The United Nations comprises six principal bodies, including the General Assembly and the Secretariat, as well as funds and programs, such as UNDP, and specialized agencies, such as UNESCO. These funds, programs, and specialized agencies have their own governing bodies and budgets, but follow the guidelines of the UN Charter. Article 101 of the UN Charter calls for staff to be recruited on the basis of “the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity” as well as from “as wide a geographical basis as possible.” Each UN agency has developed its own human resource policies and practices, and staff rules. Of the five agencies we reviewed, three—the Secretariat, IAEA, and UNESCO—had quantitative formulas that establish targets for equitable geographical representation in designated professional positions. UNHCR had not established a quantitative formula or positions subject to geographic representation, but had agreed to an informal target for equitable U.S. representation. UNDP generally followed the principle of equitable geographic representation, but had not adopted formal or informal targets. Agencies with formal quantitative targets for equitable representation do not apply these targets to all professional positions. Instead, these organizations set aside positions that are subject to geographic representation from among the professional and senior positions performing core agency functions, funded from regular budget resources. Positions that are exempt from being counted geographically include linguist and peacekeeping positions, positions funded by extra- budgetary resources, and short-term positions. In addition, these organizations utilize various nonstaff positions, such as contractors and consultants. The Department of State is the U.S. agency primarily responsible for leading U.S. efforts toward achieving equitable U.S. employment representation in UN organizations. While State is responsible for promoting and seeking to increase U.S. representation in the UN, the UN entities themselves are ultimately responsible for hiring their employees and achieving equitable representation. U.S. citizens were underrepresented at three of the five UN agencies we reviewed: IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. Given projected staff levels, retirements and separations for 2006-2010, these agencies need to hire more Americans than they have in recent years to meet their minimum targets for equitable U.S. representation in 2010. Relative to UN agencies’ formal or informal targets for equitable geographic representation, U.S. citizens were underrepresented at three of the five agencies we reviewed–IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR. U.S. citizens were equitably represented at the UN Secretariat, though at the lower end of its target range, while the fifth agency–UNDP–had not established a target for U.S. representation. U.S. citizens filled about 11 percent of UNDP’s professional positions. Table 1 provides information on U.S. representation at the five UN agencies as of 2005. Table 1 also shows that the percentage of U.S. citizens employed in nongeographic positions (or nonregular positions in the case of UNHCR and UNDP) was higher at IAEA, UNHCR, and UNDP and lower at the Secretariat and UNESCO compared to the percentage of geographic (or regular) positions held by U.S. citizens. As shown in table 2, U.S. citizen representation in geographic positions in “all grades” between 2001 and 2005 had been declining at UNHCR and displayed no clear trend at the other four UN agencies. U.S. representation in policy-making and senior-level positions increased at two agencies -–IAEA and UNDP—and displayed no overall trend at the Secretariat, UNESCO, and UNHCR over the full five years. At the Secretariat, although no trend was indicated, U.S. representation had been decreasing in policy-making and senior-level positions since 2002. At UNESCO, the data for 2001 to 2004 did not reflect a trend, but the overall percentage of Americans increased in 2005, reflecting increased recruiting efforts after the United States rejoined UNESCO in 2003. At UNHCR, the representation of U.S. citizens in these positions grew steadily from 2001 to 2004, but declined in 2005. We estimated that each of the four agencies with geographic targets–the Secretariat, IAEA, UNESCO, and UNHCR–would need to hire U.S. citizens in greater numbers than they had in recent years to achieve their minimum targets by 2010, given projected staff levels, retirements, and separations; otherwise, with the exception of UNESCO, U.S. geographic representation will decline further. As shown in table 3, IAEA and UNHCR would need to more than double their current average hiring rate to achieve targets for U.S. representation. The Secretariat could continue to meet its minimum geographic target for U.S. citizens if it increased its annual hiring of U.S. citizens from 20 to 23. UNESCO could achieve its minimum geographic target by increasing its current hiring average of 4.5 Americans to 6 Americans. Although the fifth agency, UNDP, did not have a target, it would have to increase its annual hiring average of U.S. citizens from 17.5 to 26 in order to maintain its current ratio of U.S. regular professional staff to total agency regular professional staff. If current hiring levels are maintained through 2010, two of the five agencies–IAEA and UNHCR–would fall substantially below their minimum targets. In only one agency–UNESCO–would the percentage of geographic positions filled by U.S. citizens increase under current hiring levels, due in part to the recent increased hiring of U.S. citizens. A combination of barriers, including some common factors as well as agency-specific factors, adversely affected recruitment and retention of professional staff, including Americans, at each of the five UN agencies. These barriers combined with distinct agency-specific factors to impede recruitment and retention. We identified the following six barriers that affected U.S. representation in the UN agencies we reviewed, though often to differing degrees: Nontransparent human resource practices. A key barrier to American representation across the five UN agencies was the lack of transparent human resource management practices, according to Americans employed at UN organizations. For example, some UN managers circumvented the competitive hiring process by employing individuals on short-term contracts—positions that were not vetted through the regular, competitive process—for long-term needs. Limited external opportunities. Recruiting U.S. candidates was difficult because agencies offered a limited number of posts to external candidates. Each of the organizations we reviewed, except IAEA, advertised professional vacancies to current employees before advertising them externally in order to provide career paths and motivation for their staff. We found that three of the five agencies—UNESCO, UNHCR, and UNDP—filled 50 percent or more of new appointments through promotions or with other internal candidates rather than by hiring external candidates. IAEA filled a large percentage of its positions with external candidates because, in addition to not giving internal candidates hiring preference, the agency employed the majority of its staff members for 7 years or less. Although the data indicated that the Secretariat hired a significant percentage of external candidates, the Secretariat’s definition of “external candidates” included staff on temporary contracts and individuals who had previous experience working at the agency. Lengthy hiring process. The agencies’ lengthy hiring processes can deter candidates from accepting UN employment. For example, a report from the Secretary General stated that the average hiring process was too slow, taking 174 days from the time a vacancy announcement was issued to the time a candidate was selected, causing some qualified applicants to accept jobs elsewhere. Many Americans that we interviewed concurred with the report, saying that it was difficult to plan a job move when there was a long delay between submitting an application and receiving an offer. In March 2006, the Secretary General proposed cutting the average recruitment time in half. Low or unclear compensation. Comparatively low salaries and benefits that were not clearly explained were among the most frequently mentioned deterrents to UN employment for Americans. American employees we interviewed noted that UN salaries, particularly for senior and technical posts, were not comparable with U.S. government and private sector salaries. When candidates consider UN salaries in tandem with UN employee benefits, such as possible reimbursement for U.S. taxes and school tuition allowances through college, UN compensation may be more attractive. However, U.S. citizens employed at IAEA and UNESCO said that their agency did not clearly explain the benefits, or explained them only after a candidate had accepted a position. Incomplete or late information hampered a candidate’s ability to decide in a timely manner whether a UN position was in his or her best interests. In addition, difficulty securing spousal employment can decrease family income and may also affect American recruitment since many U.S. families have two wage earners. At many overseas UN duty stations, work permits can be difficult to obtain, the local economy may offer few employment opportunities, and knowledge of the local language may be required. Required mobility or rotation. UNHCR and UNDP required their staff to change posts at least every 3 to 6 years with the expectation that staff serve the larger portion of their career in the field; the UN Secretariat and UNESCO were implementing similar policies. While IAEA did not require its employees to change posts, it generally only hired employees for 7 years or less. Such policies dissuaded some Americans from accepting or staying in a UN position because of the disruptions to personal or family life such frequent moves can cause. Limited U.S. government support. At four of the five agencies we reviewed—all except IAEA—a number of American employees said that they did not receive U.S. government support during their efforts to obtain a UN job or to be promoted at the job they held.