Department of State: Foreign Service Midlevel Staffing Gaps Persist Despite Significant Increases in Hiring
Released: 2012-07-16T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2009, GAO reported on challenges that State faced in filling its increasing overseas staffing needs with sufficiently experienced personnel and noted that persistent Foreign Service staffing and experience gaps put diplomatic readiness at risk. State is currently undertaking a new hiring plan, known as “Diplomacy 3.0,” to increase the size of the Foreign Service by 25 percent to close staffing gaps and respond to new diplomatic priorities. However, fiscal constraints are likely to delay the plan’s full implementation well beyond its intended target for completion in 2013. In addition, State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlighted the need to find ways to close overseas gaps. GAO was asked to assess (1) the extent to which State’s overseas midlevel experience gaps in the Foreign Service have changed since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps. GAO analyzed State’s personnel data; reviewed key planning documents, including the Five Year Workforce Plan; and interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and at selected posts.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of State (State) faces persistent experience gaps in overseas Foreign Service positions, particularly at the midlevels, and these gaps have not diminished since 2008. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, State increased the size of the Foreign Service by 17 percent. However, these new hires will not have the experience to reach midlevels until fiscal years 2014 and 2015. GAO found that 28 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were either vacant or filled by upstretch candidates—officers serving in positions above their grade—as of October 2011, a percentage that has not changed since 2008. Midlevel positions represent the largest share of these gaps. According to State officials, the gaps have not diminished because State increased the total number of overseas positions in response to increased needs and emerging priorities. State officials noted the department takes special measures to fill high-priority positions, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

State has taken steps to increase its reliance on Civil Service employees and retirees, as well as expand mentoring, to help address midlevel experience gaps overseas; however, State lacks a strategy to guide these efforts. State is currently implementing a pilot program to expand overseas assignments for Civil Service employees. Efforts to expand the limited number of these assignments must overcome some key challenges, such as addressing new gaps when Civil Service employees leave their headquarters positions and identifying qualified Civil Service applicants to fill overseas vacancies. State also hires retirees on a limited basis for both full-time and short-term positions. For example, State used limited congressional authority to offer dual compensation waivers to hire 57 retirees in 2011. As a step toward mitigating experience gaps overseas, State began a pilot program offering workshops that include mentoring for first-time supervisors. State acknowledges the need to close midlevel Foreign Service gaps, but it has not developed a strategy to help ensure that the department is taking full advantage of available human capital flexibilities and evaluating the success of its efforts to address these gaps.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State update its Five Year Workforce Plan to include a strategy to address midlevel Foreign Service gaps and a plan to evaluate the success of this strategy. State reviewed a draft of this report and agreed with GAO’s recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of State (State) staffs U.S. Foreign Service employees to  more than 270 posts worldwide to carry out American foreign policy. In  2009, we reported on challenges that State faced in filling its increasing  overseas staffing needs with sufficiently experienced personnel and noted  that persistent Foreign Service staffing and experience gaps put  diplomatic readiness at risk. State has acknowledged that the priority it  places on meeting huge staffing demands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and  Pakistan—referred to as AIP countries—has contributed to gaps  elsewhere, despite efforts to hire Foreign Service employees at levels  above attrition. State is currently undertaking a new hiring plan, known as  “Diplomacy 3.0,” to increase the size of the Foreign Service by 25 percent  to close staffing gaps and respond to new diplomatic priorities. However,  fiscal constraints are likely to delay full implementation of this increase  well beyond its intended target for completion in 2013. State also  recognizes that it will take a number of years before entry-level officers  hired under Diplomacy 3.0 gain the experience needed to fill the shortfall  in midlevel positions. State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and  Development Review (QDDR), released in 2010, highlighted the need to  find additional ways to close overseas experience gaps at the midlevels,  including drawing on the expertise of the department’s Civil Service  employees and Foreign Service retirees, and expanding mentoring  programs.

In response to your request, we assessed (1) the extent to which State’s  overseas midlevel experience gaps in the Foreign Service have changed  since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps.

To address these objectives, we analyzed State’s personnel data from  the department’s Global Employee Management System (GEMS), as of  September 2008 and October 2011. We did not validate whether the total  number of authorized overseas positions was appropriate or met State’s  needs. We also analyzed State data on the use of retirees and Civil  Service employees in overseas posts; key planning documents, including  State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan, the  QDDR, the Bureau of Human Resources’ Strategic and Resource Plan,  and other relevant documents; and our previous reports on human capital  challenges at State and effective strategic workforce planning at other  federal agencies. We also interviewed State officials at the Bureau of  Human Resources, as well as the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the six  regional bureaus; the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA); and  the American Academy of Diplomacy. In addition, we interviewed  management officers at selected overseas posts. Appendix I contains a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: State is the lead agency responsible for implementing American foreign  policy and representing the United States abroad. It staffs over 270  embassies, consulates, and other posts worldwide. Figure 1 shows the  number and share of State’s Foreign Service, Civil Service, and Locally  Employed staff. According to State, about two-thirds of the Foreign  Service serves overseas at a given point in time, whereas almost all Civil  Service employees serve domestically. Locally Employed staff serve  overseas.

Foreign Service employees serving abroad fall into two broad  categories—generalists and specialists. Generalists help formulate and  implement the foreign policy of the United States and are grouped into  five career tracks: consular, economic, management, political, and public  diplomacy. Specialists serve in 18 different skill groups to support  overseas posts worldwide or in Washington, D.C. These skill groups are  grouped into eight major categories: Administration, Construction  Engineering, Facility Management, Information Technology, International  Information and English Language Programs, Medical and Health, Office  Management, and Security.

State typically hires Foreign Service employees at the entry level. Among  Foreign Service generalists, the entry-level consists of three position  grades—06, 05, and 04. Midlevel positions include grades 03, 02, and  01, and senior-level positions include career minister, minister counselor,  and counselor positions. Officers compete annually for promotion to the  next higher grade. It typically takes about 4 to 5 years for an officer to  move through the entry-level grades to a midlevel grade. The levels  associated with Foreign Service specialist position grades vary across  specialist function. For example, a senior-level office management  specialist position is a 04 grade, whereas a senior-level medical  technician position is a 02 grade.

State requires its Foreign Service employees to be available for service  anywhere in the world and reserves the ability to direct officers to any of  its posts overseas or to its Washington headquarters. However, the  department does not generally use this authority, preferring other means  of filling high-priority positions, according to State officials. The process of  assigning Foreign Service employees to their positions typically begins  when they receive a list of upcoming vacancies for which they may  compete. Foreign Service employees then submit a list of positions for  which they want to be considered, or “bids,” to the Office of Career  Development and Assignments and consult with their career development  officer. The process varies depending on an officer’s grade and functional  specialty, and State uses a variety of incentives to encourage Foreign  Service employees to bid on hardship posts, including the high-priority  posts in AIP countries.
subsections: section_title: Five Year Workforce Plan
paragraphs: State has a Five Year Workforce Plan, which it updates annually. This  document describes State’s strategic workforce planning process, which  includes the following five elements:

Establish strategic alignment: links human resources to strategic  goals.

Identify gaps by analysis of requirements and talent pool: compares  estimated staffing requirements to projected workforce levels to  identify workforce gaps and strength.

Develop management plans: develop plans related to recruitment,  hiring, promotion, training, and career development.

Implement management plans: implement plans related to  recruitment, hiring, promotion, training, and career development.

Evaluate strategies: evaluate plans, strategies, programs, and  initiatives.

section_title: Overseas Staffing Model
paragraphs: State uses an Overseas Staffing Model, which it updates every 2 years,  to ensure that the department’s personnel resources are aligned with its  strategic priorities and foreign policy objectives. The model uses a variety  of inputs—such as the priority level of overseas posts, visa processing  requirements, and security needs—to estimate the required Foreign  Service staffing levels at each overseas location. The model includes  seven categories of embassies based primarily on the level and type of  work required to pursue the U.S. government’s diplomatic relations with  the host country. For example, the lowest-level category includes special- purpose small embassies with limited requirements for advocacy, liaison,  and coordination in the host country’s capital. The highest-level category  includes the largest, most comprehensive full-service posts where the  host country’s regional and global role requires extensive U.S. personnel  resources.

section_title: Recent Hiring Initiatives
paragraphs: State has sought to rebuild the size of its Foreign Service after a period of  hiring below attrition levels during the 1990s that contributed to staffing  gaps overseas and endangered diplomatic readiness, according to the  department. To address these gaps, State implemented the “Diplomatic  Readiness Initiative,” which resulted in hiring over 1,000 new employees  above attrition from 2002 to 2004. However, as we previously reported,  most of this increase was absorbed by the demand for personnel in  Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2009, State began another hiring effort called  Diplomacy 3.0 to increase its Foreign Service workforce by 25 percent by  2013. However, due to emerging budgetary constraints, State now  anticipates this goal will not be met until 2023.

section_title: Findings from 2009 GAO Report on Staffing Hardship Posts
paragraphs: In 2009, we reported that State faced persistent staffing and experience  gaps at overseas posts, particularly at the midlevel. The report’s analysis  of State’s personnel data, as of September 2008, found that posts with  the greatest hardship levels had higher vacancy rates than posts with no  or low hardship levels. Posts with the greatest hardship also were more  likely to fill positions through “upstretch” assignments—assignments in  which the position’s grade is at least one grade higher than that of the  officer assigned to it. The report also found that these staffing and  experience gaps can compromise posts’ diplomatic readiness in a variety  of ways. For example, gaps can lead to decreased reporting coverage;  loss of institutional knowledge; and increased supervisory requirements  for senior staff, detracting from other critical diplomatic responsibilities.

In addition, we reported on a variety of measures and incentives that  State used to help ensure that Foreign Service employees bid on  hardship posts. These ranged from monetary benefits to changes in  service and bidding requirements. In response to our recommendation,  State evaluated these measures and incentives in 2011. According to  State officials, this evaluation found that officers used the entire range of  incentives available—financial and nonfinancial—based on preferences  and priorities and that career stage and family status were key to affecting  the officers’ decisions.

section_title: Even with Increased Hiring, State Faces Persistent Midlevel Experience Gaps Overseas
paragraphs: State increased the size of the Foreign Service by about 17 percent in  fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but overseas experience gaps—the  percentage of positions that are vacant or filled with upstretch  assignments—have not declined since 2008 because State increased the  total number of overseas positions in response to increased needs and  emerging diplomatic priorities. These gaps are largest at the midlevels  and in hardship posts. According to State officials, the department takes  special measures to fill high-priority positions.
subsections: section_title: State Increased Hiring under Diplomacy 3.0 but Revised Its Targets for Future Years
paragraphs: State made substantial progress in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 toward the  Diplomacy 3.0 goal of increasing the size of the Foreign Service by 25  percent by 2013. In those years, State hired about 1,900 Foreign Service  employees above attrition, increasing the total size of the Foreign Service  by about 17 percent, or over two-thirds of its total 5-year goal. According  to State, in addition to expanding overseas staffing, the increase in hiring  allowed the department to double the size of the training complement,  which provides flexibility to enroll Foreign Service employees in language  courses—some of which require up to 2 years of training—without  increasing the size of overseas gaps.

However, due to budget constraints, hiring has slowed significantly, and  State only added 38 new Foreign Service positions above attrition in fiscal  year 2011. In that year, it also modified its hiring projections to reflect a  downward revision of future budget estimates for fiscal year 2012 and  beyond. State now projects it will add 150 new Foreign Service positions  above attrition in fiscal year 2012 and 82 new Foreign Service positions  above attrition in each of the following 6 years. As a result, State revised  its estimate for when it will complete the Diplomacy 3.0 hiring initiative. In  April 2011, State estimated it would complete the increased hiring called  for in Diplomacy 3.0 in fiscal year 2018; however, State now estimates it  will not complete the hiring initiative until fiscal year 2023. State officials  noted that these estimates may be revised again based on future budget  environments.

section_title: Experience Gaps at Overseas Posts Have Not Declined
paragraphs: Our analysis of State staffing data shows that State faces experience  gaps in over one-quarter of Foreign Service positions at overseas posts,  a proportion that has not changed since 2008. The largest gaps are in  midlevel positions, while hardship posts and some position categories,  such as Office Management Specialist positions, also have large gaps.

According to our analysis of State staffing data as of October 31, 2011,  State faces experience gaps in 28 percent of overseas Foreign Service  positions. Specifically, 14 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions  are vacant and an additional 14 percent of positions are filled through  upstretch assignments. Both percentages, as well as the total percentage  of positions facing experience gaps, are unchanged since 2008.

Our analysis indicates that State has not met its goal for reducing the  overseas vacancy rate. In its fiscal year 2013 Bureau Strategic and  Resource Plan (BSRP), State’s Bureau of Human Resources established  a goal of reducing the vacancy rate for overseas positions to 8 percent by  the end of fiscal year 2011. However, we found that State had an  overseas vacancy rate of 14 percent 1 month after the end of that fiscal  year.  Further, our comparison of data from 2008 and 2011 shows that,  while the number of officers serving overseas increased following the  Diplomacy 3.0 hiring surge, the number of authorized positions overseas  has also increased. Consequently, the overall vacancy rates have not  declined. In 2008, approximately 7,000 of about 8,100 total Foreign  Service positions were filled. Comparatively, in 2011, nearly 7,800  Foreign Service positions were filled—or 11 percent more positions than  in 2008—but the total number of positions increased to over 9,000,  resulting in the same vacancy rate.

The BSRP also set overseas vacancy rate targets of 10 percent in 2010 and 6 percent in  2012. The BSRP stated that the department did not meet its 2010 target with an actual  vacancy rate of 16.7 percent. does not consider an entry-level officer in a ceded position to be in an  upstretch assignment. However, officials at overseas posts and in  regional bureaus noted that these positions may still suffer from  experience gaps. Figure 2 shows that the number of authorized positions  and Foreign Service employees serving overseas has increased, but the  proportion of positions with experience gaps has not changed.

State officials noted that AIP posts—State’s highest-priority posts—account  for much of the increase in new positions. As figure 3 shows, regionally, the  largest share of new positions is in the Bureau of South and Central Asian  Affairs, primarily because of increases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and  the majority of new positions are in a small number of countries where  State has high levels of engagement. Specifically, about 40 percent of all  new positions are in AIP countries and an additional 20 percent are in 5  other countries: Mexico, Brazil, China, India, and Russia. State officials  noted that this distribution of new positions reflects the department’s  changing foreign policy priorities. For example, positions were added in  Brazil and China in response to presidential directives to expand consular  capacity in those countries. According to State officials, the department has  also created positions to address emerging diplomatic priorities, such as  climate change and global health. Additionally, State officials noted that  most Foreign Service employees hired in fiscal year 2010 would not have  been placed in overseas assignments as of October 31, 2011, when we  acquired staffing data. State anticipates that overall vacancy rates will drop  to approximately 9 percent as officers hired in recent years are fully  deployed by the end of 2012.

Although State intended to eliminate gaps in midlevel Foreign Service  positions by the end of fiscal year 2012, these gaps have only diminished  slightly since 2008. Specifically, experience gaps currently exist in about  26 percent of midlevel Foreign Service positions—only 2 percent lower  than in 2008. About 60 percent of all vacancies and upstretch  assignments are in midlevel positions because they make up the largest  share of all overseas positions. Figure 4 shows the numbers and  percentages of positions filled at grade, filled with upstretch assignments,  and vacant for the various position levels.

State has acknowledged that midlevel gaps are a persistent problem.  State has faced midlevel gaps for years and, according to the August  2011 Five Year Workforce Plan, the midlevel gap grew from 2010 to  2011. According to State officials, midlevel gaps have grown in recent  years because most of the new positions created under Diplomacy 3.0  were midlevel positions and State only hires entry-level Foreign Service  employees. In prior reports, we found that midlevel experience gaps  compromise diplomatic readiness, and State officials confirmed that these  gaps continue to impact overseas operations.

State officials noted that midlevel gaps will decrease as recent hires are  promoted. According to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan, officers hired in  fiscal years 2009 and 2010 under the first wave of Diplomacy 3.0 hiring  will begin to be eligible for promotion to the midlevels in fiscal years 2014  or 2015. In recent years, State has accelerated the average time it takes  for officers to be promoted into the midlevels, in part to fill gaps. However,  officials from State’s regional bureaus and AFSA expressed concerns that  this creates a different form of experience gap, as some officers may be  promoted before they are fully prepared to assume new responsibilities.

Our analysis shows that a post’s hardship level continues to be one of the  most significant factors for predicting whether a position is filled, remains  vacant, or is filled with an upstretch assignment. We found that over 35  percent of all positions in posts of greatest hardship are vacant or filled  with upstretch assignments compared to about 22 percent for posts with  low or no hardship differentials. Further, our analysis of the likelihood of  positions being vacant or filled with an upstretch assignment shows that— controlling for other factors, such as a position’s level, type, or regional  location—a post’s hardship level is one of the most consistent factors for  predicting where experience gaps will occur. Specifically, we found that  positions in posts of greatest hardship are 44 percent more likely to be  vacant than positions at posts with low or no hardship differentials.  Additionally, when positions are filled, posts of greatest hardship are 81  percent more likely to use an upstretch candidate than posts with low or  no hardship differentials. This is consistent with our findings in prior work,  which found that hardship posts faced larger gaps than posts with low or  no hardship differential. Appendix II describes our analysis of the  likelihood of various positions being vacant or filled with an upstretch  assignment in further detail.

We found no significant difference between the rates at which generalist  and specialist positions are filled. However, the likelihood of generalist  positions being filled with upstretch assignments is somewhat higher than  for specialist positions. We also found that there are differences in  vacancy and upstretch rates for specific functions within both the  generalist and specialist fields and that some position categories are  more difficult to fill.

Among generalists, the consular section has the largest gaps, in terms of  the total number of positions that are vacant or filled with upstretch  assignments, because it is the largest generalist section. According to our  analysis, about 170 consular positions were vacant as of October 31,  2011, and about 250 consular positions were filled with upstretch  assignments. State officials noted that demand is high for entry-level  consular officers to adjudicate visas, particularly in countries that have  seen dramatic increases in demand for visas in recent years. In  addition, the Public Diplomacy section has a relatively high upstretch rate,  with nearly one-quarter of all Public Diplomacy positions filled with  upstretch assignments. State officials noted that gaps within the Public  Diplomacy section, particularly at the midlevels, have persisted since the  late 1990s, when the U.S. Information Agency—which had responsibility  for public diplomacy—was integrated into State. Figure 5 shows the  proportion of positions that are filled at grade or better, filled with  upstretch assignments, or are vacant for generalist positions.

Within specialist skill groups, Office Management Specialist (OMS)  positions have the largest overall gaps, both in terms of the number of  positions and the relative percentage of the gap. Over one-third of all  OMS positions, or nearly 300 positions, are either vacant or filled with  upstretch assignments. Regional bureau and post officials cited OMS  positions as being among the most difficult to fill. For example, officials in  Brazil noted that both the embassy in Brasilia and the consulate in Sao  Paulo had OMS positions that were vacant for 2 years. Security specialist  skill groups also face substantial gaps. The Security Technician and  Security Engineer fields have fewer positions than some of the larger  specialist fields, but about 30 percent of positions in both fields are vacant  or filled with upstretch assignments. Further, security officers have one of  the highest vacancy rates among specialist fields, with about 17 percent  of those positions unfilled. Figure 6 shows the proportion of positions that  are filled at grade, filled with upstretch assignments, or vacant for the 10  largest specialist skill groups.

According to State officials, the department takes a number of steps to  help fill high-priority positions. State staggers the assignments process  over several months and seeks bids for high-priority areas—including  Chiefs of Mission, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and positions in AIP—before  the regular bid cycle. Officials noted that in the most recent cycle for  assignments starting in the summer of 2012, State filled about three- quarters of all positions in AIP posts before the regular bid round began.

Regional bureau officials noted that this should have a positive effect on  staffing elsewhere because it limits the number of people pulled from  other assignments. State continues to fill AIP positions year-round and  often uses people from other posts on temporary assignments in AIP  posts. According to State, as of February 2012, approximately 91 percent  of AIP positions were filled. State also holds an “urgent vacancies” bid  round in the spring to fill positions that were not filled in earlier cycles.

State uses a decentralized process for prioritizing and filling overseas  positions, which officials stated helps ensure important positions are filled.  While AIP posts are the only official department priority for staffing, State  officials said regional bureaus informally set their own priorities by  determining which of the positions within the bureau that are up for bid are  most critical and actively recruiting candidates for those positions. Officials  from State’s Office of Career Development and Assignments stated that  the regional bureaus are in the best position to assess the needs across  posts and prioritize positions accordingly. Regional bureau officials stated  that, in order to minimize the impact of experience gaps, they will consider  factors such as the size of the post or the availability of upper-level support  in addition to the needs of the position itself when determining whether a  position can remain vacant or be filled through an upstretch assignment.  For example, officials stated they may prefer to fill a single position in a  small, difficult-to-fill post ahead of multiple positions in a much larger post.  Similarly, they may be more likely to allow an upstretch assignment for a  lower midlevel position in a large post because larger posts are likely to  have more layers of upper management support.

As we reported in 2009, State has created a wide range of measures and  financial and nonfinancial incentives to encourage officers to bid on  assignments at hardship posts. For example, Foreign Service employees  may receive favorable consideration for promotion for service in hardship  posts. Additionally, State uses Fair Share bidding rules, which require  employees who have not served in a hardship location within the last 8  years to bid on at least three positions in hardship posts. Officials in the  bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and South and Central Asian Affairs  stated that they regularly collect feedback on the impact of incentives in  encouraging officers to bid on positions in AIP posts. One official noted  that, in addition to financial incentives, nonfinancial incentives, such as  additional opportunities or the feeling that they are doing something  important, often help to attract bidders. According to State officials,  through this system of incentives and bidding rules, State has always  been able to find volunteers to fill critical needs. While the department has  the authority to direct Foreign Service employees to specific assignments  if it does not have adequate bidders for a position, according to State  officials, the department has not used these directed assignments— outside of assigning Foreign Service employees in their first or second  rotation. State officials noted that use of directed assignments could  potentially result in a less motivated or productive workforce.

section_title: State Has Taken Steps to Address Midlevel Experience Gaps Overseas but Has Not Included These Steps in Its Workforce Plan
paragraphs: State has taken steps to implement goals highlighted in the QDDR to  increase its reliance on Civil Service employees and retirees, and expand  mentoring to help address midlevel experience gaps overseas. To  expand the limited number of Civil Service employees filling overseas  positions, State began a pilot program to offer additional opportunities for  overseas assignments and eased requirements for conversions from Civil  Service to Foreign Service. State also hires retirees on a limited basis to  help fill gaps overseas. In addition, State began a pilot program offering a  workshop with mentoring for first-time supervisors overseas. However,  State’s Five Year Workforce Plan does not include a specific strategy to  guide efforts to address midlevel gaps.
subsections: section_title: State Has Taken Steps to Expand the Use of Civil Service Employees in Midlevel Overseas Positions
paragraphs: State’s first QDDR, released in 2010, highlighted the goal of expanding  the use of Civil Service employees to help close the midlevel experience  gap. The QDDR noted that State has a base of Civil Service employees  with significant experience and called for increasing opportunities for Civil  Service employees to fill overseas Foreign Service assignments and  increasing the number of Civil Service conversions to the Foreign  Service. A February 2011 report by the American Academy of Diplomacy  and the Stimson Center also recommended expanded use of Civil  Service employees to fill midlevel gaps.conducted a survey of its Civil Service employees and found a high level  of interest in serving overseas. About 75 percent of respondents  expressed interest in serving in some type of overseas assignment in  their careers and about 25 percent expressed interest in eventually  converting to Foreign Service, according to State officials.

As a first step, State recently  The extent to which State currently draws on its pool of Civil Service  employees for overseas assignments is limited. From fiscal years 2009  through 2011, State placed 159 Civil Service employees in overseas  Foreign Service positions in temporary assignments. These are known as  “Limited Non-Career Appointments” (LNA). According to State officials,  many of these assignments fill midlevel positions. State’s human capital  rules enable Civil Service employees (and other non-Foreign Service  employees) to serve as LNAs, normally for up to 5 years. duration of these assignments typically ranges from 1 to 3 years,  according to State officials.

Many of these LNA assignments are for positions that the department has  identified as “hard-to-fill,” meaning they lack sufficient qualified bidders  from among the ranks of the Foreign Service. In an announcement to the  department each May, State identifies hard-to-fill positions for which Civil  Service employees may apply. Most of these positions are at the midlevel. State listed 36 hard-to-fill positions in 2009, 74 in 2010, and 55  in 2011. Other common types of overseas LNA assignments for Civil  Service employees include positions in AIP countries, developmental  opportunities, and positions requiring specific expertise.

Rules governing LNAs are covered in the Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 2290) and  federal law (22 U.S.C. §§ 3943, 3949). positions Civil Service employees leave behind. Affected bureaus must  guarantee that applicants will be placed into permanent Civil Service  positions within the same bureau when they return from their overseas  assignments. This requirement creates some reluctance on the part of  bureaus to approve applications for overseas assignments, according to  State officials. In addition, department officials noted that Civil Service  employees have concerns about losing future opportunities for desirable  Civil Service positions while serving overseas. Another challenge is that  State cannot always identify a sufficient number of qualified Civil Service  employees to apply for the overseas vacancies it seeks to fill. State  officials noted that hard-to-fill positions are typically not in the more  desirable locations, which they said contributes to limited interest among  qualified Civil Servants. In addition, it can often be difficult to match Civil  Service employees’ qualifications with the needs of the open positions.

The Human Resources Bureau began a pilot program in November 2011  to expand opportunities for Civil Service employees to serve in overseas  positions. It was intended to support goals highlighted in the QDDR to  enhance career development for midlevel Civil Service employees and  ease Foreign Service midlevel staffing gaps. The department identified 11  overseas positions at various posts to which qualified Civil Service  employees could apply. Most of these assignments are for midlevel  positions. The assignments in the pilot differ from the hard-to-fill  assignments in two key ways. First, these are not positions that Foreign  Service bidders initially passed over. Second, the re-employment rules  are more flexible, according to Human Resources Bureau officials;  affected bureaus do not have to hold a position for the Civil Service  employees who participate in the pilot. Instead, returning Civil Service  employees can be placed in a bureau different from the one they vacated.

According to State officials, the department has agreed with AFSA to limit  the total to about 20 assignments at any one time during the pilot to  ensure that the program does not limit career development opportunities  for Foreign Service employees. The officials noted that Foreign Service  employees operate in an “up-or-out” personnel system, which requires  them to have sufficient experience and responsibilities to progress in their  careers. In addition, efforts to increase the number of Civil Service  assignments to Foreign Service positions must be consistent with State’s  human capital rules, which state that the department’s goal is to fill  Foreign Service positions with Foreign Service employees except under  special circumstances. The overseas positions in the pilot program  continue to be designated as Foreign Service positions and can be filled  by Foreign Service employees after the Civil Service employees complete  their assignments.

Human Resources Bureau officials stated that they expect this pilot  program to help the department assess its ability to identify overseas  positions that match the skills and experience of potential Civil Service  applicants. It will also identify potential staffing impacts on affected  bureaus and posts, as well as career development needs of the Foreign  Service. However, according to the officials, the department has not  finalized plans for evaluating the results of the pilot program. They also  noted that it will be more than 2 years before the first set of assignments  is completed and they can begin to survey participants and stakeholders  to assess results of the pilot program.

State’s QDDR also included a goal of expanding opportunities for Civil  Service employees to convert to the Foreign Service to help fill  experience gaps overseas. The QDDR stated that, while all State  personnel can apply to enter the Foreign Service through the traditional  selection process, it is in the department’s interest to offer more and  quicker pathways for qualified and interested Civil Service employees to  join the Foreign Service. However, State’s Foreign Service Conversion  Program has strict eligibility requirements, which limit the number of  conversions. The program’s application and review process resulted in  only three Civil Service applicants recommended for conversion in 2010  and four in 2011.

State only opens positions for conversion that it projects to be in deficit or  otherwise approved by the Director General and lists them in an annual  cable that it circulates throughout the department. The department  convenes a review panel to confirm that applicants meet minimum  qualifications, which include 24 months in Foreign Service positions  abroad out of the previous 6 years; and 30 months of service— domestically or overseas—in the desired skill code in the previous 6  years. The panel then determines if applicants have the skills and  experience necessary to perform successfully in the positions for which  they are applying. Applicants offered an opportunity to convert based on  the panel review must then submit a proctored writing sample, which  must earn a passing grade from the Foreign Service Board of Examiners  to be recommended for conversion.

According to Human Resources Bureau officials, in 2011, State identified  88 Foreign Service generalist positions as open for conversion from Civil  Service, as well as Foreign Service generalist and specialist. Twenty-six  Civil Service applicants applied. Ultimately, the process resulted in seven  applicants given the opportunity to convert and four of the seven passing  the writing test requirement. Table 1 shows the number of applicants who  qualified at key stages in the process in 2010 and 2011.

Human Resources Bureau officials noted that in 2011, the department  sought to ease the qualification requirements somewhat, including  reducing the number of months served overseas from 30 months to 24  months; however, the number of qualified applicants actually dropped  from 30 in 2010 to 26 in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the assessment  process will include a structured interview, along with the writing test, to  give candidates an additional means of demonstrating their skills and  competencies.

section_title: State Hires Retirees for Both Full-Time and Temporary Overseas Assignments, but Their Use Is Limited
paragraphs: Retirees can fill key roles at overseas posts, bringing with them a high  level of skills and experience, according to State officials. The department  has limited authority to hire retirees for full-time positions and also for  temporary assignments. State’s QDDR noted that the department should  draw on its pool of retirees to help address its overseas midlevel gap. In  addition, the Stimson Center and American Academy of Diplomacy report  also recommended that State increase reliance on retirees.

State hires retired Foreign Service and Civil Service employees to work  full-time with waivers from federal dual compensation rules, under certain  circumstances, to help fill workforce gaps overseas. In calendar year  2011, State approved 57 dual compensation waivers for 35 Foreign  Service retirees and 22 Civil Service retirees for overseas assignments.  Federal law requires that payment of a retiree’s annuity terminates on the  date of re-employment except under circumstances in which State has  the authority to grant a dual compensation waiver. These circumstances  include staffing needs in AIP countries and emergency situations  involving a direct threat to life or property, or other unusual  circumstances.

State officials stated that they would make greater use of dual  compensation waivers to draw from the pool of retirees to fill experience  gaps if their legal authority were expanded. However, other than State’s  Office of Inspector General, the department has not formally sought  expanded congressional authority to offer waivers to hire Foreign Service  retirees. The Office of Inspector General is seeking separate  congressional authority for additional dual compensation waivers to help  meet its staffing needs, including filling positions at its overseas posts in  hardship locations, such as Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt; and Kabul,  Afghanistan.

State hires many more Foreign Service retirees for temporary, part-time  work than it does for full-time assignments. These retirees work on a  “When Actually Employed” schedule and are commonly referred to as  “WAEs.” WAEs do not fill vacant positions overseas but are an important  means of addressing workforce gaps, according to State officials. For  example, posts often rely on WAEs to fill staffing gaps during summer  rotations of Foreign Service employees, according to State officials.  Officials also noted that WAEs can be particularly helpful when short-term  needs arise requiring special skills and expertise, such as helping posts  prepare for a presidential visit or evacuating an embassy during a crisis.  Newer staff also can benefit from the experience and expertise that  WAEs share during their assignments.

Federal rules, and high salary and travel costs, limit the extent to which  State uses WAEs. State bureaus typically hire them for short assignments  of 1 to 3 months. Federal law enables Foreign Service retirees to earn a  salary while continuing to receive their retirement annuity as long as their  total earnings do not exceed the greater of an amount equal to the basic  pay they earned when they retired or the highest annual rate of basic pay  for full-time employment in the position for which they have been re- employed. This limits the amount of time they can work in a calendar  year. According to State officials, WAEs also have a cap of 1,040 hours of  employment per calendar year. In addition to rules in federal statute that  limit their use, WAEs are also a relatively expensive option because of  their high salaries and travel costs, according to State officials from the  geographic bureaus and the Bureau of Consular Affairs—the primary  users of WAEs. Table 2 shows the number of WAE appointments these  bureaus used in 2011 and the average duration of each appointment.  Individual bureaus maintain their own lists of retirees and hire them as  WAEs from their own budgets. State has no initiatives currently under  way to expand its use of WAEs.

As part of its effort to address Foreign Service experience gaps, State’s  QDDR included the goal of expanding existing mentoring programs and  piloting a new mentoring program for first-time supervisors. State  currently offers mentoring for entry-level Foreign Service employees and  situational mentoring, which offers advice for any State employee on a  specific activity or issue. In addition, State officials noted that less  experienced Foreign Service employees are increasingly being asked to  fill supervisory roles earlier in their careers than in the past, which raises  the need for targeting this group for additional mentoring.

In September 2011, the Human Resources Bureau began a pilot program  offering training workshops designed to improve the skills of first-time  supervisors overseas. Mentoring, both at and following the training, is a  key component of the pilot workshops, according to bureau officials. The  pilot involved two 5-day workshops—one in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and  another in Frankfurt, Germany, delivered to a total of 49 first-time  supervisors from three of the department’s geographic regions. The  workshops focused on performance management and basic leadership  skills. Retirees served as class mentors and established relationships  with the participants at the sessions. The mentors are expected to follow  up with the attendees for 1 year, with the possibility to travel to their  overseas posts, if warranted.

According to Human Resources Bureau officials, the program included  follow-up surveys of attendees and their supervisors to assess the  usefulness of the workshops in improving participants’ management style  and skills. The officials noted that the response among the participants  and their supervisors has been positive. State plans to conduct two more  sessions in September 2012 for first-time supervisors from the  department’s other three geographic regions. State officials noted that the  pilot needs to be completed before they can determine the effectiveness  of the program. A potential constraint is the cost of sending officers to  these workshops.

section_title: State Has Not Developed a Strategy to Address Midlevel Gaps
paragraphs: Although State has undertaken efforts to carry out QDDR goals to  address midlevel gaps, the department has not developed a strategic  approach to guide these efforts. We have found in prior work that  developing a strategy to address staffing gaps and evaluating its success  contribute to effective workforce plans. State’s Five Year Workforce  Plan outlines its human capital strategies; however, the plan lacks a  specific strategy for addressing midlevel experience gaps. In our prior  work, we developed a workforce planning model that suggests that, when  considering a strategy to address workforce gaps, agencies consider the  full range of flexibilities available under current authorities, as well as  flexibilities that might require additional legislation before they can be  adopted. State’s efforts to draw on its pool of retirees and Civil Service  employees to fill midlevel gaps are examples of the use of such  flexibilities; however, it is not clear that State has developed a strategy to  take full advantage of its authority to use them.

In addition, our workforce planning model suggests that, to evaluate  human capital strategies, agencies develop performance measures that  can be used to gauge progress toward reaching human capital goals.  State’s Five Year Workforce Plan does not indicate how it will evaluate  efforts under way to address midlevel gaps. State plans to assess its two  pilot programs, but it has not developed performance measures to gauge  the potential impact of these efforts on midlevel gaps.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: State faces persistent Foreign Service experience gaps at overseas  posts, particularly at the midlevels, and these gaps put its diplomatic  readiness at risk. State has traditionally relied on hiring new Foreign  Service employees to fill overseas gaps and significantly increased hiring  in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. However, those new hires will not be  eligible for promotion to the midlevels until at least fiscal year 2014 and  projections for future annual hiring increases have been reduced due to  budgetary constraints. As a result, State likely will continue to face  staffing and experience gaps for the foreseeable future. These gaps will  continue to affect diplomatic readiness as positions remain unfilled or are  staffed by Foreign Service employees whose experience does not match  the position requirements. In the meantime, State has taken steps to  implement goals highlighted in the QDDR to address midlevel overseas  gaps, including developing pilot programs for increasing the use of Civil  Service employees overseas and providing new workshops with  mentoring for first-time supervisors overseas. Although these efforts are  currently small in relation to the size of the overall gaps, their impact and  the extent to which they can be expanded in the future have yet to be  analyzed by State and are, therefore, unclear. Since State has not  developed a specific strategy for addressing midlevel gaps, it can neither  fully assess the success of its efforts to close these gaps nor determine  the optimal course of action for enhancing diplomatic readiness.

section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help guide State’s efforts to address midlevel gaps in the Foreign  Service, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Bureau of  Human Resources to update its Five Year Workforce Plan to include a  strategy to address these gaps and a plan to evaluate the success of this  strategy.

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to State for comment.  In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix III, State agreed with our  recommendation. State also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report’s date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of State  and other interested congressional committees. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any 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 assess: (1) the extent to which the Department of  State’s (State) overseas midlevel Foreign Service experience gaps have  changed since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps.

To assess the extent of the State’s overseas midlevel Foreign Service  experience gaps and how these gaps have changed since 2008, we  reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General  reports, as well  as State workforce planning and budget documents and its Diplomacy  3.0 initiative;  collected and analyzed staffing data on all overseas Foreign Service  positions from State’s Global Employees Management System  (GEMS) as of September 30, 2008, and October 31, 2011; and  interviewed officials in State’s Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau  of Consular Affairs, and six regional bureaus regarding overseas  experience gaps.

To determine the extent of overseas Foreign Service experience gaps,  we analyzed State staffing data. We compared the number of positions  that were vacant, filled with upstretch assignments, and filled at grade or  higher with the total number of authorized overseas positions. We did not  validate whether the total number of authorized overseas positions was  appropriate or met State’s needs. We calculated total vacancy and  upstretch rates across all overseas Foreign Service positions for both the  2008 and 2011 data. We also calculated vacancy and upstretch rates for  both data sets by each of the following characteristics: level (i.e., entry-,  mid-, or senior-level); type (i.e., generalist or specialist); and function  (e.g., consular or information management). For 2011 data only, we  supplemented the GEMS data with additional State data on hardship  differentials and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s  Overseas Staffing Models and also calculated vacancy and upstretch  rates by each of these characteristics.

To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by  the number of vacant positions. To calculate upstretch rates, we divided  the total number of positions by the number of upstretch assignments. We  considered any assignment in which the grade of incumbent was at least  one grade lower than that of the position as an upstretch assignment, with  one exception: According to State officials, tenured Foreign Service  generalists with a position grade of 04 are not considered in an upstretch  assignment if they encumber a position with an 03 grade because  tenured 04 grade officers are expected to fill positions with an 03 grade, if  possible. We, therefore, did not consider tenured 04 grade officers to be  in an upstretch assignment when they filled positions graded as 03. We  considered senior-level positions at the Career Minister, Minister  Counselor, and Counselor level to be of a comparable grade and,  therefore, did not consider officers with any of these grades to be in an  upstretch assignment. According to State officials, the department does  not consider any employee in an entry-level position to be in an upstretch  assignment. However, for the purposes of our analysis, we defined any  assignment in which the position’s grade is higher than the incumbent’s  grade to be an upstretch assignment. Therefore, because State assigns  different grades to positions within the entry levels, we considered entry- level assignments where a position’s grade was higher than the  employee’s grade to be upstretch assignments.

We eliminated a small number of positions from our analysis of each data  set because we could not clearly or completely identify where the  positions were located. We also eliminated 57 Security Protective  Specialist positions from the 2011 data because, according to State  officials, it was a new job category and was not intended for permanent  Foreign Service Officers, but rather employees hired under short-term  limited noncareer appointments. In total, we did not use 88 positions, or  about 1 percent of the total, from the September 30, 2008, data and 207  positions, or about 2 percent of the total, from the October 31, 2011, data,  which we determined did not substantially affect our findings.

We also conducted an analysis of the likelihood of overseas positions  being vacant or filled through upstretch assignments based on the various  characteristics described above. For a detailed discussion of the  methodology and results of that analysis, see appendix II.

We obtained staffing and position data from State’s GEMS database.  Since we have previously checked the reliability of this database, we  inquired if State had made any major changes to the database since our  2009 report. State indicated that it had not made major changes to the  system. We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general  accuracy of the data with select overseas posts, and interviewed  knowledgeable officials from the Office of Resource Management and  Organizational Analysis concerning the reliability of the data. Data from  Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan (AIP) posts often show higher vacancy  rates than actually exist at the post; however, it does so because State  relies heavily on short-term assignments to fill positions in these  locations. These short-term assignments do not show up in GEMS, and  the position, therefore, appears vacant. Positions in GEMS represent a  need for full-time, permanent Foreign Service employees, and, therefore,  we determined that the GEMS data accurately reflect State’s ability to fill  positions in these locations with full-time, permanent Foreign Service  employees. Additionally, because State often pulls staff from other  overseas assignments to fill short-term temporary assignments in AIP  countries, the vacancy rate for all overseas positions is most accurately  captured when all posts are included. Therefore, based on our analysis of  the data and discussions with the officials, we determined the data to be  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. However, when referring specifically  to vacancy rates in AIP countries, we reference other State sources,  which include positions filled through both permanent and temporary  assignments.

To assess State’s approach to addressing midlevel Foreign Service gaps  through expanded use of Civil Service employees, retirees, and  mentoring, we  reviewed GAO and State Office of Inspector General  reports;  reviewed relevant State documents, such as State’s Quadrennial  Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), State’s Five Year  Workforce Plan, and the Bureau of Human Resources’ Bureau  Strategic and Resource Plan;  reviewed federal laws, policies, and regulations governing Limited  Non-Career Appointments (LNA) of Civil Service Employees,  conversion from Civil Service to Foreign Service, and hiring of retired  Foreign Service and Civil Service annuitants; and  interviewed officials in State’s Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau  of Consular Affairs, and six regional bureaus, the American Foreign  Service Association, and the American Academy of Diplomacy  regarding overseas experience gaps and the potential to address  gaps through the use of Civil Service, retirees, and mentoring.

We collected and analyzed data on the retirees hired with dual  compensation waivers in calendar year 2011. We also collected and  analyzed data on the use of retirees hired for temporary, short-term  assignments, referred to as “When Actually Employed” (WAE) in fiscal  year 2011 from each of the six regional bureaus and the Bureau of  Consular Affairs. We analyzed that data based on the number of  assignments made, rather than the number of retirees used, as State  officials noted that some individuals may be used in multiple assignments.  In addition, we collected and analyzed data on overseas LNA  assignments of Civil Service employees for fiscal years 2009 through  2011 from State’s Bureau of Human Resources. Because these  assignments may be for multiple years, the number of assignments made  does not necessarily reflect the number of Civil Service employees  serving overseas at any one time. We also collected data on the results of  State’s 2010 and 2011 Foreign Service Conversion Program, including  the number of positions available, the number of Civil Service applicants,  and the number offered conversion opportunities. We found the data on  the use of retirees and Civil Service employees overseas to be sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. We focused only on efforts related to expanding  the use of Civil Service employees, retirees, and mentoring because they  were highlighted in State’s QDDR as key means of addressing overseas  midlevel gaps.

To supplement our other analysis, we met with officials in Amman,  Jordan; Kyiv, Ukraine; New Delhi, India; Santo Domingo, Dominican  Republic; and Sao Paulo and Brasilia, Brazil, to obtain firsthand  knowledge about experience gaps and use of Civil Service, retirees, and  mentoring at overseas posts. We conducted this work in conjunction with  a separate study on visa fraud and selected posts that met criteria  established for both studies, including the size of staffing gaps and the  level of visa fraud.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 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: Analysis of Factors Associated with Vacancies and Upstretch Assignments
paragraphs: In this appendix, we describe the methods we used to determine what  factors were related to whether positions at the State Department were  vacant as of October 2011 and those that were filled by upstretch  assignments—employees whose grades were lower than the grades of  the positions filled. We first considered a set of bivariate tables (or two- way cross-classifications) that indicated what percentage of positions  were filled and left vacant, across categories that reflected  the level of the position (entry level, midlevel, and upper level);  the hardship category associated with the position (least, medium,  and greatest);  the type of position (generalist versus specialist);  the Overseas Staffing Model ranking and type of post where the  position was located (embassies ranked 1 or 2 were combined and  contrasted with embassies ranked 3, 3+, 4, 5, 5+, and nonembassies  of any rank);  region (Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Near  East, South and Central Asia, and Western Hemisphere); and whether the position was in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan (collectively  referred to as AIP) or elsewhere (non-AIP).

We then calculated odds and odds ratios from the observed percentages  in these tables, which allowed us to summarize the differences in the  likelihoods of positions remaining vacant across the different types of  positions, and conducted a series of bivariate and multivariate regression  analyses to estimate the significance of those differences when we  considered each of these six factors one at a time, when we considered  five of them simultaneously (all but AIP), and finally when we considered  all six of them simultaneously. Finally, we conducted parallel analyses  that involved looking at the same types of two-way tables and estimating  the same bivariate and multivariate regression models to determine,  among those positions that were filled, whether they were filled by  upstretch assignments as opposed to officers at or above grade. We  describe these analyses as follows.

The first three columns of numbers in table 3 show the percentage of  positions that were filled and vacant across the categories of the six  factors just described, and the numbers of positions in each category on  which those percentages were based. A slightly smaller percentage of  upper-level positions than entry-level positions were vacant (12.6 percent  versus 14.9 percent), and a much larger percentage of the positions in  the greatest hardship category (20.5 percent) than in the least hardship  category (10.4 percent) were left vacant. While there was little difference  between generalist positions and specialist positions, there were some  sizable differences across different posts with different rankings, with  positions in the highest-ranked embassies (20.9 percent) and in  nonembassies (16.4 percent) showing the highest percentages of  vacancies. Higher percentages of positions in the Near East (22.3  percent) and South and Central Asia (24.2 percent) were left vacant  compared with other regions, and positions in AIP countries were much  more likely to be vacant than those in non-AIP locations (39.5 percent vs.  11.4 percent).

In the last two columns of table 3, we show the odds on positions being  vacant, and odds ratios that indicate the proportional differences in those  odds across the different categories of positions. The odds on positions  being vacant are calculated by dividing the percentage of positions that  are vacant by the percentages that are filled, within each of the categories  of the different positions. For entry-level positions, for example, we divide  14.9 by 85.1 to obtain 0.18, which indicates that 0.18 positions were  vacant for every one that was filled or, alternatively, that 18 were vacant  for every 100 that were filled. Similar calculations for midlevel and upper- level positions yield slightly smaller odds (equal to 0.17 and 0.14,  respectively), and odds that differ quite substantially across other  categories of positions, such as those with the greatest hardship (0.26)  versus least hardship (0.12), and those in South and Central Asia (0.32)  versus the Western Hemisphere (0.13).

The odds ratios in the final column of table 3 indicate the proportional  differences in the odds of positions remaining vacant across the  categories of each of the position characteristics. To estimate these odds  ratios, we choose one category of each characteristic as the referent  category (indicated by REF in the table), and divide the odds for the other  categories by the odds for the referent category. For example, we chose  midlevel positions as the referent category with respect to position level,  divided 0.18 and 0.14 by 0.17, and the resultant odds ratios indicate that  entry-level positions had slightly higher odds of remaining vacant than  midlevel positions, by a factor of 1.04, while upper-level positions had  slightly lower odds than midlevel positions of remaining vacant, by a  factor of 0.86. Similar calculations using the different categories of the  other position characteristics reveal that positions with greatest and  medium hardship were more likely to be vacant than those with least  hardship, by factors of 2.22 and 1.36, respectively, while specialist  positions had only slightly higher odds than generalist positions of  remaining vacant, by a factor of 1.07. Also, all of the lower-ranked  embassies had roughly half or less than half the odds of embassies  ranked 5+ of remaining vacant, and nonembassies had odds that were  lower than the highest-ranked embassies by a factor of 0.74. Finally,  positions in Africa had lower odds on remaining vacant than positions in  the Western Hemisphere (by a factor of 0.78), positions in East Asia and  the Pacific and in Europe had odds that were very similar, and positions  in the Near East and South and Central Asia had higher odds on  remaining vacant than positions in the Western Hemisphere, by factors of  2.25 and 2.51, respectively. As the final multivariate model in table 4  shows, some of these regional differences were because AIP countries  were more than five times as likely as those in other areas to be vacant.

Odds ratios identical to those just discussed, apart from slight rounding  error, are shown in the first column of table 4. The unadjusted odds ratios  in the first column of table 4, however, were estimated using a series of  bivariate logistic regression models, which allow us to test whether the  different contrasts specified by the various odds ratios are significantly  different than 1. Significant odds ratios are bolded in the table, and we  can see the unadjusted ratios reflecting the differences in the odds on  positions remaining vacant across position level categories and between  generalist and specialist positions are not significant; in addition, the  differences between positions in the East Asia and Pacific region, Europe,  and the Western hemisphere are not significant. All of the other  unadjusted (or bivariate) odds ratios are significant, though our judgment  about both the size and significance of these differences is only tentative  since they are unadjusted and fail to take into account that the different  position characteristics—for example, hardship level and region—may be  related to one another and, as such, the estimated unadjusted effect of  one characteristic may be accounted for by the effect of another.

In the middle column of the table, we show the results of re-estimating  these odds ratios using a multivariate model that estimates the effects on  positions remaining vacant of all of these factors simultaneously, except for  the AIP indicator. Under this model, most of the effects remain significant,  though the difference between nonembassy positions and embassy  positions is diminished and insignificant, and the difference between entry- level and midlevel positions increases and becomes significant.

In the final column, we show the results of re-estimating these odds ratios  using a multivariate model that estimates the effects of all six factors  simultaneously, including the war zone indicator. As can be seen, the  adjusted difference between AIP and non-AIP positions is sizable (OR =  4.12), and allowing for that difference accounts for all of the differences  between embassies of different ranks and nonembassies, and most of the  differences between regions (the exception being the difference between  positions in Africa and the Western Hemisphere). In summary, when all  factors are considered simultaneously and the associations between  characteristics are taken into account, the differences that are statistically  significant are as follows: entry-level positions have higher odds of remaining vacant than  midlevel positions, by a factor of 1.36; positions in the greatest hardship and medium hardship categories  are more likely than those in the least hardship category to remain  vacant, by factors of 1.44 and 1.22, respectively; positions in Africa are less likely to remain vacant than those in the  Western hemisphere, by a factor of 0.67; and

AIP positions are slightly more than four times as likely to remain  vacant as non-AIP positions.

Table 5 shows similar bivariate results in which these six characteristics  are cross-classified by whether the position was filled by employees  whose grades were lower than the grades of the position they filled, and  table 6 shows the significant and insignificant odds ratios from bivariate  and multivariate models used to estimate the effects of those  characteristics on this outcome. While there is no need to labor over a  discussion of all of the percentages and odds and odds ratios in table 5,  which show the unadjusted and sometimes sizable differences across  categories of position in the likelihood of being filled by a lower-graded  employee, they are there for the reader to see. Our bottom-line findings,  from the multivariate model coefficients in the final column of table 6 in  which all position characteristics are considered simultaneously and the  effect of each is estimated net of the others, are as follows:

Upper-level positions are more than twice as likely as midlevel  positions to be filled by upstretch assignments.

Positions in the greatest hardship and medium hardship categories  are more likely than those in the least hardship category to be filled by  lower-level employees, by factors of 1.81 and 1.47, respectively.

Specialist positions are less likely than generalist positions to be filled  by employees whose grades are lower than the positions, by a factor  of 0.75.

Positions in East Asia and the Pacific and Europe are less likely to be  filled by upstretch assignments than those in the Western  hemisphere, by factors of 0.80 and 0.72, respectively.

The lowest-ranked embassies (ranks 1 and 2) are only about half as  likely as the embassies ranked 5+ to be filled by upstretch  assignments, while embassies with other ranks and nonembasssies  are not significantly different from embassies ranked 5+.

AIP positions are half as likely to be filled by upstretch assignments as  non-AIP positions.

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, Anthony Moran, Assistant  Director; Howard Cott; Kara Marshall; Grant Mallie; Doug Sloane; Martin  De Alteriis; Karen Deans; and Grace Lui provided significant contributions  to the work.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What problem does the Department of State face in overseas Foreign Service Positions?
answer: The Department of State (State) faces persistent experience gaps in overseas Foreign Service positions, particularly at the midlevels, and these gaps have not diminished since 2008.
child_questions: question: How did the Department of State fix this problem in 2009 and 2010?
answer: In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, State increased the size of the Foreign Service by 17 percent.

question: What was the problem with these new hires?
answer: However, these new hires will not have the experience to reach midlevels until fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

question: What did GAO find?
answer: GAO found that 28 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were either vacant or filled by upstretch candidates—officers serving in positions above their grade—as of October 2011, a percentage that has not changed since 2008.
child_questions: question: What makes up the largest share of vacant positions?
answer: Midlevel positions represent the largest share of these gaps.

question: What have State officials said about the gaps?
answer: According to State officials, the gaps have not diminished because State increased the total number of overseas positions in response to increased needs and emerging priorities.

question: What did State officials note about the department?
answer: State officials noted the department takes special measures to fill high-priority positions, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

questions: question: What has State taken steps to do?
answer: State has taken steps to increase its reliance on Civil Service employees and retirees, as well as expand mentoring, to help address midlevel experience gaps overseas; however, State lacks a strategy to guide these efforts.

question: What is State currently implementing?
answer: State is currently implementing a pilot program to expand overseas assignments for Civil Service employees.
child_questions: question: What must efforts to expand these assignments do?
answer: Efforts to expand the limited number of these assignments must overcome some key challenges, such as addressing new gaps when Civil Service employees leave their headquarters positions and identifying qualified Civil Service applicants to fill overseas vacancies.

question: How does State hire retirees?
answer: State also hires retirees on a limited basis for both full-time and short-term positions.
child_questions: question: What is an example of this?
answer: For example, State used limited congressional authority to offer dual compensation waivers to hire 57 retirees in 2011.

question: What did State do to take steps toward mitigating experience gaps?
answer: As a step toward mitigating experience gaps overseas, State began a pilot program offering workshops that include mentoring for first-time supervisors.
child_questions: question: What has State done to close midlevel Foreign service gaps?
answer: State acknowledges the need to close midlevel Foreign Service gaps, but it has not developed a strategy to help ensure that the department is taking full advantage of available human capital flexibilities and evaluating the success of its efforts to address these gaps.

questions: question: What did GAO report on in 2009?
answer: In 2009, GAO reported on challenges that State faced in filling its increasing overseas staffing needs with sufficiently experienced personnel and noted that persistent Foreign Service staffing and experience gaps put diplomatic readiness at risk.

question: What plan is State currently undertaking?
answer: State is currently undertaking a new hiring plan, known as “Diplomacy 3.0,” to increase the size of the Foreign Service by 25 percent to close staffing gaps and respond to new diplomatic priorities.
child_questions: question: What might delay the plan's full implementation?
answer: However, fiscal constraints are likely to delay the plan’s full implementation well beyond its intended target for completion in 2013.

question: What did State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlight?
answer: In addition, State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlighted the need to find ways to close overseas gaps.

question: What was GAO asked to assess?
answer: GAO was asked to assess (1) the extent to which State’s overseas midlevel experience gaps in the Foreign Service have changed since 2008 and (2) State’s efforts to address these gaps.
child_questions: question: How did GAO analyze State's personnel data?
answer: GAO analyzed State’s personnel data; reviewed key planning documents, including the Five Year Workforce Plan; and interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and at selected posts.