Department of Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls
Published: 2010-06-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a variety of responsibilities that utilize foreign language capabilities, including investigating transnational criminal activity and staffing ports of entry into the United States. GAO was asked to study foreign language capabilities at DHS. GAO's analysis focused on actions taken by DHS in three of its largest components--the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which DHS has (1) assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and identified any potential shortfalls and (2) developed foreign language programs and activities to address potential foreign language shortfalls. GAO analyzed DHS documentation on foreign language capabilities, interviewed DHS officials, and assessed workforce planning in three components that were selected to ensure broad representation of law enforcement and intelligence operations. While the results are not projectable, they provide valuable insights.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. GAO 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. However, DHS has done little at the department level, and individual components' approaches to addressing foreign language needs and capabilities and assessing potential shortfalls have not been comprehensive. Specifically: (1) 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 needsand could use this information to inform future strategic planning. (2) DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive capabilities assessment. DHS components have developed various lists of foreign language capable staff 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 capabilities would better position DHS to manage its resources. (3) DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can affect mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs and capabilities assessments to identify foreign language 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. DHS and its components have established a variety of foreign language programs and activities but have not assessed the extent to which they address potential shortfalls. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have established foreign language programs and activities, which include foreign language training and award payments. These programs and activities vary, as does DHS's ability to use them to address shortfalls. For example, foreign language training programs generally do not include languages other than Spanish, and DHS officials were generally unaware of the foreign language programs in DHS's components. Given this variation and decentralization, conducting a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its programs and activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS's ability to manage its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if necessary.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, assess the extent to which existing foreign language programs are addressing foreign language shortfalls, and ensure that these assessments are incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS generally concurs with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the wake of a changing security environment, federal agencies’ needs  for personnel with foreign language proficiencies have grown significantly.  In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United  States established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has  a variety of missions, including protecting against terrorism, securing and  managing the nation’s borders, and enforcing immigration and custom  laws, among others. DHS’s components are located on our coastlines and  land borders and throughout the country and abroad. In carrying out their  daily responsibilities, many of the men and women at DHS frequently  interact with individuals who do not speak English, or rely on information  that needs to be translated from another language to English. DHS staff  encounter a wide array of languages and dialects, under sometimes  difficult and unpredictable circumstances, including arrests, surveillance,  and interviewing individuals. Foreign language skills are vital for DHS  personnel to effectively communicate and overcome language barriers  encountered during critical operations, and are a key element to the  success of the department’s homeland security responsibilities.
Since 2002, we have issued a series of reports on two key aspects of  foreign language capabilities across the federal government. Our work  has examined (1) the use of foreign language skills as well as (2) the  nature and impact of foreign language shortages at federal agencies,  particularly those that play a central role in national security. We have  reported that lack of foreign language capability at some agencies,  including the Departments of Defense and State as well as the Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI), have resulted in backlogs in translation of  intelligence documents and other information, adversely affected agency  operations, and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, in counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts. We and the Office of Personnel  Management (OPM) have developed strategic workforce planning  guidance that has formed the basis for our prior reviews on foreign  language capabilities at other departments. 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   Most recently, in September 2009, we reported that Department of  things. State documents did not contain measurable goals, objectives, resource  requirements, and milestones for reducing its foreign language gaps, and  recommended that a more comprehensive strategic approach be  established to more effectively guide and assess progress in meeting  foreign language requirements.
In response to your request, this report discusses foreign language  capabilities at DHS. For this review, our analysis focused on actions taken  by DHS to assess its foreign language capabilities and address shortfalls in  three of its largest components—the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE). We also focused on some offices in those components that use  foreign language capabilities to carry out law enforcement and intelligence  activities. Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which DHS has  (1) assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and  identified any potential shortfalls and (2) developed foreign language  programs and activities to address any foreign language shortfalls.
For this work, we obtained all available foreign language-related  assessments conducted by three DHS components and seven offices  within those components. The earliest assessment was conducted in 1999,  and the most recent assessment was conducted in 2009. We selected the  Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE to review because they comprise a broad  representation of program areas whose missions include law enforcement  and intelligence responsibilities. We then selected locations based on  geographic regions, border locations, and language use. The locations we  visited were San Antonio and Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New  York City and Buffalo, New York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto  Rico. Although the results are not projectable, they provided us with  valuable insights about the exposure to and use of foreign languages  across DHS, primarily Spanish. We examined documentation on foreign  language needs and capabilities, including DHS’s strategic plans for fiscal  years 2004 through 2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for  fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and DHS’s Work  Force Planning Guide and Quadrennial Homeland Security Review  Report. Further, we interviewed knowledgeable DHS officials in DHS’s  Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) and conducted over  430 interviews with component officials for all the locations we visited to  obtain information on existing capabilities and potential foreign language  capability shortfalls. We compared DHS activities to criteria in our and  OPM’s strategic workforce planning guidance. We also visited CBP’s  Border Patrol Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center  to observe the Spanish Language Program, interviewed officers in training  and program officials about their training program, and examined  documentation on foreign language training development for all existing  programs at select component offices. Appendix I contains additional  details on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: DHS Use of Foreign Language Capabilities
paragraphs: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and brought together the  workforces of 22 distinct agencies governed by multiple legacy rules,  regulations, and laws for hundreds of occupations. The department’s  216,000 employees include a mix of civilian and military personnel in fields  ranging from law enforcement, science, professional, technology,  administration, clerical professions, trades, and crafts.
DHS has a vital role in preventing terrorist attacks, reducing our  vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the damage and facilitating the  recovery from attacks that do occur. The National Strategy for  Combating Terrorism calls on all government agencies to review their  foreign language programs. Further, the National Strategy for Homeland  Security articulates activities to enhance government capabilities,  including prioritizing the recruitment and retention of those having  relevant language skills at all levels of government. The 9/11 Commission,  a statutory bipartisan commission created in 2002, concluded in 2004 that  significant changes were needed in the organization of government, to  include acquiring personnel with language skills and developing a stronger  language program.
DHS has a variety of law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities that  utilize foreign language capabilities. For example, DHS undertakes  immigration enforcement actions involving thousands of non-English- speaking foreign nationals and conducts criminal investigations that cross  national borders, among other things. Conducting investigations and  dismantling criminal organizations that transport persons and goods  across the borders illegally are operations where foreign language  capabilities help DHS to identify and effectively analyze terrorist intent.  DHS also reports that foreign language capabilities enhance its ability to  more effectively communicate with persons who do not speak English to  collect and translate intelligence information related to suspected illegal  activity.
At the component level, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE are among DHS’s  largest components with law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities  that have a potential use of foreign language capabilities. Table 1 briefly  describes the law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities  of these components.
OCHCO is responsible for departmentwide human capital policy and  development, planning, and implementation. In this role, OCHCO works  with the components to ensure the best approach for the department’s  human capital initiatives. Specifically, OCHCO establishes DHS-wide  policies and processes and works with components to ensure that the  policies and processes are followed to ensure mission success.  Additionally, OCHCO provides strategic human capital direction to and  certification of departmental programs and initiatives, such as DHS’s  foreign language capabilities.
section_title: DHS Components Have a Variety of Missions
paragraphs: The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency, the only military agency within  DHS, and serves as the lead agency for maritime homeland security,  enforcing immigration laws at sea. In support of DHS’s mission to control  U.S. borders, the Coast Guard’s Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security  mission goal is to manage terror-related risk in the maritime domain.  Additionally, its responsibilities include (1) interdicting undocumented  persons attempting to illegally enter the United States via the maritime  sector and (2) boarding vessels to conduct inspections and screenings of  crew and passengers in its attempt to reduce the number of illegal  passenger vessels entering the United States, among other things. For  example, Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Teams conduct  patrols and monitor migration flow from countries neighboring the  Caribbean Basin, including Colombia, Venezuela, Haiti, and the Dominican  Republic. In fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard increased its presence in the  vicinity of Haiti to deter mass migration and interdicted nearly 3,700  undocumented persons attempting to illegally enter the United States.  Additionally, during fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard reported screening  over 248,000 commercial vessels and 62 million crew and passengers for  terrorist and criminal associations prior to arrival in U.S. ports, identifying  400 individuals with terrorism associations. The Coast Guard conducts  approximately 10,000 law enforcement boardings while interdicting drugs  each year in the southern Caribbean, which is where the Coast Guard is  likely to encounter non-English speakers.
CBP is the federal agency in charge of securing U.S. borders and three of  its offices—the Offices of U.S. Border Patrol, Air and Marine, and Field  Operations—share a mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons from  entering the United States while carrying out its other responsibilities,  including interdicting illegal contraband and persons seeking to enter at  and between U.S. ports of entry while facilitating the movement of  legitimate travelers and trade. CBP regularly engages with foreign  nationals in carrying out its missions and is DHS’s only component  authorized to make final admissibility determinations regarding arrivals of  cargo and passengers. Annually, CBP reports that it has direct contact  with approximately 1 million people crossing borders through ports of  entry each day. It is through these contacts that CBP has a potential  likelihood of encountering non-English speakers. As a result, foreign  language skills are needed to assist CBP federal law enforcement officers  in enforcing a wide range of U.S. laws. In 2009, CBP encountered over  224,000 undocumented immigrants and persons not admissible at the ports  of entry. CBP employs over 45,000 employees, including border patrol  agents stationed at 142 stations with 35 permanent checkpoints, Air and  Marine agents and officers, and CBP officers and agriculture specialists  stationed at over 326 ports of entry located at airports, seaports, and land  borders along more than 5,000 miles of land border with Canada, 1,900  miles of border with Mexico, and 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline. Border  patrol agents work between the ports of entry to interdict people and  contraband illegally entering the United States. CBP’s Office of Air and  Marine manages boats and aircraft to support all operations to interdict  drugs and terrorists before they enter the United States. CBP officers work  at foreign and domestic ports of entry to prevent cross-border smuggling  of contraband, such as controlled substances, weapons of mass  destruction, and illegal goods.
ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, with more than 20,000  employees worldwide. ICE has immigration and custom authorities to  prevent terrorism and criminal activity by targeting people, money, and  materials that support terrorist and criminal organizations. ICE and three  of its offices—the Offices of Detention and Removal Operations,  Investigations, and Intelligence—identifying, apprehending, and  investigating threats arising from the movement of people and goods into  and out of the United States. In fiscal year 2009, the Office of Detention  and Removal Operations completed 387,790 removals, 18,569 more than in  fiscal year 2008. ICE’s Office of Investigations investigates a broad range  of domestic and international activities arising from illicit movement of  people that violates immigration laws and threatens national security. For  example, investigations where there is a potential use of foreign language  capabilities include those for human trafficking and drug smuggling, illegal  arms trafficking, and financial crimes. In 2009, ICE initiated 6,444  investigations along U.S. borders. ICE’s Office of Intelligence is  responsible for collecting operational and tactical intelligence that directly  supports law enforcement and homeland security missions.
section_title: Guidance on Strategic Workforce Planning
paragraphs: Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has the  staff with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish strategic  goals. We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human capital  and developing strategic workforce planning strategies. Since 2001, we  have reported strategic human capital management as an area with a high  risk of vulnerability to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In  January 2009, we reported that while progress has been made in the last  few years to address human capital challenges, ample opportunities exist  for agencies to improve in several areas. For example, we reported that  making sure that strategic human capital planning is integrated with  broader organizational strategic planning is critical to ensuring that  agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their current  and emerging human capital challenges.
Our and OPM’s workforce planning guidance recommends, among other  things, that agencies (1) assess their workforce needs, such as their  foreign language needs; (2) assess current competency skills, such as  foreign language capabilities; and (3) compare workforce needs against  available skills to identify any shortfalls, such as those related to foreign  language capabilities.
section_title: DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and Identify Potential Shortfalls
paragraphs: DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and  capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. DHS efforts could be  strengthened if it conducts a comprehensive assessment of its foreign  language needs and capabilities and uses 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.
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Its Foreign Language Needs
paragraphs: DHS has not comprehensively assessed its foreign language needs  because, according to DHS senior officials, there is no legislative directive  for the department to assess its needs for foreign languages. As a result,  DHS lacks a complete understanding of the extent of its foreign language  needs. According to DHS officials, the department relies on the individual  components to address their foreign language needs. However, while some  DHS components have conducted various foreign language assessments,  these assessments are not comprehensive and do not fully address DHS’s  foreign language needs for select offices or programs consistent with  strategic workforce planning. Specifically, the components’ foreign  language assessments assess primarily Spanish language needs rather than  comprehensively addressing other potential foreign language needs their  workforces are most likely to encounter in fulfilling their missions.
While DHS’s Human Capital Strategic Plan discusses efforts to better  position the department to have the right people in the right jobs at the  right time, DHS has not linked these efforts to addressing its workforce’s  foreign language needs. DHS’s strategic plan acknowledges the  department’s multifaceted workforce and the complexity of DHS  operations, and envisions “a department-wide approach that enables its  workforce to achieve its mission,” but it does not discuss how its planned  efforts will help ensure that the workforce’s foreign language needs are  met. Further, the DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which  was completed in February 2010, does not address foreign language  capabilities and needs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11  Commission Act of 2007 called for each quadrennial review to be a  comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy of the  nation, including recommendations regarding the long-term strategy and  priorities of the assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the  department. As we previously reported, strategic human capital planning  that is integrated with broader organizational strategic planning is critical  to ensuring that agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to  address their human capital challenges. While the department states that  there is no legislative directive for it to assess its foreign language  capabilities and relies on the individual components, considering foreign  language capabilities when setting its strategic future direction would help  DHS to more effectively guide its efforts and those of its components in  determining the foreign language needs necessary to achieve mission goals  and address its needs and any potential shortfalls.
The extent to which components have conducted language assessments of  their foreign language needs varies. These assessments were limited  primarily to Spanish as well as the needs of the workforce in certain  offices, locations, and positions rather than comprehensive assessments  addressing multiple languages and needs of the workforce as a whole.  Table 2 shows the various assessments that were conducted at the  component level and in certain offices.
Coast Guard. Since 1999, the Coast Guard has conducted three  assessments that identified the need for certain foreign language  capabilities, which have resulted in the Coast Guard establishing  requirements for certain foreign languages skills related to 12 mission- critical languages and foreign language positions for the foreign language  award program. Additionally, according to the Coast Guard’s Foreign  Language Program Manager, by obtaining information from Coast Guard  leadership and operational units, the Coast Guard determines what  languages are encountered most in the field. Additionally, the official  stated that annual reviews are conducted to determine how best to  allocate the Coast Guard’s foreign language linguist and interpreter  positions. A “linguist” is expected to use his or her foreign language skills  on an almost daily basis in support of a specific function within his or her  unit, while interpreting is a collateral duty that can be filled by any  qualified personnel. According to Coast Guard officials, they face difficulty  in meeting their foreign language needs because of the difficulties  experienced by personnel in obtaining qualifying proficiency scores on the  Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). To meet foreign language  program requirements, DLPT testing results are used to make allocation  decisions for foreign language speakers. For example, according to the  Foreign Language Program Manager, at one of its offices near Brownsville,  Texas, the Coast Guard has native Spanish-speaking personnel who  successfully use Spanish during operations but are not testing high enough  on the DLPT and thus are not considered during allocation decisions for  foreign language needs.
CBP. CBP has conducted two assessments since 2004 that have primarily  focused on Spanish language needs. CBP’s needs assessments are based  on a task-based analysis. For example, CBP assessed critical tasks  necessary to carry out certain operations, such as its officers requesting  and analyzing biographical information from persons entering the United  States and addressing suspects attempting to smuggle people, weapons,  drugs, or other contraband across borders.  These encounters may require  foreign language skills, primarily Spanish for offices such as the U.S.  Border Patrol, the Office of Air and Marine, and the Office of Field  Operations. However, CBP’s foreign language assessment for its Office of  Field Operations included only those CBP officers located along the  southwest border, in Miami, and in Puerto Rico, and this assessment did  not include its foreign language needs in other field offices around the  country. CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol conducted similar assessments, which  focused on assessing its foreign language training program, while the  Office of Air and Marine’s foreign language assessment determined the  extent of its Spanish language needs and, as a result, established its  Spanish language training program.
ICE. According to ICE officials, rather than conducting foreign language  needs assessments, ICE primarily identifies its needs based on daily  activities. That is, ICE relies on its agents’ knowledge of foreign languages  they have encountered most frequently during their daily law enforcement  and intelligence operations. However, ICE has not collected data on what  those daily needs are. Without such data, ICE is not in a position to  comprehensively assess its language needs. According to ICE officials, in  2007, ICE reinstated the Spanish language requirements that were in place  prior to the formation of DHS for its Office of Detention and Removal  Operations.  Further, for its Offices of Investigations and Intelligence, it  utilizes foreign language interpreter services by contract for foreign  languages necessary, including Spanish.
The components’ efforts to assess their foreign language needs are varied  and not comprehensive. Specifically, the assessments have been limited to  certain languages, locations, programs, and offices. As a result, component  officials we spoke with identified foreign language needs that are not  captured in these assessments, such as the following:     In the five CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Mexican border, we  were told that they have encountered foreign language needs for  variations of Spanish language skills, such as Castilian, border, and  slang Spanish (that is, Spanish dialects in certain geographic regions  that use words and phrases that are not part of the official language).  According to ICE officials, in 2009, its Office of Detention and Removal  Operations experienced a need for Mandarin Chinese language skills  because of an influx of encounters with Chinese speakers near the  Mexican border. However, CBP and ICE have not assessed their needs  for Chinese speakers.  In the three CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Canadian border,  we were told that their encounters primarily involve Spanish, Arabic,  and Quebecois French speakers. However, CBP and ICE have not  assessed their needs for Arabic and Quebecois French speakers.  In the seven Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices we visited in the  Caribbean region, we were told that they primarily encounter Puerto  Rican and slang Spanish, Haitian-Creole, and Patois. Although the  Coast Guard has assessed its need for some of these languages, CBP  and ICE have not assessed their needs in these languages.
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices in New York report that their  primary language needs include Colombian Spanish, Arabic, Chinese,  Urdu, and Fulani. Although the Coast Guard has assessed its need for  these languages, CBP and ICE have not assessed their needs for Arabic,  Chinese, Urdu, and Fulani.
According to DHS officials, foreign language skills are an integral part of  the department’s operations. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials in the  seven components generally agreed that a comprehensive approach to  conducting a foreign language needs assessment would be beneficial. By  conducting a comprehensive assessment, DHS would be in a better  position to address its foreign language needs. In addition, this assessment  would enable the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE to comprehensively assess  their component-level foreign language needs.
section_title: DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Capabilities
paragraphs: DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not comprehensively  assessed its existing foreign language capabilities. However, components  have various lists of staff with foreign language capabilities, as shown in  table 3.
Although DHS and its components maintain these lists that identify some  of their staff with foreign language capabilities, these lists generally  capture capabilities for personnel in certain components or offices,  primarily those that include a foreign language award program for  qualified employees. These include the Coast Guard, CBP’s Office of Field  Operations, and ICE’s Office of Investigations.
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, through its foreign language award  program for foreign language skills, has developed a list that identifies  personnel with certain proficiencies in one or more authorized foreign  languages and meets program requirements. For example, the list  identifies a Coast Guard member with a certain proficiency level in  Spanish at the Miami Sector office. However, these lists contain the  personnel voluntarily identified as speaking an authorized foreign  language and have successfully met the program’s requirements and  receiving award payments. While this list identifies some personnel who  speak at least one of the 12 authorized languages, it does not account for  personnel who successfully carry out an operation utilizing their foreign  language skills but are unable to meet the proficiency requirements per the  DLPT. According to the Foreign Language Program Manager, a challenge  exists in assigning foreign language speakers while aligning their foreign  language proficiencies per the DLPT to the operational needs in the field.  As a result, personnel who speak a foreign language are being utilized but  are not considered part of Coast Guard’s foreign language capabilities and  are unable to receive foreign language award payments. In May 2010, the  Coast Guard made some changes to its foreign language program and  expanded compensation requirements to include other proficiency levels  and award payments, which could improve its ability to identify foreign  language resources that were unaccounted for prior to this change to meet  its foreign language needs.
CBP. CBP, through its foreign language award program in its Office of  Field Operations, has developed a list that identifies CBP officers and  agriculture specialists with a certain proficiency level in a foreign  language. Additionally, it identifies those officers and agriculture  specialists who (1) have received Spanish instruction through its academy,  and (2) speak Spanish in certain field office locations.
ICE. ICE, through its foreign language award program in its Office of  Investigations, has developed a list that identifies certain agents with a  certain proficiency level in a foreign language. For example, the list  includes an agent with a certain proficiency level in Jamaican Patois at the  New York field office. Further, although it’s Offices of Detention and  Removal Operations and Intelligence do not have foreign language award  programs, they have developed lists in their individual offices of  employees with foreign language capabilities. For example, one list  identifies an intelligence research specialist at the Office of Intelligence in  Miami who speaks Haitian-Creole, but does not include his proficiency  level.
Across all three components, while certain offices have developed lists of  staff with foreign language capabilities, component officials told us that  their knowledge of foreign language capabilities is generally obtained in an  ad hoc manner. For example, at each of the seven locations we visited,  Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials told us that they generally do not use  the lists described above to obtain knowledge of their colleagues’ foreign  language capabilities, but rather have knowledge of their colleagues’  foreign language capabilities through their current or past interactions.  For example, according to ICE intelligence analysts, existing foreign  language capabilities in ICE’s Office of Intelligence are not systematically  identified in the lists, but the specialists are aware of colleagues who have  proficiencies in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian-Creole.  Component officials stated that the inability to identify all existing  capabilities may result in intelligence information potentially not being  collected, properly translated, or analyzed in its proper context for  additional foreign languages and thus affect the timeliness and accuracy of  information. Moreover, they said that this information may be vital in  tactical and operational intelligence to direct law enforcement operations  and develop investigative leads.
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE staff at each of the seven locations we visited  generally agreed that more detailed information on existing capabilities  could help them to better manage their resources. These officials told us  that while Spanish language proficiency may be identified as an existing  capability, it may not always be available and generally the levels of  proficiencies vary. For example, according to one ICE immigration  enforcement agent in the Office of Detention and Removal Operation’s  fugitive operation program, he speaks Spanish but is not proficient. He  told us that there have been cases in which he needed assistance from an  agent who was proficient in Spanish to converse with Spanish speakers.  As the agent was not proficient in Spanish, he said he did not apprehend  certain individuals because he was unable to verify their immigration  status because he could not communicate with them.
Although DHS has some knowledge of its existing capabilities in certain  components and offices, conducting an assessment of foreign language  capabilities consistent with strategic workforce planning—that is,  collecting data in a systematic manner that includes all of DHS’s existing  foreign language capabilities—would better position DHS to manage its  resources.
section_title: DHS Has Not Taken Actions to Identify Foreign Language Shortfalls
paragraphs: DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not taken actions to  identify potential foreign language shortfalls. Moreover, DHS’s Human  Capital Strategic Plan does not include details on assessing potential  shortfalls, as called for by best strategic workforce planning practices.  DHS officials in OCHCO told us that in response to our review, they had  canvassed the components to assess DHS’s foreign language shortfalls and  that the components’ response was that they address shortfalls through  contracts with foreign language interpreter and translation services. This  canvassing was not based on a comprehensive assessment of needs and  capabilities, which calls into question the extent to which it could  comprehensively identify shortfalls. According to OCHCO officials,  OCHCO plans to conduct a review and realignment of the DHS Human  Capital Strategic Plan, and officials said that the plan will include more  specific direction to the components on workforce planning guidance.
We also found that the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have not taken actions  to identify foreign language shortfalls. According to component officials,  they face foreign language capability shortfalls that affect their ability to  meet their missions. At the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE locations we  visited, 238 of over 430 staff we interviewed identified ways that foreign  language shortfalls can increase the potential for miscommunication,  affect the ability to develop criminal cases and support criminal charges,  increase the risk of loss or delay of intelligence, and can have a negative  impact on officer safety. For example, according to the Border Patrol  Academy’s Spanish Language Program officials, as part of the Spanish  language training, a video is shown of an actual incident in which a Texas  law enforcement officer begins interviewing four Spanish-speaking  individuals during a routine traffic stop. The video was recorded by the  law enforcement officer’s dashboard video camera. In the video, the four  suspects exit the car and begin conversing in Spanish among each other  while the officer appears to have difficulty understanding what the  individuals are saying. Seconds later, the four individuals attacked the  officer, took his gun, and shot the officer to death.
As another example, an ICE special agent told us that in the course of  conducting a drug bust in 1991, he had been accidentally shot by a fellow  agent because of, among other things, foreign language  miscommunications. According to the agent and other sources familiar  with the incident, he was working as the principal undercover agent in a  drug sting operation in Newark, New Jersey. At the time of the incident,  prior to the formation of DHS, he was working as a U.S. Customs Service  agent. The undercover operation involved meeting and communicating in  Spanish with two Colombian drug dealers as part of a cocaine bust.  According to the agent, there were up to 18 other federal agents involved  in the operation, at least two of whom were fluent in Spanish. Further,  agents were videotaping and monitoring the conversation between the  federal agent and the drug dealers from a nearby command post. However,  the agent told us that none of the law enforcement officers in the  command post who were covertly monitoring his dialogue with the drug  dealers spoke or understood Spanish. The agent stated that as a result, law  enforcement officers were signaled to rush in prematurely to make the  arrests. In the chaos that ensued, the agent was accidentally shot by a  fellow agent and paralyzed from the chest down. According to the agent,  as well as other agents familiar with the incident, had there been Spanish- speaking officers in the command post to interpret the audio  transmissions from the agent, the accidental shooting may have been  avoided. By conducting an assessment of needs and capabilities, and using  the results of these assessments to identify shortfalls, DHS can be better  positioned to take action to mitigate these shortfalls, which will help to  ensure the safety of its officers and agents as they fulfill the department’s  mission.
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: DHS has established a variety of foreign language programs; however,  officials stated that they have not addressed the extent to which these  programs address existing shortfalls. According to DHS officials in  OCHCO, DHS’s foreign language programs are managed at the component  level and are based on component operational capabilities and mission  requirements. The components have established programs and activities,  which consist of foreign language training, proficiency testing, foreign  language award programs, contract services, and interagency  agreements. Table 4 summarizes the extent to which foreign language  programs and activities have been established in Coast Guard, CBP, and  ICE select offices.
According to DHS officials in OCHCO, decisions on whether to establish  programs and activities to develop foreign language capabilities are left to  the discretion of individual components and are based on component  operational capabilities and mission requirements. As shown in table 4,  foreign language programs and activities varied across DHS and within  select DHS components. For example, four of the seven component offices  we reviewed maintain Spanish language training programs, and some of  these offices require that officers complete Spanish language training  before they are assigned to their duty stations. The five types of foreign  language programs and activities used within and among the components  are language training, proficiency testing, foreign language award  programs, contract services, and interagency agreements.
Spanish language training. Before officers can be assigned to their  duty stations, some components require that they complete a Spanish  language training program. Specifically, U.S. Border Patrol requires the  completion of an 8-week task-based Spanish language training  program. The Office of Field Operations has a 6-week basic Spanish  training program requirement, and the Office of Air and Marine  requires 6 weeks of task-based Spanish language training. The Office of  Detention and Removal Operations has a requirement for a 6-week  basic Spanish training program. These programs are designed to  provide officers with a basic Spanish language competency. U.S.  Border Patrol and Office of Air and Marine agents and officers are  required to attend Spanish language training only if they do not pass a  Spanish language proficiency exam.
Foreign language proficiency tests. Several proficiency tests are  used by different components, and the type of test that is used depends  on the foreign language for which proficiency is being assessed. The  Coast Guard’s proficiency test is produced by the Defense Language  Institute and consists of a set of tests that include an oral interview to  assess language proficiency in the skills of reading and listening. ICE’s  proficiency test consists of an oral interview for all foreign languages  assessed, while CBP uses a combination of both oral and automated  telephone tests for assessing proficiency in similar foreign languages,  such as the Spanish language.
Contract services. Contract services consist of contracts held by  individual components and offices for interpreter and translation  services. The use of language contract services depends on the unique  requirements of the operation in individual offices. For example, the  U.S. Border Patrol provides funding for translation services and the  Coast Guard contracts annually for Haitian-Creole interpreter services.  Select components utilize over-the-phone language contract services,  while other components also utilize in-person translation and  transcription contract services. Additionally, DHS’s U.S. Citizenship  and Immigration Services operates and manages the Language Services  Section, comprising both intermittent and full-time language specialists  who may provide assistance to some offices in CBP and ICE in certain  cases.
Interagency agreements. Interagency agreements consist of  individual component offices establishing professional relationships  with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as a result  of carrying out joint operations. Additionally, these agreements vary by  component, office, and location, and may often depend on the extent to  which other agencies in those areas work closely with DHS. The  interagency cooperation we observed during our site visits largely  occurs on an ad hoc basis. For example, component officials in Miami  told us that local, state, and federal government officials provide  translation assistance as needed without any written agreement  between agencies.
Foreign language award programs. The foreign language award  program consists of certain DHS personnel voluntarily identified as  being proficient in an authorized foreign language and meeting  program requirements, including certain proficiency levels and  minimum usage requirements. As shown in table 5, the usage  requirement and award payment vary by component. Specifically, the  Coast Guard does not have a usage requirement, while CBP and ICE  offices require that certain DHS staff use the language 10 percent of the  time, or 208 hours each year. The usage requirement for special interest  languages is only twice per 6-month increment. Further, Coast Guard  interpreters receive up to $200 each month and linguists receive up to  $300 each month, while CBP and ICE employees can receive up to 5  percent of basic pay as an award payment.
Components have established some language award programs as an  incentive for certain DHS employees to develop foreign language  capabilities to address components’ language needs. According to ICE  officials, statutory language providing authorization for their foreign  language award program is limited to those employees who meet a  statutory definition of the term law enforcement officer. For example,  with respect to the law enforcement officer definition, intelligence  research specialists in ICE have not been determined to meet such  definition and be eligible to receive award payments for their use of  foreign language skills. In addition, component requirements may also  affect eligibility for foreign language awards. For example, according to  CBP, although U.S. Border Patrol agents are law enforcement officers,  Spanish language skills are a requirement for employment of that position,  therefore agents do no receive award payments for their use of Spanish or  other foreign language skills. Additionally, CBP told us that it is not  opposed to assessing its options regarding foreign language needs.
While DHS components have a variety of foreign language programs and  activities, DHS has not assessed the extent to which these programs and  activities address potential shortfalls at the department or component  levels. OPM’s strategic workforce planning guidance recommends that  agencies assess potential shortfalls in human capital resources, such as  foreign language capability, by comparing needs against available skills.  OCHO officials told us that DHS has not performed a department-level  assessment of the extent to which the programs address potential  shortfalls because DHS has delegated responsibility for foreign language  programs to the components. However, we found that the Coast Guard,  CBP, and ICE also have not assessed the extent to which their programs  address potential shortfalls.
Although foreign language programs and activities at select components  contribute to the development of DHS’s foreign language capabilities,  DHS’s ability to use them to address potential foreign language shortfalls  varies. For example, the foreign language training programs generally do  not include languages other than Spanish, nor do they include various  Spanish dialects. According to several Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE  officials we spoke with, their foreign language programs and activities  were established to develop specific foreign language capabilities,  primarily in Spanish. Officers we interviewed noted that that these  programs and activities generally do not account for variations of the  Spanish language spoken in certain regions of the country, which can  potentially have fatal consequences, particularly during undercover  operations. Further, according to agents we interviewed in Puerto Rico,  both the agents and criminals understand that the Spanish phrase  “tumbarlo” in the Caribbean region means “kill him,” while agents from  the southern border understand this phrase to mean “arrest him.” As  another example of the vital role of foreign language proficiency in certain  operations, we were told that foreign language capabilities in one  operation enabled an agent to infiltrate a prolific drug trafficking  organization. While working in a long-term drug smuggling investigation,  the agent came under suspicion by members of the trafficking  organization. However, the agent was able to utilize Spanish language  skills and dialect to avoid being discovered as a U.S. federal agent and  escape execution by his captors.
Further, in certain cases, according to component officials, the programs  and activities are not well suited for some operational needs. CBP and ICE  officials noted that although their foreign language training programs and  activities are used for the Spanish language, they maintain a language  service contract for an over-the-phone, 24-hour translation service in over  150 languages. However, according to component officials we spoke with  in the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, this resource is limited depending on  the unique requirements of operations within and among components.  Specifically, the component officials said that this resource is limited  because of (1) the time it can take to obtain an interpreter over the phone,  (2) difficulty in relying on over-the-phone interpretation while conducting  operations at sea, and (3) the inability to use an interpreter who is over the  phone for an on-the-spot discussion and resolution of an issue or problem  encountered in the field. For example, officials stated that during an  operation in which they entered a house suspected of harboring  individuals trafficked into the United States, an officer intercepted a phone  call from one of the individuals who was involved in this illegal activity  who spoke Russian. In other operations, according to intelligence analysts  we spoke with, it is difficult or impossible to develop detainees’ trust  during phone interviews to obtain intelligence. For example, according to  all of the agents we interviewed, potential informants are difficult or  impossible to recruit when the discussion is occurring through a third- party interpreter on the phone. Because the components have not  assessed the programs and activities, they have not addressed this  limitation.
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. In addition, many of the  Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials at all seven locations we visited stated  that they relied on colleagues from current or past interactions to interpret  or identify other foreign language resources. Given this decentralization,  conducting an 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, to  address shortfalls.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since its formation in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist  attacks, DHS and three of its largest components—the Coast Guard, CBP,  and ICE—have performed vital roles in carrying out a range of law  enforcement and intelligence activities to help protect the United States  against potential terrorist actions and other threats. To achieve its mission,  it is important that DHS and its components manage their human capital  resources in a way that ensures that fundamental capabilities, such as  foreign language capabilities, are available when needed. Foreign language  capabilities are especially important for DHS, as its employees frequently  encounter foreign languages while carrying out their daily responsibilities.  While DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs  and capabilities, it has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the  department’s and its components’ foreign language needs and capabilities  nor has it fully identified potential shortfalls. Further, although the Coast  Guard, CBP, and ICE have a variety of foreign language programs and  activities in place, they have not assessed the extent to which the  programs and activities they have established address foreign language  shortfalls. As a result, DHS lacks reasonable assurance that it’s varied and  decentralized foreign language programs and activities are meeting its  needs.
We have recommended that other federal agencies, including the  Departments of Defense and State and the FBI, take actions to help ensure  that their foreign language capabilities are available when needed. Similar  opportunities exist for DHS to help ensure that foreign language  capabilities are available to effectively communicate and overcome  language barriers encountered during critical operations, such as  interdicting the transport of contraband and other illegal activities.  Comprehensively assessing its foreign language needs and capabilities and  identifying any potential shortfalls and the extent to which its programs  and activities are addressing these shortfalls would better position DHS to  ensure that foreign language capabilities are available when needed.  Further, considering the important role foreign language plays in DHS’s  missions, incorporating the results of foreign language assessments into  the department’s future strategic and workforce planning documents  would help DHS ensure that it addresses its current and future foreign  language needs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that DHS can identify its foreign language capabilities  needed and pursue strategies that will help its workforce effectively  communicate to achieve agency goals, we recommend that the Secretary  of Homeland Security (1) comprehensively assess DHS’s foreign language  needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, (2) assess the  extent to which existing foreign language programs and activities address  foreign language shortfalls, and (3) ensure that the results of these foreign  language assessments are incorporated into the department’s future  strategic and workforce planning documents.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of our report to the Secretary of Homeland Security  for review and comment on June 9, 2010. On June 14, 2010, DHS provided  written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV. In commenting on  our report, DHS stated that it concurred with our recommendations and  identified actions planned or under way to implement them.
Regarding our first recommendation that DHS comprehensively assess its  foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls,  DHS concurred and stated that OCHCO will work with the Office of Civil  Rights and Civil Liberties to establish the DHS Joint Task Force consisting  of those components and offices that have language needs in order to  identify requirements and assess the necessary skills.
DHS also concurred with our second recommendation to assess the extent  to which existing foreign language programs and activities address foreign  language shortfalls, and stated that the DHS Joint Task Force will work to  recommend a system for the department to track, monitor, record, and  report language capabilities. DHS also stated that with respect to the  foreign language skills required by DHS personnel stationed abroad, this  task force will include the Office of International Affairs.
DHS also agreed with our third recommendation to ensure that the results  of these foreign language assessments are incorporated into the  department’s future strategic and workforce planning documents and  stated that OCHCO will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and  processes are incorporated into the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan.
DHS also provided written technical comments, which we considered and  incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Homeland  Security and interested congressional committees. The report also will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-9627 or at maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our first and second objectives, we reviewed operations in  three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components and seven  offices. We selected the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  because they constitute a broad representation of program areas whose  missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We  selected the Coast Guard’s Foreign Language Program Office; CBP’s Office  of U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Air and Marine, and Office of Field  Operations; and ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal Operations, Office  of Investigations, and Office of Intelligence to ensure that we had a mix of  different program sizes and a broad representation of program areas  whose missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities  and are most likely to involve foreign nationals, foreign language  documents, or both. We then selected a nonprobability sample of seven  site visit locations—San Antonio and Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico;  New York and Buffalo, New York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto  Rico—to identify and observe foreign language use at select DHS  components. We selected these locations based on geographic regions,  border locations, and language use. Although the results are not  projectable, they provided us with valuable insights. During our site visits,  we spoke to over 430 DHS staff in law enforcement and intelligence units,  and observed the use of foreign language skills where foreign language  capabilities are deemed vital to meeting mission requirements, including  the following:    We interviewed Coast Guard officials at the Command, Sector, District,  and Stations and Intelligence and Enforcement representatives of the  Coast Guard in New York, Miami, and San Juan. During an operational  boat ride tour at Station Miami Beach, we observed an encounter  involving Spanish-speaking individuals.
We spoke with officials in ICE’s Detention, Fugitive, Intelligence and  Criminal Alien Operations units. We also observed interviewing and  processing at five detention facilities and processing centers.
We interviewed ICE intelligence research specialists who were sent to  the southern border and Mexico City in support of operations,  including Armas Cruzadas, in 2009, and obtained information on  arrests, seizures, and significant events. We also interviewed an  intelligence research specialists who provided foreign language  support in Spanish for ICE’s 2009 gang surge operation and an analyst  who was sent to Haiti to conduct law enforcement training in the  Haitian-Creole language, and obtained copies of reports needing  translations.
We spoke with ICE officials in the Drug Smuggling, Human Trafficking  and Smuggling, Worksite Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs  Fraud units. We interviewed four Title III wiretap transcription monitor  linguists in San Antonio and observed a targeted area of responsibility  for surveillance composed of Spanish-speaking populations that select  DHS components encounter while carrying out operations in New York  City.
We observed “Operation-Cooperation” at the Lincoln Juarez Bridge  Number 2 at the Service Port of Entry in Laredo. The operation  consisted of CBP border patrol agents and customs officers conducting  outbound vehicle inspections to confiscate illegal weapons and cash.  We also observed interviews and inspections, fingerprinting, and the  permit/visa issuance process.
We observed passenger processing and interviews conducted by a  passenger analysis unit and tactical group (PAU/TAG) and passenger  Enforcement Roving and Counter-Terrorist Response (CTR) teams at  the Miami and San Juan international airports.
We observed the Border Patrol Laredo Sector’s initial processing of  illegal immigrants at the Laredo North Station by 14 Border Patrol  interns (refereed to as interns by the U.S. Border Patrol while receiving  post-academy training in the field).  In addition, we interviewed members of the Border Patrol’s  International Liaison Unit, Border Intelligence Center, and Joint  Terrorism Task Force in Laredo, Buffalo, Miami, and San Juan.
We also interviewed officials in the Swanton Sector located on the  northern border and reviewed documents on its Québécois French  training initiatives.
During our site visit to Artesia, New Mexico we observed the Spanish  Language Program at U.S. Border Patrol’s Law Enforcement Academy at  the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. While conducting this site  visit, we interviewed officers in training and program officials and  examined documentation, such as training manuals, lessons, and videos  on foreign language training development.
We also examined documentation on foreign language needs and  capabilities, including DHS’s strategic plans for fiscal years 2004 through  2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for fiscal years 2004  through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and Quadrennial Homeland  Security Review Report and Work Force Planning Guidance to determine  whether DHS’s plans provide details on how to address actual workforce  needs, such as foreign language capabilities. Further, we interviewed  knowledgeable officials in DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer  and conducted over 430 interviews with component officials (component  officials consist of Coast Guard members; Border Patrol agents; Air and  Marine agents and officers; CBP officers and agriculture specialists; and  ICE officers, special agents, and intelligence research specialists) for all  the locations we visited to determine the extent to which they have  assessed their foreign language needs and existing capabilities and  identified any potential shortfalls. We also interviewed these component  officials and other DHS staff to determine the extent to which they have  foreign language programs in place to develop operational foreign  language capabilities. We compared DHS activities to our and the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) workforce planning criteria. We also  examined and analyzed relevant studies and observed the use of foreign  language proficiencies in a number of law enforcement operations. Finally,  we considered our prior work on human capital strategic workforce  planning related to foreign language needs and capabilities for the  Departments of Defense and State and the Federal Bureau of  Investigation.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June  2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance
paragraphs: We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human capital and  developing workforce planning strategies.
Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has staff  with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish its strategic  goals. Since 2001, we have reported strategic human capital management  as an area with a high risk of vulnerability to fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement. In January 2009, we reported that while progress has  been made in the last few years to address human capital challenges,  ample opportunities exist for agencies to improve in several areas. For  example, we reported that making sure that strategic human capital  planning is integrated with broader organizational strategic planning is  critical to ensuring that agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to  address their current and emerging human capital challenges.
We have also issued various policy statements and guidance reinforcing  the importance of sound human capital management and workforce  planning. Our 2004 human capital guidance states that the success of the  workforce planning process that an agency uses can be judged by its  results—how well it helps the agency attain its mission and strategic  goals—not by the type of process used. Our 2002 strategic human capital  guidance also highlights eight critical success factors in strategic human  capital management, including making data-driven human capital  decisions and targeted investments in people. To make data-driven  human capital decisions, the guidance states that staffing decisions,  including needs assessments and deployment decisions, should be basedon valid and reliable data. Furthermore, the guidance states that to make  targeted investments in people, organizations should clearly docum methodology underlying their human capital approaches. We have  identified these factors, among others, as critical to managing human  capital approaches that facilitate sustained workforce contributions.
Our 2004 guidance on strategic workforce planning outlines key principles  for effective workforce planning. These principles include (1) involving  management, employees, and other stakeholders in the workforce  planning process; (2) determining critical skills and competencies needed  to achieve results; (3) developing workforce strategies to address  shortfalls and the deployment of staff; (4) building the capabilities needed  to address administrative and other requirements important in supporting  workforce strategies; and (5) evaluating and monitoring human capital  goals.
OPM has also issued strategic workforce planning guidance to help  agencies manage their human capital resources more strategically. The  guidance recommends that agencies    analyze their workforce needs,     conduct competency assessments and analysis, and     compare workforce needs against available skills.
Along with OPM, we have encouraged agencies to consider all available  flexibilities under current authorities in pursuing solutions to long- standing human capital problems. In addition, our guidance outlines  strategies for deploying staff in the face of finite resources.
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency Scale
paragraphs: Federal agencies use the foreign language proficiency scale established by  the federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an individual’s  language skills. The scale has six levels from 0 to 5—with 5 being the most  proficient—for assessing an individual’s ability to speak, read, listen, and  write in another language. Proficiency requirements vary by agency and  position but tend to congregate at the second and third levels of the scale.  (See table 6.)
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, William W. Crocker III, Assistant  Director; Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas, Analyst-In-Charge; Stephen L.  Caldwell; Wendy Dye; Rachel Beers; Virginia Chanley; Geoffrey R.  Hamilton; Lara Kaskie; Adam Vogt; Robert Lowthian; Candice Wright;  Mona Nichols Blake; and Minty Abraham made key contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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: Diplomatic Security’s Recent Growth Warrants  Strategic Review. 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.