United Nations: Additional Efforts Needed to Increase U.S. Employment at U.N. Agencies
Published: 2006-09-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the underrepresentation of U.S. professionals in some UN organizations and that insufficient progress has been made to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, GAO reported that several UN agencies fell short of their targets for U.S. representation and had not developed strategies to employ more Americans. This report reviews (1) U.S. representation status and employment trends at five UN agencies, (2) factors affecting these agencies' ability to meet employment targets, and (3) the U.S. Department of State's (State) efforts to improve U.S. representation and additional steps that can be taken. We reviewed five UN agencies that together comprise about 50 percent of total UN organizations' professional staff.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The United States is underrepresented at three of the five United Nations (UN) agencies we reviewed, and increased hiring of U.S. citizens is needed to meet employment targets. The three agencies where the United States is underrepresented are the International Atomic Energy Agency; UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. U.S. citizens are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though close to the lower end of its target range. The UN Development Program has not established a target for U.S. representation, although U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of its professional positions. Given projected staff levels, retirements, and separations, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR would need to increase hiring of Americans to meet their minimum targets for U.S. representation in 2010. While the five UN agencies face some common barriers to recruiting and retaining professional staff, including Americans, they also face their own distinct challenges. Most of these barriers and challenges are outside of the U.S. government's control. The common barriers include nontransparent human resource practices, limited external hiring, lengthy hiring processes, comparatively low or unclear compensation, required mobility, and limited U.S. government support. UN agencies also face distinct challenges. For example, at the Secretariat, candidates serving in professional UN positions funded by their governments are more likely to be hired than those who take the entry-level exam; however, the United States has not funded such positions. Also, IAEA has difficulty recruiting U.S. employees because the number of U.S. nuclear specialists is decreasing. Since 2001, State has increased its efforts to achieve equitable U.S. representation at UN agencies, and additional options exist. State has targeted efforts to recruit U.S. candidates for senior and policymaking UN positions, and although it is difficult to link State's efforts to UN hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies. U.S. representation in entry-level positions, however, has declined or did not reflect a trend in four of the five UN agencies despite State's increased efforts. Additional steps include maintaining a roster of qualified U.S. candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities, increasing UN employment information on U.S. agency Web sites, and assessing the costs and benefits of sponsoring entry-level employees at UN agencies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the  The U.S. Congress continues to be concerned about the  underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some United  underrepresentation of American professionals employed by some United  Nations (UN) organizations and that insufficient progress has been made  Nations (UN) organizations and that insufficient progress has been made  to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, we reported that several UN  to improve U.S. representation. In 2001, we reported and had not developed action plans or strategies for  representation The equitable representation of Americans at UN  organizations.
GAO, United Nations: Targeted Strategies Could Help Boost U.S. Representation,  GAO-01-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2001).
The Secretariat and several UN organizations have quantitative formulas that establish  targets for equitable geographical representation for designated professional and senior- level positions. Other agencies have negotiated informal targets with the United States.  Some agencies, however, do not maintain any targets at all.
In 1991, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report annually on  whether UN organizations with geographic targets were meeting their targets for  Americans and whether these organizations were making good faith efforts to hire more  Americans.
Nations Secretariat and the United Nations Development Program  (UNDP) in New York; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in  Vienna; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural  Organization (UNESCO) in Paris; and the Office of the United Nations  High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva. Technically, the  IAEA is an independent international organization that has a relationship  agreement with the UN. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the  IAEA as a UN agency, or organization. Throughout this report, UNDP data  includes three UNDP suborganizations: UN Development Fund for  Women, UN Volunteers, and UN Capital Development Fund. Two  organizations have formal geographic targets: the Secretariat and  UNESCO. The remaining three UN organizations do not. IAEA informally  calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its geographic  representation is less than half of its percent contribution to the budget.   Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR and the United  States have agreed to an informal target. UNDP has no targets. We  determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  review. We also met with human resources officials from these five  organizations to discuss various aspects of the data. We selected these  agencies because they represent a range of UN agencies with different  funding mechanisms and methods for calculating geographic  representation. These five agencies together comprise approximately 50  percent of total UN organizations’ professional staff. To assess factors  affecting these organizations’ ability to meet the targets, we reviewed UN  agency documents and interviewed UN human resources officials, over  100 Americans employed at the five UN agencies, and U.S. officials. To  assess the strategies used by State to improve U.S. representation, we  reviewed State documents and interviewed State officials and  representatives of U.S. agencies that participated in inter agency task force  meetings on UN employment or that receive vacancy announcements. We  conducted our work from July 2005 through July 2006 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United Nations is comprised of six principal bodies: the General  Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship  Council, International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The United  Nations system also encompasses funds and programs, such as UNDP, and  specialized agencies, such as UNESCO. These funds, programs, and  specialized agencies have their own governing bodies and budgets, but  follow the guidelines of the UN charter. Article 101 of the UN Charter calls  for staff to be recruited on the basis of “the highest standards of efficiency,  competence, and integrity” as well as from “as wide a geographical basis  as possible.” Each UN agency also has its own personnel policies,  procedures, and staff rules.  The Secretariat and several specialized  agencies have quantitative formulas that establish targets for equitable  geographical representation in designated professional positions. Other  agencies have negotiated informal targets with the United States, while  some agencies do not have formal or informal targets.
Agencies with formal quantitative targets for equitable representation do  not apply these targets to all professional positions. Instead, these  organizations set aside positions that are subject to geographic  representation from among the professional and senior positions  performing core agency functions, funded from regular budget resources.  Positions that are exempted from being counted geographically include  linguist and peacekeeping positions, and those funded by extra-budgetary  resources. In addition, UN agencies employ staff in short-term positions  that also are not geographically counted. Nongeographic staff members  include employees tied to specific projects (L-staff), employees in  assignments of limited duration (ALD) contracted for 4 years or less,  temporary employees contracted for less than 1 year, and gratis personnel,  such as JPOs, who are funded by member states. In addition, these  organizations utilize various nonstaff positions, such as contractors and  consultants.
Of the five agencies we reviewed, three—the Secretariat, IAEA, and  UNESCO—have designated positions subject to geographic distribution.  The Secretariat and UNESCO have established formulas to determine  member states’ targets for equitable representation, which consider three  factors: membership status, financial contribution, and population size.  IAEA informally calculates a member state to be underrepresented if its  geographic representation is less than half of its percent contribution to  the budget.  Using this method, we calculated a U.S. target. UNHCR has  not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to geographic  representation, but has agreed to an informal target for equitable U.S.  representation. UNDP generally follows the principle of equitable  geographic representation, but has not adopted formal or informal targets.
The Department of State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for  leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. representation in UN  organizations. In doing so, State cooperates with at least 17 federal  agencies that have interests in specific UN organizations. A 1970 executive  order assigns the Secretary of State responsibility for leading and  coordinating the federal government’s efforts to increase and improve U.S.  participation in international organizations through transfers and details  for federal employees. The order further calls for each agency in the  executive branch to cooperate “to the maximum extent feasible” to  promote details and transfers through measures such as (1) notifying well- qualified agency employees of vacancies in international organizations and  (2) providing international organizations with detailed assessments of the  qualifications of employees being considered for specific positions. In  addition, under legislation enacted in 1991, the Secretary of State is  required to report to Congress on whether each international organization  with a geographic distribution formula is making “good faith steps to  increase the staffing of United States citizens and has met its geographic  distribution formula.” State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs  is responsible for implementing these requirements. While State is  responsible for promoting and seeking to increase U.S. representation in  the UN, the UN entities themselves are ultimately responsible for hiring  their employees and achieving equitable representation.
We previously reviewed U.S. representation in UN organizations and found  that, between 1992 and 2001, Americans were not equitably represented in  the UN system, given the agencies’ own targets. In addition, the UN  agencies lacked long-range workforce planning strategies to improve the  geographic distribution imbalance. We also reported that State’s efforts to  improve U.S. representation in the UN system did not reflect its high  priority status, particularly relative to other member countries. We  recommended that the Secretary of State (1) develop a comprehensive  strategy that specifies performance goals and time frames for achieving  equitable representation of Americans in the UN System and include  efforts to foster interagency coordination, (2) work with human resources  directors of UN organizations to develop plans and strategies for achieving  equitable geographic representation within specified time frames, and (3)  provide copies of State’s annual report to Congress on UN progress to the  heads of UN organizations for appropriate attention and action. State has  subsequently implemented these recommendations, including adding a  performance indicator on the UN’s employment of Americans to its  performance and accountability documents. We also recommended that  State develop guidelines defining its goal of obtaining an equitable share of  senior-level and policy-making positions for U.S. citizens and that it use  these guidelines to assess whether the United States is equitably  represented in high-level positions in UN organizations. State did not agree  with this final recommendation and has not implemented it.
section_title: U.S. Is Underrepresented in Three of Five UN Agencies and Increased Hiring of Americans Is Necessary to Meet Employment Targets
paragraphs: U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three of the five UN agencies we  reviewed: IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. Given projected staff levels,  retirements, and separations for 2006-2010, these agencies need to hire  more Americans than they have in recent years to meet their minimum  targets for equitable U.S. representation in 2010.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Citizens Are Underrepresented Relative to Targets at Three UN Agencies
paragraphs: Relative to UN agencies’ formal or informal targets for equitable  geographic representation, U.S. citizens are underrepresented at three of  the five agencies we reviewed—IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. U.S. citizens  are equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though at the lower end of  its target range, while the fifth agency—UNDP—has not established a  target for U.S. representation. U.S. citizens fill about 11 percent of UNDP’s  professional positions. Table 1 provides information on U.S.  representation at the five UN agencies as of 2005.
Table 1 also shows that the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in  nongeographic positions (or nonregular positions in the case of UNHCR  and UNDP) is higher at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP and lower at the  Secretariat and UNESCO compared to the percentage of geographic (or  regular) positions held by U.S. citizens. The most notable difference is at  the IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in  nongeographic positions is considerably higher than the percentage  employed in geographic positions due to the high percentage of  temporary, JPO, and consultant and contractor positions held by  Americans. (See app. II for details on the composition of Americans in  geographic and nongeographic positions.)
As shown in table 2, U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions in  “all grades” between 2001 and 2005 has been declining at UNHCR and  displays no clear trend in “all grades” at the other four UN agencies.
U.S. representation in policymaking and senior-level positions increased at  two agencies -–IAEA and UNDP—and displayed no overall trend at the  Secretariat, UNESCO and UNHCR over the full five years. At the  Secretariat, although no trend is indicated, U.S. representation has been  decreasing in policy-making and senior-level positions since 2002. At  UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect a trend, but the overall  percentage of Americans increased in 2005, reflecting increased recruiting  efforts after the United States rejoined UNESCO in 2003. At UNHCR, the  representation of U.S. citizens in these positions grew steadily from 2001  through 2004, but declined in 2005. Regarding entry-level positions, U.S.  representation in these positions increased at UNESCO, decreased at  IAEA, UNHCR and UNDP, and showed no trend at the Secretariat. (See  app. III for more detailed information on the trends in geographic  employment.)
section_title: Increased Hiring of Americans Needed to Meet Several UN Agencies’ Minimum Targets
paragraphs: We estimate that each of the four agencies with geographic targets—the  Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR—would need to hire U.S.  citizens in greater numbers than they have in recent years to achieve their  minimum targets by 2010, given projected staff levels, retirements, and  separations; otherwise, with the exception of UNESCO, U.S. geographic  representation will decline further. As shown in table 3, IAEA and UNHCR  would need to more than double their current average hiring rate to  achieve targets for U.S. representation. The Secretariat could continue to  meet its minimum geographic target for U.S. citizens if it increased its  annual hiring of U.S. citizens from 20 to 23. UNESCO could achieve its  minimum geographic target by increasing its current hiring average of 4.5  Americans to 6 Americans. Although the fifth agency, UNDP, does not  have a target, it would have to increase its annual hiring average of U.S.  citizens from 17.5 to 26 in order to maintain its current ratio of U.S. regular  professional staff to total agency regular professional staff.
If current hiring levels are continued through 2010, two of the five  agencies—IAEA and UNHCR—would fall substantially below their  minimum targets. In only one agency—UNESCO—would the percentage  of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens increase under current hiring  levels due in part, to the recent increased hiring of U.S. citizens. (See app. I  for a discussion of our hiring projection methodology.)
section_title: While Common Barriers to Increasing U.S. Representation Exist, UN Agencies Also Face Distinct Employment Challenges
paragraphs: A combination of barriers, including some common factors as well as  agency-specific factors, adversely affects recruitment and retention of  professional staff, including Americans, at each of the five UN agencies.  Barriers common to most UN agencies we reviewed include  nontransparent human resource practices, a limited number of positions  open to external candidates, lengthy hiring processes, comparatively low  or unclear compensation, required mobility and rotation, and limited U.S.  government support. These barriers combine with distinct agency-specific  factors to impede recruitment and retention. For example, candidates  serving in professional UN positions funded by their member governments  are more likely to be hired by the Secretariat than those who take the  Secretariat’s entry-level exam; however, the United States has not funded   such positions at the Secretariat. IAEA has difficulty attracting U.S.  employees because the pool of American nuclear specialists is decreasing.  At UNESCO, U.S. representation is below the negotiated target, in part,  because the United States was not a member for 19 years. UNHCR has  difficulty retaining staff, particularly at the mid-career level, because it has  more hardship duty stations than any other agency. UNDP faces several  barriers that are also present at other UN agencies, such as limited U.S.  government support, and is also seeking to increase the hiring of senior  staff from developing countries.
subsections: section_title: Common Barriers Adversely Affect U.S. Representation at Several UN Agencies
paragraphs: We identified six barriers that commonly affect U.S. representation in the  UN agencies we reviewed, although often to differing degrees.
Nontransparent Human Resource Practices: According to Americans  employed at UN organizations, a key barrier to American representation  across the five UN agencies we reviewed was the lack of transparent  human resource management practices. For example, some UN managers  circumvent the competitive hiring process by employing individuals on  short-term contracts—positions that are not vetted through the regular,  competitive process—for long-term needs. In addition, some Americans at  each of the agencies, except IAEA, said that “cronyism” exists and that  certain individuals only hire their fellow nationals. Others said that the  perception of U.S. overrepresentation hinders managers from hiring or  promoting U.S. citizens regardless of their skills. In response, UN human  resource officials expressed concern about U.S. employees’ perception of  “cronyism” and lack of transparent practices. UN human resource officials  said that hiring processes include rigorous reviews involving the personnel  division; managers; and appointment, promotion and review boards.  However, the UN Secretary-General also acknowledged in a report to the  General Assembly that management systems, including human resources,  lacked transparency.
Limited External Opportunities: Recruiting U.S. candidates is difficult  because agencies offer a limited number of posts to external candidates.  Each of the organizations we reviewed, except IAEA, advertises  professional, or P-level, vacancies to current employees before advertising  them externally in order to provide career paths for their staff and to  motivate staff. Furthermore, the definition of external candidates used at  the Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR is quite broad and may  include current staff with temporary appointments, JPOs, former staff, or  staff in other agencies in the UN Common System. In reviewing hiring  data, we found that three of the five agencies—UNESCO, UNHCR and  UNDP—filled 50 percent or more of new appointments by promotions or  other internal candidates rather than by hiring external candidates. (See  fig. 1. For definitions of promotion, internal hire, and external hire, see  app. IV.)
IAEA fills a large percentage of its positions with external candidates  because, in addition to not giving internal candidates hiring preference,  the agency employs the majority of its staff members for 7 years or less.  Although the data indicate that the Secretariat hires a significant  percentage of external candidates, the Secretariat’s definition of “external  candidates,” as describe above, includes staff on temporary contracts and  individuals who have previous experience working at the agency.
Lengthy Hiring Process: For positions that are advertised externally, the  agencies’ lengthy hiring processes can deter candidates from accepting UN  employment. For example, a report from the Secretary General states  that the average hiring process is too slow, taking 174 days from the time a  vacancy announcement is issued to the time a candidate is selected,  causing some qualified applicants to accept jobs elsewhere. One American  at UNESCO noted that his hiring process took about 9 months, while  another said it took about 1 year. At UNHCR, even its “fast-track” system  used to staff emergency situations takes five months, on average. Many  Americans that we interviewed concurred with the report’s sentiment,  saying that it is difficult to plan a job move when there is a long delay  between submitting an application and receiving an offer. In March 2006,  the Secretary General proposed cutting the average recruitment time in  half.
Comparatively Low or Unclear Compensation: Comparatively low  salaries and benefits that were not clearly explained were among the most  frequently mentioned deterrents to UN employment for Americans.  American employees we interviewed noted that UN salaries, particularly  for senior and technical posts, are not comparable with U.S. government  and private sector employment. The International Civil Service  Commission also reported that remuneration across the UN common  system is not competitive in the international labor market. When  candidates consider current UN salaries in tandem with UN employee  benefits, such as possible reimbursement for U.S. taxes and school tuition  allowances through college, UN compensation may be more attractive.  However, U.S. citizens employed at IAEA and UNESCO said that their  agency did not clearly explain the benefits, or explained them only after  the candidate accepted a position. Incomplete or late information hampers  a candidate’s ability to decide in a timely manner whether a UN position is  in his or her best interest.
In addition, difficulty securing spousal employment can decrease family  income and may also affect American recruitment since many U.S. families  have two wage earners. At many overseas UN duty stations, work permits  can be difficult to obtain, the local economy may offer few employment  opportunities, and knowledge of the local language may be required. In  addition, Americans with whom we spoke said that an unemployed spouse  might not be happy as such, and might prefer to return to the United States  where he or she can continue a career. U.S. employees at IAEA (located in  Vienna) noted that difficulty in securing spousal employment is a  significant problem for recruiting and retaining U.S. professionals at their  agency.
Required Mobility or Rotation: UNHCR and UNDP require their staff to  change posts at least every 3 to 6 years with the expectation that staff  serve the larger portion of their career in the field; the UN Secretariat and  UNESCO are implementing similar policies. While IAEA does not require  its employees to change posts, it generally only hires employees for 7  years or less. Such policies dissuade some Americans from accepting or  staying in a UN position because of the disruptions to personal or family  life such frequent moves can cause.
Limited U.S. Government Support: At four of the five agencies we  reviewed, all except IAEA, a number of American employees said that they  did not receive U.S. government support during their efforts to obtain a  UN job or to be promoted at the job they held. The U.S. government  currently supports candidates applying for director-level, or higher, posts,  and puts less emphasis on supporting candidates seeking lower-level  professional posts. State said that only on an exceptional basis is  assistance given in support of promotions because the U.S.’s general  policy is not to intervene in internal UN matters, such as promotions. State  said the UN’s “code of conduct” makes it clear that it is improper for  international civil servants to lobby or seek support from governments to  obtain advancement for themselves and that governments should not  accede to such requests nor intervene in such matters. Although UN  employees are international civil servants directly hired by UN agencies,  some countries facilitate the recruitment of their nationals by referring  qualified candidates, conducting recruitment missions, and sponsoring  JPOs or Associate Experts.
section_title: UN Secretariat: Lower Probability of Employment for Young Professionals Taking the Recruitment Exam than Those Participating in Country- Sponsored Program
paragraphs: At the entry level, hiring for professional positions is limited to an average  of 2 percent of individuals invited to take the Secretariat’s National  Competitive Recruitment Exam (NCRE), while in contrast, the Secretariat  hired an average of 65 percent of Associate Experts sponsored by their  national government; however, the U.S. government has not sponsored  any Associate Experts at the Secretariat between 2001 and 2005. In  addition, a lack of career development opportunities affects retention.
subsections: section_title: Exam Applicants Less Likely to Be Hired than Associate Experts at the Entry Level
paragraphs: Our review of the Secretariat’s data shows individuals who take the  NCRE have a lower probability of being hired than do Associate Experts  sponsored by their national government at the end of their tenure. Of the  3,398 individuals invited to take the NCRE each year, the UN Secretariat  hired an average of 71 individuals, or 2 percent, per year from 2001  through 2004. Though U.S. citizens fare slightly better than the general  population (the Secretariat hires an average of 4 percent of Americans  invited to take the exam), the UN Secretariat hires just an average of 7  Americans through the NCRE each year. Employees hired from the exam  fill geographic posts and count toward country representation. Human  resource officials noted that individuals who are hired through the exam  process may be on the roster for 1 year or more before being hired. Figure  2 shows the number of applicants between 2001 and 2004 at various stages  of the exam from all nationalities and from the United States, respectively.
In contrast, the Secretariat hires an average of 83 individuals each year  who have finished their tenure as Associate Experts. Given that donor  countries together sponsor an average of 128 associate experts each year,  65 percent, on average, have been hired when they finish their tenure.  However, individuals hired at the end of their Associate Expert service  may or may not fill geographic posts. An average of 16 countries  sponsor young professionals in this program each year. The United States  has not sponsored any Associate Experts at the Secretariat since at least  2001; therefore, no Americans have been hired in this manner between  then and July 2006.
section_title: Lack of Career Development Opportunities Decreases Retention
paragraphs: The lack of career and promotion opportunities is one of the two most  “demotivating” factors for UN employees, according to a 2005 survey of  5,320 UN staff. Fifteen of the 19 American employees we interviewed at  the UN Secretariat also cited a lack of career development opportunities  as a factor negatively affecting U.S. retention. Staff also mentioned that  contract distinctions limit career development, as individuals with short- duration contracts have difficulty obtaining regular posts. Peacekeepers,  for example, work under an assignment of limited duration that can last up  to 4 years. Although they have actual experience working for the  Secretariat, they are considered external candidates and cannot apply as  an internal candidate. Moreover, their time working in field posts does not  count toward promotion eligibility. In recognition of this seeming inequity,  the Secretary General has proposed instituting a single contract type to  expand career opportunities.
section_title: IAEA: Decreasing Pool of American Candidates Limits U.S. Representation
paragraphs: Continuing U.S. underrepresentation at IAEA has been described by U.S.  government officials as a “supply-side issue,” with the pool of American  candidates with the necessary education and experience decreasing, as  nuclear specialists are aging and few young people have entered that field.  For those candidates that are qualified, IAEA may not be a particularly  attractive place to work owing to its rotation policy.
subsections: section_title: Pool of Qualified American Applicants Decreasing
paragraphs: IAEA’s Director General reported that the recruitment of staff, particularly  in the scientific and technical areas, is becoming increasingly difficult  because the nuclear workforce is aging and retiring. Similarly, a  discussion paper from DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory stated  that American experts in the nuclear industry are aging and retiring while  fewer U.S. citizens are seeking relevant technical degrees. For example,  according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nearly half of nuclear industry  employees are over age 47 and less than 8 percent of such employees are  younger than age 32. The institute states further that over the next 5 years  nuclear companies may lose an estimated 23,000 workers, representing 40  percent of all jobs in the sector. IAEA, as with all UN agencies, has a  mandatory retirement age of 62, and according to State officials, the  agency generally will not consider applicants above age 57 because they  will not be able to complete the average 5-year contract. IAEA said it  prefers to hire staff who can fulfill the normal five-year appointment but  recently hired a staff member who would reach the mandatory retirement  age in two years. Disqualifying nuclear specialists over age 57 dramatically  limits the already small pool of qualified Americans able to work at IAEA.
section_title: Rotation Makes IAEA Employment Less Attractive
paragraphs: For candidates who are qualified, IAEA may not be an attractive place to  work owing to its rotation policy, particularly given that the agency tends  to hire individuals at the mid-career level. American employees and U.S.  and UN officials we interviewed cited IAEA’s 7-year rotation policy as a  disincentive to recruiting and retaining staff. The agency usually offers  international professionals a 3-year contract that can be extended up to 7  years. While IAEA is forthright about not being a “career” agency, the  prospect of working only 3 to 7 years dissuades some Americans who are  unsure if they can find meaningful employment at the end of their IAEA  tenure. According to U.S. government officials who recruit candidates for  IAEA, working at IAEA for a relatively short amount of time is not worth  the risk to Americans already well-established in their careers. While the  U.S. government guarantees its civil servants reemployment rights after  working with an international organization, federally contracted national  laboratories have inconsistent reemployment policies, which can be  negotiated on an individual basis. Private sector firms may not offer any  expectation of reemployment. U.S. government agencies who do rehire  employees may not make use of the IAEA experience or may offer a salary  that does not compensate for the intervening years of work experience,  according to U.S. officials. Moreover, regarding retirement, some  Americans working at IAEA told us that U.S. government agencies do not  count their years at IAEA toward their years in U.S. government service. In  addition, individuals may have to give up their U.S. security clearance to  work at IAEA, which can take more than a year to reinstate.
section_title: UNESCO: Long U.S. Absence Contributed to Low Representation
paragraphs: The United States’ 19-year withdrawal from UNESCO contributed to its  current underrepresentation. Increasing American representation in the  future may be complicated by budget restrictions.
subsections: section_title: Nineteen-Year Absence Decreased the Number of Americans Employed at UNESCO
paragraphs: The number of Americans employed at UNESCO declined during the 19  years that the United States was not a member. In 1984, the United  States—accompanied by the United Kingdom in 1985—withdrew from the  organization over concerns about the agency’s management and other  issues. During the intervening years, in part because funding decreased  considerably with the withdrawal of these two countries, UNESCO’s staff  decreased in size by about one-third. When the United States left UNESCO  in 1984, Americans comprised 9.6 percent of the organization’s geographic  professional staff. When it rejoined in 2003, Americans comprised only 2.9  percent. By 2005 that number had increased to 4.1 percent—the third  largest group of nationals UNESCO employed, although still below the  minimum geographic target. Although UNESCO did employ American  citizens during that time, it was not held to any geographic target for  Americans because the United States was not a member.
section_title: Hiring Freeze Limits Opportunities
paragraphs: UNESCO must hire Americans in greater numbers to meet its minimum  target for U.S. representation, which may be difficult in part because  UNESCO may have limited hiring in the future. Vacancies available to  external candidates may decrease given current budget restrictions, as  UNESCO has applied a zero-nominal-growth policy to its regular budget.  The organization thus plans to limit hiring for regular budget positions— which include all geographic positions—to filling vacancies created by  retirement and other attrition.
section_title: UNHCR: Difficult Working Conditions and Rigid Human Resource Policies Hamper Retention and Recruitment
paragraphs: The difficult conditions that accompany much of UNHCR’s work, coupled  with the requirement to change duty stations every 4 years, causes  attrition at the mid-career levels. Moreover, various human resource  peculiarities, including the predominance of indefinite contracts and staff- in-between-assignments, complicate the staffing process.
subsections: section_title: Required Mobility through Hardship Posts Causes Attrition
paragraphs: UNHCR’s requirement that employees change duty stations every 4 years  was one of the most frequently cited barriers to retaining staff among the  American employees we interviewed. UNHCR’s mission to safeguard the  rights and well-being of refugees necessitates work in hardship and high- risk locations. As such, UNHCR has twice as many hardship duty stations  as any other UN agency. At least one-third of its international professional  staff works in posts where, in some cases, their family may not be allowed  to accompany them. To alleviate the burden of serving in hardship posts,  the majority of international professionals are expected to rotate between  different categories of duty stations. However, a UN Joint Inspection Unit  report found that the staffing system may not always allow staff to rotate  out of the more difficult locations. For example, employees who serve in  hardship locations, especially in Africa, are less likely to rotate to  headquarters and other nonhardship locations than other staff. Aside from  possibly having to serve in hardship locations, moving frequently creates  an unstable environment for staff and their families. UNHCR officials  acknowledged that the organization faces a challenge in balancing its  staff’s personal and career goals with UNHCR’s operational requirements.  Several U.S. government officials noted that attrition among Americans  has counteracted efforts UNHCR has made to hire U.S. citizens. For  example, in 2004 and 2005, UNHCR hired 24 Americans, but in the same  years 14 Americans left the agency, leaving a net gain of only 10 U.S.  citizens.
section_title: Inflexible Human Resource System Limits Opportunities for External Hiring
paragraphs: UNHCR’s policy to fill vacancies first with internal candidates coupled  with the reality that most employees have indefinite contracts limits its  external hiring, particularly given its number of staff-in-between- assignments. Given that UNHCR’s workforce requirements regularly  expand and contract, the agency typically has a number of staff-in- between-assignments for whom it does not have assignments  corresponding to their grades and skills. As of July 2006, UNHCR had 135  such staff. However, human resource officials said that some individuals  have remained in between assignments for an extended period of time— some as long as 2 years. Because all staff-in-between-assignments have  indefinite, rather than fixed-term, contracts, management has difficulty  terminating those that refuse assignments or who lack needed skills, and  the agency gives these staff placement preference over hiring external  candidates. The priority given to placing staff-in-between-assignments  limits the type of open external recruitment needed to ensure that UNHCR  maintains an optimally skilled, dynamic, competitive, and gender-balanced  workforce. In November 2003, to ensure that UNHCR adequately meets its  workforce requirements, management created a policy to terminate the  indefinite appointments of staff members who remained without a post for  a protracted period. UNHCR human resource officials said that new rules  entering into force in September 2006 are intended to reduce the  protracted period from 12-18 months to 6 months. As of July 2006, UNHCR  had terminated one staff who had remained in between assignments for an  excessive period of time.
Despite high mid-level attrition, UNHCR currently limits recruitment to  entry level positions, filling posts with candidates who must now pass an  entry exam. Before introducing the exam in 2004, employees in JPO  positions were allowed to apply to posts as an internal candidate.  However, individuals that have served as JPOs or in other temporary  assignments now must pass the entry exam and be added to the roster of  qualified candidates before being eligible to apply for regular staff  positions. U.S. citizens employed at UNHCR expressed strong concern  about this policy because UNHCR recently hired 67 percent of Americans  at the end of their JPO service into an agency position. Having to take a  test may increase the time it takes to get a post, as the exam is only given  once a year, and could decrease JPO retention.
UNHCR positions offered to external candidates will be further limited  due to budgetary restrictions. As with UNESCO, UNHCR is planning to  freeze hiring from the regular budget this year in order to limit the growth  of the organization and realign the size of the workforce with the budget.  One official estimated that there will be about 30 percent less recruitment  this year because of the hiring freeze.
section_title: UNDP: While Several Common Factors Are the Leading Barriers, UNDP Is Also Seeking to Improve the North-South Balance of Senior Staff
paragraphs: Several barriers to increasing U.S. representation that are also present at  other UN agencies are the leading factors at UNDP, according to American  employees and other officials with whom we spoke. For example, many  American UNDP employees told us that they did not receive support from  the U.S. government during their hiring process or the course of their  careers. Several of these employees stated that their discussions with us  were the first time they had been contacted by U.S. government officials  during their UNDP careers, and that both they and the U.S. mission would  benefit from increased communication. U.S. staff also discussed UNDP’s  nontransparent hiring and personnel management policies, and the limited  opportunities for external candidates, as barriers for increasing U.S.  representation. In addition, UNDP’s Executive Board has traditionally  managed the organization with the understanding that its staff be equally  represented from northern (mostly developed) and southern (mostly  developing) countries, and has recently focused on improving the north- south balance of staff at management levels by increasing the hiring of  candidates from southern countries. While this is a worthy goal, some  American staff at UNDP commented that the organization’s recent  attention to increasing the hiring of senior staff from southern countries  could increase the difficulty for American candidates seeking these  positions. A senior UNDP official stated that he did not see the increased  hiring of U.S. nationals (to maintain current representation levels) as a  realistic and attainable target, given the above focus as well as profile,  donor, program country, gender, and diversity considerations.
section_title: State Has Increased Efforts to Promote U.S. Representation, but Additional Options Exist to Target Professional Positions
paragraphs: State targets its recruitment efforts for senior and policy-making UN  positions, and, although it is difficult to directly link State’s efforts to UN  hiring decisions, U.S. representation in these positions has either  improved or displayed no trend in the five UN agencies we reviewed. State  also has increased its efforts to improve overall U.S. representation,  including adding staff to its UN employment office and increasing  coordination with other U.S. agencies; however, despite these efforts, U.S.  representation in entry-level positions has declined or did not reflect a  trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed. Additional steps to  target potential pools of candidates for these positions include maintaining  a roster of qualified American candidates; expanding marketing and  outreach activities; and conducting an assessment of the costs and  benefits of sponsoring JPOs.
subsections: section_title: State Recruiting Efforts Focus on Senior Positions, and U.S. Representation in These Positions Improved or Showed No Trend
paragraphs: In 2001, we reported that State focused its recruiting efforts for U.S.  citizen employment at UN agencies on senior-level and policy-making  positions, and State officials told us that this focus has continued.  Although it is difficult to directly link State’s efforts to UN hiring decisions,  the percentage of U.S. representation in senior and policy-making  positions either increased or did not display a trend at each of the five UN  agencies we reviewed between 2001 and 2005 (see fig. 3).
At all five UN agencies, the percentage of Americans employed in senior  and policymaking positions was higher in 2005 than in 2001, but the trends  and magnitude varied somewhat across the agencies, as figure 3 shows.  The U.S. share of senior and policy-making positions has increased at  IAEA and UNDP. The U.S. share of these positions at the other three UN  agencies displayed no trend over the period. At the Secretariat, the U.S.  share of senior and policymaking positions was slightly higher in 2005 than  in 2001, although the number and percentage of Americans in these  positions has decreased since 2002. At UNHCR, the number and  percentage of U.S. citizens in these positions grew between 2001 and 2004,  but declined in 2005. At UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect  a trend, but the percentage of Americans increased in 2005. Overall,  Americans hold over 10 percent of senior and policymaking positions at  four of the five agencies we reviewed. (App. III contains more detailed  information on U.S. citizens employed in all professional positions, by  grade, at the five UN agencies.)
A U.S. mission official told us that the mission focuses its efforts on  vacancies for critical senior jobs because of the influence that these  positions have within the organization. If an American makes the short list  for one of these positions, the U.S. Ambassador or another high-ranking  U.S. mission official contacts the UN agency on behalf of that candidate.  Officials at one of the U.S. missions we visited told us that the ambassador  called UN agency officials on behalf of American candidates almost  weekly. Several senior UN agency positions have recently been filled by  Americans, including the UN Under-Secretary-General for Management  and the Executive Director of UNICEF. UNESCO also recently hired U.S.  citizens for the positions of Assistant Director-General for Education and  the Deputy Assistant Director-General for External Relations.
As a part of this effort to recruit for high-level positions, State’s UN  employment office added a senior advisor in 2004 focused on identifying  and recruiting American candidates for senior-level positions at UN  organizations. This official works closely with the U.S. missions and U.S.  agencies to identify senior-level UN vacancies and assist in the recruitment  and support of Americans as candidates for these positions. The advisor  also focuses on UN senior-level positions that may soon become vacant,  including positions currently held by Americans, as well as by other  nationals. Officials from one U.S. mission told us that it is critical to find  out about vacancies before they become open because of the lead time  needed to find qualified candidates. For those positions determined to be  of particular interest to the United States, the senior advisor works with  mission and agency counterparts to identify appropriate candidates to  apply for the position when it becomes vacant.
section_title: State Has Increased Activities to Support Greater U.S. Representation, but the Employment of Americans in Entry-level Positions Declined or Displayed No Trend in Four Agencies
paragraphs: Since 2001, State has devoted additional resources and has undertaken  several new initiatives in its role as the lead U.S. agency for supporting and  promoting the employment of Americans in UN organizations, including  adding staff to its UN employment office. State also has begun sharing its  U.S. representation reports with UN officials. Additionally, State has  increased coordination with other U.S. agencies. However, despite these  efforts, U.S. representation in entry-level positions has declined or did not  display a trend in four of the five UN agencies we reviewed.
subsections: section_title: State Increased Resources for Disseminating UN Vacancy Information
paragraphs: In 2001, State had two staff members working in its UN employment  office, and since that time has increased the number of staff positions to  five, plus a sixth person who works part-time on UN employment issues.  The new staff positions include the official focused on senior-level  positions at UN organizations referred to earlier. According to State, the  other staff in this office recruit candidates for professional positions at  career fairs and in other venues; however, a large portion of their work  focuses on providing information to potential applicants and  disseminating information on UN vacancies and opportunities. A key part  of this effort is the publication and distribution of a biweekly list of UN  vacancy announcements. State officials publish these announcements on  the department’s UN employment Web site and also distribute the  vacancies to agency contacts. With this list, potential applicants are able  to view externally advertised professional and senior level vacancies  throughout the UN system in one location. Additionally, State recently  coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management to add a link to its  UN employment Web site from the USAJOBS Web site. State’s Web site  also includes a brochure with general information on UN employment  opportunities and requirements, and a fact sheet requesting that  candidates who have made a short list for a UN position contact the  department for information and assistance. State’s UN employment office  staff also attend career fairs and other outreach activities at universities  and professional associations to discuss UN employment opportunities.  For example, State officials reported that they attended 15 events in 2005,  including a nuclear technology expo and a conference on women in  international security.
State also has increased outreach for the Secretariat’s annual National  Competitive Recruitment Exam for entry-level candidates by advertising  for the exam in selected newspapers. The number of Americans invited to  take the exam increased from 40 in 2001 to 277 in 2004. According to State  and UN officials, in 2005, State placed one-day advertisements publicizing  application procedures for the exam in five newspapers across the  country.
section_title: U.S. Missions Share U.S. Representation Reports and Discuss Openings with UN Officials
paragraphs: Another of State’s responsibilities is to collect U.S. employment data from  UN agencies and compile these data in annual reports to Congress. These  reports include State’s assessment of U.S. representation at select UN  organizations and these organizations’ efforts to hire more Americans.  State now provides these reports to UN agencies, as we recommended in  2001, and does so by sending them to U.S. missions, which share them  with UN officials. U.S. mission officials told us that they periodically meet  with UN officials to discuss U.S. representation and upcoming vacancies.  For example, officials from the U.S. mission in Geneva regularly meet with  UNHCR’s Director of Human Resources to discuss efforts to increase U.S.  representation. One outcome of these efforts was that, in 2005, UNHCR  representatives conducted a recruiting mission to the United States,  visiting five graduate schools. In addition, the U.S. mission in Vienna meets  with IAEA’s director of human resources on a biweekly basis to discuss  U.S. staffing issues.
section_title: State Increased Coordination with U.S. Agencies
paragraphs: In 2003, State established an inter agency task force to address the low  representation of Americans in international organizations. According to  State, the initial meeting was intended as a first step to coordinate and re- energize efforts to identify Americans for international organization staff  positions. Since then, task force members have met annually to discuss  U.S. employment issues. Task force participants told us that at these  meetings, State officials reported on their outreach activities and  encouraged agencies to promote the employment of Americans at UN  organizations. One of the topics discussed by task force members was how  to increase support for details and transfers of U.S. agency employees to  UN organizations. In May 2006, the Secretary of State sent letters to the  heads of 23 Federal agencies urging that they review their policies for  transferring and detailing employees to international organizations to  ensure that these mechanisms are positively and actively promoted.  Transferring and detailing federal employees to UN organizations for  fixed-term assignments could allow Americans to gain UN experience  while providing UN organizations with technical and managerial  expertise. While the Secretary’s letters may help to spur U.S. agencies to  clarify their support for these initiatives, agency officials told us that their  offices lack the resources for staff details, which involve paying the salary  of the detailed staff as well as “backfilling” that person’s position by  adding a replacement.
State also periodically meets one-on-one with U.S. agencies to discuss in  more detail strategies for increasing U.S. representation at specific  organizations. A State official told us that State’s UN employment office  holds a few of these one-on-one meetings per year. For example, in 2005,  State met with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss U.S.  underrepresentation at the International Civil Aviation Organization. State  also participated in a network of agencies and National Laboratories that  work with IAEA, which has discussed ideas to address declining U.S.  representation at that agency. The U.S. mission in Vienna conducts  periodic video-conference meetings with State, other U.S. agencies, and  the U.S. national laboratories to discuss upcoming IAEA vacancies and  identify U.S. candidates for these positions.
section_title: U.S. Entry-level Representation Declined or Displayed No Trend in Four of Five UN Agencies
paragraphs: Despite the new and continuing activities undertaken by State, U.S.  representation in entry-level positions declined or displayed no trend in  four of the five agencies we reviewed. U.S. representation in these  positions declined at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP. The representation of  Americans in entry-level positions at the Secretariat displayed no trend  during the time period. At UNESCO, U.S. representation increased from  1.3 percent in 2003 to 2.7 percent in 2004, reflecting the time period when  the United States rejoined the organization (See fig. 4).
section_title: Additional Steps to Target Professional Positions Exist
paragraphs: We identified several additional steps to target U.S. representation in  professional positions. These steps include maintaining a roster of  qualified candidates, expanding marketing and outreach activities,  increasing and improving UN employment information on U.S. agency  Web sites, and analyzing the costs and benefits of sponsoring JPOs.
subsections: section_title: Roster of Qualified Americans Not Maintained
paragraphs: In 2001, we reported that State had ended its practice of actively recruiting  Americans for UN employment in professional positions. As an example,  we noted that State had previously maintained a roster of qualified  American candidates for professional and technical positions, but  discontinued its use of this roster. State officials told us that the office has  not maintained a professional roster, or the prescreening of candidates,  despite its recent increase in staff resources, because maintaining such a  roster had been resource intensive and because the office does not  actively recruit for UN professional positions at the entry- and mid-levels.  However, State acknowledged that utilizing new technologies, such as  developing a Web-based roster, may reduce the time and cost of updating  a roster. A State official added that it is difficult to make a direct causal  link between current or proposed efforts by the department and the  number of Americans ultimately hired by the UN because of the many  factors at work that State cannot control.
Other U.S. government and UN officials told us that some other countries  maintain rosters of prescreened, qualified candidates for UN positions and  that this practice is an effective strategy for promoting their nationals. For  example, some countries prescreen candidates for positions at the UN  Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and thus are able to  provide names of well-qualified applicants when openings arise that need  to be filled quickly. An official also emphasized that peacekeeping in  particular is a “growth area,” and the Secretary-General recently reported  that the Peacekeeping budget has increased from $1.25 billion to more  than $5 billion between 1996 and 2005. As discussed earlier, peacekeeping  positions are not counted toward geographic representation targets and  thus the increased hiring of Americans in these positions would not  directly improve the United States’ representation status. However, these  positions, along with other nongeographic positions, do provide an entry  point into the UN system.
section_title: Recruiting and Outreach Efforts Do Not Reach Some Potential Applicants
paragraphs: Although State has increased staff resources in its UN employment office,  it has not taken steps that could further expand the audience for its  outreach efforts. For example, State has increased its coordination with  other U.S. agencies on UN employment issues and distributes the biweekly  vacancy announcements to agency contacts. However, some U.S. agency  officials that receive these vacancy announcements told us that they  lacked the authority to distribute the vacancies beyond their particular  office or division. For example, one official commented that the vacancies  were distributed within his nine-person office, but the office is not able to  distribute the vacancies throughout the agency. An official from another  agency commented that State has not established the appropriate contacts  to facilitate agency-wide distribution of UN vacancies, and that the limited  dissemination has neutralized the impact of this effort. Several inter- agency task force participants also stated that no specific follow-up  activities were discussed or planned between the annual meetings, and  they could not point to any tangible results or outcomes resulting from the  task force meetings.
As discussed earlier, State officials attend career fairs and other  conferences to discuss UN employment opportunities with attendees, but  they have not taken advantage of some opportunities to expand the  audience for their outreach activities. For example, State does not work  with the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs  (APSIA), which has 19 U.S. member schools. A representative of APSIA  told us that the association does not receive vacancy announcements or  have contact with State on UN employment opportunities but would  welcome the opportunity to do so. Although State employees have  attended Peace Corps career fairs to discuss UN employment, officials  told us that State does not advertise in other outlets that reach the  population of current and returned Peace Corps volunteers, such as the  Peace Corps jobs hotline newsletter or the National Peace Corps  Association’s quarterly magazine, Worldview.
By contrast, a State official told us that the department’s Office of  Recruitment, Examination and Employment—which recruits candidates  for the U.S. Foreign Service Exam—has worked with an advertising firm  to develop a marketing strategy and campaigns focused on targeted pools  of candidates for this exam. This official said that State has had a major  emphasis on increasing the diversity of applicants for the U.S. Foreign  Service, and its marketing campaigns have targeted schools with diverse  student bodies and diversity-focused professional associations. State’s  recruiting office also has established an e-mail subscription service on its  Web site that allows individuals to sign up to receive e-mail updates  pertaining to their specific areas of interest. A State recruiting official  commented that targeted campaigns are more effective than general  vacancy announcements or print advertisements, and that the e-mail  subscription service has been worth the cost of implementation. The  official said that the cost of maintaining this service, for which she stated  100,000 people have signed up thus far, is about $44,000 per year.
section_title: State, U.S. Mission, and Agency Web Sites Have Limited Information on UN Employment Opportunities
paragraphs: State’s UN vacancy list and its UN employment Web site also have  limitations. For example, the list of vacancies is not organized by  occupation, or even organization, and readers must search the entire list  for openings in their areas of interest. Further, State’s UN employment  Web site has limited information on other UN employment programs and  does not link to U.S. agencies that provide more specific information, such  as the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory Web site.
In addition, the Web site provides limited information or tools to clarify  common questions, such as those pertaining to compensation and  benefits. For example, the Web site does not provide a means for  applicants to obtain more specific information on their expected total  compensation, including benefits and U.S. income tax. As mentioned  earlier, some American staff in UN agencies told us that in considering  whether to apply for a UN position, information on benefits was not clear.  Incomplete or late information hampers a candidate’s ability to decide in a  timely manner whether a UN position is in his or her best interest.
Including State, we reviewed 22 U.S. mission and U.S. agency Web sites,  and they revealed varying, and in many cases limited, information on UN  employment opportunities. Overall, nine of the 22 U.S. Mission and agency  Web sites we reviewed did not have links to UN employment  opportunities, and only seven had links to UN recruiting Web sites. In  addition, only six of the Web sites provided links to State’s webpage on  UN employment opportunities. Only three of the Web sites had  information on details and transfers, six had information on JPO or  Associate Expert programs, and 13 had no link to information on UN  internships. Nearly 60 percent of the missions and agencies provided some  information or links to information on salaries and benefits.
section_title: U.S. Government Has Not Assessed the Costs and Benefits of Sponsoring JPOs Across UN System
paragraphs: The U.S. government currently sponsors JPOs at two of the five UN  agencies that we reviewed, but has not assessed the overall costs and  benefits of supporting JPOs as a mechanism for increasing U.S.  representation across UN agencies. Among the five agencies, State has  funded a long-standing JPO program only at UNHCR, sponsoring an  average of 15 JPOs per year between 2001 and 2005. According to State  officials, the JPO program at UNHCR is funded by State’s Bureau of  Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), which has a separate budget  from State’s UN employment office in the International Organization (IO)  Affairs Bureau. State officials told us that the Department’s IO Bureau  does not fund JPOs or Associate Experts at any UN agencies, including the  Secretariat, which hires an average of 65 percent of Associate Experts  following the completion of their programs. The other JPO sponsorship  program among the five agencies we reviewed is run by the Department of  Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, which has supported two JPOs  at IAEA since 2004. Table 4 provides data on the average number of JPOs  and Associate Experts sponsored by the United States and by leading  contributors to JPO programs at the five UN agencies we reviewed.
For four of the five agencies we reviewed, the percentage of individuals  that were hired for regular positions upon completion of the JPO program  ranged from 34 to 65 percent. In some cases, former JPOs were offered  regular positions and did not accept them, or took positions in other UN  organizations, according to officials with whom we spoke. The estimated  annual cost for these positions to the sponsoring government ranges from  $100,000 to $140,000 at the five UN agencies. (See table 5.) This cost can  include salary, benefits, and moving expenses.
A PRM official told us that the goals of its JPO program at UNHCR are  both to help the organization accomplish its mission in the field and to  help Americans gain employment at the agency. This official stated that of  the 24 American JPOs who completed their service at UNHCR between  2002 and 2005, 16 (or 67 percent) were hired back by the agency, and 1  was hired by UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. This  official also told us that because the JPO program is actively used by other  countries as a means of getting their nationals into the organization, not  supporting JPOs at UNHCR would put the United States at a disadvantage.
As shown above, funding JPOs has a cost that must be considered together  with other funding priorities. PRM and IO have acted independently in  their determinations of whether or not to fund JPOs, with the overall  result that State has funded an average of 15 JPOs at one UN agency and  none at any of the other agencies. State has not conducted an assessment  to determine which UN agencies the United States should prioritize in  terms of increasing U.S. employment by funding JPOs. Such an assessment  would also involve weighing the trade-offs between funding JPOs and  other agency programs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Achieving equitable U.S. representation will be an increasingly difficult  hurdle to overcome at UN organizations. Four of the five UN organizations  we reviewed, all except UNESCO, will have to hire Americans in  increasing numbers merely to maintain the current levels of U.S.  representation. Failure to increase such hiring will lead the four UN  organizations with geographic targets to fall below or stay below the  minimum thresholds set for U.S. employment.
As the lead department in charge of U.S. government efforts to promote  equitable American representation at the UN, the Department of State will  continue to face a number of barriers to increasing the employment of  Americans at these organizations, most of which are outside the U.S.  government’s control. For example, lengthy hiring processes and  mandatory rotation policies can deter qualified Americans from applying  for or remaining in UN positions.
Nonetheless, if increasing the number of U.S. citizens employed at UN  organizations remains a high priority for State, it is important that the  department facilitate a continuing supply of qualified applicants for UN  professional positions at all levels. State focuses much of its recruiting  efforts on senior and policy-making positions, and U.S. citizens hold over  ten percent of these positions at four of the five agencies we reviewed.  While State increased its resources and activities in recent years to  support increased U.S. representation overall, additional actions to  facilitate the employment of Americans in entry- and mid-level  professional positions are needed to overcome declining U.S. employment  in these positions and meet employment targets.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Because equitable representation of Americans employed at UN  organizations has been a high priority for U.S. interests, we recommend  that the Secretary of State take the following three actions:    provide more consistent and comprehensive information about UN  employment on the State and U.S. mission Web sites and work with U.S.  agencies to expand the UN employment information on their Web sites.  This could include identifying options for developing a benefits calculator  that would enable applicants to better estimate their potential total  compensation based on their individual circumstances;   expand targeted recruiting and outreach to more strategically reach  populations of Americans that may be qualified for and interested in entry-  and mid-level UN positions; and   conduct an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of:    maintaining a roster of qualified candidates for professional and senior  positions determined to be a high priority for U.S. interests; funding Junior Professional Officers, or other gratis personnel, where  Americans are underrepresented or in danger of becoming  underrepresented.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received comments from State, which are reprinted in appendix V.  State concurred with and agreed to implement all of our  recommendations. State said it attaches high priority to increasing the  number of Americans at all professional levels in the United Nations and  other international organizations. We received technical comments from  State, IAEA, UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP, which we have incorporated  as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report  date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other interested  congressional committees. We also will provide copies of this report to the  Secretary of State; the United Nations Secretariat; the International  Atomic Energy Agency; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and  Cultural Organization; the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner  for Refugees; and the United Nations Development Program. We will also  make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will  be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-9601. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report we reviewed (1) U.S. representation status and employment  trends at five United Nations (UN) organizations, (2) factors affecting  these organizations’ ability to meet U.S. representation targets, and (3) the  U.S. Department of State’s current efforts to improve U.S. representation  and additional steps that could be taken.
We reviewed five UN organizations: the UN Secretariat; International  Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural  Organization (UNESCO); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner  for Refugees (UNHCR); and UN Development Program (UNDP).  Technically, the IAEA is an independent international organization that  has a relationship agreement with the UN.  For the purposes of this report,  we refer to the IAEA as a UN agency or organization. We selected these  agencies based on a range of factors such as: funding mechanisms  (including agencies funded through assessed contributions as well as  those funded primarily through voluntary contributions); methods for  calculating geographic representation status (including agencies using  formal geographic distribution formulas and those without formal targets  for U.S. representation); agency size; agency location (including U.S.- based and overseas-based organizations); and agencies with varying levels  of U.S. employment. These five agencies together comprise approximately  50 percent of total UN organizations’ professional staff.
subsections: section_title: Methodology for Reviewing U.S. Representation Status and Employment Trends at Five UN Organizations
paragraphs: To determine the U.S. representation status, identify the trends in the  number of professional positions held by U.S. citizens, and calculate hiring  projections, we analyzed employment data for 2001 through 2005 that we  obtained from the five UN organizations. Data generally refer to end of the  calendar year, except for the Secretariat, which is for the year ending June  30. We had extensive communications with staff from each organization’s  personnel and budget departments to clarify details regarding the data. We  determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  review.
section_title: Calculating U.S. Representation Levels and Trends
paragraphs: To determine U.S. representation at the three U.N. agencies with  geographic targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), we calculated  the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in geographic positions and  compared this percentage with the agency’s target. We calculated the  geographic target for the Secretariat and UNESCO as a percentage range,  in which the minimum and maximum number of national staff, as provided  by the agency, is divided by the actual (full-time equivalent) geographic  staff in the agency. The two agencies—the Secretariat and UNESCO—that  set geographic targets consider three key factors to varying degrees in  establishing the targets: membership status, financial contribution, and  population size. The Secretariat and UNESCO both use formulas for  calculating geographic targets that take into account all three factors. For  the Secretariat, the factors are 55 percent for contribution, 40 percent for  membership, and 5 percent for population. UNESCO’s formula consists of  a membership factor of 65 percent, a contribution factor of 30 percent, and  a population factor of 5 percent. IAEA informally calculates a member  state to be underrepresented if its geographic representation is less than  half of its percent contribution to the budget.  Using this method, we  calculated a U.S. target.
The remaining two agencies—UNHCR and UNDP—have not adopted  formal geographic representation targets. However, UNHCR has  established an informal target with the United States. To determine U.S.  representation at UNHCR in comparison to this target, we calculated the  percentage of regular professional positions (100-series contracts) filled by  U.S citizens. Similarly, at UNDP, we calculated U.S. representation as a  percentage of regular professional positions (100 and 200-series contracts)  filled by U.S. citizens.
For all five UN organizations, we also calculated U.S. citizen  representation at each grade—policy-making and senior level (such as  USG/ASG, D1/D2), mid-level (P4/P5), and entry level (P1-P3)—as well as  for all grades combined. U.S. grade level employment representation is  calculated by dividing the number of U.S. staff at that grade level by the  organization’s total employment for the corresponding grade level. We  also calculated U.S. citizen representation in nongeographic positions (for  the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), and in the nonregular professional  positions (UNHCR and UNDP) as a percentage of nongeographic (or  nonregular) employment, respectively in these positions.
To determine whether there was a trend in U.S. representation between  2001 and 2005, we determined whether or not the slope of the best fitting  line through these points would have a computed confidence level of 90  percent or more. If there is a trend, the sign of the slope (i.e., the  coefficient) determines whether the trend is increasing or decreasing. A  designation of no trend means that the confidence level does not reach 90  percent; however, the percentage representation of U.S. citizens may have  fluctuated during the period. We cannot say these trends are statistically  significant because of the small number of observations, the fact that these  numbers are the actual population and not a sample, and because these  numbers are not independent over time. Thus the 90 percent computation  is not an objective criterion indicating statistical significance.
section_title: Calculating Hiring Projections
paragraphs: Our methodology assumed a gradual approach to the target. We calculated  the minimum average number of U.S. citizens that each agency would  need to hire each year between 2006 and 2010 to reach their respective  percentage targets in 2010. The 2005 U.S. staff percentage representation  was the starting point and an annual percentage increment (or decrement)  was added to reach the minimum target in 2010. We then projected the  required number of U.S. staff for each year as that year’s percentage target  multiplied by the projected size of the total staff for that year. The  estimated number of U.S. staff in the agency in each year, before  additional hiring of Americans, was based on the prior year’s employment,  less the projected retirements and separations for that year. If the  projected number of Americans required to meet that year’s target is  greater than the estimated number of Americans in the agency, based on  the prior year’s employment and given departures in that year, then the  number of Americans the agency has to hire is positive; otherwise, it is  zero. Summing each year’s number of Americans required to be hired to  achieve each year’s target, and then dividing by 5, yielded the minimum  average number of U.S. citizens that the agency would have to hire to  achieve the 2010 target.
We made three assumptions to calculate the hiring projections. First, for  the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO, we based our 2006 to 2010 staff  projections on the recent growth rate (2001 through 2005) of each agency’s  staff. We calculated the future staff growth rate based on an ordinary least  squares growth rate of staff during 2001 through 2005. UNHCR provided us  with an official agency projected growth rate of zero percent, and UNDP  provided a 6 percent growth rate that we used in our analysis. Second, we  projected staff separations for 2006 through 2010 based on an average of  the separation data that the agencies provided for 2001 through 2005.  Third, we projected U.S. staff separations for 2006 through 2010 based on  the average of U.S. staff separations to total staff separations during 2001  through 2005. We did not project future retirements because each agency  provided their official retirement projections for total staff and for  Americans. In addition, we performed sensitivity analyses by varying the  staff growth and separation rates. We found that minor changes did not  produce major differences in the results.
section_title: Methodology for Reviewing Factors Affecting UN Organizations’ Ability To Meet U.S. Representation Targets
paragraphs: To review the factors affecting organizations’ ability to meet the  employment targets, we reviewed UN agency documents and interviewed  UN human resources officials, over 100 Americans employed at the five  UN agencies, and U.S. officials. At each of the five agencies covered in our  review, we met with human resources officials to discuss efforts taken to  achieve equitable U.S. representation, the agency’s hiring process,  personnel policies and procedures, types of contracts and positions, and  factors affecting U.S. representation. These officials also provided  documents with further explanations of agency human resources policies  and practices. We also met with State and U.S. mission officials and  officials from other U.S. agencies that interact with the five UN agencies to  discuss their views on factors impacting U.S. employment at these  agencies.
In addition, we received the views of a total of 112 Americans employed  across the five agencies on various UN employment issues. We gathered  information from these employees through individual interviews,  interviews in a small-group setting, or through group discussions. We also  received written comments from some American employees. We met with  employees in a range of grade levels (G, P, D, and ASG), contract types  (such as temporary, assignment-of-limited-duration, fixed-term, indefinite,  permanent), and with varying levels of experience at the agency. We did  not select representative samples of American employees at any agency.  Some individuals invited to participate in our review were unable to due to  scheduling conflicts; some did not respond to our invitation. The American  employees we interviewed as a percent of the total number of Americans  employed varied at each agency. We asked each employee common open- ended questions about their background and experience, the hiring  process, the extent of U.S. government assistance they received, and  factors affecting U.S. representation.
Using the information gathered from the American employees, we coded  comments about the factors affecting American recruitment and retention  at the UN agencies into about 30 categories. As in any exercise of this type,  the categories developed can vary when produced by different analysts. To  address this issue, two independent GAO analysts reviewed and verified  categorization of comments for each agency and suggested new  categories. We then rectified differences. We then compiled a summary of  factors across the five agencies and ranked them by the frequency they  were mentioned. Another independent GAO analyst then reviewed and  verified the summary compiled of all agency comments. We selected the  factors affecting U.S. representation discussed in the body of this review  by analyzing this ranked list in conjunction with information we gathered  from UN and U.S. officials and our analysis of UN employment data.
section_title: Methodology for Reviewing the U.S. State Department’s Current Efforts to Improve U.S. Representation and Additional Efforts That Could Be Taken
paragraphs: To assess strategies that the Department of State is using to improve U.S.  representation and additional efforts that could be taken, we reviewed  documents and interviewed officials from State’s UN employment office.  We discussed activities that State has taken since our 2001 report on U.S.  representation at UN organizations, in response to recommendations  made in that report, and reviewed State’s documentation of these  activities. We also reviewed other State documents, including its annual  reports to Congress, U.S. Representation in United Nations Agencies and  Efforts Made to Employ U.S. Citizens. In addition, we reviewed State’s  performance and accountability plans and reports, including State’s fiscal  year 2007 performance summary and the Bureau of International  Organization Affairs fiscal year 2007 performance plan. In addition to  meeting with State officials, we also met with U.S. agency officials that  have participated in State’s inter agency task force on UN employment or  received UN vacancy announcements from State, as well as other U.S.  agency officials. In these meetings, we discussed the activities and  outcomes of the task force and these officials’ views on efforts to increase  the UN employment of Americans. We also discussed U.S. strategies and  efforts for increasing U.S. representation with UN personnel officials and  American employees of UN organizations. We also analyzed 22 U.S. agency  and U.S. mission Web sites to review information that they made available  on UN employment opportunities.
We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., New York; Geneva,  Switzerland; Vienna, Austria; and Paris, France, from August 2005 to July  2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Distribution of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional Positions at Five UN Agencies
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the number and percentage of U.S.  citizens employed in professional positions at the five UN agencies we  reviewed. For the three agencies that have geographic targets, we provide  information on the number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in  geographic positions as well as in nongeographic positions. For the 2  agencies that do not have geographic targets, we provide information on  the number and percentage of U.S. citizens employed in regular and all  other professional positions.
subsections: section_title: Percentage of U.S. Citizens in Geographic and Nongeographic Positions Is Almost Equal
paragraphs: At two of the three UN agencies (the Secretariat and UNESCO) with  geographic targets, the percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S.  citizens is slightly higher than the percentage of nongeographic positions  filled by U.S. citizens. The variation is more significant at IAEA where U.S.  citizens fill 11.5 percent of the geographic positions and 17.1 percent of the  nongeographic positions. Table 6 shows the number and percentage of  U.S. citizens employed in geographic and nongeographic positions at the  three UN agencies with geographic targets.
Table 7 shows that, on average at the three UN agencies with geographic  positions and targets (the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO), the  percentage of U.S. citizens employed in all professional positions was  fairly evenly divided between geographic positions (51.6 percent) and  nongeographic positions (48.4 percent). However, the representation of  U.S. citizens in geographic and nongeographic positions was close to the  average only at IAEA, where the percentage of U.S. citizens was 55 and 45  percent, respectively.
As shown in table 8, in the two agencies without geographic positions,  UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of regular professional positions filled  by U.S. citizens is lower than the percentage of “all other” professional  positions filled by U.S. citizens.
As shown in table 9, at UNHCR and UNDP, the percentage of U.S. citizens  in regular professional positions (staff under contracts of longer fixed  terms) averaged 65.4 percent of the total U.S. professional staff compared  with 34.6 percent for U.S. representation in all other, or more temporary,  professional positions. That is, there are relatively more Americans in  regular professional positions, 65.4 percent, than there are Americans in  all other professional positions, 34.6 percent.
section_title: Americans Held Geographic and Nongeographic Policy- making and Senior Level Positions at Three UN Agencies
paragraphs: At IAEA and UNESCO, over 80 percent of the policy-making and senior- level positions are geographic. However, these positions are more evenly  divided at the Secretariat, with 54 percent subject to geographic  designation and 46 percent not subject to geographic designation. (See  table 10).
section_title: Appendix III: Trends of U.S. Citizens Employed in Professional Positions at Five UN Agencies
paragraphs: In “all grades,” U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions at the  Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO and in regular professional positions at  UNDP displays no trend at the 90 percent confidence level. However, at  UNHCR, U.S. representation decreased in regular professional positions.  Figure 5 shows the trends in U.S. representation, by grade, at each agency.
As shown in figure 5, U.S. citizen representation in policy making and  senior level positions increased at IAEA and UNDP and increased in entry  level positions at UNESCO. However, U.S. citizen representation in entry  level positions decreased at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP. In addition, U.S.  citizen representation decreased in mid-level positions at UNHCR, as well  as over “all grades.” The 90 percent confidence interval does not imply  statistical significance. Refer to our methodology for calculating trends in  app. I.
section_title: Appendix IV: Definitions of Promotion, Internal Hires, and External Hires
paragraphs: Table 11 provides further information on the terms promotion, internal  hire, and external hire, as provided by each of the five UN agencies we  reviewed for the purposes of this report.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the person named above Cheryl Goodman, Assistant  Director; Jeremy Latimer; Miriam Carroll; Roberta Steinman; Barbara  Shields; and Joe Carney made key contributions to this report. Martin De  Alteriis, Bruce Kutnick, Anna Maria Ortiz, and Mark Speight provided                      technical assistance.