State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages
Published: 2003-11-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: During the 1990s, the State Department lost more people than it hired. The resultant shortfalls in the number and skills of Foreign Service officers have endangered U.S. diplomatic readiness. Furthermore, recent studies, including several by GAO, have questioned whether State's recruitment system identifies people with the appropriate skills and whether State is assigning officers with specialized skills, such as the ability to speak a difficult language, to positions where they can be utilized. GAO was asked to review State's processes for determining the number and skills of junior officers the department needs and to determine whether it is hiring and assigning officers with the general skills to carry out foreign policy overseas. GAO was also asked to examine the challenges State still needs to address, especially regarding officers' foreign language skills.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify the number of junior officers it needs to hire within the next 5 to 10 years. State implemented key elements of workforce planning, including setting strategic direction and goals, identifying gaps in its workforce, and developing strategies to address these gaps. State's analysis showed that it had a deficit of 386 positions, mainly at the mid level, and in 2001, State launched a $197 million plan to address the gaps. State has met its 2002 to 2003 hiring targets for junior officers and is filling overseas positions with junior officers with the general skills and competencies required to do their job well. However, State officials said it will take up to 10 years to hire and promote junior officers in sufficient numbers to significantly decrease the shortage of midlevel officers. While State is able to fill overseas positions with junior officers who have the necessary general skills, the department continues to face challenges filling the gaps in staff with proficiency in certain hard-to-learn languages, such as Arabic and Chinese. State has implemented a plan to target applicants who speak these difficult languages. However, this plan does not include numeric goals, and State has collected limited data to assess the effectiveness of its efforts. Other challenges include new officers' public diplomacy skills and training in this area, increased supervisory and on-the job requirements when State assigns junior officers to positions above their experience level, and the impact of rotational assignments on junior officers' performance and managers' time.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2001 the Department of State launched a 3-year, $197.5 million initiative  to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right people to carry out U.S. foreign  policy. Under the initiative, State plans to hire more than 600 new Foreign  Service officers above attrition—the department’s largest expansion in  years. The initiative was designed to address several problems, including  shortfalls in the number and skills of Foreign Service officers at the mid  level that the department said endanger U.S. diplomatic readiness. During  the 1990s, State lost more people than it hired due to budget cuts.  Furthermore, recent studies, including several conducted by GAO, have  questioned whether the State Department’s recruitment system identifies  people with the appropriate skills and whether the assignment process  places officers with specialized skills, such as the ability to speak a difficult  language, in positions where they can be utilized.
To determine whether the State Department is hiring the right people and  assigning them to jobs where they can fully use their skills, you asked us to  review State’s system for recruiting and assigning new Foreign Service  officers. In this report we (1) discuss State’s processes for determining the  number and skills of junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10 years  and whether it is hiring and assigning officers with the general skills to  meet the needs of overseas posts and (2) examine the challenges State still  needs to address, especially regarding officers’ foreign language skills.
To conduct our review, we examined planning documents and information  related to State’s processes for recruiting and assigning Foreign Service  officers. We met with officials from State’s Office of Career Development  and Assignments; the Office of Recruitment, Examination, and  Employment; the Foreign Service Institute; and the Diplomatic Readiness  Task Force. In addition, we met with officials in all of State’s regional  bureaus and in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We also conducted  fieldwork in Mexico City and Moscow and interviewed selected officials  from five U.S. embassies in Africa; this work included interviews with  junior Foreign Service officers. We chose Mexico City and Moscow for our  fieldwork because of the large number of junior officers assigned to those  posts. We chose the embassies in Africa to obtain the opinions of Foreign  Service officers at small and hard-to-fill posts. For further information on  our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The State Department advances U.S. national interests through diplomatic  relations with 163 countries at 263 posts worldwide. About 5,900 Foreign  Service generalists stationed overseas and at State headquarters perform  much of this work. To become a Foreign Service officer, an individual must  be an American citizen between 20 and 59 years old on the date of the  written examination; pass a written and oral examination; be able to obtain  security and medical clearances; and be available for worldwide  assignment, including in Washington, D.C.
State recruits and hires candidates by administering a written and oral  exam to individuals interested in becoming Foreign Service officers. The  general skills identified by the department and the exams, which test for  those skills, were validated during a 1997 to 1998 job analysis conducted by  State employees and outside contractors. According to State officials and  consultants, the results of the analysis should be valid for 10 years. In  addition, State has updated the exam to reflect changing needs. For  example, it added a section on management skills to the Foreign Service  written exam to identify more candidates with knowledge useful in this  career track. Moreover, the Board of Examiners reviews the exam annually,  as required by the Foreign Service Act.
The written exam tests for knowledge of 36 topics such as world historical  events, geography, basic economic principles and statistics, and basic  management principles. Applicants registering for the written exam can  self-declare foreign languages spoken and must select a career track or  cone. There are five from which to choose: management, consular,  economic, political, and public diplomacy. The oral exam assesses a  candidate for 13 general skills or competencies: written communication,  oral communication, information integration and analysis, planning and  organizing, judgment, resourcefulness, initiative and leadership, working  with others, experience and motivation, composure, objectivity and  integrity, cultural adaptability, and quantitative analysis. State does not test  for language proficiency as a requirement for employment. Table 1 shows  the number of applicants taking and passing the written and oral exams in  fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
After a candidate passes both the written and oral exams, he or she is  placed on a register of eligible hires and will remain there for up to 18  months or until being placed in an initial training, or A-100, class, according  to State officials. There are five separate registers, one for each career  track or cone, which rank candidates according to their scores on the oral  assessment. To increase the chances that candidates on the register who  have language skills are hired, a passing score on an optional telephonic  assessment of a candidate’s foreign language skills will add points to the  individual’s final score. Each register has a minimum cutoff point, which  dictates an immediate conditional offer of employment to those candidates  who receive that score on their oral exam. The cutoff points for receiving  an immediate conditional offer vary according to each register. Registers  with more candidates interested in serving in that career track have higher  cutoff points.
Each A-100 class consists of between 45 and 90 junior Foreign Service  officers who will be assigned as entry-level Foreign Service personnel in  overseas or domestic posts. During training, junior officers are required to  bid on a list of available jobs from which State’s Entry Level Division will  assign them to an overseas post. The officers receive language and job- specific training after they receive their assignments.
section_title: State Uses Critical Elements of Workforce Planning and Is Hiring and Assigning Officers Overseas with the Necessary General Skills
paragraphs: State used critical elements of workforce planning to identify Foreign  Service officer staffing and skill gaps within the next 5 to 10 years.   The  department determined that it needed to hire 623 new Foreign Service  generalists above attrition hiring; to accomplish this, in 2001 it developed a  3-year hiring plan. The department has met its hiring targets for fiscal years  2002 and 2003 and is ready to implement 2004 hiring pending congressional  funding. However, officials we interviewed projected that it would take up  to 10 years to hire and promote enough junior officers to eliminate the  shortfalls at the mid level. Almost all officials we interviewed said State has  hired and was in the process of filling overseas positions with very talented  and capable junior officers with the general skills and competencies  required to do their jobs well.
subsections: section_title: State Used Critical Elements of Workforce Planning
paragraphs: State used critical elements of workforce planning, which include (1)  setting strategic direction, (2) analyzing the workforce to determine if  staffing and skill gaps exist, (3) developing workforce strategies to fill the  gaps, and (4) evaluating the strategies and making needed revisions to  ensure that strategies work as intended. Involving various staff (from top to  bottom) is important across all the critical elements. (See fig. 1.) direction and program goals. State has done this by implementing a  strategic plan, which contains 12 strategic goals and 44 performance goals.  Overseas posts participate in the planning process by developing mission  program plans that link their resource (including staffing) requests to the  strategic goals. The overseas posts submit their plans to the regional  bureaus in Washington, D.C. After review and prioritization, the regional  bureaus incorporate elements from the mission plans into bureau  performance plans, based on policy priorities and initiatives that are  relevant to the strategic and performance goals. State has developed an  overseas staffing model, which it uses to determine staffing requirements  and allocate personnel resources worldwide. The model is linked to State’s  strategic goals through the mission program planning process.
subsections: section_title: State Has Analyzed Its Workforce to Identify Gaps
paragraphs: In 2001, State analyzed its workforce to identify staffing and skill gaps in  the Foreign Service. State’s overseas staffing model served as the basis for  the analysis, which is a key component of workforce planning. The staffing  model, which State updates biennially, measures Foreign Service staffing  needs overseas by the five career tracks or “cones.” The model places posts  into categories by size and the post’s primary function and determines how  many positions the post needs for each career track based on certain  workload factors. For example, the model determines the number of  administrative positions a post requires based on the number of Americans  at the post and such factors as the level of service provided to each U.S.  government agency at the post, the number of housing units, and the  number of visitors.
To identify its Foreign Service staffing needs, State compared the number  of officers it had in each career track with the total number of positions to  be filled, including new overseas positions required according to post  workload categories projected by the staffing model. State used these  analyses in determining total staffing needs. State’s analysis considered the  level of experience needed for the officers by grade level.
In 2001, State determined that it needed 623 new Foreign Service  generalists to eliminate its mid-level Foreign Service staffing and skills  shortfall. This number includes the 386 overseas positions identified by the  overseas staffing model, as well as additional staff needed to manage  crises; permit employees to step out of assignment rotation to receive  training, including language training; allow employees to seamlessly rotate  in and out of positions abroad; allow State to meet domestic  responsibilities and fully staff the required details to other U.S. government  agencies and offices; and provide employees with training in languages,  leadership and management, and tradecraft, such as consular duties. This  deficit affected all grade levels, with the majority at the mid level,  according to State officials.
As of March 2003, State had a combined mid-level deficit of 353 officers in  all career tracks. The deficits also included domestic positions, such as  desk officers, that Foreign Service officers occupy when they are assigned  to headquarters. The largest deficit for these positions is in the public  diplomacy career track, due mainly to deficits inherited from the U.S.  Information Agency, which was folded into the State Department in 1999.
Table 2 shows the staffing deficits and surpluses for Foreign Service  generalists by career track.
In 2001, the Secretary of State launched the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative  (DRI), a $197.5 million plan to address the staffing and skills deficits to  ensure diplomatic readiness. This initiative calls for hiring an additional  1,158 employees over attrition, including 623 Foreign Service generalists,  between fiscal years 2002 and 2004. This hiring is in addition to the 852  staff needed to fill gaps created by attrition. State’s plans call for the agency  to continue hiring at least 200 officers above attrition through fiscal year  2005. To accomplish the increased hiring under the DRI, State is  implementing an aggressive recruitment program that incorporates its  traditional recruitment at campuses and job fairs with new methods, such  as an interactive Web site. State’s recruitment program is focused on  addressing shortages in specific career tracks. For example, State is  targeting business schools and other appropriate professional associations  to recruit applicants with management skills.
section_title: State Has Some Mechanisms for Evaluating Its Plan
paragraphs: State officials described a few ways in which they evaluate and revise the  agency’s planning process. For example, Human Resources personnel said  they frequently adjust the staffing model to ensure that its different  components, such as the promotion, retirement, and attrition sections,  accurately reflect the trends occurring in the Foreign Service. State also  monitors its intake plans. A recruitment committee meets biweekly to  review and adjust State’s recruitment and training plans. As a result of  these reviews, the committee may move hiring from one career track to  another or increase training resources to accommodate the workload. The  officials said State also conducts quarterly reviews of bureau staffing to  take into account changing priorities.
section_title: Employee Involvement in Workforce Planning Varies
paragraphs: Involving employees at all levels and stakeholders in the workforce  planning process is important to encourage support for and understanding  of its outcomes. State’s workforce planning process involves managers at  all levels. For example, all 37 bureaus as well as all overseas posts provide  input. Managers at all levels help determine staffing needs in parts of the  organization for mission program plans and bureau performance plans that  are then factored into the overall plans. Managers at all levels assist in data  gathering as well as assessing and validating the overseas staffing model.  Senior management, including the Deputy Secretary and the  Undersecretary for Management, reviews all bureau performance plans at  formal annual hearings. Budget and human resources analysts also review  the bureau performance plans. Further, employees at varying levels serve  on committees, such as the recruitment committee, involved in workforce  planning. Other nonmanagement employees participate in State’s  workforce planning efforts, according to Bureau of Human Resources  officials. For example, they said officers at all levels participated in the  analysis done to validate Foreign Service skill needs, and junior and mid- level officers at the overseas posts provide data that are used to develop  the mission program plans.
section_title: State Has Met Its Hiring Targets but Gaps in Mid- Level Officers Will Take up to 10 Years to Fill
paragraphs: State has met its hiring targets for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. (See table 3.)
State has eliminated staffing deficits at the entry level in all five of its career  tracks, according to officials in State’s Office of Recruitment Examination  and Employment. They said there is a sufficient number of candidates on  the list of eligible hires to fill all junior officer positions coming vacant for  fiscal year 2004.
Since 2002 State has hired at over twice the level of attrition. It plans to hire  an additional 209 new Foreign Service generalists in fiscal year 2004 to  provide a training “float” and to ensure that additional officers are available  for crisis management. According to State, it must sustain the personnel  “float” to ensure that training can continue at the appropriate levels. Most  of these positions are new junior officers, who are hired at the entry level  for their career tracks. State’s plan is to eventually promote the junior  officers to the mid level in sufficient numbers to eliminate the current  deficit of 353 mid-level officers.
State anticipates that the mid-level gap will be eliminated within the next 9  to 10 years, based on its attrition and hiring and provided it receives all DRI  allocations through fiscal year 2004. Several officers said elimination of the  mid-level gap depended on State’s ability to promote the junior officers. For  example, they said that if State continues to hire large numbers of junior  officers, eventually there would be a surplus of officers eligible for  promotion. If all of these officers were not promoted quickly, they might  leave the Foreign Service. In addition, a few officials stated that elimination  of the mid-level gap depended on State’s ability to continue hiring junior  officers at the current rate. They feared a “feast or famine” situation in  which increased hiring would be followed by years of no hiring. State  officials believe that, due to the current deficit at the mid level, it will be  able to provide adequate promotion opportunities to satisfy the career  expectations of recently hired junior officers as it eliminates the mid-level  deficit. They also believe that to avoid the feast or famine situation it will  be necessary to protect the personnel float so that additional officers  continue to be available in a crisis.
section_title: State Has Hired and Assigned Foreign Service Officers with the General Skills and Competencies to Do the Job
paragraphs: Almost all officials we interviewed said State identified and hired very  talented and capable junior officers with the general skills and  competencies, such as written and oral communication, required to do  their jobs well, noting that the examination process was identifying junior  officers with the needed skills. Junior officers said the oral exam  effectively measured the necessary general skills that they use on their  jobs. Many said the group exercise administered during the oral  assessment was a potent tool for assessing a candidate’s ability to lead and  work with others. The current version of the oral assessment allows test- takers to present relevant information about previous work experience and  skills that examiners would consider important. Junior officers we  interviewed who had taken the oral exam twice—first when it did not allow  candidates to present information about their background and skills and a  second time when it did—said the latter version of the exam was an  improvement in the oral assessment. Opinions about the effectiveness of  the written exam to measure the same aptitude were mixed. Junior officers  said the section of the written exam that focused on biographical, or  personal, data did not identify skills needed to perform effectively.  However, some junior officers said the written exam worked effectively as  a knowledge screen for candidates to ensure that those hired had the broad  intellectual skills needed for the job.
State is filling overseas positions with new officers who have the general  skills that State requires, according to headquarters and overseas officials  with whom we spoke. Officials said that overall, the assignment process  was accomplishing its goals and that State was assigning junior officers  with the appropriate skills and eliminating junior officer vacancies. Several  overseas U.S. officials in Mexico City and Moscow cited interpersonal skills  as particularly important and stated that the junior officers assigned to  their posts had those skills. For example, one official said the number of  junior officers entering the Foreign Service with excellent interpersonal  skills had increased dramatically in the past 3 or 4 years. An official at a  small hardship post in Africa stated that flexibility and the ability to handle  a variety of tasks were critical skills and that State carefully selected the  junior officers assigned to his post. Several officers in Mexico City and  Moscow commented on State’s success at filling positions in general and  noted that there were no vacant positions in their sections.
subsections: section_title: Junior Officers Are Pleased with Assignment Process
paragraphs: Junior officers generally spoke favorably about how State assigned them to  their posts. They said they were pleased with the process because it  allowed them to choose their top 25 jobs from an available list, and several  junior officers told us they were assigned to one of their top locations.  Some junior officers stated that although State did not necessarily take  their previous work experience into account when assigning them to a  post, they sometimes had opportunities to use their experience once they  arrived overseas. For example, several junior officers said their legal  backgrounds helped them perform their consular duties. Another junior  officer commented that his past Army leadership and experience with the  press directly related to his public diplomacy position.
The career development officers who assign junior officers to overseas  posts stated that they are familiar with junior officers’ background and  work experience and may consider them when they make assignments.  However, they explained that the ultimate purpose of the assignment  process to meet the needs of the Foreign Service and to prepare junior  officers for tenure. To be tenured, the officers have to reach required levels  of proficiency in foreign languages and demonstrate core competencies  that indicate their ability to have a successful career in the Foreign Service.  Thus, these criteria guide junior officers’ assignments.
section_title: Key Challenges Include Gaps in Certain Foreign Languages
paragraphs: State still faces challenges in recruiting, hiring, assigning, and training  officers who are proficient in hard-to-learn languages. State officials at  headquarters and overseas have stated that the department does not have  enough Foreign Service officers with hard language skills. Three recent  GAO reports also cited language skill gaps that adversely affected  department operations. State has acknowledged that it needs more staff  with skills in certain hard languages and, in addition to its efforts to ensure  adequate training in foreign languages, has begun an effort to recruit  officers with hard language skills. However, State does not have data that  link its outreach efforts to the number of people hired with skills in hard  languages. In addition to the language issue, State officials and some junior  officers expressed other concerns, including the junior officers’ public  diplomacy skills, supervision, and on-the-job training requirements, as well  as issues related to rotational positions.
subsections: section_title: State Has Skill Gaps in Certain Hard Languages
paragraphs: Overseas post officials and several new officers told us that some junior  officers who are assigned to hard language posts lack sufficient training in  these languages. For example, in 2002, junior officers in Moscow sent a  cable to State stating that they had not received sufficient language training  to do their jobs effectively, which was weakening the post’s diplomatic  readiness. The junior officers, as well as most senior officials at this post,  said that many of the junior officers have difficulty participating in high- level political meetings—which significantly impedes the political section’s  work—and interviewing visa applicants because they lack language  proficiency. The latter is of particular concern as the department moves  toward heavier reliance on interviewing applicants as a basis for  determining whether they will receive a visa. While State classified the  junior officer positions as requiring level-2 proficiency in speaking, post  management and junior officers said they need a level-3 proficiency to  perform their jobs effectively.
Our past work has also shown gaps in the numbers of officers with  proficiency in certain hard languages. In September 2003, we reported that  about 21 percent of the public diplomacy officers posted overseas in  language designated positions have not attained the level of language  speaking proficiency required for their positions, hampering their ability to  engage with foreign publics. In January 2002 we reported that State had  not filled all of its positions requiring foreign language skills, and we noted  that lack of staff with foreign language skills had weakened the fight  against international terrorism and resulted in less effective representation  of U.S. interest overseas. We cited similar shortages during our review of  staffing at certain hard-to-fill posts. We reported that some new junior  officers did not meet the minimum language proficiency requirements of  the positions to which they were assigned in several countries of strategic  importance to the United States, including China, Saudi Arabia, and  Ukraine.
section_title: State’s Effort to Address Critical Languages Lacks Numerical Targets, Data on Effectiveness
paragraphs: State has acknowledged that it has gaps in the number of officers proficient  in certain hard languages, but its workforce planning does not identify the  number of officers to hire with those skills. The department has further  acknowledged that languages are integral to its work and important to its  mission. However, because its officers are required to do much more than  use a foreign language, State’s philosophy is to hire officers with a wide  range of skills it believes are predictors of success in the Foreign Service. It  does not hire for skills that it can train for, such as languages. For example,  State officials have told us that it is easier to train a person with good  diplomatic skills to speak a language than it is to teach a linguist to be a  good diplomat. Therefore, State officials do not believe the solution to the  language skill gap is recruiting aimed only at filling this gap. According to  State, increased staffing under the DRI will solve the problem.  Nevertheless, the department has implemented efforts to identify  candidates for the Foreign Service with hard language skills.
State has begun an effort to recruit more speakers of difficult languages.  Since the DRI in 2001, the department has extended its outreach efforts by  targeting professional associations, such as the American Council on the  Teaching of Foreign Languages and the Modern Language Association, and  specific universities and colleges that produce graduates with ability in  hard languages. While State does track the language skills of its new hires,  it has not established numerical targets for the number of individuals with  hard language ability it aims to hire. Nor could it provide current or  historical data showing the number of individuals it hired as a direct result  of targeted outreach efforts at these professional associations and schools.
While State has not set targets, our analysis of data from State’s Foreign  Service Institute (FSI) on the number of junior officers who took a  language proficiency test after they were hired indicates that the number of  Foreign Service officers with ability in hard languages has increased since  2001, with State hiring 51 Foreign Service generalists with these skills in  fiscal year 2001, 74 in 2002, and 115 in 2003. While these figures include  new hires with a broad range of hard language skills, a subset of these hires  speaks hard languages at a more advanced skill level. New hires in this  subgroup have speaking skills ranging from a minimum level of 2, or what  State refers to as “limited working proficiency,” to a level of 5—equivalent  to skills a native speaker would possess. The number of these officers has  also increased from fiscal year 2001 to 2003. State hired 31, 43, and 78  Foreign Service generalists who spoke languages at a level of working  proficiency or higher from 2001 through 2003, respectively. (See fig. 2.)
State could not provide data to demonstrate how many junior officers with  hard language skills were hired as a result of targeted recruitment. Thus it  is unclear whether the increase is the result of expanded outreach or a  steep increase in hiring of junior officers. According to our analysis, the  number of new Foreign Service generalists with hard language ability as a  percentage of the total population of new hires has fluctuated since 2001  when it was 22 percent, compared with 16 percent and 25 percent in 2002  and 2003, respectively. (See fig. 3.)
In addition to outreach efforts, State uses a telephonic assessment—the  Board of Examiners (BEX) test—to provide candidates with foreign  language skills a competitive advantage in the hiring process, according to  State officials. Candidates who have passed the written and oral exams can  take the telephone test in their language of choice. If they pass, they are  assigned additional points to their oral assessment score. The purpose of  this tool is to raise the candidates’ oral assessment scores sufficiently for  them to receive an immediate offer of employment.
However, our analysis of 102 individuals who passed the telephonic  assessment in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Russian in fiscal year  2003 shows that, as of October 2003, only 32 received and accepted offers  from the Foreign Service and were placed in A-100 training. Twenty-seven  individuals are awaiting security or medical clearances; 6 are no longer  junior officer candidates because they failed their security or medical  clearances, withdrew their applications, or their candidate eligibility  expired; and 37 remain on the Foreign Service register. The 37 individuals  in the latter category scored well enough to pass the oral assessment;  however, the additional points they received from passing the BEX  assessment were not sufficient for them to receive a job offer. Moreover,  the State Department does not provide any additional points for BEX  testees with hard languages versus other languages. However, State  officials said the department is revising this system.
section_title: Junior Officers with Hard Language Skills Are Not Always Placed to Use Them
paragraphs: Although State is trying to increase the number of officers with hard  language skills, it does not necessarily assign new hires to posts where they  can use those skills during their first two tours. We analyzed the  assignment of 31 new officers with hard language ability to determine if  during their first two tours they were assigned to a post where they could  use their language skills. According to our analysis, 45 percent of new hires  with hard language ability were deployed to a post where they could use  their language skills during their first two tours. For the 55 percent of  junior officers who did not use their hard language skills during their first  two tours, 20 percent were assigned to a post where they could use other  foreign language skills they had acquired and 35 percent were assigned to  posts that required foreign language training. (See fig. 4.)
It is even less likely that officers will be assigned to hard language posts  during their first tour. Our analysis of first tour officers with hard language  ability shows that 24 percent of these officers were immediately deployed  in fiscal year 2001 to posts where they could use those skills and 32 percent  in fiscal year 2002 and 28 percent in fiscal year 2003. The vast majority of  the new hires were immediately deployed to posts where other foreign  languages were spoken or to English-speaking posts.
The ability to speak a difficult language is one of many factors influencing a  junior officer’s assignment to an overseas post. As a practical matter, there  may not be openings at particular hard-language posts at the same time  junior officers are being assigned to their first and second tours. The  requirements for tenure, which include a variety of regions and jobs for  junior officers to prepare them for careers as Foreign Service generalists,  are also a major consideration. The emphasis on career development and  achieving tenure sometimes limits the department’s ability to train and  deploy a sufficient number of officers with the needed training in hard  languages to do their jobs, according to several headquarters officials. For  example, officials in one of State’s geographic bureaus stated that some  hard languages require a level-2 speaking proficiency, for which officers  may get from 24 to 26 weeks of language training. However, if junior  officers spend a longer period of time in training, they could be at a  disadvantage for tenure at the first year of eligibility because they would  have a narrower range of on-the-job experiences on which tenure decisions  are based. Security requirements are also a consideration when assigning  junior officers overseas. According to State officials, junior officers with  hard language skills are sometimes precluded from serving at a post where  they can use their hard language skills for diplomatic security reasons,  such as having an immediate family member or close ties with individuals  in a country. In fiscal year 2003, 8 percent, or 38 of the 468 new Foreign  Service generalists State hired, were precluded from serving at hard  language posts for security reasons. However, because of Privacy Act  restrictions and some unavailable data, State could only provide partial  information about the foreign language skills of these new hires. As a  result, we are unable to determine how many of these preclusions were  also hard-language speakers.
Our analysis was limited to an officer’s first two tours. State officials noted  that when a new hire possesses strong language skills already, the  employee and department may consciously use the first two tours to  develop additional skills rather than existing ones. Skills brought into the  Foreign Service are likely to be used later in a career if not immediately,  according to the State officials.
section_title: Pilot Programs Under Way to Increase Training
paragraphs: State has been exploring options to provide additional training in hard  languages for officers. State officials said their efforts to provide more  language training while officers are in Washington at the FSI are affected by  a tax regulation that limits the time officers can spend in temporary duty  status to one year before they have to pay federal taxes on their per diem.  To alleviate this situation, State is developing pilot programs to provide  some officers with additional training in hard languages by sending them to  training overseas. In one such pilot, an officer would spend a year studying  Arabic at the FSI field school in Tunis prior to being sent to an Arabic- speaking post, according to an official of the Bureau of Near Eastern  Affairs. Under another pilot, junior officers assigned to Moscow are taking  an immersion course in Russia following their initial language training in  Washington.
section_title: Some Officials Say On-the- Job Training in Public Diplomacy Is Insufficient
paragraphs: In addition to the hard-language issues, some overseas officials expressed  concern about the lack of on-the-job training opportunities for junior public  diplomacy officers, citing overseas training as the single most important  factor in building these officers’ skills and positioning them to succeed in  public diplomacy. The FSI’s training did not include grant writing, program  management, and basic supervisory skills, they said, and was not a viable  substitute for overseas training. Moreover, about 58 percent of the officers  responding to a GAO survey reported that the amount of time available for  public diplomacy training was inadequate. Furthermore, State’s Inspector  General reported that public affairs officers in Africa were often first-tour  or entry-level officers with no prior public diplomacy experience and as  such, their mistakes in dealing with the media have embarrassed the post.  First-tour officers have also displayed poor judgment by not seeking advice  from experienced local staff, the IG said. FSI has revised its public  diplomacy training to address some of these issues. As of September 2003,  public diplomacy officers are receiving from 9 to 19 weeks of training  (depending upon the duties of their assignment) before they are sent to a  post. Previously they received 3 weeks of training. State officials said the  success of this effort depends on State’s ability to hire sufficient staff for a  training float that would allow officers time to take the training.
section_title: Placement in Positions Traditionally Held by Mid- Level Officers Yields Mixed Results
paragraphs: Several post officials said State’s practice of filling positions traditionally  held by mid-level officers with junior officers and assigning inexperienced  junior officers to small posts where they would have increased  responsibilities worked well. However, others expressed concern because  junior officers in these positions require increased supervision and on-the- job training.
subsections: section_title: Benefits Cited at Smaller Posts, Hardship Posts
paragraphs: State has assigned a number of junior officers—new DRI hires—to  positions formerly held by mid-level officers to fill unmet needs at that  level. For fiscal years 2002 to 2003, 96 mid-level positions were downgraded  to junior-level positions after consultations with posts, regional bureaus,  and the Bureau of Human Resources. Career development officers  explained that such positions have been restructured so that with more  supervision and revised portfolios, junior officers should be able to do the  work. Smaller posts often have very few American staff, and junior officers  are frequently responsible for work in more than one career track. For  example, a junior officer with whom we spoke at a small post in Africa was  responsible for the political and economic sections and served as backup  for the consular section.
According to some officials, junior officers assigned to some smaller posts  have been very qualified and have helped alleviate the burden of staffing at  hardship posts. Several officials with whom we spoke at three embassies  reported positive experiences with junior officers in positions that required  more responsibility. Moreover, junior officers serving at smaller hardship  posts can gain a multitude of Foreign Service experiences not available to  other officers.
section_title: Assignments Require More Supervision, On-the-Job Training
paragraphs: Some post officials, however, noted that such assignments require more  supervision and on-the-job training. Supervision is a particular issue at  smaller posts where there may be few or no mid-level officers. According  to several overseas officials, this situation creates a burden for the senior- level officers who have to mentor and provide on-the-job training as well as  serve as backup for other jobs at the mission and manage the mission. For  example, an official at one small African post said a mid-level supervisor  would normally be responsible for training a junior officer to write cables.  Because there are no mid-level officers to provide the training, more senior  officials must provide it, leaving them less time to manage the embassy.
One overseas embassy official told us a junior officer was having difficulty  serving in a mid-level position at a small constituent post where the officer  had very little training and supervision. Officials explained that while the  position had been designated as a junior officer position, it still required an  individual with significant related experience. Unfortunately, the junior  officer assigned to this position did not have the requisite work experience  or knowledge. Another official said that placing junior officers in positions  formerly held by mid-level officers was not achieving the same results as  hiring people with directly related management experience. Furthermore,  State’s Inspector General reported that assigning inexperienced junior  officers to mid-level consular positions in African posts with high levels of  visa fraud was a serious problem. A Bureau of Human Resources official  stated that this problem should ease as positions are filled under the DRI.  In the meantime, according to State officials, the bureau tries to fill  vacancies in mid-level consular positions with at least a second-tour  officer.
section_title: Rotational Positions Have Value for Officers but Do Not Always Serve Posts’ Needs
paragraphs: State established “rotational” positions that allow some junior officers to  serve one year in one career track and another year in a different career  track—for example, consular and public diplomacy. Several officials in  Mexico City and Moscow said that the rotations were working well at their  embassy and the length of the rotations was adequate for the junior officers  to learn their jobs. Some officials said rotational assignments could benefit  junior officers and the Foreign Service by increasing officers’ knowledge of  how an overseas post operates. One official noted that working in different  sections of the embassy becomes harder as an officer is promoted, so it is  extremely important to have this experience at the junior level.
Other officials, however, said that rotational assignments were not serving  the posts’ needs. For example, one official stated that a year is not enough  time for a person to learn the tasks of the job in the consular section and, as  a result, local national employees carry much of the responsibility in the  section. An overseas official stated that a 1-year consular rotation might  not allow the junior officer to get the same breadth of experience as junior  officers who spend 2 years in the consular section. In addition, State’s  Inspector General reported that many consular supervisors said junior  officers are not assigned to consular work long enough to acquire the skills  to adjudicate visas under new performance requirements to improve U.S.  border security.
Rotational positions also increase managers’ training responsibilities. As  one post official described it, managers have to “start from scratch” each  time the position turns over. Some officials said the rotational program was  hindering productivity in the Foreign Service because junior officers rotate  soon after they master their current position. These issues led the  Inspector General to recommend discontinuing the practice of assigning  junior officers to 1-year rotational positions in consular sections. The  Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Bureau of Human Resources have  decided to continue the rotational program, according to a Bureau of  Human Resources official. The official stated that the bureau continues to  believe the program is beneficial and said that there are safeguards in place  to address the Inspector General’s concerns. For example, the official  stated that the two bureaus have reviewed all of the consular positions and  have identified those that should not be filled as part of a rotation by first- tour junior officers.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Critical gaps in the number and skills of Foreign Service staff endangered  State’s ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy. The department has  addressed the numeric shortfall through its Diplomatic Readiness  Initiative, which has been successful in expanding the candidate pool for  Foreign Service positions. State has been able to hire junior officers with  the general skills it requires and to fill overseas positions. However, State  continues to face gaps in personnel who are proficient in speaking  languages considered hard to learn. To address these gaps, State has  undertaken outreach efforts to attract speakers with proficiency in certain  hard languages, extended the time junior officers spend in training,  established pilot programs to develop a cadre of speakers of hard  languages, and assigned many junior officers with skills in hard languages  to countries where they can use those skills. However, it is not clear to  what extent these efforts will help eliminate the gaps, and State has little  data to demonstrate their success. Furthermore, State’s process of  assigning junior officers, with its emphasis on achieving tenure, may hinder  the department’s ability to take advantage of the hard language skills that  some of its officers have.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: This report recommends that the Secretary of State collect and maintain  data on the effectiveness of State’s efforts to address language gaps. State  should use these data to, among other things, report on filling such gaps  through its outreach efforts to recruit more junior officers with hard  language skills and its pilot programs to increase training in hard-to-learn  languages for junior officers. State should also explore additional  opportunities to maximize assignment of junior officers who have skills in  these languages to overseas posts where they can use these languages.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The State Department provided written comments on a draft of this report.  These comments and our response are reprinted in appendix II. State also  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report  as appropriate.
The State Department generally agreed with the report’s findings and  observations, but did not completely address our recommendations. State  commented that it is already addressing our recommendation that it  maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers of hard-to-learn languages.  State said that the department collects and maintains extensive data to  monitor its recruitment efforts. However, State has not used the data to  determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing the number of hard- language speakers are effective or have helped decrease the gap in certain  languages. State further said that it is confident that its overall hiring plan  will address the language gaps over the next several years, but the plan  does not provide specific milestones for achieving this goal. We believe  State needs to more specifically link its efforts to its hard language needs.  We have modified our recommendation to make this clearer.
State did not completely address the second part of our recommendation,  but stated that our approach, which focused on six specific languages, was  too narrow. We disagree with State’s assessment. We focused on the six  languages because of their strategic importance and findings from previous  GAO reports that lack of staff with skills in some of these languages has  hindered diplomatic readiness. In its comments, State also overstated a  number of our findings, observations, and conclusions.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies of this report to the Secretary of  State. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition,  this report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To report on State’s processes for determining the number and skills of  junior officers it needs during the next 5 to 10 years, we examined  workforce planning documents and data, including the overseas staffing  model. We also interviewed officials from State’s Resource Planning and  Compensation Division and Office of Resource Management and  Organizational Analysis, Bureau of Human Resources. We reviewed and  analyzed data from the Office of Resource Management and Organizational  Analysis on projected promotions and hiring for fiscal years 2002 through  2007 and the current deficit and surplus of Foreign Service generalists  according to the five career tracks and grade levels. We also interviewed  officials from all six of State’s regional bureaus, the Bureau of Consular  Affairs, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), and the U.S. embassies in  Mexico City and Moscow. We selected these embassies because they  contained the largest number of junior officers. During our fieldwork, we  conducted interviews with senior level, mid-level, and junior officers.
To determine whether State is hiring and assigning officers with the general  skills to meet the needs of overseas posts, we reviewed information related  to State’s recruiting program, including Diplomatic Readiness recruitment  goals and hiring data from 2001 through 2003 and projected hiring through  2007. We interviewed officials from the Office of Recruitment,  Examination, and Employment; the Office of Career Development; the  Diplomatic Readiness Task Force; all six of State’s regional bureaus; and  the Bureau of Consular Affairs. In addition, we interviewed one of the  consultants who helped perform State’s 1997 job analysis—-a  comprehensive revalidation of the skills tested by the Foreign Service  written and oral exams. We also reviewed the raw data in the form of  survey responses by Foreign Service generalists about the skills that are  most critical to their work, but we did not evaluate the validity of State’s  analysis. We interviewed officials, including junior officers, at the U.S.  embassies in Mexico City and Moscow and supplemented our fieldwork  with telephone interviews of Foreign Service officers at U.S. embassies in  Angola, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. We  selected the first four countries to obtain the perspective of officers at  small or hard-to-fill posts. We selected South Africa at the recommendation  of a Bureau of Human Resources official. We also conducted in-person  interviews with junior officers at headquarters.
To examine the challenges State still needs to address, especially regarding  officers with hard-to-learn language skills, we solicited data from three  different State Department databases. We interviewed State officials who  were authorities on each of the three databases and determined that the  data obtained were reliable in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
To determine the number of officers with hard language ability hired in  2001, 2002, and 2003, we developed the “New Hires Database.” To create  this database we used information drawn from FSI’s Student Training  Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau of Human  Resources’ Global Employment Management System (GEMS) database.  The New Hires Database contains information on the number of junior  officers with hard language ability hired in 2001, 2002, and 2003. It  includes their levels of proficiency—as rated by the FSI’s School of  Language Studies—in those hard languages, additional foreign  languages spoken and their corresponding FSI rating of proficiency, A- 100 class information, and first—and in some cases second—tour  assignment information. In our analysis of new hires with hard language  ability, we included those officers who, at a minimum, possessed at least  rudimentary skills in speaking or reading difficult languages, indicated  by a score of 1 from FSI on these two dimensions (the FSI scale ranges  from a score of 0 to a score of 5, with 5 indicating proficiency at the level  of a native speaker). To determine the number of new hires with  working proficiency, we considered only those officers with a level 2 or  higher proficiency in both speaking and reading and writing. To  determine the percentage of new hires with hard language ability in the  population of new hires in fiscal years 2001 through 2003, we took the  number of officers with hard language ability from the New Hires  Database in fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and divided that number by  the total number of Foreign Service generalists hired during those years.
To report the status of candidacy for individuals who had taken and  passed the Board of Examiners Telephonic Assessment (BEX) test in  fiscal year 2003, we developed the BEX Database. Categories in the  table include: number assigned to A-100, pending clearance; name on  foreign service register; no longer a junior officer candidate; and total  number of BEX Passers. To create this database we used information  from the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) School of Language Study’s  Student Training Management System (STMS) database and the Bureau  of Human Resources’ Global Employment Management System (GEMS)  and Automated Foreign Service Examination and Registry System  (AFSERS) database. The BEX Database contains individuals who  passed the Foreign Service’s telephonic assessment in hard-to-learn  languages and, where applicable, their A-100 assignment information,  and proficiency scores according to FSI in hard languages as well as  additional languages they bring to the service. Names of individuals in  the BEX Database for whom there was no A-100 information were  resubmitted to the State Department to obtain their alternate outcomes.  These individuals and their alternate outcomes were subsequently  recorded on a separate spreadsheet. The alternate outcomes of these  individuals were primarily derived from the AFSERS database and the  following categories: expiration of eligibility dates, withdrawals,  terminations, status on the Foreign Service Register, status of medical  and security clearances, and employment start dates.
To examine assignment location for new hires with hard language ability in  fiscal year 2001, we used the New Hires Database to create three distinct  categories of junior officers for whom we had information on two tours: (1)  posted where hard language skills could be used, (2) posted where other  foreign language skills were used, and (3) posted where other foreign  language skills had to be acquired. To calculate the percentage of junior  officers in each of the three categories, we divided the category total by the  number of new hires with hard language ability for whom information was  available about two tours. The total number for each category was defined  as the number of those officers being sent to hard language posts who had  at least basic speaking and writing skills in that language for the first  category. For the second category, we used the number of officers with  hard language skills assigned to a post where they could use other foreign  language skills they brought to the service, and for the third category we  used the number of officers assigned to posts during both their first and  second tours where they did not have the relevant foreign language skills.
We also used the New Hires Database to determine the number of junior  officers with hard language ability assigned to hard language posts  during their first tour for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. For each fiscal  year, we divided the number of officers hired in that fiscal year and  assigned to hard language posts during their first tour by the total  number of officers hired in that fiscal year.
In addition, we met with officials from all six of State’s regional bureaus  and the Bureau of Consular Affairs; officials and junior officers at the U.S.  embassies in Moscow and Mexico City, as well as junior officers at  headquarters; and officials from the Office of Recruitment, Examination,  and Employment, the Office of Career Development, and the Diplomatic  Readiness Task Force. We reviewed State Department recruitment data  from the Diplomatic Readiness Task Force on efforts to recruit Foreign  Service officers with hard language skills from the following targeted  language schools: Brigham Young University, Columbia University-– Columbia College, Cornell University, Harvard University, Indiana  University--Bloomington, Middlebury College, Ohio State University,  University of California Los Angeles, University of Chicago, University of  Michigan-–Ann Arbor, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin-– Madison, and Yale University. These data showed the number of individuals  from each of these universities who had passed the Foreign Service written  exam, but did not indicate whether these individuals possessed any hard  language skills or if they were in fact even hired by the State Department.
We conducted our work from December 2002 through August 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter  dated November 11, 2003.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. State overstated our conclusions. The department wrote that “GAO  found that  process is conducted using a skills assessment that  is valid, a robust workforce planning process that determines hiring  needs, a dynamic recruiting program that targets needed skills,  an  examination process that accurately evaluates competency in those  skills...” While we described State’s workforce planning and staffing  processes, we did not validate its staffing model or its skills  assessment. Furthermore, we did not describe the workforce planning  process as “robust” and the recruiting program as “dynamic.” We  reported that State used elements of workforce planning to determine  its Foreign Service staffing needs, junior officers stated that the exam  tested for the skills they used on the job, and State officials believed the  department was hiring and assigning junior officers overseas with the  skills they needed to do the job.  2. While we reported on State’s processes for recruiting, hiring, and  assigning new staff, we did not conclude that these processes are the  best way to meet mission requirements. There may be other ways to  accomplish State’s mission, but an evaluation of alternatives was  beyond the scope of this report. 3. We did not conclude that the department is successfully meeting its  staffing needs through the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative. We  concluded that State had met its hiring targets for Foreign Service  generalists in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Also, State officials told us  that it would take 9 to 10 years to eliminate its mid-level staffing gap.  We did not assess whether this gap could be closed more quickly. 4. State mischaracterized what we wrote and thus did not address the  second part of our recommendation. State further commented that our  approach, which focused on six specific languages, was too narrow and  implied that we believe increasing the number of speakers of selected  languages will address diplomatic readiness needs. We focused on the  six languages because of their strategic importance and findings from  previous GAO reports that lack of staff proficient in these languages  hinders diplomatic readiness. Moreover, senior officials at the U.S.  embassy in Russia told us that some junior officers lacked sufficient  Russian skills to effectively do their jobs. 5. We are not suggesting that State supplant training as its main avenue  for achieving its language goals as State’s comments infer. However, we  believe that State should explore as many avenues as possible to  eliminate its gaps in officers with proficiency in hard-to-learn  languages.  6. The intent of our analysis of the assignment of junior officers with  preexisting hard language skills was to show the extent to which those  officers were assigned to posts where they could use those skills. We  had no basis to conclude that the results were positive as State  commented. State also commented that we did not review officers’  assignments beyond their first two tours. We did not go beyond the first  two tours because the scope of our review was the recruitment and  assignment of junior officers. However, we have incorporated the  department’s statements that many skills officers bring to the Foreign  Service will be used throughout their careers, not just in the first two  tours.  7. State wrote that the department is making considerable progress in  recruiting for language skills, along with all required skills. However, as  we have previously noted, State has not set numerical targets for the  number of individuals with hard language ability it aims to hire.  Moreover, the department does not maintain data to demonstrate how  many junior officers with hard language skills were hired as a direct  result of its outreach efforts. 8. State commented that we understated the contribution that rotational  assignments make toward accomplishing mission goals. We disagree.  The report provides several examples of the benefits of the rotations.  However, a number of officials raised the issue of increased  supervisory requirements as a concern. 9. State commented that it is already addressing the first part of our  recommendation that it maintain data on its efforts to recruit speakers  of hard-to-learn languages. As we noted in the report, State has not  used the data to determine whether its outreach efforts for increasing  the number of hard-language speakers are effective or have helped  decrease the gap in certain languages.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the persons named above, Kaya Taylor, Julia Roberts, Martin  de Alteriis, Monica Wolford, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to  this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs