State is the lead agency for the conduct of American diplomacy, and its foreign affairs activities seek to promote and protect the interests of American citizens. State requires that Foreign Service officers assigned to certain positions worldwide meet a specified level of proficiency in the language or languages of the host country. As of October 31, 2008, State had about 3,600 positions worldwide that required language proficiency and 530 positions where such proficiency was preferred but not required (language-preferred positions). (See table 1.) State categorizes these languages as “world” (for example, Spanish or French), “hard” (for example, Urdu), or “superhard” (for example, Arabic or Chinese) based on the time it generally takes individuals to learn them. State has also defined its need for staff proficient in some languages as “supercritical” or “critical,” based on criteria such as the difficulty of the language and the number of language-designated positions in that language, particularly at hard-to-staff posts. About 970, or 27 percent of, language-designated positions are for supercritical or critical needs languages. State uses the foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) to rank an individual’s language skills. The scale has six levels, from 0 to 5—with 5 being the most proficient—to assess an individual’s ability to speak, read, listen, and write in another language. State sets proficiency requirements only for speaking and reading, and these requirements tend to congregate at proficiency levels 2 and 3. Table 2 shows the language skill requirements for each proficiency level. The difference between the second and the third proficiency levels—the ability to interact effectively with native speakers—is significant in terms of training costs and productivity. For example, State provides about 44 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of a so-called superhard language such as Arabic up to the second level. Moving to level-3 proficiency usually requires another 44 weeks of training, which is generally conducted at field schools overseas. State faces notable shortfalls in meeting its foreign language requirements for overseas language-designated positions. Overall, 31 percent of Foreign Service generalists and specialists in language-designated positions worldwide did not meet the speaking and reading proficiency requirements of their positions as of October 31, 2008. While the extent of these shortfalls varies, they are found in all regions, in all languages, and in all types of positions. These shortfalls may have adverse impacts on security, public diplomacy, consular operations, economic and political affairs, and other aspects of U.S. diplomacy. As of October 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service generalists and specialists in language-designated positions worldwide did not meet both of the speaking and reading proficiency requirements of their positions, up from 29 percent in 2005. The percentage decreases to 25 percent if officers who meet at least one of the requirements are included. Overall, 1,005 officers in language-designated positions did not meet both of the requirements of their positions, and an additional 334 language-designated positions were vacant (see fig. 1). The persistence of these shortfalls is partially attributable to an overall increase of 332 overseas language- designated positions between 2005 and 2008, many of which are in hard and superhard languages. At the same time, State increased the overall number of language-proficient officers who meet the requirements for their positions by about 240 officers between 2005 and 2008. State reports annually to Congress on foreign language proficiency in the department; however, its methodology for calculating the percentage of officers who meet the requirements is potentially misleading and overstates the actual language proficiency of FSOs in language-designated positions. For example, State has reported that over 80 percent of employees assigned to vacant language-designated positions met or exceeded the proficiency requirement in each year since fiscal year 2005. According to HR officials responsible for compiling and analyzing these data, however, this figure is not the percentage of officers currently in language-designated positions who have tested scores at or above the requirements for the position; rather, it measures the percentage of officers assigned to language-designated positions who are enrolled in language training, regardless of the outcome of that training. Because several officers do not complete the entire training, while others do not achieve the level of proficiency required even after taking the training, the actual percentage of officers meeting the requirements for their positions is likely lower. While the extent of language deficiencies varies from post to post, some of the greatest deficiencies exist in regions of strategic interest to the United States (see fig. 2). For example, about 40 percent of officers in language- designated positions in the Middle East and South and Central Asia did not meet the requirements for their positions. Further, 57 percent (or 8 officers) and 73 percent (or 33 officers) of officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively, did not meet the requirements for their positions. Other missions with notable gaps include Pakistan (45 percent/5 officers), Egypt (43 percent/13 officers), India (43 percent/12 officers), and Saudi Arabia (38 percent/12 officers). Despite State’s recent efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency in supercritical and critical languages, and some improvement in filling language-designated positions in certain critical languages since 2005, the department continues to experience notable gaps in these languages (see fig. 3). In 2008, 73 more positions in supercritical needs languages were filled by officers meeting the requirements than in 2005. However, 39 percent of officers assigned to LDPs in supercritical languages still do not meet the requirements for their positions, compared with 26 percent in critical languages and 30 percent in all other languages. Specifically, 43 percent of officers in Arabic language-designated positions do not meet the requirements of their positions (107 officers in 248 filled positions), nor do 66 percent of officers in Dari positions (21 officers in 32 positions), 38 percent in Farsi (5 officers in 13 positions), or 50 percent in Urdu (5 officers in 10 positions). Shortfalls vary by position type. Foreign Service specialists—staff who perform security, technical, and other support functions—are less likely to meet the language requirements of their position than Foreign Service generalists. More than half of the 739 specialists in language-designated positions do not meet the requirements, compared with 24 percent of the 2,526 generalists. For example, 53 percent of regional security officers do not speak and read at the level required by their positions. According to officials in Diplomatic Security, language training for security officers is often cut short because many ambassadors are unwilling to leave security positions vacant. Further, among Foreign Service generalists, 58 percent of officers in management positions do not meet the language requirements, compared with 16 percent of officers in consular positions and 23 percent of officers in public diplomacy positions. When posts are unable to fill language-designated positions with langu qualified officers, they must decide whether to request a language waiver and staff the position with an officer who does not meet the language requirements or to leave the position unstaffed until an officer with the requisite skills is available. In some cases, a post chooses to leave a language-designated position vacant for a period of time while an officer i getting language training. In other cases, when a post has requested repeated language waivers for a specific position, it may request that the language requirement be eliminated for the position. According to St 2008 the department granted 282 such waivers—covering about 8 percent of all language-designated positions—down from 354 in 2006. State granted a disproportionate number of waivers for South and Central Asia, where the language requirement for about 18 percent of the region’s 206 language-designated positions was waived in 2008, compared with 5 percent in both East Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Our fieldwork for this report, in addition to past reports by GAO, State’s Office of the Inspector General, the National Research Council, the Department of Defense, and various think tanks, has indicated that fore language shortfalls could be negatively affecting several aspects of U.S . diplomacy, including consular operations, security, public diplomacy, economic and political affairs, the development of relationships with foreign counterparts and audiences, and staff morale. It is sometimes difficult to link foreign language shortfalls to a specific negative outc or event, and senior officials at State have noted that language shortfalls neither prevent officers from doing their jobs nor have catastrophic consequences. However, these officials acknowledged that the cumulative effects of these gaps do present a problem, and the department has not assessed their impact on the conduct of foreign policy. Table 3 presents some examples of such impacts from our reports, and reports by State’s Inspector General, the National Research C current fieldwork, previous GAO ouncil, and the Department of Defense. Officials at one high-fraud visa because of a lack of language skills, they make decisions based on what they “hope” they have heard and, as a result, may be incorrectly adjudicating visa decisions. post stated that, because of language skill deficiencies, consular officers sometimes adjudicate visas without fully understanding everything visa applicants tell them during visa interviews (2006). State’s Inspector General found that the ability of consular officers in at least two Arabic-speaking posts to conduct in-depth interviews necessary for homeland security is limited (2005). A consular officer in Istanbul proficient in Turkish said she has seen cases where adjudicating officers have refused visa applications because they did not fully understand the applicant. State’s Inspector General found that insufficient Chinese language skills were a serious weakness in the U.S. Mission to China’s consular operations (2004). A security officer in Istanbul said that inability to speak the local language hinders one’s ability to get embedded in the society and develop personal relationships, which limits officers’ effectiveness.