterparts and audiences, and staff morale. It is sometimes 

difficult to link foreign language shortfalls to a specific negative outc

or event, and senior officials at State have noted that language shortfalls 

neither prevent officers from doing their jobs nor have catastrophic 

consequences. However, these officials acknowledged that the cumulative 

effects of these gaps do present a problem, and the department has not 

assessed their impact on the conduct of foreign policy. Table 3 presents 

some examples of such impacts from our 

Language Shortfalls

C

Page 13 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

Table 3. Examples of the Potential Impact of Language Shortfalls from GAO Fieldwork, Previous GAO Reports, and Reports 

by Other Organizations 

GAO (2009) Previous GAO reports Other reports 

Consular 

operations 

• Consular officers in Cairo said that 

because of a lack of language skills, 

they make decisions based on what 

they “hope” they have heard and, as a 

result, may be incorrectly adjudicating 

visa decisions. 

• A consular officer in Istanbul proficient 

in Turkish said she has seen cases 

where adjudicating officers have 

refused visa applications because they 

did not fully understand the applicant. 

• Officials at one high-fraud visa 

post stated that, because of 

language skill deficiencies, 

consular officers sometimes 

adjudicate visas without fully 

understanding everything visa 

applicants tell them during visa 

interviews (2006). 

• State’s Inspector General 

found that the ability of 

consular officers in at least 

two Arabic-speaking posts to 

conduct in-depth interviews 

necessary for homeland 

security is limited (2005). 

• State’s Inspector General 

found that insufficient Chinese 

language skills were a serious 

weakness in the U.S. Mission 

to China’s consular operations 

(2004). 

Security • A security officer in Istanbul said that 

inability to speak the local language 

hinders one’s ability to get embedded 

in the society and develop personal 

relationships, which limits officers’ 

effectiveness. 

• A security officer in Cairo said that 

without language skills, officers do not 

have any “juice”—that is, the ability to 

influence people they are trying to 

elicit information from. 

• An officer at a post of strategic interest 

said because she did not speak the 

language, she had transferred a 

sensitive telephone call from a local 

informant to a local employee, which 

could have compromised the 

informant’s identity. 

• According to one regional 

security officer, the lack of 

foreign language skills may 

hinder intelligence gathering 

because local informants are 

reluctant to speak through 

locally hired interpreters 

(2006). 

• A study commissioned by the 

Department of Defense 

concluded that gaps in 

governmentwide language 

capabilities have undermined 

cross-cultural communication 

and threatened national 

security (2005). 

Public 

diplomacy 

• A public affairs officer in one post we 

visited said that the local media does 

not always translate embassy 

statements accurately, complicating 

efforts to communicate with audiences 

in the host country. For example, he 

said the local press translated a 

statement by the ambassador in a 

more pejorative sense than was 

intended, which damaged the 

ambassador’s reputation and took 

several weeks to correct. 

• According to an information 

officer in Cairo, the embassy 

did not have enough Arabicspeaking staff to engage the 

Egyptian media effectively 

(2006). 

• Foreign officials we met with 

noted that speaking the host 

country’s language 

demonstrates respect for its 

people and culture; thus 

fluency in the local language is 

important for effectively 

conducting public diplomacy 

(2003). 

Page 14 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

GAO (2009) Previous GAO reports Other reports 

Economic and 

political affairs 

• In Shenyang, a Chinese city close to 

the border with North Korea, the 

consul general told us that reporting 

about issues along the border had 

suffered because of language 

shortfalls. 

• In Tunis, officers told us that Arabicspeaking staff sometimes work outside 

of their portfolio to cover for 

colleagues without Arabic skills, which 

places a larger burden on officers with 

language skills. 

• An economics officer at one 

post said that months-long 

negotiations with foreign 

government officials were 

making little progress until 

American officers began 

speaking the host country 

language and a local official 

who did not speak English 

could convey valuable 

information (2006). 

• In Vladivostok, State’s 

Inspector General reported 

that lack of proficiency in 

Russian limited the 

political/economic officer’s 

reporting (2007). 

Developing 

relationships 

• The U.S. ambassador to Egypt said 

that officers who do not have language 

skills cannot reach out to broader, 

deeper audiences and gain insight into 

the country. 

• Other officials in Cairo noted that the 

officers in Egypt who do not speak the 

language tend to inherit the contacts 

of their predecessor, leading to a 

perpetually limited pool of contacts. 

• In China, officials told us that the 

officers in China with insufficient 

language skills get only half the story 

on issues of interest, as they receive 

only the official party line and are 

unable to communicate with 

researchers and academics, many of 

whom do not speak English. 

• The deputy chief of mission in Ankara 

said that officers who do not have 

sufficient Turkish skills are reading 

English-language newspapers rather 

than what Turks are reading, further 

limiting their insight into what is 

happening in the country. 

• In Afghanistan, State’s 

Inspector General reported 

that less than one-third of 

political and economic officers 

were proficient in a national 

language, which has led to 

difficulties in establishing and 

maintaining relationships with 

Afghan contacts (2006). 

• The Inspector General has 

also reported that in Lebanon, 

political, economic, and public 

diplomacy officers went to 

post without sufficient 

language skills, limiting their 

efforts to expand their 

contacts among audiences 

that do not speak English 

(2005). 

Morale • Several officers noted that life in 

Turkey without any Turkish language 

skills is very inhibiting, particularly for 

family members who are out in the city 

every day. 

• The head of the Political/Economic 

Section in Shenyang said that families 

are very isolated without Chinese 

language skills. 

• State’s Inspector General 

found the lack of Russian 

language skills inhibits social 

interaction by many new 

arrivals in Moscow and by 

some other community 

members, many of whom 

rarely venture out of the 

embassy compound (2007). 

Source: GAO. 

Furthermore, as a result of these language shortfalls, officers must rely on 

their locally engaged staff to translate for them. Officers at each post we 

visited said that they frequently take local staff with them to meetings to 

Page 15 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

help translate. For example, a security officer in Cairo said that this 

tendency makes him feel irrelevant in meetings he should be leading. In 

Tunis, some officers said that they must use local staff to translate 

meetings outside of the embassy, but some contacts are reluctant to speak 

freely in front of other Tunisians. In addition, State’s Inspector General has 

noted that sections in several embassies rely on local staff to translate, 

monitor the local media, and judge what the section needs to know. The 

Inspector General also noted problems with this tendency, as overreliance 

on local translators can make conversations less productive and imposes a 

significant overhead cost that adequate language training could reduce. 

Furthermore, in its 2004 inspection of the U.S. embassy in Seoul, the 

Inspector General found that visa adjudications may be based on incorrect 

information if a consular officer who does not understand basic Korean 

must rely on translations from locally engaged staff. 

State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements include an annual 

review process to determine the number of language-designated positions, 

providing language training, recruiting staff with skills in certain 

languages, and offering pay incentives to officers to continue learning and 

maintaining language skills. However, several challenges—such as staffing 

shortages, the recent increase in language-designated positions, and 

perceptions about the value of language training in State’s promotion 

system—limit State’s ability to meet these requirements. 

State Efforts to Meet 

Foreign Language 

Requirements, Which 

Include Training, 

Recruitment, and 

Incentives, Face 

Several Challenges 

State Determines Its 

Foreign Language 

Requirements through an 

Annual Review Process, 

but These Requirements 

May Not Reflect Actual 

Needs 

State determines its foreign language requirements through an annual 

review process that results in incremental changes but does not 

necessarily reflect posts’ actual needs. Every year, HR directs posts to 

review all language-designated positions and to submit requests for any 

changes in the number of positions or level of proficiency. Headquarters 

officials from HR, FSI, and the regional bureaus then review and discuss 

these requests and develop a list of positions identified as requiring foreign 

language skills. However, the views expressed by officials from HR and 

FSI, and FSOs at overseas posts during our meetings with these officials, 

and our findings in previous work on this issue, suggest that State’s 

designated language proficiency requirements do not necessarily reflect 

the actual language needs of the posts. State’s current instructions to the 

posts suggest the language designation review be tempered by budgetary 

and staffing realities. Consequently, some overseas posts tend to request 

only the positions they think they will receive. For example, a senior 

Page 16 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

official at one of the overseas posts we visited said that although he would 

like several positions at the 4/4 proficiency level in his section, he knows 

the positions will not be designated at that level, so he does not request 

them. A senior official at another post we visited said he does not request 

language-designated positions at a higher proficiency level because he 

knows that ultimately the post will not get enough applicants for the 

positions. This view was echoed by HR officials who stated that overseas 

posts must often weigh the desire to attract a large number of applicants 

against a desire to draw bidders with a higher level of language 

proficiency. The public affairs officer at one of the overseas posts we 

visited said he tried to have some language-designated positions in his 

section downgraded to language-preferred because he had a hard time 

filling them. Further, HR officials told us that State should conduct a more 

thorough assessment of language requirements regardless of resource 

requirements. 

Concerns about the process have been a long-standing issue at State. A 

1986 State report noted that the language designation system needed to be 

overhauled on a worldwide basis and recommended that posts carefully 

review their language-designated positions with the geographic bureaus, 

eliminating positions that seem unnecessary, adding more if required, 

deciding how many positions at the 4 proficiency level are needed, and 

defining what kind of fluency each language-designated position requires.10

For example, one senior official said there should be a systematic review 

of which positions need language proficiency and which do not, and then 

the department should decide whether it gives some language training to a 

lot of people or extensive language training to a select few. 

Moreover, officers at the posts we visited questioned the validity of the 

relatively low proficiency level required for certain positions, citing the 

need for a higher proficiency level. Officials at most of the posts we visited 

said that a 3/3 in certain critical languages is not always enough for 

officers to do their jobs, although they acknowledged the difficulty State 

would have filling positions at a higher proficiency level. For example, an 

economics officer at one of the posts we visited said that she could start 

meetings and read the newspaper with her 3/3 in Arabic, but that level of 

proficiency did not provide her with language skills needed to discuss 

technical issues, and the officers in the public affairs section of the same 

 

10Monteagle Stearns, Report on Hard Language Proficiency in the Foreign Service 

(Washington, D.C.: May 12, 1986). 

Page 17 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

post said that a 3/3 was not sufficient to effectively explain U.S. positions 

in the local media. Officers in the public affairs section of another post we 

visited said that they were not comfortable making statements on U.S. 

foreign policy with a 3/3 proficiency level. Senior officials at a third post 

said 3/3 is adequate to ask and answer questions but not to conduct 

business. An officer with a 4/4 in Chinese said officers in his section did 

the best job they could but a 3/3 was not enough. He said he sometimes 

had difficulty at his level, for example, when participating in radio 

interviews broadcast to local audiences. In addition, consular officers at 

some of the posts we visited questioned whether a proficiency level of 2 in 

speaking was sufficient for conducting visa interviews. They said they 

could ask questions but did not always understand the answers and 

sometimes had to rely on locally engaged staff to translate. HR officials 

explained that a position may be classified at 2 when, in reality, a higher 

level of proficiency is needed. For example, proficiency requirements for 

untenured positions in certain languages cannot be higher than 2 because 

of the limits on training for untenured officers. 

State Uses Language 

Training and Other Means 

in Its Effort to Meet 

Language Requirements 

State uses a combination of language training—at FSI, at advanced 

language institutes overseas, and through each post’s language program—

recruitment of officers fluent in foreign languages, and incentive pay to 

meet its language requirements. 

State primarily uses language training, typically at FSI, to meet its foreign 

language requirements. FSI’s School of Language Studies offers training in 

about 70 languages. State also offers full-time advanced training in 

superhard languages at a few overseas locations, including Beijing, China; 

Cairo, Egypt; Seoul, South Korea; Taipei, Taiwan; Yokohama, Japan; and 

Tunis, Tunisia. In addition, overseas posts offer part-time language training 

through post language programs and FSI offers distance learning courses 

to officers overseas. Finally, FSI offers overseas and domestic mid-course 

opportunities in many languages, including programs in countries such as 

Turkey, Russia, and Israel, including activities such as classroom study 

overseas, field trips, and home visits with local families. These immersions 

serve either as a substitute for some portion of the Washington training or 

as a complement or refresher to enhance the learner’s ability to achieve a 

higher degree of facility in dealing with the local community and to 

increase the return on the department’s training investment. 

Training 

State measures the effectiveness of its training in a variety of ways; 

however, concerns about several aspects of FSI training persist. State 

collects data and reports on the percentage of students who attain the 

Page 18 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

intended proficiency level in all critical languages when they are enrolled 

in language training for at least the recommended length of training as an 

indicator of the success of FSI training. For 2008, State reported a 

language training success rate of 86 percent.11 State also tracks overall 

satisfaction with all training at FSI and reported a 94 percent satisfaction 

rate for fiscal year 2008. Officials we met with overseas, however, 

expressed mixed experiences with FSI language training. For example, 

consular officers in Istanbul described the FSI training as outstanding. 

Entry-level officers in Cairo said that instruction at the beginning levels at 

FSI is very good, but that FSI is not well equipped for beyond-3 training. 

However, FSI officials explained that because there are only 2 4/4 

language-designated positions in the department, there is almost no formal 

requirement for FSI to provide such training. FSI officials also stated that 

without a mandate or the necessary resources, FSI provides beyond-3 

training on an ad hoc basis. A few officers questioned the relevance of the 

foreign language training that they received to their jobs. Several officers 

also stated that they were not aware of a formal mechanism for them to 

provide feedback on this issue to FSI. A few officers said that they 

provided feedback to FSI, but they were not sure if their concerns were 

addressed. FSI officials stated that FSI provides several opportunities for 

feedback. For example, the institute administers a training impact survey 

eliciting the respondent’s opinion of the effectiveness of the training for 

the respondent’s job several months after it is completed. However, the 

response rate for this survey has been low: for 2005, State received 603 of 

1,476 possible responses; for 2006, 404 of 1,450 possible responses; and for 

2007, 226 of 1,503 possible responses. FSI officials said that another 

opportunity for feedback is the evaluation students complete at the end of 

every class. 

State also recruits personnel with foreign language skills through special 

incentives offered under its critical needs language program; however, 

some officials noted the department believes it is easier to train 

individuals with good diplomatic skills to speak a language than it is to 

recruit linguists and train them to be good diplomats. Under the critical 

needs program, State offers bonus points for applicants who have passed 

the Foreign Service exam and demonstrate mastery in a foreign language. 

The additional points can raise the applicant’s ranking on the Foreign 

Service registry, improving the chances of being hired. Officers recruited 

Recruitment 

 

11State defined this measure as the percentage of students who attain the intended 

proficiency level when they are enrolled for at least the recommended length of training. 

Page 19 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

for their proficiency in supercritical and critical needs languages are 

obligated to serve at an overseas post where they can use the language 

during their first or second tour. Officers recruited since 2008 are also 

required to serve at a post where they can use the language a second time 

as a midlevel officer. 

The effects of this program on State’s language proficiency gaps are 

unclear, in part because State has not established numerical targets for its 

critical needs hiring and has not yet performed an assessment of its 

effectiveness. An Office of Recruitment official, who was involved in the 

development of the list, stated that the department could not yet assess 

the program’s effectiveness because the program, which started in 2004, is 

still new and the department does not have sufficient data to perform such 

an assessment. The official pointed out that there have been only about 

five hiring cycles since it started. However, State data show the 

department has recruited 445 officers under the program since 2004, and 

about 94 percent of these officers who have had at least two assignments 

have completed their obligation to serve at an overseas post where they 

were able to use the language. A total of 19 officers that have either served 

two tours or at least have the second tour onward assignment arranged 

have definitively not filled the obligation and most of those were due to 

medical or security reasons. The Office of Recruitment official said that 

since the requirement for the second tour for midlevel officers is still new, 

there are few, if any, officers recruited under the critical needs program 

who have reached the middle level. 

State also does not have a formal schedule for reviewing and adding or 

removing languages from the list of critical needs languages. Officials from 

the Office of Recruitment said the list has been reviewed informally and 

Japanese was removed because State is hiring sufficient numbers of 

Japanese-speaking officers and there are few entry-level languagedesignated positions at Japanese posts.12

State also offers bonus pay to members of the Foreign Service with 

proficiency in certain languages under the Language Incentive Pay 

program. To qualify for language incentive pay, officers must 

Incentive Pay

 

12Five of the 19 officers who did not complete their critical needs language obligation were 

Japanese speakers. 

Page 20 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

• have a proficiency of at least a 3/3 (for generalists) or 2/2 (for specialists) 

in selected languages and 

• be serving in any position (either language designated or non-language 

designated) at a post abroad where a language currently on the list of 

incentive languages is a primary or primary-alternate language, or in any 

language-designated position requiring an incentive language. 

The incentive pay varies according to the officer’s salary and tested scores. 

For example, an officer with a 3/3 in Turkish in a language-designated 

position in Istanbul would be eligible for a bonus of 10 percent of the base 

salary abroad of an FS-01/step 1 member of the Foreign Service.13

State has not measured the impact of the pay incentive on increasing 

foreign language proficiency, and the officers we met with expressed 

mixed opinions on the effectiveness of the program. For example, a few 

officers said it is difficult and takes a long time to advance from a 2 to a 3 

to qualify for the incentive, while others said the pay was a very good 

incentive. Others offered suggestions for improvement. For example, one 

officer said the requirements for the language incentive program 

discourage some people from participating and that State should provide 

incentives for people in increments, for example, for going from a 2 to 2-

plus. He also suggested that State provide incentives separately for 

speaking and reading, because it takes time to increase proficiency in 

reading, which is often not needed for the officer to perform his or her job. 

HR and FSI officials said that State is considering proposals to improve the 

incentive pay program. 

Staffing Shortages and 

Other Challenges Have 

Limited State’s Ability to 

Reduce Its Language 

Shortfalls 

According to senior State officials, the primary challenge State faces in 

meeting its foreign language requirements is the department’s continued 

staffing shortages. Specifically, State’s lack of a sufficient training float has 

limited the number of officers available for language training. As a result, 

State has had to choose between assigning an officer to post who may not 

have the requisite language skills or allowing the position to remain empty 

while the incoming officer is in language training. As noted above, in 

October 2008, 334 language-designated positions (9 percent of all 

language-designated positions) were vacant in addition to 1,005 positions 

that were filled by officers who did not meet the language requirement for 

 

13In the Foreign Service grade structure, an FS-01 is equivalent to the civil service GS-15. 

Page 21 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

the position. For example, in fiscal year 2006, State’s Director General was 

unable to fill a request by the embassy in Riyadh for two additional 

language-proficient officers, as recommended by the Inspector General, 

because of overall staffing shortages. Furthermore, a 2008 report on State 

resource issues noted that personnel shortages result in training lags, and 

that ongoing tension over whether staff should complete training 

assignments or fill positions complicate efforts to create a well-trained 

workforce.14

Despite these overall staffing shortages, State has doubled the number of 

language-designated positions overseas since 2001. Department officials 

noted that the recent increase in positions requiring a superhard 

language—that is, one that requires 2 years of training to reach the 3 

level—and the number of 1-year tours in these positions have 

compounded these shortages. For example, State must budget three 

people for a 3/3 Arabic language-designated position in Riyadh, which is 

typically a 1-year tour: one to fill the position, one in the second year of 

language training to arrive at post the next year, and one in the first year of 

training to arrive the following year. 

Other staffing-related challenges include the following: 

• Staff time. In some cases, Foreign Service officers lack the time necessary 

for maintaining their language skills upon arriving at post. Officers we 

spoke to in Tunis, Ankara, and Cairo said that they do not have enough 

time in their schedule to fully utilize the post language program. In 

addition, in 2006, State’s Inspector General reported that most political 

and economic officers in Kabul find that a routine 6-day workweek 

precludes rigorous language training. 

• Curtailments. When officers cut short their tours in a language-designated 

position, there is often no officer with the requisite language skills 

available to fill the position. Some officers we spoke to said that in some 

cases, they had to cut short their language training to come to post earlier 

than expected in order to fill a position vacated by an officer who had 

curtailed. For example, the regional security officers in Ankara and Tunis 

said that they left language training after only a few months in order to 

 

14American Academy of Diplomacy and Stimson Center, A Foreign Affairs Budget for the 

Future (Washington, D.C.: October 2008). 

Page 22 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

replace officers who had curtailed to Iraq or elsewhere. In addition, 

several officers in Shenyang said that they had to leave language training 

early in order to fill gaps at post.15

• Position freeze. In recent years, State has left dozens of positions vacant—

or “frozen” them—in order to fully staff missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Officers at several posts we visited said that in order to avoid further 

shortages at post, the geographic bureaus, at times, have chosen to freeze 

training positions, rather than overseas positions. Consequently, there is 

no officer currently in language training for these positions, and posts will 

either have to request a language waiver or hope that the incumbent 

already has language skills when filling the position. 

In 2009, State received funding for an additional 450 positions, including 

300 dedicated to language training. According to the department, these 

positions will help to increase the training float and reduce gaps at post 

while officers are in language training. State officials have said that if their 

fiscal year 2010 request for an additional 200 training positions is 

approved, they expect to see language gaps close starting in 2011; 

however, State has not indicated when its foreign language staffing 

requirements will be completely met, and previous staffing increases have 

been consumed by higher priorities. For example, in 2003, State officials 

stated that the increased hiring under the department’s Diplomatic 

Readiness Initiative would create a training float to help eliminate the 

foreign language gaps at overseas posts within several years. Although the 

initiative enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition, 

it did not reduce the language gaps, as most of this increase was absorbed 

by the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus the training 

reserve was not achieved. 

Another challenge to State’s efforts to address its language shortfalls is the 

persistent perception among Foreign Service officers that State’s 

promotion system undervalues language training; however, while HR 

officials told us that the system values language training, the department 

has not conducted a systematic assessment to refute the perceptions. 

Officers at several posts we visited stated a belief that long-term training, 

specifically advanced training in hard languages, hinders their promotion 

 

15A forthcoming GAO report discusses challenges of staffing hardship posts in further 

detail. See GAO, Department of State: Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts 

Continue to Compromise Diplomatic Readiness, GAO-09-874 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 

2009). 

Page 23 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

chances. For example, officers in Beijing said that some officers are 

reluctant to study a foreign language that requires a 1- or 2-year 

commitment because they believe it makes them less competitive for 

promotion, and one officer said that she would not have bid on her current 

position if she had had to take Chinese first. A former ambassador told us 

that many officers feel that language training is a “net minus” to their 

careers, as the department views this as a drain on the staffing system. We 

reported similar sentiments in 2006, when several officers said they 

believed that State’s promotion system might hinder officers’ ability to 

enhance and maintain their language skills over time.16 Although senior HR 

officials told us that the promotion system weighs time in training as equal 

to time at post, they acknowledged that officers applying for promotion 

while in long-term training were at a disadvantage compared with officers 

assigned to an overseas post. Although promotion boards are required by 

law to weigh end-of-training reports for employees in full-time language 

training as heavily as the annual employee evaluation reports,17 officers in 

Beijing, Shenyang, Istanbul, and Washington expressed concern that 

evaluations for time in training were discounted. State officials said they 

have reviewed the results of one promotion board and found a slightly 

lower rate of promotions for officers in long-term training at the time of 

the review. However, these officials were not sure if these results were 

statistically significant and said that the department has not conducted a 

more systematic assessment of the issue. 

 

16This challenge dates to at least 1986, when a report on hard language proficiency in the 

Foreign Service identified several bureaucratic biases adversely affecting hard language 

training, including State’s promotion system, which, according to the report, “convinced 

many Foreign Service officers that they cannot afford to take time out for training, 

especially in hard languages which require two years or more to achieve even limited 

proficiency.” See Monteagle Stearns, Report on Hard Language Proficiency in the Foreign 

Service. 

17Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, 

§.155, 105 Stat. 647, 675 (1991). 

Page 24 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

State’s approach to addressing its foreign language proficiency 

requirements does not reflect a comprehensive strategic approach. As we 

previously mentioned, State considers staffing shortfalls and the lack of a 

training float to be the primary challenges to achieving the department’s 

language proficiency requirements. However, prior work by GAO and 

others has shown that addressing a critical human capital challenge—such 

as closing or reducing the long-running foreign language proficiency gaps 

within State’s Foreign Service corps—requires a comprehensive strategic 

plan or set of linked plans that sets a clear direction for addressing the 

challenge. 

State Lacks a 

Comprehensive 

Strategic Plan to 

Address Foreign 

Language 

Requirements 

Prior Work by GAO and 

Others Could Guide State’s 

Strategic Plan for 

Addressing Foreign 

Language Requirements 

GAO, OPM, and others have developed a variety of strategic workforce 

planning models that can serve as a guide for State to develop a 

comprehensive plan to address its language proficiency gaps. Common 

elements of these models include setting a strategic direction that includes 

measurable performance goals and objectives and funding priorities, 

determining critical skills and competencies that will be needed in the 

future, developing an action plan to address gaps, and monitoring and 

evaluating the success of the department’s progress toward meeting goals. 

In 2002, we reported that State had not prepared a separate strategic plan 

for developing its foreign language skills or a related action plan to correct 

long-standing proficiency shortfalls and recommended that the 

department do so. State responded by noting that because language is 

such an integral part of the department’s operations, a separate planning 

effort for foreign language skills was not needed.18 During this review, 

State officials told us that a comprehensive strategic approach to reducing 

foreign language gaps would be useful. The officials mentioned a number 

of documents where the department has addressed State’s foreign 

language proficiency requirements in various forms, including the Foreign 

Language Continuum, the Strategic Plan, a 2007 training needs assessment, 

and the Five-Year Workforce Plan, but acknowledged that these 

documents are not linked to each other and no one document contains 

measurable goals, objectives, resource requirements, and milestones for 

reducing the foreign language gap. 

We reviewed these documents and found that while some include a few of 

the aforementioned elements of a strategic plan, none of the documents 

present a comprehensive plan for State to address its foreign language 

 

18GAO-02-375. 

Page 25 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

proficiency requirements. For example, the Foreign Language 

Continuum—a document developed by FSI for FSOs—describes foreign 

language training opportunities provided by State and, according to FSI 

officials, was meant to serve as a guide for FSOs and not a plan for 

reducing language gaps. The joint State-U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) Strategic Plan contains seven priority goals for 

achieving State’s and USAID’s overall mission but only tangentially 

addresses the issue of foreign languages by stating that the department 

will expand opportunities for classroom training and distance learning in a 

number of areas, including foreign languages. It does not discuss if and 

how expanding this training will contribute to reducing the department’s 

language proficiency gaps, or establish measurable goals, objectives, or 

time frames for its performance. The training assessment—a 2007 training 

study conducted by HR and FSI to assess State’s current and future 

training needs—identified additional positions to be requested in future 

budget justifications to increase the training float. 

State’s Five-Year Workforce Plan, which describes the department’s 

overall workforce planning, including hiring, training, and assignment 

plans, is a step in the right direction. The plan addresses language gaps in 

the Foreign Service workforce to a greater extent than any of the other 

documents. However, the plan falls short in several respects. First, the 

document states that State has established an ongoing monitoring process 

to identify and set goals for reducing language skill gaps in the Foreign 

Service. This process resulted in the development of an officer-to-position 

ratio target of at least 2.5 officers with the required language proficiency 

for each language-designated position at the 3/3 proficiency level. State 

reports this ratio as a target for meeting its critical needs language 

requirements; however, the ratio is not based on quantitative analysis but 

on the consensus of a working group consisting of HR and FSI officials. In 

developing the ratio, State assumed that the 2.5 officers already have the 

required languages and did not link the ratio to the number of officers that 

should be in language training and the size of the training float needed to 

achieve the 2.5 ratio. Further, State assumed that 3/3 is the appropriate 

skill level for the positions, although, as we discussed earlier, some 

officers have questioned the validity of that level for certain positions. 

Moreover, an HR official responsible for workforce planning at State said 

that the 2.5 ratio is very broad and not sufficiently detailed or specific. For 

example, the ratio does not take into account the different tour lengths. 

More Arabic-speaking officers would be needed for 1-year tours than 

Russian speakers for 3-year tours, so the languages should not have the 

same target ratio. Also, the assessment treats Foreign Service officers at 

all levels equally, even though more senior officers would not fill lowerPage 26 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

graded positions. Therefore, even if State achieved the 2.5 ratio for each 

language-designated position, not all of the language-designated positions 

would be filled. The HR official explained that State is in the process of 

improving its methodology for critical needs language assessment. 

Despite the various measures that State uses to determine and fill its 

language-designated positions, it continues to experience persistent gaps 

in its foreign language skills at many posts around the world, and 

questions remain about the adequacy of the proficiency requirements. 

State recognizes the importance of staffing language-designated positions 

with FSOs who possess the requisite language skills to perform their 

duties, and has taken some measures intended to address its foreign 

language shortfalls, including requesting and receiving funding in 2009 to 

build a training capacity, establishing a career development program that 

requires FSOs to have sustained professional language proficiency for 

consideration for promotion into the senior ranks, and offering special 

incentives to attract speakers of foreign languages under its critical needs 

language program. However, these individual actions, which State has 

relied on for several years to address its language proficiency 

requirements, do not constitute a comprehensive strategic approach to 

addressing the department’s persistent gaps in language proficiency within 

the Foreign Service, and they are not linked to any targets, goals, or time 

frames for reducing State’s language gaps. Also, State is not fully assessing 

the progress of its efforts toward closing the language gaps. Actions 

described in State’s Five-Year Workforce Plan, such as the department’s 

attempt to establish an ongoing monitoring process to identify and set 

goals for reducing the language skill gaps, are a step in the right direction 

that could be built upon to develop a more comprehensive plan. Given the 

importance of foreign language competency to the mission of the Foreign 

Service, any measures taken to address State’s language proficiency 

shortfalls should be part of a comprehensive strategic plan that takes a 

long-term view and incorporates the key elements of strategic workforce 

planning. Such a plan will help State guide its efforts to monitor and assess 

its progress toward closing its persistent foreign language gaps. 

To address State’s persistent foreign language proficiency shortfalls in the 

U.S. Foreign Service, this report is making two recommendations. We 

recommend that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive strategic 

plan consistent with GAO and OPM workforce planning guidance that 

links all of State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements. Such a 

plan should include, but not be limited to, the following elements: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 27 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

• clearly defined and measurable performance goals and objectives of the 

department’s language proficiency program that reflect the priorities and 

strategic interests of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy; 

• a transparent, comprehensive process for identifying foreign language 

requirements, based on objective criteria, that goes beyond the current 

annual process, to determine which positions should be language 

designated and the proficiency level needed to enable officers to 

effectively perform their duties; and 

• a more effective mechanism that allows State to gather feedback from 

FSOs on the relevance of the foreign language skills that they acquired at 

FSI to their jobs, and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of State’s 

recruitment of critical needs foreign language speakers, and language 

incentive payments, as well as future efforts toward closing the 

department’s language proficiency gaps. 

To more accurately measure the extent to which language-designated 

positions are filled with officers who meet the language requirements of 

the position, we also recommend that the Secretary of State revise the 

department’s methodology in its Congressional Budget Justifications and 

annual reports to Congress on foreign language proficiency. Specifically, 

we recommend that the department measure and report on the percentage 

of officers in language-designated positions who have tested at or above 

the level of proficiency required for the position, rather than officers who 

have been assigned to language training but who have not yet completed 

this training. 

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

are reprinted in Appendix II. State generally agreed with the report’s 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations and described several 

initiatives that address elements of the recommendations. In further 

discussions with State to clarify its response, an official of HR’s Office of 

Policy Coordination stated that State agrees with GAO that it needs some 

type of plan or process to pull together its efforts to meet its foreign 

language requirements, but that it has not yet determined what form this 

action will take. The official further explained that State recently 

convened an inter-bureau language working group, which will focus on 

and develop an action plan to address GAO’s recommendations. State also 

provided technical comments, which we have included throughout this 

report as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 28 GAO-09-955 Department of State
 

As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

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

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

Secretary of State and interested congressional committees. The report 

also is 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. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in Appendix III. 

ess T. Ford, Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

J

Page 29 GAO-09-955 Department of State
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

In this report, we (1) examine the extent to which State is meeting its 

foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any shortfalls 

on U.S. diplomacy, (2) assess State’s efforts to meet its foreign language 

requirements and describe the challenges it faces in doing so, and 

(3) assess the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to 

determine and meet these requirements. 

To analyze the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language 

requirements, we obtained data from State on all overseas languagedesignated positions and the language skills of the incumbent filling the 

position as of October 31, 2008. We compared the incumbent’s reading and 

speaking scores with the reading and speaking levels designated for the 

position, and determined that the incumbent met the requirements for the 

position only if his or her scores equaled or exceeded both the speaking 

and reading requirements. A limited number of positions are designated in 

two languages. We determined that the officer met the requirements of 

such positions if he or she met the speaking and reading requirements for 

at least one of the designated languages. We also interviewed State 

officials responsible for compiling and maintaining these data and 

reviewed data maintained by some of the posts we visited on their 

language-designated positions, and determined the data to be sufficiently 

reliable for identifying the number of language-designated positions filled 

by officers who met the requirements of the position. 

To assess the potential impact of foreign language shortfalls on U.S. 

diplomacy, we reviewed previous GAO reports, as well as reports by 

State’s Inspector General, the National Research Council, the 

Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense, and various 

think tanks. We interviewed officials from State’s Bureaus of African 

Affairs, Consular Affairs, Diplomatic Security, European Affairs, Human 

Resources, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern/South and Central 

Asian Affairs, Public Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs, and the 

Foreign Service Institute. We also interviewed officials at overseas posts in 

Beijing and Shenyang, China; Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt; New Delhi, 

India; Tunis, Tunisia; and Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey. We selected these 

posts based on the number of language-designated positions in 

supercritical (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, and Hindi) or critical needs (e.g., 

Turkish) languages, the extent of language gaps, and the location of FSI 

field schools. We also met with former senior State officials, including 

former ambassadors to Russia, Afghanistan, and Armenia; a former dean 

of FSI’s School of Language Studies; and the former acting Director 

General of the Foreign Service to gain their insights on the consequences 

Page 30 GAO-09-955 Department of State 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

of language shortfalls at overseas missions. In total, we interviewed about 

60 officials in Washington, D.C., and over 130 officers overseas. 

To assess how State determines and meets its foreign language 

requirements, we reviewed past GAO reports; State planning documents, 

including the strategic plan, the performance report, and budget 

justification; State cables on the language designation process; and 

workforce planning guidance. We also interviewed State officials in 

Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts. 

To describe the challenges that State faces in meeting its foreign language 

requirements, we reviewed State department budget and planning 

documents. We analyzed State’s promotion precepts, Career Development 

Program, and instructions provided to Foreign Service promotion boards.1

We also interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and at overseas 

posts. 

To assess the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to 

determine and meet its foreign language requirements, we reviewed prior 

GAO reports on strategic workforce planning and State planning 

documents, including the department’s strategic plan, the Language 

Continuum, and the Five-Year Workforce Plan. We compared State’s 

planning efforts to reduce foreign language gaps with guidance on 

comprehensive workforce planning developed by GAO and the Office of 

Personnel Management. We also interviewed officials from the Bureau of 

Human Resources and others. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to September 2009 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

1

State’s promotion precepts are guidelines by which the department determines the tenure 

and promotability of Foreign Service employees. 

Page 31 GAO-09-955 Department of State
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 32 GAO-09-955 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

 Department of State 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 33 GAO-09-955 Department of State
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 34 GAO-09-955 Department of State
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 35 GAO-09-955 Department of State
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 36 GAO-09-955 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Jess T. Ford, Director, (202) 512-4128, fordj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara, Assistant 

Director; Robert Ball; Joseph Carney; and La Verne Tharpes made key 

contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis and Elizabeth Singer 

provided technical assistance. 

 Department of State 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(320621) 
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. 

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 afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper