In our June 2010 report on DHS’s foreign language capabilities, we identified challenges related to the Department’s efforts to assess their needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls. Our key findings include: DHS has no systematic method for assessing its foreign language needs and does not address foreign language needs in its Human Capital Strategic Plan. DHS components’ efforts to assess foreign language needs vary. For example, the Coast Guard has conducted multiple assessments, CBP’s assessments have primarily focused on Spanish-language needs, and ICE has not conducted any assessments. By conducting a comprehensive assessment DHS would be better positioned to capture information on all of its needs and could use this to inform future strategic planning. DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive capabilities assessment. DHS components have various lists of foreign language capabilities that are available in some offices, primarily those that include a foreign language award program for qualified employees. Conducting an assessment of all of its foreign language capabilities would better position DHS to effectively manage its resources. DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can impact mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs and capabilities assessments to identify shortfalls, DHS would be better positioned to develop actions to mitigate shortfalls, execute its various missions that involve foreign language speakers, and enhance the safety of its officers and agents. We and the Office of Personnel Management have developed strategic workforce guidance that recommends, among other things, that agencies (1) assess workforce needs, such as foreign language needs; (2) assess current competency skills; and (3) compare workforce needs against available skills. DHS efforts could be strengthened by conducting a comprehensive assessment of its foreign language needs and capabilities, and using the results of this assessment to identify any potential shortfalls. By doing so, DHS could better position itself to manage its foreign language workforce needs to help fulfill its organizational missions. We recommended that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language needs and capabilities, and any resulting shortfalls and ensure these assessments are incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS agreed with our recommendation and officials stated that the Department is planning to take action to address it. In June 2010, we also reported that DHS and its components had established a variety of foreign language programs and activities, but had not assessed the extent to which they address potential shortfalls. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE established foreign language programs and activities, which include foreign language training and monetary awards. Although foreign language programs and activities at these components contributed to the development of DHS’s foreign language capabilities, the Department’s ability to use them to address potential foreign language shortfalls varies. For example, foreign language training programs generally do not include languages other than Spanish. Furthermore, these programs and activities are managed by individual components or offices within components. According to several Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials, they manage their foreign language programs and activities as they did prior to the formation of DHS. At the Department level and within the components, many of the officials we spoke with were generally unaware of the foreign language programs or activities maintained by other DHS components. Given this variation and decentralization, conducting a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its program and activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS’s ability to manage its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if necessary. DHS agreed with our recommendation and officials stated that the Department is planning to take action to address it. In April 2010, we reported that FEMA had developed a national needs assessment to identify its LEP customer base and how frequently it interacts with LEP persons. We reported that in developing this needs assessment, FEMA combines census data, data from FEMA’s National Processing Service Center on the most commonly encountered languages used by individuals applying for disaster assistance sources, literacy and poverty rates, and FEMA’s historical data on the geographic areas most prone to disasters. Furthermore, practices identified by other federal and state agencies as well as practitioners in the translation industry are reviewed and used in preparing this assessment. Through its needs assessment, FEMA officials reported that FEMA has identified 13 of the most frequently encountered languages spoken by LEP communities. Locally, in response to a disaster, FEMA conducts a needs assessment by collecting information from the U.S. Census Bureau, data from local school districts, and information from foreign language media outlets in the area to help determine the amount of funding required to ensure proper communication with affected LEP communities. In the spring of 2009, FEMA established new procedures to identify LEP communities at the local level. While the agency’s national needs assessment provides a starting point to identify LEP communities across the country, the assessment does not fully ensure that FEMA identifies the existence and location of LEP populations in small communities within states and counties. To that end, officials from FEMA’s Multilingual Function developed a common set of procedures for identifying the location and size of LEP populations at the local level. The new procedures, which were initiated as a pilot program, include collecting data from national, state, and local sources, and creating a profile of community language needs, local support organizations, and local media outlets. FEMA initiated this pilot program while responding to a flood affecting North Dakota and Minnesota in the spring of 2009; the program enabled FEMA officials to develop communication strategies targeted to 12 different LEP communities including Bosnian, Farsi, Kirundi, and Somali. FEMA officials stated that they plan to use these procedures in responding to future presidentially declared disasters. According to FEMA officials, it has incorporated the pilot program procedures for identifying local LEP populations into its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). According to FEMA, it has distributed the revised SOP to FEMA Disaster Assistance and Disaster Operations staff in headquarters, FEMA’s 10 regions, and joint field offices. During its recovery operations, FEMA has several staffing options to augment its permanent staff. FEMA officials explained that staff from FEMA’s reserve corps, whose language capabilities are recorded in an automated deployment database, can be temporarily assigned to recovery operations. When FEMA lacks enough permanent and temporary staff with the appropriate foreign language skills, it hires individuals from within the affected area to fill unmet multilingual needs. For example, in 2008, FEMA used local hires who spoke Vietnamese in the recovery operations for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Galveston and Austin, Texas. FEMA officials stated that these local hires are especially useful during recovery efforts because they have relevant language capabilities as well as knowledge of the disaster area and established relationships with the affected communities. Additionally, when disaster assistance employees and local hires are unavailable, FEMA can use contractors to provide translation and interpretation services. To ensure that the agency has the capacity to handle different levels of disasters, an official stated that FEMA is awarding a 4-year contract of up to $9.9 million to support language access and related activities. DOD has taken some steps to transform its language and regional proficiency capabilities, but additional actions are needed to guide its efforts and provide the information it needs to assess gaps in capabilities and assess related risks. In June 2009, we reported that DOD had designated senior language authorities at the Department-wide level, and in the military services as well as other components. It had also established a governance structure and a Defense Language Transformation Roadmap. At that time, the military services either had developed or were in the process of developing strategies and programs to improve language and regional proficiency. While these steps moved the Department in a positive direction, we concluded that some key elements were still missing. For example, while the Roadmap contained goals and objectives, not all objectives were measurable and linkages between these goals and DOD’s funding priorities were unclear. Furthermore, DOD had not identified the total cost of its transformation efforts. Additionally, we reported that DOD had developed an inventory of its language capabilities. In contrast, it did not have an inventory of its regional proficiency capabilities due to the lack of an agreed upon way to assess and validate these skills. DOD also lacked a standard, transparent, and validated methodology to aid its components in identifying language and regional proficiency requirements. In the absence of such a methodology, components used different approaches to develop requirements and their estimates varied widely. Therefore, we recommended that DOD (1) develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its language and regional proficiency transformation, (2) establish a mechanism to assess the regional proficiency skills of its military and civilian personnel, and (3) develop a methodology to identify its language and regional proficiency requirements. At the time, DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and responded it had related actions underway. Based on recent discussions with DOD officials, these actions are still in various stages. Specifically, DOD officials stated that it has a draft strategic plan currently undergoing final review and approval. We understand from officials that this plan includes goals, objectives, and a linkage between goals and DOD’s funding priorities, and that an implementation plan with metrics for measuring progress will be published at a later date. DOD officials also stated that they are working to determine a suitable approach to measuring regional proficiency because it is more difficult than originally expected. Lastly, DOD officials stated that, while DOD has completed the assessments intended to produce a standardized methodology to help geographic commanders identify language and regional proficiency requirements, the standardized methodology has not yet been approved. In recent congressional testimony, DOD officials stated the standardized methodology would be implemented later this year. Without a comprehensive strategic plan and until a validated methodology to identify gaps in capabilities is implemented, it will be difficult for DOD to assess risk, guide the military services as they develop their approaches to language and regional proficiency transformation, and make informed investment decisions. Furthermore, it will be difficult for DOD and Congress to assess progress toward a successful transformation.