State Continues to Face Shortfalls in Meeting Its Foreign Language Requirements, with Potentially Adverse Effects on Department Operations

State faces notable shortfalls in meeting its foreign language requirements  for overseas language-designated positions. Some Foreign Service Officers Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for Their Positions

As of October 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service generalists and  specialists in language-designated positions worldwide did not meet both  of the speaking and reading proficiency requirements of their positions, up  from 29 percent in 2005. For example, about 40 percent of officers in language- designated positions in the Middle East and South and Central Asia did not  meet the requirements for their positions. Language Shortfalls Negatively Affect Aspects of U.S. In Vladivostok, State’s  Inspector General reported  that lack of proficiency in  Russian limited the  political/economic officer’s  reporting (2007). State Efforts to Meet Foreign Language Requirements, Which Include Training, Recruitment, and Incentives, Face Several Challenges

State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements include an annual  review process to determine the number of language-designated positions,  providing language training, recruiting staff with skills in certain  languages, and offering pay incentives to officers to continue learning and  maintaining language skills. FSI’s School of Language Studies offers training in  about 70 languages. For 2008, State reported a  language training success rate of 86 percent. Under the critical  needs program, State offers bonus points for applicants who have passed  the Foreign Service exam and demonstrate mastery in a foreign language. Staffing Shortages and Other Challenges Have Limited State’s Ability to Reduce Its Language Shortfalls

According to senior State officials, the primary challenge State faces in  meeting its foreign language requirements is the department’s continued  staffing shortages. During this review,  State officials told us that a comprehensive strategic approach to reducing  foreign language gaps would be useful. The officials mentioned a number  of documents where the department has addressed State’s foreign  language proficiency requirements in various forms, including the Foreign  Language Continuum, the Strategic Plan, a 2007 training needs assessment,  and the Five-Year Workforce Plan, but acknowledged that these  documents are not linked to each other and no one document contains  measurable goals, objectives, resource requirements, and milestones for  reducing the foreign language gap. Such a plan will help State guide its efforts to monitor and assess  its progress toward closing its persistent foreign language gaps. Such a  plan should include, but not be limited to, the following elements:    clearly defined and measurable performance goals and objectives of the  department’s language proficiency program that reflect the priorities and  strategic interests of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy;   a transparent, comprehensive process for identifying foreign language  requirements, based on objective criteria, that goes beyond the current  annual process, to determine which positions should be language  designated and the proficiency level needed to enable officers to  effectively perform their duties; and    a more effective mechanism that allows State to gather feedback from  FSOs on the relevance of the foreign language skills that they acquired at  FSI to their jobs, and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of State’s  recruitment of critical needs foreign language speakers, and language  incentive payments, as well as future efforts toward closing the  department’s language proficiency gaps. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

In this report, we (1) examine the extent to which State is meeting its  foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any shortfalls  on U.S. diplomacy, (2) assess State’s efforts to meet its foreign language  requirements and describe the challenges it faces in doing so, and   (3) assess the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to  determine and meet these requirements.
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 the Department of State's (State) persistent foreign language shortages. In 2006, GAO recommended that State evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its staff. State responded by providing examples of activities it believed addressed our recommendation. In this report, which updates the 2006 report, GAO (1) examined the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any shortfall, (2) assessed State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements and described the challenges it faces in doing so, and (3) assessed the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to determine and meet these requirements. GAO analyzed data on State's overseas language-designated positions; reviewed strategic planning and budgetary documents; interviewed State officials; and conducted fieldwork in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey.

What GAO Found

As of October 31, 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service officers in overseas language-designated positions (LDP) did not meet both the foreign languages speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions. State continues to face foreign language shortfalls in regions of strategic interest--such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, where about 40 percent of officers in LDPs did not meet requirements. Despite efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency in critical languages, shortfalls in supercritical languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, remain at 39 percent. Past reports by GAO, State's Office of the Inspector General, and others have concluded that foreign language shortfalls could be negatively affecting U.S. activities overseas. Overseas fieldwork for this report reaffirmed this conclusion. State's approach to meeting its foreign language requirements includes an annual review of all LDPs, language training, recruitment of language-proficient staff, and pay incentives for language skills. For example, State trains staff in about 70 languages in Washington and overseas, and has reported a training success rate of 86 percent. Moreover, State offers bonus points for language-proficient applicants who have passed the Foreign Service exam and has hired 445 officers under this program since 2004. However, various challenges limit the effectiveness of these efforts. According to State, a primary challenge is overall staffing shortages, which limit the number of staff available for language training, as well as the recent increase in LDPs. State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements have yielded some results but have not closed persistent gaps and reflect, in part, a lack of a comprehensive, strategic approach. State officials have said that the department's plan for meeting its foreign language requirements is spread throughout a number of documents that address these needs; however these documents are not linked to each other and do not contain measurable goals, objectives, or milestones for reducing the foreign language gaps. Because these gaps have persisted over several years despite staffing increases, we believe that a more comprehensive, strategic approach would help State to more effectively guide its efforts and assess its progress in meeting its foreign language requirements.