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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.