The panel determined that  overseas staffing levels had not been adjusted to reflect changing  missions, requirements, and security concerns. In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of  Rightsizing within State. M/PRI uses GAO’s  definition of rightsizing: aligning the number and location of staff assigned  overseas with foreign policy priorities, security concerns, and other  constraints. State Has Improved the Consistency of Its Approach, but Unanticipated Events and Other Factors Contribute to Differences between Actual and Projected Staff Levels

State has improved the consistency of its analyses across overseas  missions, but differences between actual and projected staffing levels still  exist due to unanticipated events and other factors. We reported in 2006  that the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation (M/PRI)  had not been conducting its rightsizing reviews in a consistent manner.State has since improved the consistency of its reviews by developing a  variety of methodological tools and a standard template that it applies to  each mission. Some missions provided narratives  discussing various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing and post  security, while others did not. Over Half of Staffing Projections Were within 10 Percent of Actual Staffing Levels as of December 2011, but Some Posts Have Larger Differences

For more than half of the 144 staffing projections based on rightsizing  reviews that we analyzed, actual staffing levels as of December 2011  were within 10 percent of review staffing projections, either higher or  lower. According to the management officer in Mozambique, the increase in  the number of U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions as  a result of PEPFAR’s initiation was greater than anticipated. State’s Recommendations Generally Focus on State Administrative and Management Staff at a Specific Post to Improve Efficiency

Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations  and eliminate duplicative services and positions; these  recommendations often focus on State’s administrative and management  staff. To develop its recommendations, M/PRI reviews the levels of all  staff at missions and seeks input from both State and non-State agencies. Many of M/PRI’s recommendations that we analyzed focused on State  administrative and management staff rather than programmatic staff or  staff from other agencies. However, State officials said that it is  difficult to assess the efficiency of program staff due to the qualitative  nature of their activities, such as discussing policy issues with their  diplomatic counterparts or drafting briefing documents for visiting officials. State Does Not Often Make Recommendations Directed at Other U.S. Government Agencies and Relies on These Agencies to Determine Their Own Staffing Needs Overseas

M/PRI reviews all U.S. government staffing overseas and incorporates  staffing data and projections from non-State agencies with a presence  overseas. State Offices Vary in Their Use of Rightsizing Reviews, and State Does Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing Recommendations

State uses rightsizing reviews to plan facilities construction and for certain  staffing considerations, but some U.S. officials said that use of the  reviews is limited, and State officials do not monitor whether  recommendations are implemented. State’s Bureau of Overseas  Buildings Operations (OBO) uses the staffing projections in rightsizing  reviews to plan the size and estimate the initial costs of new embassy and  consulate compounds. However, some regional bureau officials said that  they do not actively use the reviews except as a historical overview of  staffing, and some post officials said that they do not use the reviews at  all. In addition, State often uses documents other than rightsizing reviews  to inform decisions in areas such as determining staffing levels and  regionalization. Further, M/PRI and post officials stated that they use rightsizing reviews  when assessing requests by State or other agencies through the NSDD- 38 process to add staff to overseas posts, although the final decision on  requests is made by the chief of mission. Several officials stated that undertaking the rightsizing process  acts as a check on growth in overseas staffing levels. Some post officials, particularly those in management functions, said that  they refer to rightsizing reviews to support staffing changes. State Does Not Monitor Implementation of Rightsizing Recommendations and Has Not Clearly Designated an Office Responsible for Following Up on Recommendations

State has not clearly designated an office with responsibility for pursuing  implementation of rightsizing recommendations and does not track  recommendation status after completing a rightsizing review, making it   The legislation that established the  difficult for M/PRI to assess impact.rightsizing process states that the Secretary of State shall take actions to  carry out the recommendations made in each rightsizing review. State indicated that it would carefully consider our recommendations, and  it described a number of actions it intends to take that could address  them. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the consistency of the  Department of State’s (State) approach to conducting rightsizing reviews  and how its projections compare to actual staffing levels; (2) the focus of  State’s rightsizing recommendations; and (3) the extent to which State  uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors implementation of  recommendations. To obtain information on the consistency of State’s approach to  conducting rightsizing reviews, the focus of rightsizing recommendations,  and the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors  implementation of recommendations, we reviewed agency documents— including M/PRI’s annual reports to Congress, and Office of Inspector  General (OIG) reports—and interviewed officials from State and non- State agencies, both in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.
Why GAO Did This Study

After the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, a U.S. government panel determined that staffing levels had not been adjusted to reflect changing missions, requirements, and security concerns. In 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office of Rightsizing within the Department of State. The office reviews levels of overseas staffing for all U.S. government agencies at every post every 5 years, projects future staffing levels it determines are appropriate to meet mission needs, and recommends ways to improve efficiency. Rightsizing is intended to align the number and location of staff with foreign policy priorities, security, and other constraints.
GAO examined (1) the consistency of States approach to conducting rightsizing reviews and how its projections compare to actual staffing levels; (2) the focus of States rightsizing recommendations; and (3) the extent to which State uses its rightsizing reviews and monitors implementation of recommendations. GAO reviewed 181 rightsizing reviews, compared projections in reviews with current actual staffing data, and interviewed officials from State and other agencies in Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) has improved the consistency of its rightsizing approach across overseas posts. However, differences between future staffing levels it projects are appropriate to meet mission needs and actual staffing levels still exist due to unanticipated events and other factors. GAO reported in 2006 that States Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation (M/PRI) had not been conducting its rightsizing reviews consistently. Some reviews discussed various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing, while others did not. State has since improved the consistency of its reviews by developing a variety of methodological tools and a standard template which it applies to each post. GAO found that over half of the 144 rightsizing projections analyzed were within 10 percent of actual staffing levels as of December 2011. In contrast, over 40 percent of the posts have staffing level differences of over 10 percent. Unanticipated events and other factors, such as changes in policies, contributed to these differences. For example, according to the management officer in Mozambique, M/PRI projected staffing increases as a result of the Presidents program to combat AIDS, but the actual funding level for the program was much higher than anticipated. This resulted in higher actual staffing levels for both U.S. direct-hire and locally-employed staff positions.
Rightsizing reviews contain recommendations to improve post operations and eliminate duplicative services and positions. To develop its recommendations, M/PRI reviews the levels of all staff at posts and seeks input from State and non-State agencies. M/PRI relies on non-State agencies to determine independently their own staffing needs. Many of States recommendations for a specific post focus on the level of States administrative or management staff, rather than States programmatic staff or staff from other agencies. Some State officials stated that the activities of administrative and management staff are better suited to quantitative measurement while the qualitative nature of programmatic staff activities, such as discussing policy issues with foreign diplomatic counterparts, is more difficult to measure.
States use of rightsizing reviews varies, and State does not follow up on review recommendations. States Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations uses the staffing projections in rightsizing reviews to plan the size of new embassy compounds. Further, M/PRI uses rightsizing reviews when it assesses requests by State or other agencies to add staff to overseas posts, although the final decision is made by the respective Chief of Mission. In addition, Bureau of Diplomatic Security officials said that they incorporate rightsizing reviews into their annual staffing planning exercise, and some post officials said that they refer to rightsizing reviews to support staffing changes. Some U.S. officials stated that undertaking the rightsizing process acts as a check on growth in overseas staffing levels. However, some State regional bureau officials said that they do not actively use the reviews except as a historical overview of staffing, and some post officials said that they do not use the reviews at all. State often uses documents other than rightsizing reviews for decisions in areas including staffing levels. Finally, State does not monitor the implementation of rightsizing review recommendations and has not designated an office with responsibility for their implementation. State issues an annual report to Congress in which it lists the rightsizing reviews it has completed, number of positions recommended for elimination, and potential cost savings; the report does not address whether recommendations have been implemented. Because State does not track or report on the implementation of recommendations, State cannot determine if rightsizing reviews are achieving their purpose of aligning overseas staffing levels with U.S. priorities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State designate the appropriate entities to ensure that rightsizing recommendations are addressed and to track and report the actions taken to implement the recommendations. State described a number of actions it intends to take that could address GAOs recommendations.