Roughly two-thirds of these posts are in locations that  qualify for a special salary differential to compensate officers for the  harsh living conditions experienced there. Persistent Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts Can Compromise Diplomatic Readiness

Despite some progress since we last reported in 2006, State has continued to  face staffing and experience gaps at hardship posts that may compromise its  diplomatic readiness. Staffing and Experience Gaps Remain at Key Hardship Posts

State continues to face staffing and experience gaps at hardship posts,  including many of significant strategic importance to the United States. First, State has faced difficulty in filling critical positions at hardship  posts. Several Factors Contribute to Gaps at Hardship Posts

A number of factors lead to gaps at hardship posts, including:    State’s overall staff shortage, which is compounded by the significant  personnel demands of Iraq and Afghanistan;    a persistent mid-level staffing deficit exacerbated by continued low  bidding on hardship posts; and    an assignment system that does not explicitly address the continuing  experience gap at hardship posts. According to these officials, gaps can lead to  decreased reporting coverage, loss of institutional knowledge, and  increased supervisory requirements for senior staff, which take time away  from other critical diplomatic responsibilities. State Has Wide Range of Measures and Incentives to Staff Hardship Posts but Their Effectiveness is Unclear Due to Lack of Evaluation

State uses a range of incentives to staff hardship posts, but their  effectiveness remains unclear due to a lack of evaluation. Incentives to  serve in hardship posts range from monetary benefits to changes in service  and bidding requirements. In 2006, we recommended that State evaluate  the effectiveness of its incentive programs for hardship post assignments,  but the department has not yet done so systematically. Further, recent  legislation will increase the cost of existing incentives, thereby increasing  the need for State to fully evaluate its incentives to ensure resources are  effectively targeted and not wasted. The survey also does not ask  respondents for key demographic information, such as age and family  status. State Did Not Undertake Congressionally Mandated Report to Assess Impact of Increased Hardship and Danger Pay on Staffing Shortfalls

State has not complied with a congressional mandate to assess the  effectiveness of increasing hardship and danger pay ceilings to recruit  experienced officers to certain posts, hampering oversight of State’s use of  the authority to increase such differentials. Despite the hardship and danger pay increases, these high-priority posts  continue to have difficulties attracting bidders. For example, the department  acknowledged that many hardship posts may face experience gaps. To assess the extent to which State has used incentives to address staffing  gaps at hardship posts, we  reviewed GAO and State OIG reports, as well as applicable legislative  documents and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  and the Office of Management and Budget;    examined surveys conducted by State;    analyzed State documents that outline incentives for hardship service,  including those available to officers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan;    collected data on participation in and funds expended on hardship  interviewed officials in State’s Bureau of Human Resources, Bureau of  Administration, and six regional bureaus regarding State’s use of  incentives.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of State (State) has designated about two-thirds of its 268 overseas posts as hardship posts. Staff working at such posts often encounter harsh conditions, including inadequate medical facilities and high crime. Many of these posts are vital to U.S. foreign policy objectives and need a full complement of staff with the right skills to carry out the department's priorities. As such, State offers staff at these posts a hardship differential--an additional adjustment to basic pay--to compensate officers for the conditions they encounter and as a recruitment and retention incentive. GAO was asked to assess (1) State's progress in addressing staffing gaps at hardship posts since 2006 and the effect of any remaining gaps, and (2) the extent to which State has used incentives to address staffing gaps at hardship posts. GAO analyzed State data; reviewed relevant documents; met with officials in Washington, D.C.; and conducted fieldwork in five hardship posts.

What GAO Found

Despite some progress in addressing staffing shortfalls since 2006, State's diplomatic readiness remains at risk due to persistent staffing and experience gaps at key hardship posts. Several factors contribute to these gaps. First, State continues to have fewer officers than positions, a shortage compounded by the personnel demands of Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, while State has reduced its mid-level experience gap, the department does not anticipate eliminating this gap until 2012 and continues to face difficulties attracting experienced applicants to hardship posts--especially posts of greatest hardship. Third, although State's assignment system has prioritized the staffing of hardship posts, it does not explicitly address the continuing experience gap at such posts, many of which are strategically important, yet are often staffed with less experienced officers. Staffing and experience gaps can diminish diplomatic readiness in several ways, according to State officials. 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. State uses a range of incentives to staff hardship posts, but their effectiveness remains unclear due to a lack of evaluation. Incentives to serve in hardship posts range from monetary benefits to changes in service and bidding requirements, such as reduced tour lengths at posts where dangerous conditions prevent some family members from accompanying officers. In a 2006 report on staffing gaps, GAO recommended that State evaluate the effectiveness of its incentive programs for hardship post assignments. In response, State added a question about hardship incentives to a recent employee survey. However, the survey does not fully meet GAO's recommendation for several reasons, including that State did not include several incentives in the survey. State also did not comply with a legal requirement to assess the effectiveness of increasing danger and hardship pay in filling certain posts. Recent legislation increasing Foreign Service Officers' basic pay will increase the cost of existing incentives, thereby heightening the importance that State evaluate its incentives for hardship post assignments to ensure resources are effectively targeted and not wasted.