Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls
Published: 2009-09-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 language-designated positions; reviewed strategic planning and budgetary documents; interviewed State officials; and conducted fieldwork in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 language-proficient 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, 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  capacity, or “float,” to limit the number of overseas positions that are  vacant while employees are in language training.
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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  hard-to-staff posts. About 970, or 27 percent of, language-designated  positions are for supercritical or critical needs languages.
subsections: section_title: Proficiency Scale
paragraphs: State uses the foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal  Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) to rank an individual’s language  skills. 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  levels 2 and 3. Table 2 shows the language skill requirements for each  proficiency level.
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.
section_title: State Continues to Face Shortfalls in Meeting Its Foreign Language Requirements, with Potentially Adverse Effects on Department Operations
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Some Foreign Service Officers Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions
paragraphs: 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 language- designated 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.
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.
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 language- designated 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. 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).
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).
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.  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.
When posts are unable to fill language-designated positions with langu qualified officers, they must decide whether to request a language waiver  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 Asia,  where the language requirement for about 18 percent of the region’s 206  language-designated positions was waived in 2008, compared with   5 percent in both East Asia and the Western Hemisphere.
section_title: Language Shortfalls Negatively Affect Aspects of U.S. Diplomacy
paragraphs: 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  reports, and reports by State’s Inspector General, the National Research  C current fieldwork, previous GAO  ouncil, and the Department of Defense.
Officials at one high-fraud visa  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. 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).
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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 Arabic- speaking 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).
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 Arabic- speaking 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).
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 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).
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 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).
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.
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).
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  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.
section_title: State Efforts to Meet Foreign Language Requirements, Which Include Training, Recruitment, and Incentives, Face Several Challenges
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: State Determines Its Foreign Language Requirements through an Annual Review Process, but These Requirements May Not Reflect Actual Needs
paragraphs: 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  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.  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  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.
section_title: State Uses Language Training and Other Means in Its Effort to Meet Language Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Training
paragraphs: 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.
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  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. 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.
section_title: Recruitment
paragraphs: 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  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 language- designated positions at Japanese posts.
section_title: Incentive Pay
paragraphs: 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    have a proficiency of at least a 3/3 (for generalists) or 2/2 (for specialists)    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.
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.
section_title: Staffing Shortages and Other Challenges Have Limited State’s Ability to Reduce Its Language Shortfalls
paragraphs: 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  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.
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   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.
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  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.  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, 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.
section_title: State Lacks a Comprehensive Strategic Plan to Address Foreign Language Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Prior Work by GAO and Others Could Guide State’s Strategic Plan for Addressing Foreign Language Requirements
paragraphs: 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. 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  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 lower- 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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:    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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 language- designated 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  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.  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.