Foreign Language Capabilities: Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and State Could Better Assess Their Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and Address Shortfalls
Published: 2010-07-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Foreign language skills are an increasingly key element to the success of diplomatic efforts; military, counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence missions; and to ensure access to federal programs and services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations within the United States. GAO has issued reports evaluating foreign language capabilities at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the State Department (State). This testimony is based on these reports, issued from June 2009 through June 2010, and addresses the extent to which (1) DHS has assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities, identified any potential shortfalls, and developed programs and activities to address potential shortfalls; (2) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has conducted a needs assessment to help ensure access to its services for LEP persons; and (3) DOD and State have developed comprehensive approaches to address their foreign language capability challenges.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In June 2010, we reported that DHS had taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and existing capabilities, and to identify potential shortfalls. For example, while two of three DHS components included in GAO's review had conducted foreign language assessments, these assessments were not comprehensive, as GAO's prior work on strategic workforce planning recommends. In addition, while all three DHS components GAO reviewed had various lists of employees with foreign language capabilities, DHS had no systematic method for assessing its existing capabilities. In addition, DHS and its components had not taken actions to identify potential foreign language shortfalls. Further, DHS and its components established a variety of foreign language programs and activities, but had not assessed the extent to which these programs and activities address potential shortfalls. The Department's ability to use them to address potential shortfalls varied and GAO recommended that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language needs and capabilities, and any resulting shortfalls; and ensure these assessments are incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS generally concurred with these recommendations, and officials stated that the Department has actions planned to address them. In April 2010, we reported that FEMA had developed a national needs assessment to identify its LEP customer base and how frequently it interacted with LEP persons. Using this assessment, FEMA officials reported that the agency had identified 13 of the most frequently encountered languages spoken by LEP communities. Locally, in response to a disaster, FEMA conducts a needs assessment by collecting information from the U.S. Census Bureau and data from local sources to help determine the amount of funding required to ensure proper communication with affected LEP communities. In June 2009, GAO reported that DOD had taken steps to transform its language and regional proficiency capabilities, but it had not developed a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its efforts and lacked a complete inventory and validated requirements to identify gaps and assess related risks. GAO recommended that DOD develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its language and regional proficiency efforts, establish a mechanism to assess the regional proficiency skills of its personnel, and develop a methodology to identify its language and regional proficiency requirements. DOD concurred with these recommendations; however, as of June 2010, officials stated that related actions are underway, but have not been completed. Furthermore, GAO reported in September 2009 that State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements had yielded some results but had not closed persistent gaps in foreign-language proficient staff and reflected, in part, a lack of a comprehensive, strategic approach. GAO recommended that State develop a comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals, objectives, milestones, and feedback mechanisms that links all of State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements. State generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and is working to address them.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making any new recommendations; however, GAO made recommendations in prior reports to help DHS, DOD, and State better assess their foreign language capabilities and address potential shortfalls. All three agencies generally concurred with GAO's recommendations and have taken some actions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work assessing the federal  government’s foreign language capabilities. Foreign language skills are  vital to effectively communicate and overcome language barriers  encountered during critical operations and are an increasingly key element  to the success of diplomatic efforts, military operations, counterterrorism,  law enforcement and intelligence missions, as well as to ensure access to  federal programs and services to Limited English Proficient (LEP)  populations within the United States. My testimony today focuses on our  work evaluating the foreign language capabilities at the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Defense (DOD) and the  State Department (State). The findings and recommendations from this  body of work can help inform decision making about foreign language  programs and activities across the federal government.
DHS staff encounter a wide array of languages and dialects, under  sometimes difficult and unpredictable circumstances, such as making  arrests, conducting surveillance, and interviewing individuals. Thus,  ensuring DHS staff have the necessary foreign language skills to carry out  these duties is crucial. Further, changes in the security environment and  ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted DOD  to place greater emphasis on improving the foreign language proficiency  of U.S. forces. Moreover, we have previously reported on the challenges  State faces in ensuring it has staff with necessary foreign language skills in  its mission critical positions throughout the world.
Since 2002, we have issued a series of reports on two key aspects of  foreign language capabilities across the federal government—(1) the use  of foreign language skills, and (2) the nature and impact of foreign  language shortages at federal agencies, particularly those that play a  central role in national security. We and the Office of Personnel  Management have developed strategic workforce planning guidance that  has formed the basis for these reviews. We reported that the lack of  foreign language capability at some agencies, including DOD and State,  have resulted in backlogs in translation of intelligence documents and  other information, and adversely affected agency operations and hindered  U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and  diplomatic efforts. We recommended that these agencies adopt a strategic,  results-oriented approach to manage foreign language capabilities,  including setting a strategic direction, assessing agency gaps in foreign  language skills, and taking actions to help ensure that foreign language  capabilities are available when needed, among other things. These  agencies concurred with our recommendations and are taking steps to  address them.
My comments today are based on GAO reports issued from June 2009  through June 2010 regarding foreign language capabilities at DHS, DOD,  and State and selected updates made in June through July 2010. These  reports include our assessment of DHS’s efforts to assess its foreign  language capabilities and address potential shortfalls in three of its largest  components—U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection (CBP),  and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and our assessment of  the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) efforts to deliver  services to LEP persons; as well as our reports and congressional  testimony on DOD’s and State’s efforts to develop foreign language  capabilities. Specifically, my statement addresses the extent to which (1)  DHS has assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities,  identified any potential shortfalls, and developed foreign language  programs and activities to address potential shortfalls; (2) FEMA has  conducted a needs assessment to help ensure access to its services for  LEP persons; and (3) DOD and State have developed comprehensive  approaches to address their foreign language capability challenges.
To analyze foreign language needs, capabilities, and shortfalls at DHS, we  reviewed operations in three DHS components and seven offices. We  selected the U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE because they constitute a  broad representation of program areas and their missions include law  enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We selected San Antonio  and Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New York and Buffalo, New  York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto Rico to visit, identify and  observe foreign language use at select DHS components. We also  examined documentation on foreign language needs and capabilities,  including DHS’s Strategic and Human Capital Plans; and Quadrennial  Homeland Security Review Report. Further, we interviewed  knowledgeable DHS officials in DHS’s Chief Human Capital Office (CHCO)  and conducted interviews with component officials and officers for all the  locations we visited to obtain information on existing capabilities and  potential foreign language capability shortfalls. As part of our review of  FEMA, we examined the extent to which it implemented Executive Order  13166 consistent with the Department of Justice’s guidance, which  includes assessing the needs of the LEP populations that agencies serve.  To review DOD’s plans for addressing its foreign language challenges, we  analyzed DOD’s Defense Language Transformation Roadmap, reviewed  the military services’ strategies for transforming language and regional  proficiency capabilities, and assessed the range of efforts intended to help  identify potential gaps. To assess State Department’s foreign language  proficiency challenges and measures to address them, we analyzed data on  State’s overseas language-designated positions as of October 2008,  reviewed strategic planning and budgetary documents, interviewed State  officials, and reviewed operations in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and  Turkey. In June 2010 we also met with DOD and State officials to obtain  updated information on their efforts to address our recommendations.  Finally, in July 2010, we obtained updated information from FEMA  officials on their efforts to identify Limited English Proficient populations.  More detailed information about our scope and methodology is included in  our published reports. We conducted this work in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: DHS Could Better Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and the Extent to Which Its Programs and Activities Address Potential Shortfalls
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Taken Limited Action to Assess Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities, and Identify Resulting Shortfalls
paragraphs: In our June 2010 report on DHS’s foreign language capabilities, we  identified challenges related to the Department’s efforts to assess their  needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls. Our key findings  include:   DHS has no systematic method for assessing its foreign language  needs and does not address foreign language needs in its Human  Capital Strategic Plan. DHS components’ efforts to assess foreign  language needs vary. For example, the Coast Guard has conducted  multiple assessments, CBP’s assessments have primarily focused on  Spanish-language needs, and ICE has not conducted any assessments.  By conducting a comprehensive assessment DHS would be better  positioned to capture information on all of its needs and could use this  to inform future strategic planning.
DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign  language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive  capabilities assessment. DHS components have various lists of foreign  language capabilities that are available in some offices, primarily those  that include a foreign language award program for qualified  employees. Conducting an assessment of all of its foreign language  capabilities would better position DHS to effectively manage its  resources.
DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential  foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can  impact mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs  and capabilities assessments to identify shortfalls, DHS would be  better positioned to develop actions to mitigate shortfalls, execute its  various missions that involve foreign language speakers, and enhance  the safety of its officers and agents.
We and the Office of Personnel Management have developed strategic  workforce guidance that recommends, among other things, that agencies  (1) assess workforce needs, such as foreign language needs; (2) assess  current competency skills; and (3) compare workforce needs against  available skills. DHS efforts could be strengthened by conducting a  comprehensive assessment of its foreign language needs and capabilities,  and using the results of this assessment to identify any potential shortfalls.  By doing so, DHS could better position itself to manage its foreign  language workforce needs to help fulfill its organizational missions. We  recommended that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language  needs and capabilities, and any resulting shortfalls and ensure these  assessments are incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS agreed  with our recommendation and officials stated that the Department is  planning to take action to address it.
section_title: DHS Has Developed a Variety of Foreign Language Programs, but the Extent to Which They Address Foreign Language Shortfalls Is Not Known
paragraphs: In June 2010, we also reported that DHS and its components had  established a variety of foreign language programs and activities, but had  not assessed the extent to which they address potential shortfalls. Coast  Guard, CBP, and ICE established foreign language programs and activities,  which include foreign language training and monetary awards. Although  foreign language programs and activities at these components contributed  to the development of DHS’s foreign language capabilities, the  Department’s ability to use them to address potential foreign language  shortfalls varies. For example, foreign language training programs  generally do not include languages other than Spanish. Furthermore, these  programs and activities are managed by individual components or offices  within components. According to several Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE  officials, they manage their foreign language programs and activities as  they did prior to the formation of DHS. At the Department level and within  the components, many of the officials we spoke with were generally  unaware of the foreign language programs or activities maintained by  other DHS components. Given this variation and decentralization,  conducting a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its  program and activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS’s ability to  manage its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if  necessary. DHS agreed with our recommendation and officials stated that  the Department is planning to take action to address it.
section_title: FEMA Has Developed a National Needs Assessment to Identify the Limited English Proficient Populations It Serves
paragraphs: In April 2010, we reported that FEMA had developed a national needs  assessment to identify its LEP customer base and how frequently it  interacts with LEP persons. We reported that in developing this needs  assessment, FEMA combines census data, data from FEMA’s National  Processing Service Center on the most commonly encountered languages  used by individuals applying for disaster assistance sources, literacy and  poverty rates, and FEMA’s historical data on the geographic areas most  prone to disasters. Furthermore, practices identified by other federal and  state agencies as well as practitioners in the translation industry are  reviewed and used in preparing this assessment. Through its needs  assessment, FEMA officials reported that FEMA has identified 13 of the  most frequently encountered languages spoken by LEP communities.
Locally, in response to a disaster, FEMA conducts a needs assessment by  collecting information from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from local  school districts, and information from foreign language media outlets in  the area to help determine the amount of funding required to ensure  proper communication with affected LEP communities. In the spring of  2009, FEMA established new procedures to identify LEP communities at  the local level. While the agency’s national needs assessment provides a  starting point to identify LEP communities across the country, the  assessment does not fully ensure that FEMA identifies the existence and  location of LEP populations in small communities within states and  counties. To that end, officials from FEMA’s Multilingual Function  developed a common set of procedures for identifying the location and  size of LEP populations at the local level. The new procedures, which  were initiated as a pilot program, include collecting data from national,  state, and local sources, and creating a profile of community language  needs, local support organizations, and local media outlets. FEMA  initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood affecting North  Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the program enabled FEMA  officials to develop communication strategies targeted to 12 different LEP  communities including Bosnian, Farsi, Kirundi, and Somali. FEMA officials  stated that they plan to use these procedures in responding to future  presidentially declared disasters. According to FEMA officials, it has  incorporated the pilot program procedures for identifying local LEP   populations into its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). According to  FEMA, it has distributed the revised SOP to FEMA Disaster Assistance and  Disaster Operations staff in headquarters, FEMA’s 10 regions, and joint  field offices.
During its recovery operations, FEMA has several staffing options to  augment its permanent staff. FEMA officials explained that staff from  FEMA’s reserve corps, whose language capabilities are recorded in an  automated deployment database, can be temporarily assigned to recovery  operations. When FEMA lacks enough permanent and temporary staff  with the appropriate foreign language skills, it hires individuals from  within the affected area to fill unmet multilingual needs. For example, in  2008, FEMA used local hires who spoke Vietnamese in the recovery  operations for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Galveston and Austin, Texas.  FEMA officials stated that these local hires are especially useful during  recovery efforts because they have relevant language capabilities as well  as knowledge of the disaster area and established relationships with the  affected communities. Additionally, when disaster assistance employees  and local hires are unavailable, FEMA can use contractors to provide  translation and interpretation services. To ensure that the agency has the  capacity to handle different levels of disasters, an official stated that  FEMA is awarding a 4-year contract of up to $9.9 million to support  language access and related activities.
section_title: DOD and State Need to Take Additional Actions to Comprehensively Address Their Foreign Language Challenges
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Foreign Language Capabilities, but Still Needs a Comprehensive Strategic Plan, a Complete Inventory, and a Validated Requirements Methodology
paragraphs: DOD has taken some steps to transform its language and regional  proficiency capabilities, but additional actions are needed to guide its  efforts and provide the information it needs to assess gaps in capabilities  and assess related risks. In June 2009, we reported that DOD had  designated senior language authorities at the Department-wide level, and  in the military services as well as other components. It had also  established a governance structure and a Defense Language  Transformation Roadmap. At that time, the military services either had  developed or were in the process of developing strategies and programs to  improve language and regional proficiency. While these steps moved the  Department in a positive direction, we concluded that some key elements  were still missing. For example, while the Roadmap contained goals and  objectives, not all objectives were measurable and linkages between these  goals and DOD’s funding priorities were unclear. Furthermore, DOD had  not identified the total cost of its transformation efforts. Additionally, we  reported that DOD had developed an inventory of its language capabilities.  In contrast, it did not have an inventory of its regional proficiency  capabilities due to the lack of an agreed upon way to assess and validate  these skills. DOD also lacked a standard, transparent, and validated  methodology to aid its components in identifying language and regional  proficiency requirements. In the absence of such a methodology,  components used different approaches to develop requirements and their  estimates varied widely. Therefore, we recommended that DOD (1)  develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its language and regional  proficiency transformation, (2) establish a mechanism to assess the  regional proficiency skills of its military and civilian personnel, and (3)  develop a methodology to identify its language and regional proficiency  requirements.
At the time, DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and  responded it had related actions underway. Based on recent discussions  with DOD officials, these actions are still in various stages. Specifically,  DOD officials stated that it has a draft strategic plan currently undergoing  final review and approval. We understand from officials that this plan  includes goals, objectives, and a linkage between goals and DOD’s funding  priorities, and that an implementation plan with metrics for measuring  progress will be published at a later date. DOD officials also stated that  they are working to determine a suitable approach to measuring regional  proficiency because it is more difficult than originally expected. Lastly,  DOD officials stated that, while DOD has completed the assessments  intended to produce a standardized methodology to help geographic  commanders identify language and regional proficiency requirements, the  standardized methodology has not yet been approved. In recent  congressional testimony, DOD officials stated the standardized  methodology would be implemented later this year. Without a  comprehensive strategic plan and until a validated methodology to identify  gaps in capabilities is implemented, it will be difficult for DOD to assess  risk, guide the military services as they develop their approaches to  language and regional proficiency transformation, and make informed  investment decisions. Furthermore, it will be difficult for DOD and  Congress to assess progress toward a successful transformation.
section_title: State Has Efforts Underway to Identify Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities, but Persistent Shortfalls in Foreign Language- Proficient Staff Highlight the Need for a Comprehensive, Strategic Approach
paragraphs: In September 2009, we reported that State continued to face persistent,  notable gaps in its foreign language capabilities, which could hinder U.S.  overseas operations. We reported that State had undertaken a number of  initiatives to meet its foreign language requirements, including an annual  review process to determine the number of positions requiring a foreign  language, providing language training, recruiting staff with skills in certain  languages, and offering incentive pay to officers to continue learning and  maintaining language skills. However, we noted that these efforts had not  closed the persistent gaps and reflected, in part, a lack of a  comprehensive, strategic approach.
Although State officials said that the Department’s plan for meeting its  foreign language requirements is spread throughout a number of  documents that address these needs, these documents were not linked to  each other and did not contain measurable goals, objectives, or milestones  for reducing the foreign language gaps. Because these gaps have persisted  over several years despite staffing increases, a more comprehensive,  strategic approach would help State to more effectively guide its efforts  and assess its progress in meeting its foreign language requirements. We  therefore recommended that the Secretary of State develop a  comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals, objectives,  milestones, and feedback mechanisms that links all of State’s efforts to  meet its foreign language requirements. We also recommended that the  Secretary of State revise the Department’s methodology for measuring and  reporting on the extent that positions are filled with officers who meet the  language requirements of the position. State generally agreed with our  findings, conclusions, and recommendations and described several  initiatives to address these recommendations. For example, State  convened an inter-bureau language working group to focus on and develop  an action plan to address our recommendations.
Since our report, State has revised its methodology for measuring and  reporting on the extent that positions are filled with officers who meet the  language requirements of the position. State officials also told us that they  have begun developing a more strategic approach for addressing foreign  language shortfalls, but have not developed a strategic plan with  measurable goals, objectives, milestones, and feedback mechanisms.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond  to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For questions about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer at  (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  are William W. Crocker III; Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas; Wendy Dye; Lara  Miklozek; Linda Miller; Geoffrey Hamilton; Jess Ford; Godwin Agbara;  Laverne Tharpes; Robert Ball; Robert Goldenkoff; Steven Lozano; Kisha  Clark; Sharon Pickup; Matthew Ullengren, Gabrielle Carrington; and Patty  Lentini.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military Training: Continued Actions Needed to Guide DOD’s Efforts to  Improve Language Skills and Regional Proficiency. GAO-10-879T.  Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2010.
Department of Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Comprehensively  Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities, and Identify  Shortfalls. GAO-10-714. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2010.
Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited  English Proficient Persons. GAO-10-91. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2010.
Iraq: Iraqi Refugees and Special Immigrant Visa Holders Face  Challenges Resettling in the United States and Obtaining U.S.  Government Employment. GAO-10-274. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2010.
State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.  GAO-10-290T. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2009.
State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.  GAO-10-156. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2009.
Department of State: Persistent Staffing and Foreign Language Gaps  Compromise Diplomatic Readiness. GAO-09-1046T. Washington, D.C.:  September 24, 2009.
Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent  Foreign Language Shortfalls. GAO-09-955. Washington, D.C.: September  17, 2009.
Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing  Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts. GAO-09-874.  Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2009.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory  and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and  Regional Proficiency. GAO-09-568. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Defense Management: Preliminary Observations on DOD’s Plans for  Developing Language and Cultural Awareness Capabilities.  GAO-09-176R. Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2008.
State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist  Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. GAO-07-1154T. Washington, D.C.:  August 1, 2007.
U.S. Public Diplomacy: Strategic Planning Efforts Have Improved, but  Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges. GAO-07-795T.  Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2007.
Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist  Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. GAO-06-894. Washington, D.C.:  August 4, 2006.
Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More  Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts. GAO-06-737.  Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006.
U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim  Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant  Challenges. GAO-06-535. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006.
Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit from  Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. GAO-05-859.  Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2005.
State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being  Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. GAO-04-139.  Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2003.
Foreign Affairs: Effective Stewardship of Resources Essential to  Efficient Operations at State Department, USAID. GAO-03-1009T.  Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2003.
State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment System  Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts. GAO-02-626.  Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2002.
Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing  and Proficiency Shortfalls. GAO-02-514T. Washington, D.C.: March 12,  2002.
Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct  Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls. GAO-02-375. Washington, D.C.:  January 31, 2002.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.