Department of State: Foreign Language Proficiency Has Improved, but Efforts to Reduce Gaps Need Evaluation
Published: 2017-03-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Foreign language proficiency is a key skill for U.S. diplomats. For example, it helps the State Department effectively process visa applications and address security concerns. Yet, we've found that State has persistent shortfalls in this area—23% of its overseas positions that required foreign language proficiency were filled by staff that didn't meet the requirements (as of September 2016).
State developed a strategic plan to address this issue, and it has implemented a number of actions in its plan. However, it hasn't evaluated if these efforts are effective at improving its foreign language capabilities. We recommended they do so.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. diplomats to advance U.S. interests overseas. GAO has issued several reports highlighting State's persistent foreign language shortfalls. In 2009, GAO recommended that State, to address these shortfalls, develop a strategic plan linking all of its efforts to meet its foreign language requirements. In response, in 2011 State issued its “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities.”
GAO was asked to build on its previous reviews of State's foreign language capabilities. In this report, GAO examines (1) the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language proficiency requirements for overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any gaps in State's ability to perform diplomatic duties, (2) State's process for identifying overseas posts' language proficiency needs and the extent to which the process addresses these reported needs, and (3) efforts State has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of those efforts. GAO analyzed data on State's overseas language-designated positions; reviewed State strategic planning and policy documents; interviewed State officials; and visited overseas posts in China, Egypt, Korea, Mexico, and Russia.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of September 2016, 23 percent of overseas language-designated positions (LDP) were filled by Foreign Service officers (FSO) who did not meet the positions' language proficiency requirements. While this represents an 8-percentage-point improvement from 2008, the Department of State (State) still faces significant language proficiency gaps (see fig.). Regionally, the greatest gaps were in the Near East (37 percent), Africa (34 percent), and South and Central Asia (31 percent). According to FSOs we interviewed, language proficiency gaps have, in some cases, affected State's ability to properly adjudicate visa applications; effectively communicate with foreign audiences, address security concerns, and perform other critical diplomatic duties.
State reviews overseas posts' language needs every 3 years, but the extent to which the reviews' outcomes address these needs is unclear. State's policies indicate that operational need should determine the designation of positions as LDPs and required proficiency levels. However, views expressed by geographic bureau officials and FSOs whom GAO met at overseas posts suggest that other factors, such as staffing and cost concerns, influence State's decisions about LDP designations and proficiency requirements. State Human Resources officials noted that State is taking steps to better align its LDP policies with its operational needs.
State has implemented most actions described in its 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities” but has not evaluated the effects of these actions on language proficiency at overseas posts. According to State’s evaluation policy, the department is committed to using performance management, including evaluation, to achieve the most effective foreign policy outcomes and greater accountability. Actions State has implemented under the plan include reviewing the language requirements of overseas posts every 3 years; offering recruitment incentives for personnel with proficiency in critically important languages; providing language incentive pay only for languages that reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities; and using technology to strengthen and develop new approaches for language training and to complement FSOs’ language skills. However, more than 5 years after it began implementing its strategic plan, State has not systematically evaluated the results of these efforts. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which these efforts contribute to progress in increasing language proficiency worldwide and reducing proficiency gaps.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of State evaluate the effectiveness of efforts implemented under the “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities.” State agreed with our recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. Foreign Service  officers (FSO) to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic interests  overseas. Effective diplomacy requires the ability to communicate clearly  and persuasively with host-country interlocutors and local populations in  their languages. In 2016, the Department of State (State), which has  primary responsibility for U.S. diplomacy, required foreign language  proficiency for 44 percent of its 10,111 overseas FSO positions.  According to State’s fiscal years 2016-2020 Five Year Workforce and  Leadership Succession Plan, one of the department’s workforce priorities  is to strengthen employees’ language skills. Over the years, we have  issued several reports highlighting State’s persistent shortages of staff  with critical foreign language skills. Most recently, in 2009, we reported  that almost one-third of officers in language-designated positions (LDP) in  2008 did not meet the positions’ proficiency requirements, despite a  number of State initiatives to improve foreign language capabilities. In  our 2009 report, we recommended that State develop a comprehensive  strategic plan that links all of its efforts to meet its foreign language  requirements. In response, in 2011 State issued its “Strategic Plan for  Foreign-Language Capabilities.”
Building on our previous reports about State’s foreign language  capabilities, this report examines (1) the extent to which State is meeting  its foreign language proficiency requirements for overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to  perform diplomatic duties, (2) State’s process for identifying overseas  posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to which the process  addresses posts’ reported needs, and (3) efforts State has taken to  enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of those efforts.
To examine the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language  requirements as well as the potential effects of language proficiency and  any gaps, we analyzed data provided by State that listed all overseas  LDPs and the language skills of the incumbents filling the positions as of  September 30, 2016. We interviewed State officials responsible for the  collection of LDP data and determined the data to be reliable for our  reporting purposes and analysis. To examine State’s process for  identifying overseas posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to  which the process addresses posts’ reported needs, we reviewed State  human resource documents, such as memorandums and cables, as well  as previous GAO and State Inspector General reports. To examine  actions State has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency, we  reviewed State’s human resource documents, including the 2011  “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities” and the 2016-2020  workforce plan. We compared steps State has taken to the objectives  described in the “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities” and  assessed whether they have been evaluated in accordance with State’s  Evaluation Policy and federal internal control standards. In addition, we  interviewed officials from State’s Bureaus of Human Resources  (M/DGHR) and Consular Affairs, six geographic bureaus, and the Foreign  Service Institute (FSI). We also interviewed State officials at posts in  China, Egypt, Korea, Mexico, and Russia.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017  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. Appendix I provides a detailed  explanation of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: To ensure that its diplomatic corps can communicate in the languages of  host countries, State requires that FSOs assigned to LDPs at overseas  posts meet minimum specified competency levels for both speaking and  reading. As of September 30, 2016, State had 4,461 overseas positions  worldwide that required language proficiency and 872 overseas positions  where proficiency was preferred but not required, known as language- preferred positions.
State categorizes foreign languages according to the time required for a  native English speaker to learn them:
Category I—World languages (e.g., French and Spanish)
Category II—Difficult world languages (e.g., German)
Category III—Hard  languages (e.g., Russian and Urdu)
Category IV—Super-hard languages (e.g., Arabic and Chinese)
According to State documents, the time it takes to achieve general  proficiency depends on the difficulty of the language. World languages  require 24 to 30 weeks, difficult world languages require 36 weeks, hard  languages require 44 weeks, and super-hard languages require 88 weeks  to achieve general proficiency.
State groups countries of the world into areas of responsibility under six  geographic bureaus:
Bureau of African Affairs (AF)
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP)
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR)
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA)
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA)
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA)
The number of overseas LDPs varies significantly by bureau, with the  highest number (1,491) at WHA posts and the lowest (233) at SCA posts.  Most LDPs requiring category I and II languages are at AF, EUR, and  WHA posts, while most LDPs requiring category III  and IV languages are  in EAP, EUR, NEA, and SCA. Three of the four super-hard languages  (Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) are spoken in the countries in EAP’s  area of responsibility; the remaining super-hard language (Arabic) is  widely spoken throughout the NEA area. The percentages of Foreign  Service positions that are LDPs also vary by geographic bureau, with the  highest percentage under WHA.
Figure 1 shows the geographic bureaus’ areas of responsibility and  numbers of LDPs relative to the numbers of Foreign Service positions.
State uses 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 0 indicating  no practical capability in the language and 5 indicating highly articulate,  well-educated, native-speaker proficiency—to identify a language  learner’s ability to speak, read, listen, and write in another language.  General professional proficiency in speaking and reading—3/3  (speaking/reading)—is the minimum level required for most Foreign  Service generalist LDPs. According to State’s fiscal years 2016-2020 Five  Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan, this level of proficiency  provides officers with the ability to participate in most formal and informal  discussions of practical, social, and professional topics. Some entry-level  Foreign Service generalist and most Foreign Service specialist LDPs are  designated at or below the 2/2 level. Table 1 shows the language skill  requirements for each proficiency level.
The difference between the second and third proficiency levels—the  ability to interact effectively with native speakers—is significant in terms of  training costs and productivity for certain languages. For example, State  provides about 44 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of a language  classified as super-hard, such as Arabic, up to the second level. Moving  to a level-3 proficiency usually requires another 44 weeks of training,  which is generally conducted at field schools overseas. In contrast, State  provides 24 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of most “world”  languages to a level 3.
State primarily uses language training—typically at the FSI—to meet its  foreign language requirements. FSI’s School of Language Studies offers  training in about 70 languages. State also offers full-time advanced  training in super-hard languages at a few overseas locations, including  Beijing, China; Seoul, South Korea; and Taipei, Taiwan, among other  locations. In addition, overseas posts offer part-time language training  through post language programs, and FSI offers distance learning  courses to officers overseas.
section_title: State Has Improved Foreign Language Proficiency but Faces Gaps in Key Languages and Regions That May Adversely Affect Diplomatic Operations
paragraphs: Since October 2008, State has reduced the number of LDPs staffed by  FSOs who do not meet language requirements by 8 percentage points,  from 31 to 23 percent. However, State continues to face notable shortfalls  in meeting its foreign language requirements for overseas LDPs that may  adversely affect diplomatic operations. State officials we met with in  Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts identified various challenges  that may affect State’s ability to address its foreign language shortfalls.  Additionally,  according to FSOs we interviewed, both language  proficiency and gaps in proficiency have, in some cases, affected State’s  ability to, for example, properly adjudicate visa applications, effectively  communicate with foreign audiences, and perform other critical diplomatic  duties.
subsections: section_title: State Has Made Some Progress in Improving Foreign Language Proficiency since 2008
paragraphs: The percentage of overseas LDPs staffed by FSOs who did not meet the  positions’ language proficiency requirements has decreased since  October 2008 (see table 2). As of September 30, 2016, 23 percent of  overseas LDPs were staffed by FSOs who did not meet both the  speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions;  According to State officials, State granted language waivers to most of  these FSOs. In contrast, as of October 2008, 31 percent of FSOs in  overseas LDPs did not meet these requirements.
However, the proficiency shortfall widens when unstaffed positions are  included. As of September 2016, 69 percent (3,077 of 4,461) of overseas  LDPs were staffed by FSOs who met both the speaking and the reading  requirements, while 31 percent (1,384 of 4,461) of LDPs either were  staffed by FSOs who did not meet the positions’ requirements or  remained vacant. State officials noted that, among other factors, the  overall increase of LDPs from 2008 through 2016 contributed to the slow  progress in improving the rate of LDPs filled by FSOs who meet the  positions’ requirements. State officials also noted that many of the new  LDPs require proficiency in hard or super-hard languages, which entails  44 to 88 weeks of training. The officials further stated that, given the  absence of an existing cadre of foreign-language speakers who can be  staffed to LDPs, many positions may go unstaffed.
section_title: State Faces Significant Proficiency Gaps in Priority Languages and Regions That Are of Critical Importance to U.S. Foreign Policy
paragraphs: While language proficiency gaps vary among posts, State faces some of  its largest proficiency gaps in several priority languages. According to  State M/DGHR officials, State designates languages as priority for  various reasons. For example, Mandarin  Chinese, Dari, Farsi, Pashto,  Hindi, Urdu, Korean, and Arabic—languages spoken in China, Iran, India,  Korea, and throughout the Near East—are priority languages. State  defines priority languages as languages that are of critical importance to  U.S. foreign policy, are experiencing severe shortages or staffing gaps, or  present specific challenges in recruiting and training. In addition, officials  from State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs identified Mandarin  Chinese and  Spanish, among others, as priority languages, citing the need for  language-qualified  entry-level professionals to provide consular services  in countries where these languages are spoken as well as reduced entry- level hiring and resultant staffing gaps in LDPs worldwide.
As figure 2 shows, as of September 2016, the largest proficiency gaps for  priority languages were in Arabic, Dari, Farsi, and Urdu. According to  State data, 36 percent of LDPs requiring Arabic (106 of 291 LDPs), 53  percent of LDPs requiring Dari (9 of 17 LDPs), 36 percent of LDPs  requiring Farsi (9 of 26 LDPs), and 44 percent of LDPs requiring Urdu (12  of 27 LDPs) were staffed by FSOs who did not meet the proficiency  requirements for the positions.
State continues to face proficiency gaps worldwide, most notably in  priority languages categorized as hard or super-hard. Some of the most  significant gaps are found in NEA, AF, and SCA (see fig. 3). In NEA, 144  of 392 LDPs (37 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the  positions’ proficiency requirements; 88 LDPs were vacant. In AF, 118 of  349 LDPs (34 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the  positions’ proficiency requirements; 38 LDPs were vacant. In SCA, 66 of  210 LDPs (31 percent) were staffed by officers who did not meet the  positions’ proficiency requirements; 23 LDPs were vacant.
section_title: State Officials Identified Challenges That May Affect State’s Ability to Address Language Shortfalls
paragraphs: State officials we interviewed said that several challenges, including some  that are unrelated to language proficiency, may affect the department’s  ability to staff LDPs with officers who meet both the speaking and reading  requirements for the positions. According to these officials, language  proficiency shortfalls are partially attributable to the following factors:
Long training periods. Training to achieve general proficiency in  hard and super-hard languages can take up to 2 years. According to  State officials, this may result in a position going unfilled, given the  absence of an existing cadre of foreign-language speakers who can  be staffed to LDPs. FSOs we spoke with stated that the length of time  it takes to achieve a 3/3—the minimum standard for general  proficiency—in a hard or super-hard language may discourage some  officers from applying for positions that require proficiency in these  languages. According to State, for an FSO with no previous language  experience, achieving a 3/3 generally takes 44 weeks of study for a  hard language and 88 weeks for a super-hard language.
Heritage-speaker restrictions. Because of security concerns, in  certain instances State does not allow Chinese or Russian “heritage  speakers” to serve in their ancestral countries if they have relatives  there. In addition, according to State officials, Egypt does not grant  diplomatic status to Americans with dual citizenship or who have a  claim to Egyptian citizenship, which limits State’s ability to staff LDPs  in Egypt with FSOs who speak Arabic. According to a State official,  heritage speakers can leverage their native level of proficiency to  better understand subtle language cues that may be missed by non- native speakers. For example, State officials in China and Korea  stated that to effectively monitor social media requires someone to be  a near-native speaker in order to understand language tone and  nuance.
Restrictions on tour frequency and length. According to State  officials, State does not encourage FSOs to serve consecutive tours  in the same country and generally limits each tour to a maximum of 2  or 3 years. In a country that we visited, an official told us that State’s  current system actively discourages FSOs from serving multiple tours  in the same country because of concerns that the FSOs may lose  objectivity or begin to view issues from the host country’s, rather than  the U.S. government’s, perspective. In addition, according to State  officials, there has been an increase in 1-year tours in countries where  hard and super-hard languages are spoken. Given that language  training can take up to 2 years for hard and super-hard languages,  FSOs may not be willing to undergo such extensive training for a 1- year position.
Tour curtailments and staff rotations. According to some State  officials, constant movement of staff—often because of officers’  curtailing their tours to attend family or medical issues or rotating to  another location after they have reached the maximum allowed term  in a given post—contributes to LDPs’ remaining vacant or being  staffed with personnel who do not meet the positions’ language  requirements. For example, a regional security officer (RSO) at a post  we visited stated that although multiple RSOs at that post had ended  their tours and left their positions, no replacement RSOs had met the  positions’ foreign language proficiency requirements. As a result,  several LDPs remained unfilled, and the remaining RSOs had to  make up for the shortfall in staff. Additionally,  according to State  officials, certain LDPs in Iraq and Afghanistan that are deemed “no- gap posts” must be filled by available FSOs regardless of whether  they meet the proficiency requirements.
section_title: Foreign Language Proficiency Can Positively Affect Various Aspects of U.S. Foreign Service, while Proficiency Gaps Have Negative Effects
paragraphs: Current and former FSOs, including ambassadors, whom we interviewed,  reported positive and negative effects, respectively, of language  proficiency and of proficiency gaps on officers’ ability to perform critical  diplomatic functions (see table 3). State documents also report such  effects.
section_title: Post Officials Reported Using Locally Employed Staff to Help Mitigate Language Proficiency Gaps in Some Instances
paragraphs: To mitigate the impact of language proficiency gaps, post officials told us  that in some instances they leverage the foreign language skills of locally  employed staff (LE staff). According to post officials, FSOs may ask LE  staff to draft or translate e-mails, schedule meetings, and translate during  meetings, among other tasks. However, post officials said that there are  limitations to using LE staff. For example, FSOs said that they cannot rely  on LE staff for language support when discussing politically sensitive  issues and that using LE staff as translators is less desirable than having  a firsthand conversation with an external contact. In addition to using LE  staff, officers also rely on professional translators and interpreters for  language assistance.
section_title: State Reviews Language Proficiency Requirements Every 3 Years, but Extent to Which This Process Addresses Posts’ Reported Needs Is Unclear
subsections: section_title: State Determines Language Proficiency Requirements Primarily through Triennial Review of Existing LDPs
paragraphs: According to State officials, State conducts a review of all LDPs every 3  years to reevaluate posts’ language needs. State officials in Washington,  D.C., described this triennial review as a post-driven exercise, stating that  each post is best positioned to understand its language needs. According  to a State memo, the triennial review is the foundation for applying foreign  language designations and establishing State’s language policies.
In April 2010, in response to a recommendation in our 2009 report,  State’s Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human  Resources implemented an updated LDP review process to occur every 3  years, replacing a previously annual cycle. According to State documents,  the updated process requires State’s geographic bureaus; Bureaus of  Diplomatic Security, Consular Affairs, and International  Narcotics and  Law Enforcement Affairs; and worldwide missions to review all LDPs  assigned to their area of responsibility, regardless of the bidding cycle, on  a 3-year basis. According to State officials, the 3-year timeframe allows  State to strategically plan for, and project, future LDP needs in an effort to  minimize the overall number of LDPs that remain vacant or unstaffed.  Figure 4 shows the triennial LDP review process.
section_title: Extent to Which Outcomes of State’s Triennial Review Address Posts’ Reported Language Proficiency Needs Is Unclear
paragraphs: While State’s triennial review process is intended to address the language  needs of its overseas posts, FSOs we interviewed expressed varying  views on the extent to which the outcomes of the process meet posts’  reported needs. State’s policies indicate that operational need should  determine designation of positions as LDPs and required proficiency  levels. However, views expressed by geographic bureau officials and  FSOs we met with at overseas posts suggest that State officials also  consider other factors, such as staffing concerns, when making LDP  decisions. In addition, some State officials said that the triennial reviews  lack rigor, which may result in posts’ maintaining preexisting LDP  numbers and levels without having adequately identified the current  language needs of each position. Furthermore, in 2013, the State Office  of Inspector General (OIG) identified various deficiencies with the triennial  review process. For example, the OIG found that State’s oversight of  LDPs is insufficient to identify over- or underdesignation of language  requirements.
subsections: section_title: Post Officials’ Views Varied on Whether Designations Resulting from Triennial Reviews Meet Posts’ Language Needs
paragraphs: While State’s process for designating LDPs is intended to address the  language needs of its overseas posts, FSOs we interviewed expressed  varying views on the extent to which the designations resulting from the  triennial reviews meet their posts’ needs. Some post managers we  interviewed said that their post or embassy section generally has the  appropriate number of LDPs at adequate proficiency levels to meet  diplomatic goals. However, some of these officials also said that, while  the current proficiency level requirements are adequate, higher  proficiency levels would be preferable. For example, consular section  managers in countries where a hard or super-hard language is spoken  said that while a speaking and reading proficiency of 2/1 or 2/0 is  currently required for most of their consular employees, a higher  proficiency level, such as a 3/3, would be preferable. State officials in  headquarters explained that the language proficiency level set for entry- level consular positions in hard and super-hard languages is due to  department policy with regard to training limitations for entry-level  officers. One consular chief said that the section “gets by with what it  has,” while another said that assistance from LE staff helps to fill the  language gap. One post security manager said that the year of language  training that security officers generally receive to operate in a country with  a super-hard language provides only a “survival” level of proficiency and  does not prepare them to function on a professional level.
While State requires a proficiency level of 3/3 in speaking and reading for  most Foreign Service generalist LDPs, post managers as well as junior  FSOs said that greater proficiency would better equip them to  communicate and negotiate with foreign counterparts and advance U.S.  diplomatic goals. One public diplomacy manager said that, in an ideal,  resource-neutral environment, he would like all of his public affairs  officers to have a 4/4 level of proficiency. One political officer with 3/3  proficiency said she struggles to understand some of what is said during  meetings and that a higher level of proficiency would be more appropriate  for the needs of the job. Post officers said that high proficiency levels, for  example, higher than 3, enable officers to detect nuance and subtle cues  in conversations, build greater rapport, have more contacts and access to  foreign audiences, participate in more unscripted conversations, and  answer questions “off the cuff.” FSOs also suggested that certain political,  economic, public affairs, and consular officer functions, in particular, could  benefit from higher proficiency levels. However, post officials recognized  that there are tradeoffs associated with requiring higher levels, including  longer training and higher costs.
In addition, post officials indicated that current language designations do  not always reflect the needs of their positions or embassy sections. An  economic section chief said that while her position is not an LDP, she  believes it should be. Some post managers, including two RSOs in LDPs,  said that they felt they were able to successfully perform their duties  without being language proficient. One post official said that language  proficiency was not critical to the execution of his duties because he  spends most of his time in the embassy supervising American staff and  interacting with English-speaking counterparts and can obtain any  needed translation assistance from LE staff. Some post officers  recommended reducing the required proficiency levels for certain  positions that entail limited interaction with foreign counterparts, such as  human resource positions focused on management of U.S. staff.
section_title: State Officials Identified Factors besides Language Need That Influence LDP Designations
paragraphs: Although State’s policies indicate that operational need is the determining  criterion for designating a position as an LDP, officials we spoke with  cited other factors that may influence LDP designations. According to  State’s Foreign Affairs Manual  (FAM), State should designate positions  as requiring language proficiency only when it is essential to enhancing  U.S. effectiveness abroad. According to the FAM, factors that posts  should consider when assessing their LDP needs include the necessity of  using the language to successfully execute the requirements of the  position, the importance host-nation interlocutors attach to U.S. diplomats’  ability to speak the language, and the English language capabilities of the  embassy’s LE staff (see app. II  for a full list of the FAM criteria). However,  geographic bureau officials and post managers told us that they also  consider factors such as staffing and cost concerns when designating  LDPs and determining proficiency requirements.
Staffing concerns. While State’s guidance states that the department  must identify its language needs irrespective of the number of likely  bidders, embassy section heads at the posts we visited said staffing  concerns affect their decisions about designating positions as LDPs  and requiring certain proficiency levels. For example, embassy  managers in countries where super-hard or hard languages, such as  Arabic and Russian, are spoken said that certain positions have been  designated as not requiring language proficiency or designated at a  lower proficiency level to increase the likelihood of filling the positions.  Managers also said that, while they would prefer to require higher  levels of language proficiency, they sometimes require lower levels to  avoid delaying the arrival of FSOs at posts who would otherwise have  to spend longer periods in language training. Some State geographic  bureau officials spoke of significant tension between quickly filling a  vacant position with an officer who lacks language skills versus  waiting to fill the position with an officer who is trained and fully  proficient. Our interviews with State officials suggest that such staffing  concerns particularly affect the EAP, NEA, and SCA bureaus. One  geographic bureau official said that the bureau had lowered reading  requirements for LDPs at one of its posts because of difficulties in  filling the positions. Further, according to a 2014 State memorandum,  the Office of Overseas Building Operations does not support LDPs for  any of its employees, citing a critical staffing shortage. Moreover,  a  December 2010 memorandum from State’s M/DGHR acknowledged  that the designation of LDPs is often influenced by staffing realities  and stated that posts usually adjust language levels down on the  basis of the likelihood of finding language-qualified  bidders.
Cost concerns. While guidance from State’s M/DGHR, including  memorandums issued in December 2010 and April 2016, states that  the department should assess its language needs in a “resource  neutral” environment, geographic bureau and post officials said that  the LDP review process is tempered by cost considerations. For  example, a management official at a post where a super-hard  language is spoken said that the substantial amount of time and  money needed to train FSOs in hard and super-hard languages  influences decisions regarding numbers of LDPs and proficiency  levels requested. According to a 2013 State OIG report, the State OIG  estimates that training students to the 3/3 level in easier world  languages such as Spanish can cost $105,000; training in hard  languages such as Russian can cost $180,000; and training in super- hard languages such as Chinese and Arabic can cost up to $480,000  per student. Students learning super-hard languages to the 3/3 level  generally spend 1 year domestically at the FSI and then a second  year at an overseas training facility.
section_title: Some State Officials Suggested the Triennial Review Process Lacks Rigor and Oversight
paragraphs: While, according to State officials, posts drive the LDP review process  because they are best positioned to know their language needs, officials  we interviewed—including officials at overseas posts—offered differing  perspectives on whether posts’ assessment of these needs are  sufficiently rigorous. Some post managers said that shifting the review  from an annual to a triennial process represented an improvement,  because the prior annual reviews were not taken seriously, and the 3- year cycle has allowed State to be more strategic in planning and  allocating resources. Some post officials also said that the 3-year cycle is  more structured and that the multiple levels of review and input have  brought greater stability and consistency to posts’ request for LDPs.
However, other officials at posts we visited said that State’s language  designation process is insufficiently rigorous and systematic, describing it  as ad hoc. Some of the geographic bureau and post officials we met with  were unaware of State’s criteria for establishing LDP designations as  outlined in the FAM.  Remarks by some officials also suggest that posts  tend to base LDP decisions on preexisting LDP numbers and levels. For  example, some embassy managers said that they generally review the  existing LDP numbers and levels and make minor adjustments. In  addition, some geographic bureau officials said that they provide limited  substantive review of posts’ submissions of LDP numbers and levels.
Further, comments from post officials suggest that posts have generally  applied a “blanket” approach in determining LDP proficiency  requirements, despite State guidance that instructs posts to conduct more  targeted assessments of their needs. State cables providing posts with  guidance for the 2017 and 2014 LDP reviews stated that posts should not  automatically assume that a 3/3 proficiency level is required for every  LDP in a particular section or embassy and instructed posts to examine  the specific language needs for each position. Post managers and staff  we interviewed also said that language needs vary by position and  portfolio within an embassy section. However, according to State data,  most generalist LDPs are designated at a 3/3 level.
In a 2013 report examining State’s LDP review process, the State OIG  identified deficiencies in State’s process for developing language  requirements. For example, the report noted that State’s oversight of  LDPs is insufficient to identify over- or underdesignation of language  requirements and that State does not review embassies’ and geographic  bureaus’ language requirements “to facilitate consistent application of  language designation criteria and appropriate distribution given U.S.  policy priorities.” The report indicates that the lack of high-level review  has led to anomalies, such as widely varying proficiency requirements for  officers performing similar functions at different missions. Specifically, the  OIG reported that State designated certain positions as LDPs for some  European posts, such as France and Italy, but did not designate similar  positions as LDPs in Haiti, Thailand, and Indonesia, where working  conditions are more difficult and English language speakers are fewer. In  response to an OIG recommendation to address this issue, State’s  M/DGHR provided criteria to the geographic bureaus to use in the 2014  LDP review when determining whether language ability is necessary to  advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. In October 2016, State  headquarters sent out a cable to all posts, providing them with an  updated set of criteria to be used in the 2017 LDP review.
We discussed the concerns expressed by FSOs concerning the LDP  process with State’s M/DGHR. State M/DGHR officials responded that the  department has undertaken initiatives to align LDP levels more closely  with policy and operational requirements and intends to incorporate these  initiatives into its 2017 triennial LDP review process. For example,  according to State M/DGHR officials, M/DGHR has encouraged a  dialogue between the bureaus and their posts to ensure that their LDP  submissions reflect operational requirements and policy priorities and has  sent official messages to all posts and bureaus on the process and the  need for rigorous review. The officials also noted that State’s M/DGHR  has asked participants to designate their requests for LDPs as high,  medium, and low priority, to encourage rigor in considering the real needs  of posts and to avoid any implication that all LDPs are of equal  importance.
section_title: State Is Implementing Efforts Outlined in Foreign Language Strategic Plan but Has Not Evaluated Their Effectiveness
subsections: section_title: State’s Foreign Language Strategic Plan Outlines Efforts to Address Language Proficiency Requirements
paragraphs: State’s 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities” (foreign  language strategic plan), which it issued partly in response to a  recommendation in our 2009 report, outlines a number of efforts intended  to meet its current and projected needs for foreign language proficiency.  The strategic plan sets a goal of increasing the percentage of LDPs filled  by fully qualified employees by an annual rate of 3 to 5 percent and  estimates that 90 percent of LDPs will be filled by fully qualified  employees by 2016 or 2017. The strategic plan presents these efforts in  connection with six broad objectives. Some of the listed efforts, such as  the Recruitment Language Program (RLP) and the Language Incentive  Pay (LIP) program, predate the development of the strategic plan.
As table 5 shows, in addition to outlining the efforts that State planned to  implement for each of the six objectives, the foreign language strategic  plan also identifies goals and performance measures associated with the  objectives.
section_title: State Has Taken Steps to Implement Most Efforts Identified in the Foreign Language Strategic Plan
paragraphs: According to information that State provided, State has taken steps to  implement efforts addressing most of the six broad objectives identified in  the foreign language strategic plan but has made limited progress in  addressing others. According to information provided by State’s M/DGHR,  as of October 2016, budgetary and operational pressures had precluded  an expansion of the training complement (objective 1), and the prototype  language training and assignment model described in the strategic plan  remains under development (objective 3). However, State is  implementing the following efforts to address the other four objectives:
LDP reviews (objective 2). To improve the department’s language  designation process, as discussed earlier, in 2010 State changed the  frequency of the LDP review process from annual to triennial and has  initiated its third triennial LDP review process, which it expects to  complete in 2017.
RLP (objective 4). Initiated  in fiscal year 2004, the RLP aims to  expand the number of candidates entering the Foreign Service with  proficiency in languages in which State has current or projected  deficits. To enhance the RLP, according to a State document, State  has updated the list of recruitment languages to reflect those that are  of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy, those in which posts are  experiencing severe shortages or staffing gaps, and those that  present specific recruiting and training challenges. According to State  data, the percentage of entry-level officers hired through the RLP has  varied from a peak of 40 percent (221 of 547 officers) in fiscal year  2011 to 5 percent (16 of 353 officers) in fiscal year 2016.
LIP program (objective 5). To make language incentives more  effective and maximize the impact of language and assignment  policies, according to State’s M/DGHR, State reviewed the LIP in  2012, the first such review in over a decade, to clarify and streamline  the program by aligning the designated languages (i.e., those eligible  for incentives) with the department’s current needs and incentivizing  employees to use and maintain proficiency in those languages. As a  result of the review, State reduced the number of incentive languages  from 52 to 34 to reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities.  Also, according to information provided by State’s M/DGHR, FSI  adjusts course offerings in priority languages, including some that are  included in the LIP program, as needed, to address the department’s  strategic planning and performance goals. According to State data,  between 2010 and 2016 a total of 11,477 FSOs received LIP,  amounting to $77.6 million.
Foreign language proficiency requirement (objective 5). One of  the mechanisms State uses to ensure a strong contingent of foreign  language speakers is the inclusion of sustained professional language  proficiency in the promotion precepts for Foreign Service generalists.  According to FSOs and other officials we spoke with, this policy may  be creating an incentive for FSOs to learn “world” languages, such as  Spanish, which generally take 6 months to reach a 3/3, instead of  super-hard languages, which take 2 years to reach the same level of  proficiency. According to a 2013 State OIG report, promotion and  tenure policies tied to language skills influence the number and level  of LDP designations. An official from the OIG who worked on the 2013  report explained that the promotion policy may also contribute to the  discrepancy in the numbers of LDPs with proficiency in world and  super-hard languages as well as shortfalls in language-proficient  FSOs to fill LDPs in certain priority languages. Some FSOs told us  that taking 2 years to learn a super-hard language makes them less  competitive for promotion, expressing a perception that State’s  promotion system undervalues language training. However, State’s  M/DGHR said that overall, the promotion system does not  disadvantage FSOs who study hard or super-hard languages because  time spent in language training extends their years of promotion  eligibility.  We discussed this issue with State’s M/DGHR and inquired  whether a review of this policy had been conducted to determine its  potential impact on learning super-hard languages. In response, State  informed us that the language proficiency requirement for promotion,  along with other related policies, is currently under review.
Language-related technology (objective 6). We found that State’s  FSI has implemented various language-related technologies to  improve the language acquisition process, such as the Smart  Notebook, which offers language instruction via the Internet, as well  as language learning applications and technology-enabled  classrooms with screen-sharing applications. FSI staff said that  technology has improved the language acquisition process by  allowing students to engage in lifelike scenarios in the classroom  while learning a language, giving students access to lessons that  were previously available only in language labs, and accommodating  students’ schedules and needs. In addition, State officials told us that  they are using technology to complement language skills at the  operational level. For example, the embassy in China identified 48  positions for which it could adjust the speaking and reading level from  a 3/3 to a 3+/2, in part because the “advent  of  sophisticated translation technologies enables officers to access  information from written materials in multiple ways and on a scale  never before possible.” A senior FSO in Mexico indicated that both  reading and speaking are important but that the reading requirement  could possibly be lowered, since translation technology can be used  to assist with reading. FSOs in countries we visited generally  indicated that they use online translation tools to translate documents.  However, some FSOs reported that they could not rely exclusively on  the translation provided by the online tool because it is generally not  entirely accurate. Some said they use it as an initial step in translating  documents, while others said they use it to translate documents only  for their own use or when they need an immediate translation.
section_title: State Has Not Evaluated Effects of Efforts Implemented under the Foreign Language Strategic Plan
paragraphs: More than 5 years after State developed and began implementing its  foreign language strategic plan, we found no evidence that State had  conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of all the actions  identified in the plan to determine their effects on language proficiency  gaps. According to State’s evaluation policy, the department is committed  to using performance management best practices, including evaluation, to  achieve the most effective U.S. foreign policy outcomes and greater  accountability. State’s evaluation policy defines evaluation as the  systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics  and outcomes of programs, management processes, and delivery  systems as a basis for judgments, to improve effectiveness and inform  decision makers about current and future activities. Also, according to  federal internal control standards, internal controls should provide  reasonable assurance that the objectives of an agency are being  achieved to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of operations,  including the use of the agency’s resources. We asked State’s M/DGHR  office whether it had conducted any evaluations of the effects of these  efforts, including the RLP and the LIP program, on language proficiency.  M/DGHR officials responded that they were unaware of any such  evaluations but noted that the relatively small number of personnel  involved in the programs made it difficult to conduct quantitative  assessments. However, State officials indicated that after completion of  the ongoing triennial LDP review, the Language Policy Working Group  would review both RLP and LIP, but they did not provide details on the  nature of the planned review.
State reports annually to Congress on the levels of foreign language  proficiency at overseas posts. In addition, State provides updates on  foreign language proficiency gaps and efforts to address them in its  annually updated Five Year Workforce Leadership and Succession Plan.  The workforce plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2020 includes updates  on the number of LDPs staffed worldwide; challenges in filling LDPs; and  efforts outlined in, or implemented in response to, the foreign language  strategic plan. For example, the workforce plan highlights the use of  recruitment incentive languages to provide extra points on the hiring  register of FSO candidates who speak and read proficiently in these  languages and pass the assessment process, which increases their  chance of entering the Foreign Service. However, our examination of  these documents found no evidence that State has conducted a  systematic and comprehensive evaluation of efforts to address each of  the objectives in the strategic plan. Without systematic and  comprehensive evaluations, consistent with State evaluation policy and  federal internal control standards, State is unable to determine the effects  of the efforts outlined in the strategic plan in addressing language  proficiency shortfalls, particularly in hard and super-hard languages, and  to take corrective actions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since 2008, State has increased its levels of foreign language proficiency  at overseas posts, strengthening its overall capacity to advance U.S.  foreign policy and economic interests worldwide. Nonetheless, significant  proficiency gaps in priority languages such as Arabic and Chinese may  adversely affect State’s ability to fulfill its diplomatic responsibilities in  regions of critical importance to U.S. foreign policy. Although State has  implemented efforts to enhance foreign language proficiency, as outlined  in its 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities,” it has not  conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of these efforts’  effectiveness. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which  these efforts have contributed to progress in increasing language  proficiency worldwide and has limited information on which to base future  investments of its resources. Accordingly, State cannot determine  whether adjustments to the plan are needed to enhance State’s capacity  to address increasingly complex economic and national security  challenges overseas.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen State’s ability to address persistent gaps in foreign  language proficiency at overseas posts and make informed future  resource investments, we recommend that the Secretary of State  evaluate the effectiveness of efforts implemented under the “Strategic  Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities.”
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to State. We  received written comments from State, which are reprinted in appendix III.  State agreed with our recommendation and indicated that “the  Department will develop a process to evaluate implementation of the  2011 Strategic Plan and future plans.  The Department will report on  results of the evaluation within one year.” State also provided technical  comments, which we have incorporated throughout the report, as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-8980, or CourtsM@gao.gov. 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 key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report, we examine (1) the extent to which the Department of State  (State) is meeting its foreign language proficiency requirements for  overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any  gaps in State’s ability to perform diplomatic duties, (2) State’s process for  identifying overseas posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to  which the process addresses these reported needs, and (3) efforts State  has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of  those efforts.
To address these objectives, we analyzed data and reviewed documents  provided by State, including relevant provisions of the Foreign Affairs  Manual. We interviewed officers from State’s Bureaus of African Affairs,  Consular Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, East Asian and Pacific  Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, Western  Hemisphere Affairs, and Human Resources in Washington, D.C., as well  as officials from the Foreign Service Institute in Arlington, Virginia. In  addition, we interviewed officials at the U.S. embassies in Beijing, China;  Cairo, Egypt; Seoul, South Korea; Mexico City, Mexico; and Moscow,  Russia. We selected these countries to examine language issues related  to Mandarin  Chinese, Arabic, Korean, Spanish, and Russian. Our criteria  for selecting these countries included (1) countries in which priority  languages, as identified by State, are spoken; (2) the number of  language-designated positions (LDP) in selected countries, including  countries with a relatively low and high number of LDPs; (3) gaps in filling  LDPs; (4) the difficulty of the languages spoken in selected countries; and  (5) the diplomatic and economic significance of selected countries to the  United States. While overseas, we met with embassy officials, including  senior and junior-level Foreign Service officers within the embassies’  consular, economic, political, public affairs, security, and management  sections.
To examine the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language  requirements, we obtained data from State’s Global Employee  Management System database on all overseas LDPs and the language skills of the incumbents filling the positions as of September 30, 2016. We  compared the incumbents’ reading and speaking scores with the reading  and speaking levels required for the positions and determined that an  incumbent met the requirements for the position only if his or her scores  equaled or exceeded both the speaking and reading requirements. A  limited number of positions are designated in two languages. We  determined that the officer met the requirements of such positions if he or  she met both the speaking and reading requirements for at least one of  the designated languages. We also interviewed State officials responsible  for compiling and maintaining these data and determined the data to be  sufficiently reliable for identifying the number of LDPs filled by officers  who met the requirements of the position. To assess the effects of  language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to perform its  diplomatic duties, we reviewed previous GAO reports as well as the  December 2012 Accountability Review Board report on the attacks on the  mission in Benghazi, Libya. We interviewed State officials in Washington,  D.C., and at the overseas posts we visited. We also met with former  senior State officials, including ambassadors and a former Director  General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, to gain  their insights on the consequences of language shortfalls at overseas  missions. In addition, we conducted a literature review on the effects of  language proficiency and any gaps in State’s ability to perform its  diplomatic duties.
To examine State’s process for identifying overseas posts’ language  proficiency requirements and the extent to which the process addresses  these reported needs, we reviewed previous GAO reports and State  documents, such as memorandums and cables on the language- designation process. We also reviewed State’s Office of Inspector  General’s (OIG) 2013 review of State’s process for establishing LDPs and  interviewed State OIG officials. In addition, we interviewed State officials  in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.
To examine efforts State has taken to enhance foreign language  proficiency and any effects of those actions, we reviewed State planning  documents, including the State Department’s “Strategic Plan for Foreign  Language Capabilities,” dated March 7, 2011, as well as the 2015 and  2016 versions of its Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession  Plan. We obtained information from State on steps it has taken to address  key issues in the 2011 strategic plan. We compared steps State has  taken to the objectives described in the “Strategic Plan for Foreign- Language Capabilities” and assessed whether they have been evaluated  in accordance with State’s Evaluation Policy and federal internal control  standards. We also reviewed State’s Report on Foreign Language  Proficiency for Fiscal Year 2015 and its promotion policies. In addition, we  interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017  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: Department of State Criteria for 2017 Language-Designated Position Review
paragraphs: According to the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Affairs Manual  (FAM 221.2), operational need is the determining criterion for language- designated positions (LDP) , where language proficiency is essential,  rather than merely helpful or convenient, to enhancing U.S. effectiveness  abroad. The FAM also outlines the following criteria for consideration by  responsible offices in designating LDPs:  the necessity of using the language to execute successfully the  requirements of the position;  the frequency of daily use of the language;  the fluency level of that engagement;  the official designation of the language as the national language(s);  the importance host-nation interlocutors attach to our speaking their  language;  the prevalence of another language a significant segment of the  population speaks;  the general level of English language penetration;  the English language capabilities of the embassy’s locally employed  staff in the relevant section;  the professionalism and availability  of interpretation/translation  services;  the prevalence of corruption and the need for language proficiency to  ensure necessary oversight;  the importance of being able to speak certain language(s) in public or  at representational events;  the availability  of media in the language(s); the importance of  monitoring social media in the local language;  the level of literacy in the country; the prevalence of documents  published in the language; whether speaking or reading the language, or both, would notably  increase the efficiency and scope of the employee’s tasks or work  portfolio;  the variety of interactions required for the job (speeches, formal  demarches, receptions, visa interviews, travel and engagement with  population in rural communities, key segments of society, or minority  groups);  the importance of building a cadre of speakers of the language within  the Foreign Service: Does the department need to develop employees  for future assignment at higher levels of responsibility with these  language skills? and  the necessity for employees who occupy positions in sections (for  example, security or management) where the need for foreign  language skills is so innate to the job (e.g., the work involves regular  contact with foreign nationals in the local native language) that the  post needs at least one or more LDP per section.
According to an October 2016 State cable, an additional primary criterion,  beyond the criteria referenced in 13 FAM 221.2, is the importance of  understanding the language to manage one’s personal security. The  State cable also notes other factors that should be considered in the LDP  review process, including the following:  In identifying LDPs, bureaus are encouraged to keep in mind that  designations may vary from the usual S -3/R-3  level, including asymmetric designations in which a mandated  speaking proficiency may be higher than the reading proficiency (e.g.,  S-3/R-2, S-2/R-1, or even S-2/R-0).
Bureaus should consider an asymmetric language designation and  how it might affect employee productivity, personal security, and  overall resource management.
Bureau requests for modifications to the career development plan and  language incentive pay are under consideration. Missions are  encouraged to set LDP levels for speaking and reading based on the  level of language proficiency skills needed to do the work.
If job requirements call for either of two languages, bureaus should  consider dual designations, with the preferred language listed first.
If language proficiency is preferred but not essential, the position  should be marked with speaking and reading requirements of 0/0 to  designate it as a language-preferred position. This designation will  help identify future resource needs and indicate when first- and  second-tour language training could be beneficial.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant  Director), Francisco M. Enriquez (Analyst-in-Charge), Juan Pablo Avila- Tournut, Mark Dowling, Justin Fisher, Emily Gupta, and Reid Lowe made  key contributions to this report.