In 1995, State received funding for 26 “other” special-purpose international organizations through appropriations made to its Contributions to International Organizations account. Interests and Funding Priority for Each Organization

In response to congressional directives, State conducted a comprehensive review beginning in May 1995 to decide whether each international organization to which it makes assessed contributions continued to serve important U.S. interests. Permanent Representative to the United Nations said the criteria that are applied in determining whether to retain membership in international organizations are (1) the level of direct U.S. benefit in political, strategic, or economic terms determined on the basis of consultations with end users; (2) the percentage of the organization’s budget that is devoted to activities that benefit the United States; (3) the scope and depth of the U.S. constituency; (4) the relevancy of the organization’s mandate to contemporary global issues; (5) the organization’s program effectiveness and quality of management; (6) the organization’s budgetary restraint and transparency; and (7) the organization’s responsiveness to the U.S. government’s overall reform efforts. State’s December 1996 report to the Congress assembled the 50 organizations, including the 27 discussed in this report, into 3 broad cluster groups according to a priority ranking based on the importance of their mandates to the U.S. national interest and their cost-effectiveness. Our analysis indicated that none of the 27 organizations discussed in this report were included in State’s top priority category (peace and security); 4 were in State’s second priority category (health, safety, and economic well-being); 20 were in State’s third priority category (selective interest); and 3 were no longer being funded by State. Benefit of U.S. Membership in the Organizations

For most of the organizations that we examined, U.S. government officials we contacted believe either that the benefits derived from them clearly exceeded the cost of membership or that it was very worthwhile for the United States to be represented and have an active voice in their activities, but there were mixed views on the value of continuing membership in some organizations. Further, they considered most of the organizations’ program focus to be generally clear, valid, and in conformity with U.S. interests, but some primarily benefited their related industries. Nonetheless, there are benefits to U.S. membership. Efforts to Keep U.S. Government Costs Low

State officials said they recognize that stringent government budgets make it imperative that costs be kept low in all areas, including the cost of membership in international organizations. Thus, they have attempted to link funding decisions for the small special-purpose international organizations to performance indicators, established a more systematic budget review and coordination process, and tried to secure increased private sector funding for the organizations in an effort to keep assessed contributions low. Additional Information on 25 International Organizations

This appendix provides supplemental data on the 25 international organizations covered in this study that received funds from the Department of State in 1995. The United States has been a participant since 1922. Comments From the Department of State

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated December 20, 1996.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO obtained information on U.S. government membership in 25 special-purpose international organizations and 2 inter-American organizations that received funding support of $10.8 million in 1995 through assessed contributions provided by the Department of State, focusing on: (1) the Department of State's efforts to assess whether U.S. government membership in these organizations continues to serve U.S. interests, including a summary description of the organizations' missions and issues that have been raised about the benefits of U.S. membership; and (2) steps that have been taken to keep the government's contribution costs low.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) in May 1995, State began a comprehensive interagency assessment of U.S. membership in all of the international organizations to which it makes assessed contributions; (2) in May 1996, after being urged by Congress to prioritize its funding requirements for international organizations, State announced the criteria that it had used in 1995 in reviewing and evaluating U.S. membership in international organizations; (3) these criteria included the extent to which the United States directly benefits from the organizations' activities, how much of the organizations' budgets are devoted to activities benefitting the United States, the scope and depth of the organizations' constituencies, and their responsiveness to management improvement efforts; (4) in December 1996, State reported to Congress its decisions concerning the allocation of funds from the Contributions to International Organizations account for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 based on an assessment and prioritization of U.S. interests in these organizations; (5) State categorized the organizations according to a priority ranking based on the importance of their mandates to the U.S. national interest and their cost-effectiveness; (6) none of the 27 organizations discussed in this report were in State's top priority category, 4 were in State's second priority category, and 20 were in the third priority category; (7) GAO's interviews with U.S. agency officials indicate that all of the 27 organizations appear to have missions that are broadly consistent with a U.S. interest, but there were mixed views as to the value of the benefits the United States receives from membership; (8) the key concerns raised included the cost of membership in some organizations relative to the benefit received and that some organizations primarily benefit their related industries; (9) State has attempted to keep the U.S. government's assessed contributions to the special-purpose international organizations low; (10) it has sought actual reductions in their budgets, established a systematic coordination process with U.S. agencies having lead programming responsibility, and tried to secure more private sector contributions to these organizations; and (11) however, according to State officials, private financing of membership dues for these international organizations is generally not a viable option under their existing charters or State's funding policy.