Additionally,  according to FSOs we interviewed, both language  proficiency and gaps in proficiency have, in some cases, affected State’s  ability to, for example, properly adjudicate visa applications, effectively  communicate with foreign audiences, and perform other critical diplomatic  duties. State Has Made Some Progress in Improving Foreign Language Proficiency since 2008

The percentage of overseas LDPs staffed by FSOs who did not meet the  positions’ language proficiency requirements has decreased since  October 2008 (see table 2). State Reviews Language Proficiency Requirements Every 3 Years, but Extent to Which This Process Addresses Posts’ Reported Needs Is Unclear

		State Determines Language Proficiency Requirements Primarily through Triennial Review of Existing LDPs

According to State officials, State conducts a review of all LDPs every 3  years to reevaluate posts’ language needs. State’s policies indicate that operational need should  determine designation of positions as LDPs and required proficiency  levels. However, views expressed by geographic bureau officials and  FSOs we met with at overseas posts suggest that State officials also  consider other factors, such as staffing concerns, when making LDP  decisions. Cost concerns. State Is Implementing Efforts Outlined in Foreign Language Strategic Plan but Has Not Evaluated Their Effectiveness

		State’s Foreign Language Strategic Plan Outlines Efforts to Address Language Proficiency Requirements

State’s 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities” (foreign  language strategic plan), which it issued partly in response to a  recommendation in our 2009 report, outlines a number of efforts intended  to meet its current and projected needs for foreign language proficiency. As a  result of the review, State reduced the number of incentive languages  from 52 to 34 to reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities. In addition, State officials told us that  they are using technology to complement language skills at the  operational level. State Has Not Evaluated Effects of Efforts Implemented under the Foreign Language Strategic Plan

More than 5 years after State developed and began implementing its  foreign language strategic plan, we found no evidence that State had  conducted a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of all the actions  identified in the plan to determine their effects on language proficiency  gaps. According to State’s evaluation policy, the department is committed  to using performance management best practices, including evaluation, to  achieve the most effective U.S. foreign policy outcomes and greater  accountability. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which  these efforts have contributed to progress in increasing language  proficiency worldwide and has limited information on which to base future  investments of its resources. Recommendation for Executive Action

To strengthen State’s ability to address persistent gaps in foreign  language proficiency at overseas posts and make informed future  resource investments, we recommend that the Secretary of State  evaluate the effectiveness of efforts implemented under the “Strategic  Plan for Foreign-Language Capabilities.”

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to State. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we examine (1) the extent to which the Department of State  (State) is meeting its foreign language proficiency requirements for  overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any  gaps in State’s ability to perform diplomatic duties, (2) State’s process for  identifying overseas posts’ language proficiency needs and the extent to  which the process addresses these reported needs, and (3) efforts State  has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of  those efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study

Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. diplomats to advance U.S. interests overseas. GAO has issued several reports highlighting State's persistent foreign language shortfalls. In 2009, GAO recommended that State, to address these shortfalls, develop a strategic plan linking all of its efforts to meet its foreign language requirements. In response, in 2011 State issued its “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities.”
GAO was asked to build on its previous reviews of State's foreign language capabilities. In this report, GAO examines (1) the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language proficiency requirements for overseas posts as well as the effects of language proficiency and any gaps in State's ability to perform diplomatic duties, (2) State's process for identifying overseas posts' language proficiency needs and the extent to which the process addresses these reported needs, and (3) efforts State has taken to enhance foreign language proficiency and any effects of those efforts. GAO analyzed data on State's overseas language-designated positions; reviewed State strategic planning and policy documents; interviewed State officials; and visited overseas posts in China, Egypt, Korea, Mexico, and Russia.

What GAO Found

As of September 2016, 23 percent of overseas language-designated positions (LDP) were filled by Foreign Service officers (FSO) who did not meet the positions' language proficiency requirements. While this represents an 8-percentage-point improvement from 2008, the Department of State (State) still faces significant language proficiency gaps (see fig.). Regionally, the greatest gaps were in the Near East (37 percent), Africa (34 percent), and South and Central Asia (31 percent). According to FSOs we interviewed, language proficiency gaps have, in some cases, affected State's ability to properly adjudicate visa applications; effectively communicate with foreign audiences, address security concerns, and perform other critical diplomatic duties.
State reviews overseas posts' language needs every 3 years, but the extent to which the reviews' outcomes address these needs is unclear. State's policies indicate that operational need should determine the designation of positions as LDPs and required proficiency levels. However, views expressed by geographic bureau officials and FSOs whom GAO met at overseas posts suggest that other factors, such as staffing and cost concerns, influence State's decisions about LDP designations and proficiency requirements. State Human Resources officials noted that State is taking steps to better align its LDP policies with its operational needs.
State has implemented most actions described in its 2011 “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities” but has not evaluated the effects of these actions on language proficiency at overseas posts. According to State’s evaluation policy, the department is committed to using performance management, including evaluation, to achieve the most effective foreign policy outcomes and greater accountability. Actions State has implemented under the plan include reviewing the language requirements of overseas posts every 3 years; offering recruitment incentives for personnel with proficiency in critically important languages; providing language incentive pay only for languages that reflect the department’s highest strategic priorities; and using technology to strengthen and develop new approaches for language training and to complement FSOs’ language skills. However, more than 5 years after it began implementing its strategic plan, State has not systematically evaluated the results of these efforts. As a result, State cannot determine the extent to which these efforts contribute to progress in increasing language proficiency worldwide and reducing proficiency gaps.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State evaluate the effectiveness of efforts implemented under the “Strategic Plan for Foreign Language Capabilities.” State agreed with our recommendation.