U.S. Employment in the United Nations: State Department Needs to Enhance Reporting Requirements and Evaluate Its Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation
Published: 2010-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The U.S. Congress has continuing concerns about U.S. underrepresentation in United Nations (UN) organizations. Some UN organizations establish targets for member state representation, and such positions are classified as geographic positions. GAO's 2006 report found that the State Department (State) could take additional steps to increase U.S. representation. This report examines (1) U.S. representation at five UN organizations; (2) issues affecting the employment of professional staff, including Americans at these organizations; and (3) efforts State has undertaken to increase U.S. representation. GAO analyzed employment data from five UN organizations that comprise over 50 percent of total UN professional staff and interviewed U.S. and UN officials, including 63 Americans employed at the five organizations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 2009, the United States was underrepresented, based on formal and informal targets, at all five of the UN organizations GAO reviewed--the Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This follows general U.S. underrepresentation at most of these organizations from 2006 to 2009. At the four UN organizations that distinguish geographic and nongeographic positions, there was an increase in the percentage of nongeographic professional positions during 2006 to 2009. The United States is not as well represented in nongeographic as geographic positions at FAO and the Secretariat, which could affect future overall U.S. representation. In addition, U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions generally decreased at these UN organizations from 2006 to 2009. The five UN organizations GAO reviewed have challenges that affect the recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff, including Americans. Challenges include Americans' lack of proficiency in UN languages, difficulty for spouses to obtain employment in some locations, lengthy hiring processes, and limited opportunities for promotion and professional growth. For example, 45 out of 63 Americans we interviewed identified the lengthy hiring process as a challenge to recruiting and hiring. While these UN organizations have initiated human resource reforms that may address some of the issues, such as efforts to decrease hiring time, it is too early to determine their impact. Since 2006, State has made efforts to increase U.S. representation in the UN, including implementing some of GAO's 2006 recommendations. State has improved its Web site; increased outreach initiatives; begun developing a Web-based database, so interested UN job applicants can receive automatic vacancy announcements; and conducted an informal review of funding JPOs, but it continues to allocate JPOs at only a few UN organizations. State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of its current efforts to increase U.S. representation. Despite State's efforts, many Americans employed at the five organizations learned about UN job opportunities through their own networks, not through State.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of State (1) include data on U.S. representation in all professional positions in its annual report to Congress, (2) evaluate its ongoing activities to increase U.S. representation, and (3) consider a pilot program to fund Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are entry-level employees funded by member states, at UN organizations where the United States currently does not have any JPOs. In commenting on a draft of this report, State concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Congress has long-standing concerns about U.S.  underrepresentation in some United Nations (UN) organizations. The  equitable representation of Americans at UN organizations is a priority to  Congress in part because the United States is the largest financial  contributor to most of these organizations. According to the State  Department (State), the U.S. agency primarily responsible for leading U.S.  efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in UN  organizations, Americans bring desirable skills, values, and experience  that can have a significant impact on UN organizations’ operational  effectiveness. The UN Charter recognizes the importance of recruiting  staff on as wide a geographic basis as possible. In response, some UN  organizations have created quantitative formulas that establish formal  targets for member state representation. Other UN organizations have  negotiated informal geographic targets with member states or give some  consideration to geographic balance when filling positions. Positions that  count toward these formal or informal targets are referred to in this report  as geographic positions. UN organizations may also employ staff in  professional positions not based on geography, referred to in this report as  nongeographic positions. According to State officials, geographic  positions generally have better job security than the nongeographic  positions. Since 1991, Congress has required the Secretary of State to  provide it with annual reports on whether international organizations with  geographic targets were meeting their targets for Americans and whether  organizations were making a good faith effort to hire more Americans.  Members of Congress have concerns that the United States is  underrepresented with respect to the geographic employment targets set  by several UN organizations. In its 2009 report to Congress, State reported  that many of the 10 UN organizations it reviewed had not met their U.S.  geographic targets.
In 2006, we reported on U.S. employment at five UN organizations: the UN  Secretariat (the Secretariat); the United Nations Development Program;  the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); the United Nations  Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and the Office of the  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We found  that the United States was underrepresented, or close to the lower end of  its target range with respect to geographic employment targets, at many of  these UN organizations. We also found that UN organizations face several  challenges to recruiting and retaining professional staff, most of which are  outside the U.S. government’s control. In addition, we reported that State  could take additional steps to target candidates for professional positions.  We recommended that State (1) provide more consistent and  comprehensive UN employment information on the State and U.S. Mission  Web sites; (2) expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more  strategically reach populations of Americans that may be qualified for and  interested in entry- and mid-level UN positions; (3) evaluate the costs,  benefits, and trade-offs of maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for  high-priority positions; and (4) evaluate the costs, benefits, and trade-offs  of funding Junior Professional Officers (JPO), who are entry-level  employees funded by member states, where Americans are  underrepresented. State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs  (IO) is the lead entity responsible for promoting and seeking to increase  U.S. representation at the UN and for implementing State’s requirement to  provide the annual reports to Congress on U.S. representation. State IO  also relies on other bureaus within State, U.S. Missions to the UN, and  other U.S. government agencies to assist with efforts to improve U.S.  representation and support Americans currently employed in the UN.  While State is responsible for promoting and seeking to increase U.S.  representation in the UN, the UN organizations themselves are ultimately  responsible for hiring their employees and achieving equitable  representation.
In response to your request and to address the concerns discussed above,  we examined (1) U.S. representation at five UN organizations; (2) issues  affecting the recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff,  including Americans at these five UN organizations; and (3) efforts State  has undertaken to increase U.S. representation at UN organizations,  including its implementation of our 2006 recommendations.
To address these objectives, we focused our review on U.S. employment at  five UN organizations: the Secretariat in New York; the IAEA in Vienna;  the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome; and the UNHCR  and World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. We reviewed three of  these UN organizations in 2006 (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNHCR) and  selected two additional organizations (FAO and WHO) for this review. We  selected these five organizations because, as of 2009, they had either  formal—the Secretariat, FAO, and WHO—or informal—IAEA and  UNHCR—geographic targets, and together comprise over 50 percent of  total UN organizations’ professional staff. To determine the staffing levels  of Americans in these UN organizations, and how U.S. representation has  changed, we analyzed employment data for 2006 through 2009 that we  obtained from the five UN organizations. For the purpose of this report,  the United States is considered equitably represented if the number of  Americans is within the UN organizations’ geographic target range. We  determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  review for the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA and UNHCR, while WHO raised  questions about the reliability of its data. To examine issues affecting the  recruitment, hiring, and retention of Americans at the five UN  organizations, we analyzed documents from these organizations and  interviewed UN human resources officials, 63 Americans employed at the  five UN organizations, and U.S. government officials. The results of our  interviews with the Americans employed at the five UN organizations are  not generalizeable to those organizations or the UN system. To assess  efforts State has undertaken to increase U.S. representation at UN  organizations, we reviewed documents from State, other U.S. agencies,  and the UN. We also interviewed State officials, representatives of U.S.  government agencies, human resources and other staff from the five UN  organizations, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in issues  related to U.S. representation in the UN.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September  2010, 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. Appendix I contains a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The UN is composed of six principal bodies: the General Assembly,  Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council,  International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The UN system also  encompasses funds and programs, such as the United Nations  Development Program, and specialized agencies, such as FAO. These  funds, programs, and specialized agencies have their own governing  bodies and budgets but follow the guidelines of the UN charter. Article  101 of the UN Charter states that, in recruiting staff, the primary  consideration is to obtain “the highest standards of efficiency,  competence, and integrity” and recognizes the importance of recruiting  staff on “as wide a geographical basis as possible.” Each UN organization  has its own personnel policies, procedures, and staff rules that it uses to  fulfill these recruitment goals. Generally, UN organizations use a standard  pay scale based on a common job classification system to compensate  their professional staff. Table 1 shows the UN grade scale and the  approximate U.S. government equivalent. UN organizations also have their  own governing bodies composed of member states that provide those  countries with a method of influencing the policies of the organization.
Of the five agencies we reviewed, four—the Secretariat, FAO, WHO, and  IAEA—have designated positions subject to geographic distribution. The  Secretariat, FAO, and WHO have established formulas to determine  member states’ targets for equitable representation, which consider three  factors: membership status, financial contribution, and population size.  IAEA informally calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its  geographic representation is less than half of its percentage contribution  to the budget. Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target for  geographic representation at IAEA. UNHCR has not established a  quantitative formula or positions subject to geographic representation, but  it acknowledges U.S. concerns regarding the appropriate level of U.S.  representation. According to State’s 2009 report to Congress on U.S.  representation in the UN, State has determined that, for organizations to  which the United States contributes 22 percent, Americans should hold at  least 13 percent of professional positions to be considered equitably  represented.
Figure 1 shows the number of total staff in geographic and nongeographic  professional positions, in 2006 and 2009, at four UN organizations we  reviewed. Figure 2 shows the number of Americans in geographic and  nongeographic positions at these four UN organizations in 2006 and 2009.  Americans comprised the largest number of staff in geographic positions,  as well as the largest number in all professional positions—except at FAO  where the United States ranked second—at the organizations we  reviewed.
UNHCR is not depicted above as it does not distinguish between  geographic and nongeographic positions. Table 2 shows the total number  of professional staff at UNHCR in 2006 and 2009, the number of Americans  who filled those positions, and the respective growth rates of each.
State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for leading U.S. efforts  toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in UN organizations. In  doing so, State cooperates with at least 17 federal agencies that have  interests in specific UN organizations. For example, Brookhaven and  Argonne National Laboratories, the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) all  play active roles in recruiting Americans to work for IAEA, FAO, and  WHO, respectively. A 1970 executive order assigns the Secretary of State  responsibility for leading and coordinating the federal government’s  efforts to increase and improve U.S. participation in international  organizations through transfers and details for federal employees. The  order further calls for each agency in the executive branch “to the  maximum extent feasible” promote details and transfers to international  organizations through measures such as (1) notifying well-qualified agency  employees of vacancies in international organizations and (2) upon  request of an appropriate authority, providing international organizations  with detailed assessments of the qualifications of employees being  considered for specific positions. Some U.S. agencies allow for  secondments, in which the agency’s employees are detailed to a UN  organization for a certain period of time, while the U.S. agency pays the  salaries, benefits, and other allowances for these secondees. The  Department of Health and Human Services has about 45 officials, usually  from CDC, seconded to WHO worldwide. Similarly, Argonne and  Brookhaven National Laboratories currently have 25 American CFEs  working at IAEA, according to these agencies’ officials. These are  technical specialists, mid- to senior-level staff, who work on short-term  projects at IAEA for periods of 2 to 5 years.
section_title: The United States Was Generally Underrepresented in Geographic Positions, and the Growth of Nongeographic Positions Could Further Weaken U.S. Representation
paragraphs: In 2009, the United States was underrepresented at all five UN  organizations we reviewed—the Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and  UNHCR. During the period 2006 to 2009, the United States was generally  underrepresented, or at the low end of the target range, at four of the five  UN organizations—the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR. However,  during that same time period, the relative number of nongeographic  positions in the five UN organizations, positions primarily funded by  extrabudgetary sources, has significantly increased. An assessment of the  full picture of professional employment, which includes both geographic  and nongeographic positions, shows that the relative increase in  nongeographic positions at these organizations could result in even lower  overall U.S. representation at FAO and the Secretariat but lead to an  increase in overall representation at IAEA. U.S. representation in  policymaking and senior-level positions generally decreased at most UN  organizations we reviewed.
subsections: section_title: The United States Was Generally Underrepresented at All Five UN Organizations
paragraphs: Based on UN organizations’ formal and informal targets for equitable  geographic representation in 2009, the United States was  underrepresented at all five of the UN organizations we reviewed—the  Secretariat, WHO, FAO, IAEA, and UNHCR. For example, the minimum  geographic target for Americans at the Secretariat in 2009 was 12.5  percent, whereas U.S. representation was 11.9 percent. Table 3 shows the  targets for geographic positions for each of the UN organizations for 2009  and the percentage of those positions filled by Americans. In addition,  table 3 also shows the percentage of nongeographic positions filled by  Americans. The percentage of nongeographic positions filled by  Americans is higher at WHO and IAEA and lower at the Secretariat and  FAO compared with the percentage of geographic positions held by  Americans at these organizations. From 2006 to 2009, the United States  was generally underrepresented, or at the low end of the target range, at  four of the five UN organizations—the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA, and  UNHCR, but became underrepresented in all of the organizations by  2009. See appendix II for details of U.S. representation at the five  organizations during 2006 to 2009.
Only the number of Americans employed in UN organizations’ geographic  positions, not those in nongeographic positions, is required and tracked  for congressional reporting and represents State IO’s performance  indicator for U.S. employment at the UN. However, State officials told us  that their goal is to increase U.S. representation overall, regardless of the  grade level or type of position, or whether positions count toward the  U.S.’s geographic targets at UN organizations. State officials said that their  recruitment efforts are not targeted solely toward geographic positions, in  part because UN vacancy announcements do not distinguish between  geographic and nongeographic positions.
section_title: The Relative Increase of Nongeographic to Geographic Positions Could Lower Overall U.S. Representation in Two UN Organizations
paragraphs: From 2006 to 2009, in the four organizations with geographic positions, the  growth rate of staff in nongeographic positions was considerably higher  compared with the growth rate of staff in geographic positions. For  example, from 2006 to 2009, the annual growth rate of nongeographic  positions at the Secretariat was 13 percent, leading to an increase in  nongeographic positions as a percentage of all professional positions from  about 64 percent in 2006 to 70.5 percent in 2009. Correspondingly, the  growth rate of American staff in nongeographic positions at the Secretariat  was 15 percent, and the percentage of Americans in nongeographic  positions (computed as a percentage of total American professional  positions) increased from 57 percent to nearly 66 percent. Meanwhile,  both overall geographic positions at the Secretariat and geographic  positions held by Americans grew by slightly more than 2 percent.
Examining employment data for both geographic and nongeographic  positions shows that the relative increase in the number of nongeographic  positions at these organizations could result in even lower overall U.S.  representation at FAO and the Secretariat but lead to an increase in  overall U.S. representation at IAEA. As previously shown in table 3, in  2009, the United States had a lower percentage of Americans in  nongeographic positions compared with geographic positions at the  Secretariat and FAO. For example, at FAO, U.S. nongeographic  representation was 6.9 percent, and geographic representation was 12.7  percent. On the other hand, a relative increase in nongeographic positions  could mean an improvement in overall U.S. representation at IAEA, where  the United States had nearly twice the representation in nongeographic  (20.1 percent) as compared with geographic positions (11.2 percent). At  WHO, U.S. representation in geographic and nongeographic positions was  relatively equal in 2009.
The majority of the funding for nongeographic professional positions in  2009 came from extrabudgetary funds at three of the four UN  organizations with geographic positions—the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO.  At IAEA, about one-third of the nongeographical positions are funded from  extrabudgetary sources. At UNHCR, extrabudgetary funds are the primary  funding source for nearly all professional positions (see app. IV). In  particular, the funding for the shorter-term or more limited-duration  positions—the fastest growing component of nongeographic professional  staff positions during the 2006 to 2009 time period—comes almost  exclusively from extrabudgetary sources rather than the regular budget at  the Secretariat, FAO, and UNHCR. For example, at the Secretariat,  Assignments of Limited Duration (ALD), which are funded almost entirely  from extrabudgetary funds, grew by 18.2 percent, increased from 950  positions in 2006 to 1,538 in 2009. Similarly, at FAO, ALDs, also primarily  funded from extrabudgetary funds, grew by 29.5 percent, increasing from  32 to 65 positions over this time period. The UN JIU noted in a 2007 report  that some UN organizations were facing critical shortages of core  resources and were using their extrabudgetary resources to close gaps and  fund key functions and staff. The same report also stated that the  increase in extrabudgetary resources affects the management of UN  organizations.
section_title: U.S. Representation in Policymaking and Senior- Level Positions Generally Decreased at UN Organizations
paragraphs: With regard to Americans in geographic policymaking and senior-level  positions, we found that, from 2006 to 2009, U.S. representation in these  positions decreased at three of the four organizations that distinguish  between geographic and nongeographic positions—the Secretariat, WHO,  and IAEA. In addition, U.S. representation in policymaking and senior- level positions at UNHCR, which does not differentiate geographic and  nongeographic positions, also declined. (See table 4. See app. III for U.S.  representation, by grade, at the five UN organizations from 2006 to 2009.)
Additionally, we found that the relative increase in nongeographic  positions translates into a substantial increase in the total number of  policymaking and senior-level positions at the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO,  along with an increase in the number of Americans holding these  positions. For example, the total number of policymaking and senior-level  positions at the Secretariat in 2009 increased from 354 positions (see table  4) to 722 (see table 5) when the nongeographic positions are included as  well. However, comparing the percentage of these positions held by  Americans in 2009 from both tables shows that, at the Secretariat and  IAEA, the percentage of policymaking and senior-level positions held by  Americans, when these nongeographic positions are included, is lower  compared with these geographic positions held by Americans; whereas at  WHO and FAO, U.S. representation in nongeographic policymaking and  senior-level positions is somewhat higher when compared with the  geographic positions held by Americans. Table 5 shows the total number  of all policymaking and senior-level positions—geographic and  nongeographic—for each UN organization and the percentage of these  positions held by Americans.
When nongeographic policymaking and senior-level positions are included  with the geographic positions, U.S. representation declines in two  organizations and increases in two organizations. For example, in 2009,  U.S. representation in geographic policymaking and senior-level positions  at the Secretariat was 14.4 percent, but it falls to 13.2 when nongeographic  policymaking and senior-level positions are included. However, at WHO,  U.S. representation in geographic policymaking and senior-level positions  in 2009 was 5.0 percent, but increases to 7.6 percent when nongeographic  policymaking and senior-level positions are included.
section_title: Challenges within UN Organizations Affect the Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention of Professional Staff, including Americans, but Human Resource Reforms May Help Mitigate These Issues
paragraphs: All five of the UN organizations we reviewed face challenges to recruiting,  hiring, and retaining professional staff, including Americans, most of  which are outside direct U.S. government control. The UN organizations  have taken steps to mitigate the effects of some of these challenges,  including a variety of human resource reform initiatives, and the U.S.  government has also made some efforts to lessen the effect of these  challenges on Americans.
subsections: section_title: UN Organizations Face Challenges to Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining Professional Staff, Including Americans
paragraphs: Based on our interviews with 63 Americans employed at the UN  organizations, UN human resources officials, and U.S. officials, we  identified eight issues that present challenges to recruiting, hiring, and  retaining American professional staff at the five UN organizations we  reviewed. These issues range from challenges related to the organizations’  human resource policies and practices, such as policies limiting hiring  opportunities, to the particular situations of individual candidates, such as  whether they have proficiency in more than one UN language. Our 2001  and 2006 reports identified similar types of human resource challenges.  These challenges are as follows:    American candidates lack proficiency in more than one UN language.
UN organizations face challenges finding qualified Americans who  sometimes lack proficiency in more than one UN language, a requirement  for many UN organizations. For example, a FAO human resources official  said that, while most other nationals know at least two languages,  Americans and Japanese particularly struggle to meet FAO’s language  requirement. As a result, for unrepresented and underrepresented  countries, FAO is working on reducing the barrier created by lack of  another foreign language by offering language training once the candidate  is hired. U.S. Mission officials in New York and Geneva also commented  that many Americans are at a disadvantage in competing for UN jobs  because they lack knowledge of multiple languages. UNHCR human  resources officials said that knowledge of English, French, and one other  language is important for the organization, particularly for promotion, and  Americans experience difficulties in meeting this requirement.
Difficulty obtaining spousal employment. At the four UN organizations  located in Europe, many spouses of American employees have difficulty  finding employment, which could contribute to the attrition of American  employees at those organizations. In contrast, citizens of European Union  countries have the right to employment without a work permit in any  European Union country. As we reported in 2006, at many overseas UN  duty stations, work permits can be difficult to obtain, the local economy  may offer few employment opportunities, and knowledge of the local  language may be required. According to a Brookhaven National  Laboratory discussion paper on obstacles to recruiting Americans for  IAEA positions, since “U.S. families tend to have two wage earners, lack of  employment for the spouse represents a loss of wages and the  unemployed spouse can feel unfulfilled.” FAO, UNHCR, and IAEA human  resources officials said that it is difficult for American spouses to get  employed in Rome, Geneva, and Vienna, which is a major challenge for  American candidates and employees. The majority of Americans we spoke  with also identified spousal employment as a challenge to recruiting,  hiring, and retaining Americans in UN organizations. For example, at  IAEA, several Americans said that their spouses gave up jobs to move to  Vienna, and one said that she would leave the organization when her  contract ends if her spouse remained unemployed. U.S. government  officials acknowledge the challenge of spousal employment, and State IO’s  Web site now has a booklet with resources for families seeking  employment abroad. The Brookhaven National Laboratory also plans to  develop resources for spousal employment in Vienna in 2010. The UN  organizations we reviewed allow spousal employment; however, at most  of these organizations, spouses must obtain jobs through the normal  competitive process. FAO and IAEA have explored ideas with other UN  organizations in Rome and Vienna to accommodate spousal employment,  although human resources officials at IAEA said they have not yet been  successful in finding employment for spouses at other UN organizations.  FAO said that it has been designated the lead organization in a pilot  program to negotiate with the Italian government on obtaining work  permits for UN spouses.
Lengthy hiring process. UN organizations’ lengthy hiring processes can  deter candidates from accepting employment. According to UN human  resources officials, the average hiring process can take from  approximately 6 to 9 months. (See fig. 3 for the average length of the hiring  process at the five UN organizations we reviewed.) As we noted in 2006, a  report from the Secretary-General stated that the average hiring process is  too slow, taking 174 days from the date a vacancy announcement is issued  to the date a candidate is selected. An independent external evaluation of  FAO in 2007 found that FAO’s recruitment processes were slow, complex,  and overly centralized. Human resources officials at FAO and the  Secretariat acknowledged that lengthy hiring times cause problems  because applicants find work elsewhere while waiting to hear from the UN  organization. Human resources officials at the Secretariat and WHO also  said that the lengthy hiring process can cause some hiring managers to  circumvent the process by hiring people on short-term contracts. For  example, at WHO, candidates can obtain temporary contracts of less than  6 months without having to go through the competitive hiring process. Of  the 63 Americans we spoke with, 45 identified the length of the hiring  process as a challenge to recruitment and hiring. Most of the organizations  we reviewed are working on initiatives to decrease average hiring time at  their organizations. For instance, IAEA is preparing to implement an  initiative to reduce the hiring time to 15 weeks by advertising job  vacancies for a shorter period of time and having hiring managers review  applications as they come in, rather than after the vacancy announcement  has closed. In response to the independent external evaluation, FAO has  begun streamlining its hiring process, for instance, eliminating the  “onerous” requirement to enter data on all job applicants, regardless of  whether they meet the job qualifications.
Limited opportunity for promotion and professional growth. According  to many Americans employed at the five UN organizations, limited  opportunities for promotion and professional growth present a challenge  to retaining Americans. Promotion is generally achieved by applying to a  new position at a higher grade level rather than through the  reclassification of one’s current position. For example, IAEA human  resources officials said that only about 5 percent of promotions at each  grade level occur through the reclassification of a position to a higher  grade-level and that the primary means of moving to a higher grade level is  by competing for a new position. Likewise, at WHO, promotion occurs  through applying for a new job at a higher grade level, although human  resources officials said that their human resource reform initiatives will  change the promotion process. Human resources officials at FAO also told  us about the limited availability for promotion at their organization, where  24 percent of staff have been in the same job or grade level for 8 or more  years. At UNHCR, a 2008 survey of headquarters and field staff found that  only 23 percent of staff surveyed thought that promotion at UNHCR was  based on merit.
Low or unclear benefits or compensation. Officials at three of the five UN  organizations said that either their organizations could do a better job  explaining their employment benefits to prospective employees or that  low compensation makes it difficult to recruit and retain Americans. At  FAO, for example, vacancy announcements do not provide consistent  information on benefits and salary. Some FAO announcements provide a  link to the general Web site of the International Civil Service Commission  (ICSC), some provide a link to the specific ICSC Web page that has  information on salaries and benefits, and some only provide the salary  range without giving any information on other employment benefits.  Representatives of the staff association at FAO said that benefit and salary  information is not clear when applying for FAO positions and even  difficult to obtain after being hired. FAO human resources officials  acknowledged that it could be helpful to provide more compensation and  benefits information in their vacancy announcements. At IAEA, a human  resources official explained that it is difficult for people outside the  organization to understand all of the benefits of UN employment, which  vary significantly from candidate to candidate. For example, people often  do not understand that their salary at IAEA would be composed of a base  salary plus a post-adjustment that depends on the location where they will  be working. IAEA provides prospective employees with a link to a salary  estimation calculator created by the United Nations Development Program  that allows them to estimate items such as the post-adjustment, as well as  dependency and hardship allowances but does not include information on  other benefits, such as education grants. The U.S. government provides  prospective UN employees with some information on UN benefits and  salary. For instance, some Americans at IAEA said that Brookhaven  National Laboratory’s Web site provides helpful information on salary and  benefits. State IO’s Web site also provides a general list of the UN’s  benefits.
Noncompetitive practices. The 2007 independent external evaluation of  FAO found a strong and consistent perception among FAO staff that the  appointment process for FAO representatives lacks transparency and  results in politicized appointments. Additionally, the Office of the UN  Ombudsman and Mediation Services reported in 2009 that it received  cases from individuals who said that the recruitment and selection  processes in the UN lacked rigor and were not transparent. Of the 63  American employees at the five UN organizations we interviewed, 28 said  that noncompetitive human resource practices at their organizations  present challenges to recruitment, hiring, and retention. Some Americans  expressed the perception that friends and fellow nationals help each other  within their organization. Other Americans also noted that some UN  officials have ways to bypass an organization’s procedures and policies, or  vacancy announcements appear to be written for specific candidates.  Several Americans at IAEA expressed the perception that promotion  based on merit is almost nonexistent and that Americans who start at the  entry to midcareer level cannot move up through the organization.  UNHCR’s Office of the Ombudsman reported in 2009 that, in its opinion,  UNHCR had failed to come up with a methodology for promotion that staff  see as credible and fair. However, several Americans said that the hiring  process at their organizations were rigid with many steps or were very  competitive processes. UN human resources officials described  competitive recruitment processes for professional staff— such as  selection panels composed of officials from various parts of the  organization, interviews, and tests—while also needing to be responsive to  organizations’ commitments to gender and geographic diversity.
Preference for hiring internal candidates. As we reported in 2006,  increased recruitment and hiring of U.S. candidates may be difficult  because some UN organizations give preference to internal candidates.  For example, both the Secretariat and UNHCR have human resource  policies that give priority to internal job candidates, which could make it  more difficult for external applicants to obtain jobs. All of the Americans  we spoke to at the Secretariat and UNHCR perceived limited opportunities  for external candidates to be a barrier to hiring. The Secretariat’s human  resources officials said that, prior to a recent change, the Secretariat’s  policy ensured that hiring managers reviewed internal candidates’  applications for vacancies 30 to 45 days prior to those submitted by  external candidates. One path for external candidates to be hired into  entry-level positions at the Secretariat involves taking the National  Competitive Recruitment Exam, which the Secretariat offers to candidates  in underrepresented countries such as the United States. However, of the  240 Americans invited to take the exam, only 9 were hired on average each  year between 2006 and 2009. (See fig. 4.)
Required mobility or rotation. UNHCR requires most professional staff to  change posts every few years, while IAEA requires the majority of its  regular staff to leave the agency after 5 to 7 years. UNHCR expects its staff  to be mobile and work in different locations worldwide during their  career. At IAEA, the organization’s position is that the rotation policy  provides it with a continuous influx of new knowledge and experience.  However, such a policy may dissuade some Americans from accepting or  staying in a UN position because moves to different locations may cause  disruptions to personal or family life. A majority of Americans we  interviewed at UNHCR and IAEA indicated that required mobility or  rotation is a challenge to recruitment, hiring, and retention. At UNHCR,  officials said that the hardship of rotation is a major challenge for the  organization, and the frequent reassignment of staff can destabilize  families and also causes staff to feel insecure about their career  development. Most Americans we spoke with at IAEA cited the policy  requiring rotation out of the organization as a primary reason why  Americans leave IAEA.
section_title: UN Organizations Are Currently Implementing Human Resources Reform Initiatives
paragraphs: The five UN organizations we reviewed have initiated or are in the process  of implementing a variety of human resource reforms that may lessen  some of the human resource challenges affecting the recruitment, hiring,  and retention of Americans and other nationals. See table 6 for an  overview of selected human resource reforms at the five UN organizations.  For instance, initiatives to reform the performance management processes  could help address concerns over promotion processes and perception of  limited professional growth in the UN organizations we reviewed.  According to UN officials, many of these reforms have recently been  completed or are still under way. For example, contract reforms to  consolidate the different types of contracts at the Secretariat went into  effect in July 2009, although agreement on the terms of one type of  contract, the continuing appointment, has yet to be reached by the General  Assembly. UNHCR officials said that they are waiting for the General  Assembly’s decision on this type of appointment before finishing UNHCR’s  own contract reforms. Since many of these reforms are in the process of  being implemented, the full impact of these initiatives has yet to be  realized.
section_title: State Has Made Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation but Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Most of These Efforts and Allocates JPOs at Only a Few UN Organizations
paragraphs: State has taken steps to increase U.S. representation in UN organizations,  including the implementation of some of our 2006 report  recommendations. However, State has not evaluated the effectiveness of  most of its ongoing efforts to increase U.S. representation. In addition,  State continues to sponsor JPO programs, used to place Americans in  entry-level UN jobs, at only a few UN organizations.
subsections: section_title: State Has Taken Actions Intended to Increase U.S. Representation
paragraphs: Since 2006, State has continued its activities toward its goal of increasing  U.S. representation at UN organizations, including the following:    compiling and disseminating a biweekly list of international vacancy  announcements, accessible on State’s Web site;    attending recruiting events such as career fairs and information sessions;  responding to questions from individuals interested in UN positions or  from candidates who are finalists for UN positions; and    coordinating with other U.S. agencies, including holding annual  interagency task force meetings, to discuss strategies for increasing U.S.  representation at specific UN organizations.
State has also undertaken further efforts in response to some of our 2006  recommendations to increase U.S. representation at UN organizations, as  follows:  Improved Web site information. In 2006, we reported that State, U.S.  Missions, and agency Web sites had limited information on UN  employment opportunities. For example, the Web site did not provide a  means for applicants to obtain more specific information on their  expected total compensation, which may hamper a candidate’s ability to  decide whether a UN position is in his or her best interest. Since 2007,  State has provided more information on its Web site, such as information  on UN benefits and compensation; an updated and expanded fact sheet on  UN employment; and information on resources for spousal employment.
Expanded recruitment activities. In 2006, we reported that State’s  recruitment and outreach efforts did not reach some potential applicants.  State officials attended career fairs and other conferences to discuss UN  employment opportunities with attendees, but they had not taken  advantage of other opportunities to expand the audience for their  outreach activities. Since then, State reported that it had increased its  number of outreach events from 15 events in 2005 to 38 in 2009, including  outreach to new groups.
Roster of prospective American applicants. In 2006, we reported that  State no longer maintained a roster of qualified American candidates for  professional and technical positions. Other U.S. government and UN  officials informed us that some countries maintained rosters of  prescreened, qualified candidates for UN positions and that this practice  was an effective strategy for promoting their nationals. In August 2010,  State officials noted that they were in the process of finalizing the  implementation of a roster database, in which people interested in UN  jobs could self-populate information about their skills and interests, then  receive an automated e-mail listing relevant UN organizations’ vacancy  announcements.
In addition, the U.S. Missions to the UN in New York, Rome, Geneva, and  Vienna work with State IO to promote U.S. employment. However, the U.S.  Missions have varying levels of involvement to support Americans at the  five UN organizations we reviewed. According to U.S. and UN officials,  U.S. Missions to the UN have open dialogues with UN organizations’  human resources officials to promote the U.S. presence at these  organizations. For example, the U.S. Mission to the UN in Rome has  provided lists of professional associations to FAO officials to identify  targeted groups of American candidates. State IO officials told us that, in  their meetings with Americans employed by UN organizations, they found  that many Americans were interested in a forum where they could discuss  concerns with other Americans. In 2008, State IO requested that the U.S.  Missions intensify their efforts to improve support of Americans working  at UN organizations by maintaining active and open communication with  them, such as regularly holding events to foster relationships. However,  we found that different U.S. Missions provided different levels of support.  For example, the U.S. Mission in Rome has periodically hosted meetings  for Americans employed at UN organizations there to discuss their  common concerns, but the U.S. Mission in New York has not held such a  meeting, which some American employees of the Secretariat we  interviewed noted would be beneficial. Several American employees of UN  organizations in Geneva said they experienced problems overseas, but  they did not have the means for seeking out other Americans in order to  share information. According to State officials, the U.S. Mission’s level of  involvement depends on different factors, such as the size of the mission.
section_title: State Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Most of Its Ongoing Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation
paragraphs: According to State, two bureaus outside of IO have made some efforts to  determine the effectiveness of a few U.S. recruitment efforts. For example,  State, through Argonne National Laboratory, has been working on a survey  to determine the effectiveness of current IAEA recruitment efforts.  However, State has not assessed the effectiveness of most of its efforts to  increase U.S. representation. For instance, despite the increased number  of outreach events State officials attend, State does not survey the  attendees to determine ways to improve its presentation of information.  Recognizing the need to understand recruitment problems at IAEA,  Brookhaven National Laboratory convened a workshop with participants  who have expertise in the technical area or with recruitment issues, to  discuss ways in which the laboratory can increase U.S. representation. The  report resulting from the workshop provided specific recommendations,  such as polling Americans currently working at IAEA to gather  information about how they learned about IAEA. State has not conducted  such formal analysis of its approach to increasing American presence in  UN organizations overall. In its fiscal year 2011 Bureau Strategic Plan,  State IO has a performance indicator of the average percentage of  Americans as part of UN organizations’ workforce in geographic positions.  As discussed earlier, in 2009, the United States was underrepresented in all  five UN organizations we reviewed. State officials’ position remains that it  is difficult to make a direct link between current or proposed efforts by  the department and the number of Americans ultimately hired by the UN  because of the many factors that State cannot control. For example,  interested American candidates may not attend State’s outreach events  and may not be aware of State IO’s Web site. Furthermore, UN  organizations ultimately make their own hiring decisions, and State has  limited influence over these decisions.
We found that many Americans we interviewed did not seek assistance  from State IO or the U.S. Missions when they considered working for UN  organizations. Many did not know that State IO and U.S. Missions to the  UN provided information or assistance on UN employment opportunities.  Instead, many Americans we spoke with learned about UN job  opportunities through their own personal or professional networks. Only 9  out of 59 Americans we interviewed sought the assistance of State IO or  U.S. Missions when they applied for UN positions. Some of the Americans  noted that the U.S. government could increase its support for Americans  during the application and hiring process to better promote the hiring of  Americans at UN organizations. State officials told us that any means to  increase American employment at UN organizations, whether through  State’s assistance or not, would help the United States toward achieving its  goal of equitable representation.
section_title: State Allocates JPOs at Only a Few UN Organizations
paragraphs: JPO, Associate Expert (AE), and Associate Professional Officer (APO)  programs provide UN organizations with young professionals who usually  work in entry-level positions for a period of 2 to 4 years. JPOs are  considered staff members of the UN organizations but are funded by  member states. The U.S. government, including State entities, sponsors  JPOs to work at three of the five UN organizations we reviewed. State  officials noted that State’s Bureaus of Population, Refugees, and Migration  (PRM) and International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) can fund  JPOs at UNHCR and IAEA, respectively, because funding JPOs to work at  these UN organizations is aligned with the PRM’s and ISN’s missions and  activities. Information about JPO and APO programs sponsored by the  United States at each of the three UN organizations is as follows:    JPOs at UNHCR. PRM sponsors the JPO program at UNHCR. According to  State officials, about 88 JPOs have completed the program since 1983.  About 60 percent of American JPOs returned to work at UNHCR. State  officials noted that, on an annual basis, PRM informally evaluates the  effectiveness of the JPO program performance in getting Americans hired  at UNHCR.
JPOs at IAEA. ISN funds the JPO program at IAEA. The program is  implemented by the Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories. In  2009, 11 out of a total of 16 JPOs at IAEA were American. IAEA officials  noted that the organization intends for JPOs to eventually return to IAEA  after gaining additional work experience.
APOs at FAO. USDA funds the APO program. Since 2000, USDA has  sponsored approximately 1 to 3 American APOs annually at FAO.
Table 7 provides 2009 data on the number of American JPOs compared  with the total number of JPOs at the five UN organizations we reviewed.
In 2006, we recommended that State evaluate the overall costs and  benefits of supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S.  representation across UN organizations. Such an evaluation would help  determine which UN organization the United States should prioritize in  terms of increasing U.S. employment by funding JPOs. We noted that the  assessment would also involve weighing the trade-offs between funding  JPOs and other agency programs. According to a State official, State did  not conduct its own formal assessment of funding JPOs. Instead, its  informal review of funding the JPO program consisted of relying on and  agreeing with the findings of a 2008 JIU report that reviewed JPO  programs across the UN system. The JIU report noted that countries may  use the JPO program as a tool to remedy their underrepresentation in UN  organizations, and UN organizations have high retention rates of JPOs.  State officials informed us that they support the program and  acknowledge the program’s general benefits as noted in the JIU report.
According to the JIU report on JPOs, the largest sponsors of JPOs make  periodic evaluations of their programs and, according to changes in  circumstances, modify their priorities or reformulate the scope and focus.  State does not currently make determinations about how to prioritize  which UN organization could benefit most from having JPOs. The overall  result is that State has funded as many as 11 JPOs at one UN organization  and none at some other organizations that may benefit from having JPOs.  For example, in 2009, 39 countries sponsored 248 JPOs at the Secretariat,  with no representation from the United States where the Secretariat  headquarters is located. Many U.S. and UN officials told us that the JPO  program is a good entry point into the UN system. In addition, we found  that 33 of the 61 American respondents we interviewed would recommend  that the U.S. government fund JPOs to increase American representation  in the UN, the primary suggestion among these Americans for increased  U.S. government involvement.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Despite State’s ongoing efforts, the United States is underrepresented in  geographic positions at a number of UN organizations. While many of the  factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of Americans at these  organizations are outside U.S. control, actions by the U.S. government may  still have a positive effect. However, State’s lack of information on the  effectiveness of its current efforts limits State’s ability to modify its  approach by expanding on its best practices and eliminating ineffective  activities. The JPO program represents one area with the potential for  positive impact on improving U.S. representation at the UN; however,  State allocates JPOs at only a few UN organizations. Furthermore,  geographic positions only represent a subset of the overall level of  employment at UN organizations. Examining employment data for both  geographic and nongeographic positions shows the UN organizations in  which the United States may have an even more difficult time achieving  equitable representation. Although State’s recruitment efforts are directed  at increasing U.S. representation without regard to geographic or  nongeographic positions, its current reporting does not capture important  trends of U.S. representation in UN organizations. Without a more  accurate and complete representation of overall U.S. professional  employment in UN organizations, State will not have the necessary  information to target its efforts, particularly in light of the many challenges  that Americans experience while employed in the UN. Congress could also  benefit from receiving more complete reporting on the overall level of U.S.  employment at UN organizations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: This report contains three recommendations to the Secretary of State. (1)  To provide more complete information on the level of U.S. representation  at UN organizations, we recommend that the Secretary of State include  data on U.S. representation in all professional positions, similar to the  information it currently provides on staff in geographic positions, in  State’s annual report to Congress on U.S. representation in UN  organizations. (2) To improve U.S. efforts to increase the employment of  Americans at UN organizations, we recommend that the Secretary of State  develop a means to evaluate the effectiveness of State’s efforts to increase  U.S. representation. The evaluation should include an assessment of  State’s ongoing efforts such as its Web-based database for sending UN  vacancy announcements to interested job candidates. (3) Consider  implementing a pilot program to fund JPOs at UN organizations where the  United States currently does not have JPOs such as the Secretariat.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We solicited comments on a draft of this report from State, FAO, IAEA, the  Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO. We received comments from State, which  are reprinted in appendix V. State concurred with our recommendations.  State noted the challenges in obtaining employment data from the various  UN organizations, but said that it plans to seek additional information on  nongeographic positions to include in its annual report to Congress. In  concurring with our recommendation to evaluate the effectiveness of  State’s efforts to increase U.S. representation at UN organizations, State  said that a key tool for making decisions on priorities and directions for  some its approaches will be its new Web-based tool, designed to enhance  outreach to Americans on opportunities in the UN system. State also  agreed to consider funding for JPOs at UN organizations in conjunction  with other funding priorities. In addition, we received technical comments  from State, FAO, IAEA, the Secretariat, UNHCR, and WHO, which we have  incorporated as appropriate. In its technical comments, WHO raised  questions about the reliability of its data. A full description of this issue is  contained in appendix I.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, the United Nations Secretariat, the  World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the  International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Office of the United Nations  High Commissioner for Refugees. The report also is available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to examine (1) U.S. representation at  five United Nations (UN) organizations; (2) issues affecting the  recruitment, hiring, and retention of professional staff, including  Americans at these five UN organizations; and (3) efforts the State  Department (State) has undertaken to improve U.S. representation at UN  organizations, including its implementation of our 2006 recommendations.  Our scope included five UN organizations: the UN Secretariat (the  Secretariat), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Office of the  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Food and  Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Health Organization (WHO).  Technically, the IAEA is an independent international organization that  has a special relationship with the UN. For the purposes of this report, we  refer to the IAEA as a UN organization. We reviewed three of these UN  organizations in 2006 (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNHCR) and selected  two additional organizations (FAO and WHO). We selected these five  organizations because they have the largest professional staff sizes among  UN organizations with formal or informal geographic targets and also to  provide some overlap with the organizations we reviewed in 2006.  Together they comprised over 50 percent of total UN organizations’  professional staff as of December 2008. We conducted our work in  Washington, D.C.; New York; Geneva, Switzerland; Rome, Italy; and  Vienna, Austria.
subsections: section_title: Methodology for Reviewing U.S. Representation Status and Employment at Five UN Organizations
paragraphs: To determine U.S. representation status, trends in the number of  professional positions held by Americans, and the growth in  nongeographic positions, we analyzed employment data for 2006 through  2009 that we obtained from the five UN organizations. Data are for end of  calendar year, except for the Secretariat, which is for the year ending June  30. We had extensive communications with the staff responsible for  providing each organization’s personnel data to clarify details regarding  the data. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this review for the Secretariat, FAO, IAEA and UNHCR.  However, WHO raised questions about the reliability of its data. See below  for discussion.
To determine U.S. geographic representation at the four UN organizations  with geographic targets (the Secretariat, WHO, FAO, and IAEA), we  calculated the percentage of geographic positions filled by Americans and  compared this percentage with the organization’s target. We calculated the  geographic target for the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO as a percentage  range, in which the minimum and maximum number of national staff, as  provided by the organization, is divided by the actual geographic staff in  the organization. IAEA informally calculates a member state to be  underrepresented if its geographic representation is less than half of its  percentage contribution to the budget. Using this method, we calculated a  U.S. target. UNHCR has not adopted a formal geographic representation  target but acknowledges U.S. concerns regarding the appropriate level of  U.S. representation. We based our target representation for Americans at  UNHCR on State’s determination that, for organizations to which the  United States contributes 22 percent, American representation should be  at least 13 percent to be considered equitably represented. To determine  U.S. representation at UNHCR in comparison to this target, we calculated  the percentage of total professional positions (including both geographic  and nongeographic positions) filled by Americans. For the purpose of this  report, the United States is considered equitably represented if the number  of Americans is within the UN organizations geographic target range.
We also calculated U.S. representation, as shown in table 3, in  nongeographic positions and in total professional positions.  Nongeographic positions are regular professional positions without  geographic status. These positions include staff on both longer- and  shorter-term contracts of varying duration. Total professional positions  include both geographic and nongeographic positions. U.S. representation  in nongeographic positions is calculated as the percentage of each UN  organization’s nongeographic positions filled by Americans. U.S.  representation in total professional positions is calculated as the  percentage of each UN organization’s total professional positions filled by  Americans. For the four UN organizations with geographic positions, as  seen in figures 1 and 2, we calculated the change from 2006 to 2009 in the  number of geographic and nongeographic positions and the annual growth  rate of both geographic and nongeographic positions for each  organization’s total staff and for Americans. For details on U.S.  representation in each of the UN organizations we reviewed, see tables 8  through 12 in Appendix II.
U.S. representation in geographic policymaking and senior-level positions  in 2006 and 2009, as shown in table 4, is computed as the number of  Americans in these geographic positions as a percentage of the  organization’s total geographic policymaking and senior-level positions.  U.S. representation in all policymaking and senior-level positions— including both geographic and nongeographic—as shown in table 5, is  computed as the number of Americans in these positions as a percentage  of the organization’s total number of geographic and nongeographic  policymaking and senior-level positions. For UNHCR, U.S. representation  in policymaking and senior level positions in both tables is computed as  the number of all Americans in these positions as a percent of UNHCR’s  total policymaking and senior level positions.
For all five organizations, we have also included graphs (see figs. 5 to 9 in  app. III) to illustrate U.S. geographic representation (or, in the case of  UNHCR, U.S. representation in total professional positions) at each  grade—policymaking and senior-level (such as USG/ASG, D1/D2), mid- level (P4/P5), and entry-level (P1-P3)—as well as for all grades combined.  U.S. geographic grade-level employment representation is calculated by  dividing the number of U.S. staff at that grade level by the organization’s  total geographic employment for the corresponding grade level. At  UNHCR, U.S. representation at each grade level is calculated by dividing  the number of U.S. staff at that grade level by UNHCR’s total employment  for the corresponding grade level.
subsections: section_title: Reliability of WHO data
paragraphs: For our review, we used the data that WHO provided for our analysis.  During the course of our review of these data, we had numerous  communications with WHO data officials and went through multiple steps  to establish the accuracy, consistency, and completeness of the data we  report. At our briefing with State, officials noted a discrepancy between  the numbers WHO provided GAO in July 2010 and the official numbers  used by State, which were based on WHO’s Human Resources Annual  Report published in April 2010. We alerted WHO of this discrepancy well  in advance of sending WHO a copy of our draft report. We did not receive  a response until just prior to publication. In their response, WHO noted  that its new Global Management system is not fully implemented and that,  since the system’s inception in July 2008, it has created some problems for  WHO, such as data consolidation. WHO advised us to use the data it  published in WHO’s Human Resources Annual Reports as “this data is  tracked and verified manually.” However, WHO was unable to substantiate  this assertion in response to our request to provide evidence  demonstrating that the more outdated Annual Report numbers would be  more reliable than the more recent data they provided us. As such,  throughout the report, we have decided to use the more recent numbers  that WHO provided us beginning in July 2010.
section_title: Methodology for Reviewing Issues Affecting the Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention of Professional Staff at UN Organizations
paragraphs: To assess issues affecting the recruitment, hiring, and retention of  Americans at the five UN organizations, we reviewed UN organizations’  human resource policies and other documents and interviewed UN human  resources officials; U.S. government officials from State, Brookhaven and  Argonne National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),  and Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and 63 Americans employed at the  five UN organizations’ headquarters. Using a structured interview  questionnaire, we received the views of a total of 63 Americans’ employed  across the five UN organizations on various UN employment issues. We  gathered information from these employees through individual interviews,  small-group interviews, and a large-group interview. We also received  written answers to our questionnaire from some American employees.  Because of time constraints, not all questions were asked of every  individual. Questions with less than 63 respondents are identified as such  in the body of this review. We met with employees in a range of  professional grade levels from P1 (entry-level) to D2 (senior-level) and  contract types (such as temporary, fixed-term, and indefinite). We did not  select representative samples of American employees at any organization.  Therefore, the results of our interviews with the Americans employed at  the five UN organizations are not generalizable to those organizations or  the UN system. The structured interview questionnaire included a set of 25  closed and open-ended questions covering interviewees’ backgrounds,  work experience, and experiences within their organization. In  conjunction with information we gathered from UN and U.S. officials and  our analysis of UN documents, we used responses to the closed-ended  question on factors that might hinder UN organizations from recruiting,  hiring, and retaining Americans to select the factors affecting U.S.  representation discussed in the body of this review. To analyze how  current human resource reform initiatives may affect these challenges, we  used information collected from interviews with UN human resources  officials and UN documents.
section_title: Methodology for Reviewing U.S. State Department’s Efforts to Increase U.S. Representation at UN Organizations
paragraphs: To assess State’s efforts to increase U.S. representation, including the  implementation of our 2006 recommendations, we reviewed documents  and interviewed officials from State’s Bureau of International Organization  Affairs (IO). We discussed improvements that State has made since our  2006 report on U.S. representation in UN organizations, in response to  recommendations made in that report, and reviewed State’s  documentation of these activities. We reviewed other State documents,  including its annual reports to Congress, U.S. Representation in United  Nations Agencies and Efforts Made to Employ U.S. Citizens, and State  IO’s fiscal year 2011 strategic plan. In addition, we met with State officials  outside of IO, and other U.S. agency officials that have participated in  State’s interagency task force on UN employment or been involved with  recruiting Americans to work at the UN organizations we reviewed. We  reviewed documents these U.S. agencies provided on their strategies to  improve U.S. employment at UN organizations. Furthermore, we met with  UN human resources officials, American employees of UN organizations,  officials representing the U.S. Missions to the UN, and representatives of  nongovernmental organizations, to obtain their views on U.S. efforts for  increasing representation at UN organizations. We also reviewed the UN  Joint Inspection Unit report that assessed the JPO program at the UN.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September  2010, 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.
section_title: Appendix II: U.S. Representation in Geographic and Nongeographic Positions at Five UN Organizations, 2006-2009
paragraphs: For the four organizations that distinguish between geographic and  nongeographic positions, the following tables show the percentage and  numerical target for U.S. representation in geographic positions set by  each organization, the number of geographic positions that Americans  hold, the percentage of geographic positions that Americans fill, and the  equitability of this representation based on the targets. In addition, tables 8  to 12 show the percentage of nongeographic positions filled by Americans  and the percentage of total professional positions (geographic and  nongeographic, where applicable, and the more limited duration  appointments) held by Americans, at all five UN organizations we  reviewed. The table for UNHCR, which does not distinguish between  geographic and nongeographic positions, indicates, in addition to the  informal target percentages and numbers, U.S. representation in core  professional positions (indefinite contracts and contracts of longer fixed  term), as well as U.S representation in total professional positions, which  also includes fixed-term appointments (contracts for less than 1 year).
section_title: Appendix III: U.S. Representation, by Grade, in Geographic Positions in Four UN Organizations and in Total Professional Positions at UNHCR, 2006-2009
paragraphs: Figures 5 to 8 show U.S. representation in geographic positions at each  grade level—policymaking and senior-level (USG/ASG, D1/D2); mid-level  (P4/P5); entry-level (P1-P3); and “all grades”—in the four UN organizations  that distinguish between geographic and nongeographic positions. Figure  9 shows U.S. representation at UNHCR—a UN organization that does not  differentiate between geographic and nongeographic positions—in total  professional positions at each of these grade levels. The bold line in the  figures indicates the average minimum target for U.S. representation over  the period from 2006 to 2009. At IAEA and UNHCR, this target was  constant over this period. For the Secretariat, WHO, and FAO, the  minimum target varied within 2 percentage points over this period.
section_title: Appendix IV: Use of Extrabudgetary Resources to Fund Nongeographic Professional Staff
paragraphs: Table 13 shows that extrabudgetary resources are funding a growing  percentage of nongeographic positions in the four organizations that  distinguish between geographic and nongeographic positions. In addition,  at the Secretariat and WHO, an increasing percentage of extrabudgetary  resources are also being used to fund geographic positions.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the State Department
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas, Assistant  Director; Rachel Girshick; Victoria Lin; and Roberta G. (RG) Steinman  made key contributions to this report. The team benefited from the expert  advice and assistance of Debbie Chung, Joyce Evans, Joel Grossman, and  Grace Lui.