	Diplomatic Security’s Mission and Resources Have Grown Considerably Since 1998

Because of a number of security incidents, Diplomatic Security’s missions  and resources have grown tremendously in the past decade. Dangerous Environments, Staffing Shortages, and Reactive Planning Challenge Diplomatic Security

Diplomatic Security faces several policy and operational challenges. Maintaining Missions in Iraq and Other Increasingly Dangerous Posts Significantly Affects Diplomatic Security’s Work

Diplomatic Security officials stated that maintaining missions in dangerous  environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan requires more resources and  increases the difficulty for Diplomatic Security to provide a secure  environment. In addition to operating in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones, State is  maintaining missions in an increasing number of other dangerous posts— such as Peshawar, Pakistan, and Sana’a, Yemen—some of which State  would have previously evacuated. Diplomatic Security Faces Operational Challenges That Affect Its Ability to Implement Important Activities

Diplomatic Security’s ability to fully carry out its mission of providing  security worldwide is hindered by staffing shortages in domestic offices  and other operational challenges such as inadequate facilities and  pervasive language proficiency shortfalls. We previously reported  that experience gaps can compromise diplomatic readiness. Diplomatic Security’s tremendous growth over the last 10  years has been reactive and has not benefited from adequate strategic  guidance. Second, Diplomatic Security has created a Visa  and Passport Security Strategic Plan to guide its efforts to disrupt  individuals and organizations that attempt to compromise the integrity of  U.S. travel documents. Diplomatic Security officials stated they hope to participate in a new State  management initiative, the Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development  Review (QDDR). Recommendations for Executive Action

In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of State—as part of the  QDDR or as a separate initiative—conduct a strategic review of the  Bureau of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and activities  address State’s priority needs. This review should also address key human  capital and operational challenges faced by Diplomatic Security, such as    operating domestic and international activities with adequate staff;    providing security for facilities that do not meet all security standards;    staffing foreign missions with officials who have appropriate language    operating programs with experienced staff, at the commensurate grade    balancing security needs with State’s need to conduct its diplomatic  mission.
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony discusses the Department of State's (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security), which is responsible for the protection of people, information, and property at over 400 embassies, consulates, and domestic locations. Since the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the scope and complexity of threats facing Americans abroad and at home has increased. Diplomatic Security must be prepared to counter threats such as crime, espionage, visa and passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. The statement today is based on a GAO report that was issued on November 12, 2009. It will discuss (1) the growth of Diplomatic Security's missions and resources and (2) the challenges Diplomatic Security faces in conducting its work. To address these objectives in our report, GAO (1) interviewed numerous officials at Diplomatic Security headquarters, several domestic facilities, and 18 international postings; (2) analyzed Diplomatic Security and State budget and personnel data; and (3) assessed challenges facing Diplomatic Security through analysis of interviews with personnel positioned domestically and internationally, budget and personnel data provided by State and Diplomatic Security, and planning and strategic documentation. GAO conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to November 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that GAO plans and performs the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. GAO believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

What GAO Found

Since 1998, Diplomatic Security's mission and activities--and, subsequently, its resources--have grown considerably in reaction to a number of security incidents. As a consequence of this growth, we identified several challenges. In particular (1) State is maintaining a presence in an increasing number of dangerous posts, which requires additional resources; (2) staffing shortages in domestic offices and other operational challenges--such as inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, experience gaps, and the difficulty of balancing security needs with State's diplomatic mission--further tax Diplomatic Security's ability to implement all of its missions; and (3) Diplomatic Security's considerable growth has not benefited from adequate strategic guidance. In our report, we recommend that the Secretary of State--as part of the agency's Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR) or separately--conduct a strategic review of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and activities address its priority needs.