This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-737 
entitled 'Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold 
but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts' which was 
released on July 28, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 
Threats, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, 
House of Representatives: 

June 2006: 

Overseas Staffing: 

Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to 
Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts: 

GAO-06-737: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-737, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, 
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2001, the administration identified the rightsizing of embassies and 
consulates as one of the President’s management priorities. Rightsizing 
initiatives include: aligning staff overseas with foreign policy 
priorities and security and other constraints; demonstrating results by 
moving administrative functions from posts to regional or central 
locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts. This report 
(1) discusses the size and recent trends in the U.S. government 
overseas presence, (2) assesses the congressionally mandated Office of 
Rightsizing’s progress in managing the U.S. government’s overseas 
rightsizing efforts, and (3) assesses the process and outcomes of the 
legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts. 

What GAO Found: 

Almost five years into the President’s Management Initiative on 
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the 
size of the U.S. overseas presence. At various times, we received 
estimates ranging from 66,000 to 69,000 American and non-American 
personnel. In addition, State estimated that there are approximately 
78,000 U.S. government positions overseas, as of December 2005. State 
Department (State) officials said that they are working on a unified 
database which, if periodically updated by posts, will provide an 
accurate depiction of the overseas presence. State officials indicated 
that the database will be completed later this year. Because of the 
importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length 
of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight may be 
needed to ensure completion of this task. Several agencies reported 
that they have added staff overseas as a result of new mission 
requirements, and other agencies reported that they have repositioned 
their personnel to better meet mission needs and in response to 
rightsizing efforts. 

State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing 
the United States Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) 
in 2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall 
direction to the government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the 
office’s activities have included coordinating staffing requests of 
U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post 
rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We 
found that coordination on rightsizing issues between State and other 
agencies with an overseas presence was initially slow, but has since 
improved. Nevertheless, non-State agencies have voiced a number of 
concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of Rightsizing, 
including their desire to be more included in the rightsizing process. 

Congress requires Chiefs of Mission to conduct rightsizing reviews at 
every overseas post at least once every 5 years. Between late 2004 and 
summer 2005, about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews. 
However, the Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts 
on how the reviews should be conducted and did not have a systematic 
process for reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005, 
officials in the Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive 
guidance, which posts we interviewed found useful. We found that cost 
was not considered a key element in the post reviews. Nevertheless, the 
Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million in cost savings or 
avoidance to the U.S. government based on its analysis of these 
reviews. Although we have not been able to independently assess the 
Office of Rightsizing’s estimates, it has presented evidence to show 
that some major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. 
Management officers identified various challenges to the review 
process, such as resistance from non-State agencies and a lack of time 
to conduct the review. It is unclear how posts will implement the 
rightsizing review decisions, such as elimination of duplicative 
functions, according to post officials and officials in State’s 
regional bureaus. 

What GAO Recommends: 

We recommend that the Secretary of State provide management oversight 
to complete and maintain a unified database to accurately capture and 
validate U.S. overseas staffing numbers, increase outreach activities 
with non-State agencies, and require that posts develop rightsizing 
action plans. State indicated that it has either recently implemented 
or is taking steps to implement all of our recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-737]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Accurate Data on Personnel Overseas Not Yet Available; U.S. Government 
Rightsizing Efforts Under Way: 

State Has Established an Office of Rightsizing, but More Interaction 
Needed between Office of Rightsizing and Agencies: 

Office of Rightsizing Initiates Rightsizing Reviews, but Reviews Have 
Not Realized Full Potential: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at U.S. Embassies 
and Consulates: 

Appendix III: GAO Rightsizing Framework and Corresponding Questions: 

Appendix IV: The Office of Rightsizing's Five-Year Rightsizing 
Schedule: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type of 
Space in Embassy or Consulate: 

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by 
Select Agency: 

Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing Reviews, 
September 2005: 

Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing: 

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas under 
Chief of Mission Authority by Agency, December 2005: 

Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 2005: 

Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps:  

Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed: 

Abbreviations: 

ICASS: International Cooperative Administrative Support Services: 

NEC: New Embassy Compound: 

NSDD-38: National Security Decision Directive-38: 

State: Department of State: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

June 30, 2006: 

The Honorable Christopher Shays: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
International Relations: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

After the 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, two 
key studies recommended that the U.S. government evaluate and realign 
the number and location of U.S. personnel working at embassies and 
consulates overseas, and consider staff reductions where practical to 
reduce security vulnerabilities.[Footnote 1] In 2001, the 
administration showed its support for the realignment of personnel and 
stressed the importance of security, efficiency, and accountability in 
U.S. government staffing overseas by identifying the rightsizing of 
embassies and consulates as one of the President's management 
priorities.[Footnote 2] Rightsizing initiatives include establishing 
mechanisms and processes to align the number and location of staff 
assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, and security and cost 
constraints; moving administrative functions away from posts to 
remote[Footnote 3] locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at 
posts. In 2002 we developed a framework for assessing embassy staff 
levels to help support rightsizing initiatives for existing facilities 
overseas.[Footnote 4] Our framework identified critical elements of 
embassy operations--physical security, mission priorities and 
requirements, and cost--and also included rightsizing options for 
consideration. According to the State Department's (State) Office of 
Inspector General, rightsizing is likely to remain at the top of 
State's management agenda in the coming years because of high 
construction and operating costs overseas, security vulnerabilities, 
and continuing problems in assigning U.S. government personnel 
overseas. 

Over the past five years, we have provided the subcommittee with 
numerous reports and testimonies on staffing and operations at U.S. 
embassies and consulates overseas (see app. II for a list of these 
reports). In this report, we (1) discuss the size and recent trends in 
the U.S. government's overseas presence, (2) assess the progress that 
the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing the United States 
Government Overseas Presence (Office of Rightsizing) within State has 
made in managing and coordinating the U.S. government's overseas 
rightsizing efforts, and (3) assess the process and outcomes of the 
legislatively mandated rightsizing reviews of overseas posts. 

To address these objectives, we analyzed the activities of State's 
Office of Rightsizing, as well as rightsizing activities of some of 
State's regional and functional bureaus. In addition, we met with seven 
agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, the Treasury, 
Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice; and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID)--which, including State, account for 
over 90 percent of personnel at embassies and consulates. To determine 
if there was a systematic process for reporting information in the 
first cycle of reviews, we reviewed and analyzed 20 out of about 35 
rightsizing reviews that were conducted by posts from late 2004 through 
summer 2005, and which were provided to us by the Office of 
Rightsizing. We also sought to complete structured telephone interviews 
with all 22 posts that were conducting reviews in the fall of 2005. 
Between February 2006 and March 2006, we conducted structured telephone 
interviews with management officers from 20 of these 22 posts overseas 
on issues related to their review experience. In addition to the 
telephone interviews, we visited three posts--Mexico City, Mexico; 
Valetta, Malta; and Frankfurt, Germany--that had previously conducted a 
rightsizing review or analysis. We conducted our overall work from May 
2005 through May 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards (see app. I for more information on our scope and 
methodology). 

Results in Brief: 

Almost five years into the President's Management Initiative on 
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the 
size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and 
consulates. At various times, we received estimates ranging from 66,000 
to 69,000 American and non-American personnel. In addition, State 
estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government positions 
overseas, as of December 2005. Difficulties faced in developing 
accurate data include varying practices among agencies and posts in 
accounting for positions. In the absence of accurate data, it is 
difficult to track how rightsizing actions are affecting overseas 
staffing levels. Moreover, lack of accurate staffing data makes it more 
difficult to determine requirements for new embassy construction and to 
assess each agency a fair share of the cost of the embassy construction 
program. State is working on a unified database which, if periodically 
updated by posts, should provide an accurate depiction of the overseas 
presence. State officials indicated that the database will be completed 
later this year. Because of the importance of having accurate data on 
overseas staffing and the length of time it has taken to develop this 
data, management oversight may be needed to ensure completion of this 
task. Several agencies reported that they have added staff overseas as 
a result of new mission requirements, and other agencies reported that 
they have shifted their personnel to better meet mission needs and 
respond to rightsizing efforts. For example, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture recently determined that it had overstaffed some locations 
and understaffed others and, as a result, is repositioning its 
personnel. Some agencies reported that they have reduced overseas staff 
largely because they are now required to pay a share of the costs of 
building new, secure embassy buildings. 

State established the congressionally mandated Office of Rightsizing in 
2004, which, after a slow start, has begun to provide overall direction 
to the government-wide rightsizing process. Some of the office's 
activities have included coordinating rightsizing staffing requests 
from U.S. government agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing 
post rightsizing reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. We 
found that coordination on rightsizing issues between State and other 
agencies with an overseas presence was initially slow, but has since 
improved--though several non-State agencies have voiced a number of 
concerns regarding their interaction with the Office of Rightsizing, 
including their desire to be more included in the rightsizing process. 
In addition, some post management officers indicated that the lack of 
interagency coordination in Washington, D.C., makes it difficult for 
the posts to make decisions and implement rightsizing actions. 

To move the rightsizing process forward, Congress required that 
rightsizing reviews be conducted at every overseas post at least once 
every 5 years in order to eliminate or justify any duplicative or 
parallel functions at the post, and consider the possibility for 
reducing U.S. government personnel. Between late 2004 and summer 2005, 
about 35 posts participated in the first cycle of reviews. However, the 
Office of Rightsizing provided limited guidance to posts on how the 
reviews should be conducted and did not have a systematic process for 
reporting the outcomes of the reviews. In fall 2005, officials in the 
Office of Rightsizing developed more comprehensive guidance, which post 
officials we interviewed said were useful. The Office of Rightsizing 
reported over $150 million of savings or costs avoided based on their 
analysis of the first and second cycles of the rightsizing reviews. 
Although we have not been able to independently assess the Office of 
Rightsizing's estimates, it has presented evidence to show that some 
major cost avoidance and cost savings have occurred. Seventeen out of 
the twenty management officers we interviewed said that the review 
helped them better understand how post personnel meet mission 
objectives. However, management officers identified various challenges 
in conducting their fall 2005 reviews and ensuring that their post is 
rightsized. For example, management officers said that rightsizing 
challenges included resistance from non-State agencies on rightsizing 
measures, lack of direction and opportunities for regionalization and 
outsourcing measures, and a lack of time to conduct the review due to a 
number of competing data requests from headquarters. In addition, while 
a number of management officers told us that they had conducted some 
type of cost analysis as part of their review, some said that they 
could have benefited from additional guidance on conducting cost 
analysis. It is unclear how the rightsizing review decisions, such as 
elimination of duplicative functions, will be implemented, according to 
post officials and officials in State's regional bureaus. Moreover, the 
Office of Rightsizing has not tasked posts to develop a rightsizing 
action plan to implement decisions made in the rightsizing study. 

We are making recommendations to strengthen the U.S. government's 
rightsizing process. To ensure that the U.S. government overseas 
presence under chief of mission authority is accurately accounted for 
and to ensure that the U.S. government's rightsizing goals are being 
coordinated and that posts can maximize savings and gain efficiencies 
through rightsizing, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the 
following three actions: 

* Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a 
single database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel 
staffing numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and 
agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date; 

* Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all 
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share 
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous 
basis; and: 

* Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the 
agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include 
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and 
eliminating duplicative functions. 

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State 
indicated that it has either recently implemented or is taking steps to 
implement all of our recommendations. We received technical comments 
from State and the Departments of Homeland Security, the Treasury, 
Defense, Justice, and USAID, which we have incorporated throughout the 
report, where appropriate. 

Background: 

The U.S. government maintains more than 260 diplomatic posts--including 
embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices--in about 180 
countries worldwide. In addition, according to various estimates, there 
are over 66,000 personnel overseas, including both U.S. direct hires 
and locally employed staff under chief of mission authority,[Footnote 
5] representing more than 30 agencies and government entities. Agencies 
represented overseas include, among others, the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, 
Justice, and State and USAID. According to the Office of Management and 
Budget, the average cost across all agencies of having one U.S. direct 
hire overseas for 2007 is $491,000, including direct and indirect 
personnel costs as well as support costs such as security, office 
leases and furnishings, and field travel.[Footnote 6] According to 
State's Bureau of Resource Management, State's average cost of having 
one U.S. direct hire overseas for 2007 is approximately $400,000. 

The White House, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our 
own agency have emphasized rightsizing as a key initiative to ensuring 
that the overseas presence is at an optimal and efficient level to 
carry out foreign policy priorities. The President's Management Agenda 
has identified rightsizing as one of the administration's 
priorities.[Footnote 7] The agenda stipulates that all agencies with an 
overseas presence should integrate rightsizing into their workforce 
plans and reconfigure overseas staff allocations to the minimum amount 
necessary to meet U.S. foreign policy goals. Figure 1 illustrates the 
various levels of involvement in U.S. government overseas rightsizing. 

Figure 1: Levels of Involvement in Overseas Rightsizing: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO (data); Map Resources (logos). 

[End of figure] 

In fiscal year 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of the Office 
of Rightsizing within State.[Footnote 8] The office was directed to 
lead State's effort to develop internal and interagency mechanisms to 
better coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment of U.S. 
government personnel overseas, under chief of mission authority. The 
Office of Rightsizing reviews and approves rightsizing reports for all 
capital construction projects for new embassy compounds or facilities, 
as well as the staffing composition of 20 percent of all U.S. missions 
annually, so that each mission is reviewed once every 5 years. 
According to the Office of Rightsizing, without an approved rightsizing 
report based on these reviews, the Office of Management and Budget will 
not forward to Congress a programming notification for construction. 

In addition to the Office of Rightsizing, a number of entities within 
State at the Washington, D.C. and post levels are involved in 
initiatives and efforts related to rightsizing. State's regional 
bureaus are involved with posts' rightsizing reviews as well as the 
administration of regional service centers.[Footnote 9] In addition, 
State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations is responsible for the 
worldwide overseas buildings program for State and the U.S. government 
community serving abroad under chief of mission authority. The Bureau 
of Overseas Buildings Operations is directing an expanded new embassy 
construction program to provide safe, secure, and functional work 
places for the diplomatic and consular missions overseas. At the post 
level, the Chief of Mission is responsible for the security and safety 
of every U.S. government and foreign national employee at the 
mission.[Footnote 10] The precise structure of a mission is determined 
by the Chief of Mission through the National Security Decision 
Directive 38 (NSDD-38) process, which provides authority for the Chief 
of Mission to determine the size, composition, or mandate of personnel 
operating at the mission.[Footnote 11] See figure 1 for a depiction of 
the Chief of Mission's involvement in the rightsizing process. 

The operation of embassies and consulates overseas requires basic 
administrative support services for overseas personnel. The management 
section, which is normally headed by a management counselor or officer, 
is the section responsible for overseeing the administrative functions 
at a post and generally serves as the recipient of requests from 
Washington, D.C., pertaining to staffing and rightsizing. 
Administrative support services at posts are generally provided through 
the State-managed International Cooperative Administrative Support 
Services (ICASS) system, which provides more than 30 services-- 
including financial management vouchering, human resources, travel 
services, housing, vehicle maintenance, and motor pool--with costs of 
the services divided among the agencies and sub-agencies with staff at 
the post, based on the level of ICASS services used.[Footnote 12] 

Cost Sharing and New Embassy Compounds: 

To address the security and other deficiencies of overseas embassies, 
consulates, and other buildings, Congress established an interagency 
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program to generate almost $18 billion 
over a 14-year period to accelerate the construction of approximately 
150 new, secure, and functional embassy and consular 
compounds.[Footnote 13] The main objectives of the program are to 
generate funds for new embassy compound construction and to encourage 
State and other agencies to rightsize their staff by requiring that all 
agencies with an overseas presence bear some of the costs for building 
construction.[Footnote 14] Capital security cost sharing is based on 
the total number of existing or authorized positions that an agency has 
overseas in U.S.-government-owned or leased facilities, as well as any 
projected staff growth positions. Cost sharing is also based on the 
type of space occupied by post personnel.[Footnote 15] Charges are 
being phased-in over 5 years with the fiscal year 2005 per capita 
charges being 20 percent of the fully phased-in amount and fiscal year 
2009 per capita charges representing the full amount.[Footnote 16] 
Table 1 illustrates the fully phased-in per person charges for Capital 
Security Cost Sharing. 

Table 1: Full Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges Based on Type of 
Space in Embassy or Consulate: 

Type of space: Principal officer; 
Cost per person: $186,886. 

Type of space: Controlled access area; 
Cost per person: $50,724. 

Type of space: Non-controlled access area; 
Cost per person: $20,488. 

Type of space: Non-office space; 
Cost per person: $3,546. 

Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations. 

[End of table] 

Accurate Data on Personnel Overseas Not Yet Available; U.S. Government 
Rightsizing Efforts Under Way: 

Almost 5 years into the President's Management Initiative on 
rightsizing, the U.S. government does not yet have accurate data on the 
size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and 
consulates; however, State is working on a unified database which, if 
periodically updated by posts, should provide an accurate depiction of 
the overseas presence. Several agencies have undertaken efforts to 
examine and adjust their staffing configurations, which have been 
driven by various factors, such as congressional mandates; the rising 
costs of building new, secure embassy buildings; and other shared 
costs. 

Accurate Data on Size and Composition of the U.S. Overseas Presence 
Currently Unavailable: 

According to State officials, there is not yet an accurate picture of 
the size and composition of the U.S. overseas presence at embassies and 
consulates. In order to be able to make informed staffing and 
rightsizing decisions, and conduct accurate analysis of overseas 
staffing changes, it is important that the U.S. government have an 
accurate account of all overseas positions under chief of mission 
authority. Moreover, accurate staffing data is needed to assess each 
agency a fair share of the cost of the embassy construction program. 
Depending on the data's source and time, estimates of the total 
overseas presence under chief of mission authority run from 66,000 to 
about 69,000 American and non-American personnel, such as locally 
employed staff, from more than 30 agencies.[Footnote 17] In addition, 
State estimated that there are approximately 78,000 U.S. government 
positions overseas, as of December 2005.[Footnote 18] Some of these 
positions have been eliminated or are in the process of being 
eliminated or reconciled, according to an Office of Rightsizing 
document. Further, according to State's estimates, there are almost 
22,000 direct-hire American positions overseas. Figure 2 provides the 
estimated percentage breakdown of the total American positions overseas 
under chief of mission authority by the key agencies, according to the 
Office of Rightsizing. 

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of American Positions Overseas under 
Chief of Mission Authority by Agency, December 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Department of State. 

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

According to State officials, State has faced various difficulties in 
developing accurate data. For example, overseas staffing information is 
recorded in a number of different databases at a post, depending on the 
purpose of the information.[Footnote 19] In addition to the databases 
from Washington, D.C., posts have created their own databases, 
resulting in information not being uniform from post to post. Moreover, 
a State official reported that some agencies have failed to provide 
human resources data to individual posts. State officials added that 
changes made in one database do not automatically populate others. 
Therefore, posts need to make changes in a number of databases in order 
to ensure a full updating and, in particular, to ensure the new 
information will show up accurately at State headquarters. As a result, 
State's numbers might include positions that have been eliminated or 
are vacant; or some positions might be entered more than once. 

Officials in the Office of Rightsizing also said that there are large 
numbers of employment categories overseas and that each agency might 
categorize its personnel overseas in a different manner or use 
different methodologies. They pointed out that, in some cases, agencies 
hire and count employed family members as U.S. direct hires while, in 
other instances, employed family members are counted as locally 
employed staff. They further explained that State's current databases 
have not kept pace with changes in nomenclature. For example, although 
new agencies and components were established as part of the formation 
of the Department of Homeland Security, overseas positions might still 
appear in databases, for example, as part of the old Immigration and 
Naturalization Services. The incorrect reporting of staff positions 
could create problems for agencies, such as being incorrectly charged 
for positions under Capital Security Cost Sharing, according to non- 
State officials. 

Since 2004, State has required posts to utilize the Post Personnel 
database to account for overseas staffing positions for both American 
personnel and locally employed staff, according to the Office of 
Rightsizing. The Executive Director of the Bureau of Human Resources 
told us that, if used properly, this database has the potential to 
provide the staffing data that could lead to accurate overseas staffing 
numbers. However, officials in the Office of Rightsizing stated that 
the database is only as complete as the information that the posts 
enter into it, and that some posts might not fully understand how to 
use the software properly. The Executive Director of the Bureau of 
Human Resources indicated that his bureau has been developing training 
modules to educate post officials on using the Post Personnel database 
correctly. 

State Developing Unified Staffing Accounting System: 

State's Office of Rightsizing has been working with the Bureau of Human 
Resources to develop an improved database that will enable State to 
present a more accurate picture of all personnel and agencies assigned 
overseas under chief of mission authority. According to the Office of 
Rightsizing, the improved database will result in one complete and 
accurate database of all U.S. government agencies overseas and will 
eliminate the need for multiple requests to posts to update staffing 
data. State has been working toward making the Post Personnel database 
application the exclusive database for the entry of all staffing 
information at posts. In addition, State has been devising standardized 
organizational codes for post personnel for all agencies overseas. 
According to State officials, the Post Personnel database will be 
linked to other existing applications and will populate a number of 
other databases, including Post Profiles, ICASS, and the Bureau of 
Overseas Buildings Operations database for Capital Security Cost 
Sharing, thus eliminating potential errors associated with duplicative 
and incorrect entries. 

The Office of Rightsizing reported that the data in Post Personnel will 
soon be made available to agencies with an overseas presence so that 
they can verify it regularly to ensure consistency. Non-State agency 
officials expressed the need for transparency in overseas staffing data 
since they contended that often the data inputted at posts was not 
verified by them. The Executive Director of the Bureau of Human 
Resources expressed concern that there needs to be some type of 
accountability mechanism in place that ensures posts are inputting 
information regularly and accurately into Post Personnel. He added that 
without a mechanism in place, the quality and validity of the data will 
be in question. State officials said that the integrated staffing 
database is scheduled to be completed and operational by fall 2006. 
However, State has not provided guidance to posts that ensures staffing 
information in the Post Personnel database will be continuously updated 
or that outlines the accountability mechanisms for ensuring that 
staffing information is complete, according to a State official. 

Agencies Rightsizing Efforts Lead to Increases or Decreases in Staff: 

Over the past several years agencies with an overseas presence have 
undertaken initiatives to assess their overseas staffing 
configurations. Several agencies reported that they have added staff 
overseas as a result of new mission requirements, and others reported 
that they have relocated or reduced their personnel to better meet 
mission needs and respond to the rightsizing efforts. Many agency 
officials with whom we spoke indicated that they have conducted 
comprehensive internal reviews or hired consultants to assess their 
overseas programs and workload. For example, the Department of 
Agriculture recently completed a global rightsizing review and found 
that the department is overstaffed in some countries and understaffed 
in others. As a result, the Foreign Agricultural Service is 
repositioning its personnel to better accomplish organizational goals. 
In addition, Department of Homeland Security officials indicated that 
they have been working to fully assess their overseas presence and to 
identify redundancies within the various Department of Homeland 
Security components overseas. State also recently announced plans for 
the global repositioning of its overseas presence, which entails moving 
hundreds of positions across the world--primarily from Washington and 
Europe to critical missions in regions such as Africa, South and East 
Asia, and the Middle East. 

Rightsizing Efforts Driven by Security and Administrative Costs: 

Some agency officials said that their decisions on the numbers of 
overseas staff needed are guided by a number of factors, including 
congressional mandates, mission requirements, and budget constraints, 
including Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs. Officials with 
whom we spoke with at several agencies said that they have increased 
staff overseas as a result of the global war on terror, border security 
activities, and efforts to combat drug trafficking and weapons of mass 
destruction. For example, officials in the Department of Justice said 
that the department's various components have increased their overseas 
presence due to these factors, and, in fact, U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Administration officials reported that they increased their presence by 
almost 10 percent between 2000 and 2005. In addition, Customs and 
Border Protection officials told us that they have been increasing 
their personnel overseas since 2002 due to requirements for the 
Container Security Initiative program. While a number of agencies have 
been increasing their presence overseas, a few agencies have decreased 
or are projected to maintain the current level of their overseas 
presence due to cuts in program budgets. For example, the Foreign 
Commercial Service reported that it reduced its overseas staffing 
levels by approximately 13 percent since the beginning of fiscal year 
2001. In addition, Foreign Agricultural Services officials said that 
their overseas presence is likely to remain static. 

A number of agencies we spoke with cited that costs of overseas 
operations, which include increasing Capital Security Cost Sharing 
program and ICASS costs, have caused them to examine their overseas 
presence.[Footnote 20] Department of Commerce officials reported that, 
while Capital Security Cost Sharing costs represented 7 percent of 
their overseas costs in fiscal year 2006, by fiscal year 2009 the cost 
is expected to be 21 percent of the agency's overseas costs. In 
addition, agency officials said that, because the Capital Security Cost 
Sharing costs are based on every existing or planned authorized 
overseas position, regardless of whether the position is filled or not, 
agencies have effectively been encouraged to eliminate vacant positions 
or keep their projected numbers low. For example, Department of 
Commerce officials said that costs associated with Capital Security 
Cost Sharing has forced the agency to keep its projected overseas 
numbers low rather than develop more realistic projections since 
program costs are based in part on projected as well as existing 
staffing numbers, and they do not want to estimate and pay for 
positions that might not be needed in the future. Some agency officials 
also indicated that rising ICASS costs have affected their budgets and 
caused them to reevaluate their overseas presence. For example, 
Department of Homeland Security officials said that because of the high 
costs of using ICASS, they are currently reevaluating their use of the 
services and stressed the importance of having flexibility to opt out 
of ICASS services. 

Some agency officials with whom we spoke raised several concerns about 
the impacts of Capital Security Cost Sharing and ICASS costs on 
staffing configurations. For Capital Security Cost Sharing, officials 
expressed concern that it is difficult for them to accurately project 
their overseas staffing numbers, since potential unforeseen events 
overseas, such as natural disasters, could necessitate a reduction or 
increase in personnel. Some agency officials expressed concern that, as 
the Capital Security Cost Sharing costs increase, they might be priced 
out of an overseas presence or have to tap into their program funds to 
sustain such a presence. Table 2 depicts the Capital Security Cost 
Sharing charges for fiscal year 2007 that appear in the President's 
budget for the agencies that we spoke with. 

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Capital Security Cost Sharing Charges by 
Select Agency: 

Agency: Agriculture Department; 
Total charge[A]: $8,968,013. 

Agency: Commerce Department; 
Total charge[A]: 20,678,269. 

Agency: Defense Department; 
Total charge[A]: 134,893,425. 

Agency: Homeland Security Department; 
Total charge[A]: 24,052,046. 

Agency: Justice Department; 
Total charge[A]: 45,635,505. 

Agency: State Department; 
Total charge[A]: 674,155,851. 

Agency: Treasury Department; 
Total charge[A]: 2,796,268. 

Agency: USAID; 
Total charge[A]: 100,349,057. 

Agency: Other; 
Total charge[A]: 26,594,272. 

Agency: Total; 
Total charge[A]: $1,038,122,706. 

Source: Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations. 

[A] The total charge includes building costs for each agency's 
personnel and ICASS employees that provide services to an agency, as 
well as rent offsets. For example, USAID's Capital Security Cost 
Sharing position total is $105,653,422, of which $10,737,155 is for 
ICASS contributions. However, a rent offset of $16,041,520 reduces 
USAID's total cost figure to $100,349,057. 

[End of table] 

Moreover, in order to mitigate the effects of ICASS fees coupled with 
agency budget cuts, some agency officials indicated that officials 
overseas are doing more administrative activities themselves, which 
takes time away from accomplishing their mission. In addition, agencies 
have sought other cost-effective ways of operating overseas, including 
hiring family members of staff, hiring local Americans, or utilizing 
locally employed staff (this final option has limitations, however). 
For example, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, utilizing locally 
employed staff over U.S. direct hires has resulted in considerable 
savings to the agency, and it estimates that the savings in relocation 
expenses, foreign housing, and other foreign entitlements, which direct 
hires receive but locally employed staff do not, would exceed $1 
million every 3-4 years. However, agency officials indicated that there 
are limitations to using locally employed staff at posts to carry out 
some duties due to national security concerns. For example, Department 
of the Treasury officials said that they are not able to utilize 
locally hired foreign nationals to carry out the work of U.S. direct 
hires due to the sensitive investigative nature of their work and 
privacy laws. In addition, officials in the Departments of Homeland 
Security and Justice indicated that, due to the sensitive nature of 
their work, they can only allow American citizens with a security 
clearance to perform most of their overseas duties. As an alternative 
to sending additional U.S. direct hires to posts, some agencies employ 
eligible family members of agency staff or hire U.S. citizens already 
living in the host country to carry out some of the agency functions. 
Department of Homeland Security officials explained that utilizing U.S. 
citizens living in the host country is much cheaper than sending a U.S. 
direct hire to a post because the department does not have to pay 
benefits such as housing, school costs, and other allowances to locally 
hired U.S. citizens. 

State Has Established an Office of Rightsizing, but More Interaction 
Needed between Office of Rightsizing and Agencies: 

In early 2004, State established the congressionally mandated Office of 
Rightsizing to primarily coordinate all agency staffing requests, 
administer rightsizing and staffing reviews, and work with State 
entities and other agencies on rightsizing. The basic mission of the 
office is to better coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment 
of U.S. government personnel overseas, under chief of mission 
authority. Since its formation, some of the activities of the office 
have included coordinating staffing requests of U.S. government 
agencies, developing guidance for and analyzing post rightsizing 
reviews, and formulating a rightsizing review plan. Non-State agencies 
have voiced a number of concerns related to interactions with the 
Office of Rightsizing, including their desire to be more involved in 
the rightsizing process. To better involve all agencies in rightsizing 
efforts and better understand their priorities, the Office of 
Rightsizing co-hosted an interagency summit in March 2006. 

Office of Rightsizing Established within State: 

In February 2004, the Office of Rightsizing was established within 
State. The roles and responsibilities of the office include 
coordinating all agency NSDD-38 requests; administering rightsizing and 
staffing reviews; and working with State entities and other agencies on 
rightsizing, regionalization, and shared service initiatives. The 
office started as a small operation with only a few staff; however, 
over the past 2 years it has grown in size. As of early May 2006, the 
office includes a director, three NSDD-38 analysts, and three 
rightsizing analysts. According to State officials, additional staffing 
is needed to handle the growing number of initiatives that the office 
is involved with. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us 
that he has requested two additional staff to work on analyzing 
rightsizing reviews and compiling rightsizing data, and hopes that the 
positions will be filled by summer 2006. 

Office of Rightsizing Is Involved in a Number of Initiatives: 

Since the Office of Rightsizing was established, it has initiated a 
number of processes and has been involved in a number of efforts. These 
efforts have included administering and analyzing post reviews, 
formulating a review plan, developing instructions for post Mission 
Performance Plans, automating the NSDD-38 application process, and 
issuing a number of quarterly reports summarizing State's rightsizing 
actions and accomplishments. In addition, the office has been involved 
with two State initiatives on rightsizing, which include demonstrating 
results achieved by moving administrative functions away from posts to 
remote locations; and eliminating duplicative functions at posts, also 
known as sharing support services. 

Rightsizing Reviews: 

One of the principal activities of the Office of Rightsizing has been 
administering and analyzing post rightsizing reviews. In 2005, the 
office established a formal review process and guidance for all posts 
overseas, including new embassy construction projects. The process 
focuses on linking staffing to mission goals, eliminating duplication, 
and promoting shared services. In fiscal year 2005, about 35 reports 
were submitted by posts and analyzed by the Office of Rightsizing. 
Figure 3 shows the missions that conducted a rightsizing review in 
fiscal year 2005, according to the office. All of these reports 
pertained to posts scheduled to have construction projects for a new 
embassy compound or office building in the near future.[Footnote 21] 
According to the Office of Rightsizing, the final reports that have 
been analyzed by the office have been or will be submitted to Congress 
as State seeks budget appropriations for these projects. In fiscal year 
2006, the office has tasked over 40 posts to conduct reviews--more than 
20 posts for both the fall and spring cycles. 

Figure 3: Missions Completing a Rightsizing Review in Fiscal Year 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Office of Rightsizing.  

[End of figure] 

Post Rightsizing Review Plan: 

The Office of Rightsizing has developed a 5-year plan, which includes 
the schedule of when missions will be asked to conduct reviews by 
fiscal year (see appendix IV). The plan is largely driven by State's 
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' building schedule, but also 
includes consideration of posts participating in State initiatives, 
missions of highest priority, and countries with multiple missions, 
according to an official in the Office of Rightsizing. For fiscal year 
2005, all of the reviews were conducted in anticipation of the post 
receiving a new embassy compound or building in the future. For reviews 
scheduled to be conducted in fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the yearly 
schedule dictates that posts with planned capital projects will 
generally perform their rightsizing reviews in the fall of the fiscal 
year, while those without planned projects will perform their reviews 
in the spring. Figure 4 provides additional information on the review 
cycle and steps. 

Figure 4: Rightsizing Review Cycle and Steps: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Rightsizing in Post Mission Performance Plans: 

The Office of Rightsizing has issued guidance to posts to include 
rightsizing statements in their Mission Performance Plans, starting 
with the fiscal year 2007 submission.[Footnote 22] The guidance states 
that the plans must include a brief discussion of the rightsizing 
reviews or other rightsizing initiatives undertaken by the mission and 
should summarize the results, resource implications, and actions taken 
to implement review recommendations. However, we reviewed nine Mission 
Performance Plans for fiscal year 2007 and found that only one post had 
included discussion of any rightsizing elements that the post had 
undertaken. Officials in the Office of Rightsizing indicated that 
initially there had not been a serious effort to push for posts to 
provide analysis on rightsizing in their fiscal year 2007 Mission 
Performance Plans and, as a result, not all posts have done so. 
However, they said that there has been more emphasis by the office to 
have posts include rightsizing discussions in their 2008 plans. In May 
2006, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing reported that his 
office is participating in the reviews of the recent Mission 
Performance Plans submitted by posts. 

NSDD-38 Application Process: 

The Office of Rightsizing has been working with agencies and 
coordinating with Chiefs of Mission at posts on NSDD-38 requests, 
particularly those related to new programs. These requests are 
submitted to the Chief of Mission for approval of any proposed changes 
in agencies' staffing elements at the post. Officials in the office 
said that they act in an advisory capacity between the agencies that 
are looking to establish or increase personnel at a post and the Chief 
of Mission to determine if the function needs to be performed overseas. 
However, they told us that it is ultimately the Chief of Mission's 
decision to accept or deny an agency's request to send personnel to 
post. In fall 2005, the Office of Rightsizing implemented a NSDD-38 Web-
enabled application so that agencies can now submit their overseas 
staffing requests via the Internet. According to an Office of 
Rightsizing document, since the application process is now standardized 
online--which ensures that agency NSDD-38 submissions are correct and 
complete--Chiefs of Mission at posts can now immediately consider the 
submissions. 

Quarterly Rightsizing Reports: 

Since spring 2005, the Office of Rightsizing has published three 
quarterly reports that highlight State's overall rightsizing efforts 
and performance, as well as summarize the accomplishments and 
publications of the office.[Footnote 23] The quarterly reports have 
also included copies of State cables sent to posts pertaining to 
rightsizing related issues, the Office of Management and Budget's 
President's Management Agenda rightsizing score card and summary, as 
well as the guidance and sample report that the Office of Rightsizing 
has sent to posts.[Footnote 24] The Director of the Office of 
Rightsizing stated that the quarterly reports are intended to provide 
both State bureaus and non-State agencies with an understanding of 
rightsizing measures and processes. 

State Regionalization Efforts: 

The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State's efforts to 
ensure that those administrative functions that do not need to be 
conducted at posts are carried out from remote locations. According to 
State officials, potential advantages to providing support to posts 
from remote locations include potential cost savings, enhanced security 
for American personnel, and improved quality of administrative support. 
State currently provides remote support to many agencies at posts, 
primarily in the areas of financial management and human resources, 
from two dedicated regional service centers--the Florida Regional 
Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the Regional Support Center in 
Frankfurt, Germany. In addition, State also provides remote support of 
some administrative functions through partnering arrangements whereby 
one post with the personnel and expertise in certain administrative 
function assists a smaller post. In order to further expand remote 
support, State's fiscal year 2006 operational plan, Organizing for 
Transformational Diplomacy: Rightsizing and Regionalization, identifies 
additional post functions that can be performed remotely to minimize 
the U.S. overseas footprint and reduce costs.[Footnote 25] The plan 
focuses on first removing non-location- specific functions--or 
functions that could potentially be removed from posts and carried out 
either from the United States or a regional center--from critical 
danger missions,[Footnote 26] where State officials said it is crucial 
to have as few personnel at posts as possible due to security concerns. 
The plan envisions eventually removing those functions from all 
overseas posts. We provide a more detailed discussion on State's 
efforts and challenges to provide support remotely in a separate 
report.[Footnote 27] 

State/USAID Shared Support Services: 

The Office of Rightsizing is also involved with State's efforts to 
increase efficiencies in overseas administrative functions by 
identifying and eliminating duplicative management support functions 
among agencies, as well as overlapping or redundant program functions. 
Although increasing efficiencies by streamlining functions applies to 
all overseas agencies, State has been working primarily with USAID to 
reduce the duplication of overseas support services. In 2004, State, 
along with USAID, launched pilot programs aimed at consolidating 
support functions such as motor pool, warehousing, residential 
maintenance, and leasing services at posts in Jakarta, Indonesia; Phnom 
Penh, Cambodia; Cairo, Egypt; and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The focus of 
the pilot programs was to determine how State and USAID could best 
collaborate to realize significant savings and improved service 
quality. However, only one of the pilot posts succeeded in 
consolidating all four support functions. According to State, the 
pilots have established that significant operational efficiencies and 
some cost savings can be realized through the consolidation of 
duplicative services. Since the pilots at the four posts, State and 
USAID have identified additional consolidation opportunities. We will 
provide a more detailed discussion and evaluation of State and USAID's 
consolidation efforts in a report that will be coming out later this 
year. 

Agencies Cite Limited Interaction with Office of Rightsizing; More 
Coordination Under Way: 

One of the responsibilities of the Office of Rightsizing is to 
coordinate and manage interagency rightsizing initiatives. However, 
during our discussions with non-State agencies in late 2005 and early 
2006, a number of agencies with an overseas presence told us that they 
had limited interaction with State's Office of Rightsizing on matters 
aside from NSDD-38 requests. Furthermore, some non-State agency 
officials told us that they were not aware of the rightsizing mandate 
or guidance provided to posts by the Office of Rightsizing. According 
to the Director of the Office of Rightsizing, his office has made an 
effort over the last couple of months to visit or talk with many of the 
agencies with an overseas presence. However, we found that, in some 
cases, the pertinent offices were not reached. For example, officials 
in Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services told us that State entities tend to coordinate through one 
office and do not reach the various entities within the department. 
Both U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Customs and Border 
Protection officials indicated that they would like to be included in 
any discussions that State, in particular the Office of Rightsizing, 
has with the Department of Homeland Security, and suggested that State 
designate a focal point within each Department of Homeland Security 
office with an overseas presence. The Office of Rightsizing indicated 
that the Department of Homeland Security requested that it coordinate 
through the department's Office of International Affairs. It is 
important that agency components are receiving the necessary 
information to ensure that rightsizing efforts are understood. The 
Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Rightsizing share 
responsibility for developing a mechanism to get this done. 

Furthermore, during our discussions with agency officials in late 2005 
and early 2006, non-State agencies indicated that they would like more 
transparency in the rightsizing review process. For example, some 
agencies told us that they would like to know the outcomes of the 
reviews at each post and know ahead of time when posts will be 
conducting reviews. Moreover, some agency officials stated that they 
are looking for an overall U.S. government strategy or vision from the 
Office of Rightsizing so that, as they move ahead on their own 
rightsizing planning and efforts, they will be in line with what the 
Office of Rightsizing is planning. Finally, some non-State agency 
officials indicated that, in order to be able to contribute to the 
process, they would like to see more clearly stated standards and 
unified processes that relate to rightsizing at posts. For example, 
officials said that they would like to understand how posts determine 
the number of staffing positions available at any given time and would 
like to ensure that the requests for information coming from 
Washington, D.C., to posts are more consistent. 

State Holds Rightsizing Interagency Summit: 

In order to address rightsizing in context with non-State agencies' 
agendas and priorities, the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of 
Management and Budget co-hosted an interagency summit in early March 
2006. According to the Office of Rightsizing, participants included 
representatives from a number of foreign affairs and non-foreign- 
affairs agencies; discussions focused on key initiatives coordinated 
and managed by State, such as consolidation of duplicative functions, 
rightsizing reviews, the NSDD-38 process, and State regionalization 
efforts. 

While some officials from State's regional bureaus feel that having an 
interagency conference is a good start at getting all agencies involved 
with rightsizing, they believe that additional interagency dialogue is 
needed. In addition, some non-State agency officials told us that the 
interagency summit did not provide them with a sense of a strategy for 
how they should move forward with their own rightsizing plan to make 
sure that it does not conflict with State's rightsizing efforts. 
Moreover, in the course of our structured interviews, 7 out of 20 
management officers identified the need for interagency involvement and 
agency "buy-in" at the Washington, D.C., and post level to ensure that 
rightsizing can move ahead at each post. For example, one management 
officer with whom we spoke said that he would like to see a firm, 
written commitment from other agency headquarters, other than State, 
that consolidation of services is in the best interest of every agency 
and is expected of posts overseas. One post noted in its rightsizing 
report that the success of posts' rightsizing studies is closely linked 
to interagency efforts to agree on initiatives to maximize efficiency 
at posts. In addition, another management officer with whom we spoke 
said that it would be helpful to have interagency guidance on what to 
do when eliminating duplicative services results in overall savings to 
the U.S. government, but increased costs to an agency, at the post 
level. 

Some non-State agency officials said that it would be beneficial to 
have more frequent interagency meetings or summits, rather than just 
once a year. For example, a USAID official said that having an 
interagency summit before each rightsizing review cycle starts--one in 
the fall and another in the spring--could help inform non-State 
agencies of rightsizing changes and activities at posts that effect 
their agency overseas. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told 
us that, while there are no immediate plans to hold more frequent 
interagency summits involving all agencies with an overseas presence, 
he plans to continue holding a rightsizing summit annually. The Office 
of Rightsizing also reported that it plans to implement a Washington, 
D.C.-based forum whereby officials from foreign affairs agencies, such 
as the Department of Commerce, USAID, and the Department of 
Agriculture, can meet regularly to share information on programs and 
ensure that there is a greater consistency in the information coming 
from headquarters. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us 
that the office could be doing more with other non-State agencies to 
address rightsizing issues at posts, particularly on the issue of 
consolidation of functions, but would first like to address issues 
raised as part of the joint State-USAID shared services efforts. 

Office of Rightsizing Initiates Rightsizing Reviews, but Reviews Have 
Not Realized Full Potential: 

Post rightsizing reviews are a key element of State's rightsizing 
efforts. These reviews are designed to link post staffing to the 
mission's goals, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and encourage 
shared services between agencies at posts. Our analysis of the first 
round of the reviews showed that there was limited guidance to posts 
and that there was not a systematic process for how the posts 
structured their reviews, though State improved its guidance for the 
second round of reviews. In reviewing the first and second rightsizing 
cycles, the Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million dollars of 
cost savings or avoidance based on the result of their analysis of the 
reviews. Posts used a variety of methods to conduct their rightsizing 
reviews. Some management officers with whom we spoke identified various 
challenges in conducting their fall 2005 reviews and ensuring that 
their post is rightsized. Additionally, the Office of Rightsizing did 
not consider the need for posts to conduct a cost analysis as part of 
their reviews. It is unclear how the rightsizing review decisions, such 
as elimination of duplicative functions, will be implemented at each 
post, according to officials at post and in State's regional bureaus. 

Rightsizing Review Structure and Guidance Have Evolved: 

In October 2004, the Office of Rightsizing began instructing overseas 
missions scheduled to receive a new embassy compound to perform 
rightsizing reviews. The reviews are intended to eliminate or justify 
any duplicative or parallel functions at posts and consider the 
possibility for reducing U.S. government employees at posts through 
such means as remote services, more utilization of locally employed 
staff, and outsourcing. Between late 2004 and summer 2005, about 35 
posts participated in the first cycle of reviews, and the office 
conducted formal analyses of the posts' reviews in late 2004 and early 
2005. The Office of Rightsizing reported over $50 million in costs 
saved or avoided to the U.S. government based on its analysis of the 
first cycle of reviews. Based on the analysis that the Office of 
Rightsizing conducted of post reviews representing eight new embassy 
compounds, the average reduction in desk positions for each project was 
18, which resulted in 145 desk reductions overall.[Footnote 28] The 
office identified many of the removed desk positions in cooperation 
with posts and regional bureaus. According to the Office of 
Rightsizing, these desks represent significant partially or fully 
avoided costs. Of the 145 reduced positions, 50 were U.S. direct hires. 
Assuming an average saving of $400,000 per year for each position, the 
office estimated that these 50 positions represent as much as $20 
million in potential costs avoided.[Footnote 29] Furthermore, the 
office stated that the desk positions removed represented approximately 
an additional $20 million in savings to the Bureau of Overseas 
Buildings Operations in capital security construction costs, as well as 
approximately $18 million in savings due to not needing to build 
separate annexes in three cases. The actual cost avoidance achieved 
will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be avoided and whether 
recommended staff reductions are implemented. 

However, based on our analysis of 20 out of about 35 rightsizing 
reviews that were part of the spring 2005 review cycle, we observed 
that there was not a systematic approach for how the posts structured 
their reports or how the Office of Rightsizing evaluated them. For 
example, the information presented within the reports varied from post 
to post, and the rightsizing elements that the posts evaluated and 
reported were not consistent. Some posts provided narratives discussing 
various rightsizing elements, such as outsourcing and post security, 
while other posts did not. Furthermore, we found that none of the posts 
showed that they had conducted a cost analysis as part of the post's 
rightsizing efforts. In addition, we found that the Office of 
Rightsizing did not have a systematic process to quantify costs saved 
or avoided as a result of post staffing reductions stemming from 
reviews in the spring 2005 cycle. The Director of the Office of 
Rightsizing agreed that the office needs to implement a systematic 
process of collecting data and determining cost savings and cost 
avoidance for future rightsizing cycles, and has asked the rightsizing 
analysts in the office to document the positions that are eliminated or 
costs saved due to posts taking rightsizing measures into 
consideration. Finally, we also found that, although the goal of the 
President's Management Agenda and the Office of Rightsizing is to limit 
the overseas presence to the minimum level necessary to accomplish the 
U.S. government's mission, overseas staffing is increasing. Our 
analysis of the 20 reviews from the spring 2005 cycle revealed that net 
staffing numbers will increase for 15 posts. Increased levels in 
staffing abroad can be attributed to high-priority national security 
interests, such as the global war on terror, anti-narcotics efforts, 
and HIV/AIDS projects, which have implications on U.S. staffing and 
space at posts abroad, according to the Office of Rightsizing as well 
as post management officers. 

The Director of the Office of Rightsizing agreed that the first round 
of reviews was not conducted systematically, and said that the process 
and format has evolved since the initial guidance was provided to posts 
for the spring 2005 cycle. In particular, based on feedback from posts 
that participated in the spring 2005 review cycle, the Office of 
Rightsizing changed the guidance to be more systematic for the fall 
2005 cycle. All management officers that we interviewed at 20 posts 
which had conducted a review as part of the second cycle in fall 2005 
stated that the guidance was either very useful or moderately useful, 
and several commented that the guidance was clear, succinct, and easy 
to discern. Table 3 below specifies the elements that the fall 2005 
cycle posts were asked to address when completing their reviews. 

Table 3: Summary of Required Sections of Post Rightsizing Reviews, 
September 2005: 

Section: Mission goals and objectives; Description: For each mission 
goal, identify the resources currently supporting that goal, and 
analyze the post's specific achievements in meeting the objectives. 

Section: Duplicative activities; 
Description: Assess areas of duplication, activities which are no 
longer required or may require adjustment of resource levels, and 
identify activities which require increased resources to achieve their 
objectives. 

Section: Alternate sourcing[A]; 
Description: Identify all services which are currently outsourced 
including services that are contracted by the embassy, such as local 
guard services, vehicle maintenance, janitor services, gardening 
services, etc. 

Section: Regionalized services; 
Description: Identify all activities that are performed by regional or 
U.S. based government personnel such as financial management and human 
resources services. 

Section: Substitution of locally employed staff for U.S. direct-hire 
positions; 
Description: Identify U.S. direct-hire positions for which locally 
employed staff may be substituted. 

Section: Current and projected staffing; 
Description: Complete the summary staffing table, including all 
sections and/or agencies, showing current staffing levels, projected 
staffing levels, and the net change. 

Section: Long range overseas buildings plan staffing projections[B]; 
Description: For posts receiving a new embassy compound, complete the 
Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan spreadsheet, which should include a 
count of all projected staff, American and locally employed staff, desk 
and non-desk, controlled access areas and non-controlled access areas. 
For posts not receiving a new embassy compound, use the Capital 
Security Cost Sharing spreadsheet and add or reduce positions 
accordingly. 

Section: ICASS service matrix; 
Description: Complete the ICASS service matrix which should clearly 
show which services are provided to which agencies, and which are not. 

Source: Office of Rightsizing. 

[A] In subsequent rightsizing cycles, "alternative sourcing" has been 
replaced by "competitive sourcing," which is a methodical way of 
evaluating whether commercial services should be performed using 
government employees or contractors. 

[B] The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations has reorganized and 
developed a planning tool, called the Long Range Overseas Buildings 
Plan, to annually publish a 6-year plan that lays out projects, 
priorities, and costs for the upcoming year. 

[End of table] 

Seventeen of the twenty management officials with whom we spoke who 
conducted a rightsizing review in fall 2005 said that the review helped 
them better understand how post personnel meet mission objectives. When 
asked whether they had additional comments, several management officers 
stated that they found the review at their post to be a useful 
exercise. For example, a management officer posted in Eurasia stated 
that the review was an interesting and useful process, which helped the 
post focus on parts of the Mission Performance Plan that they would 
otherwise not have concentrated their efforts on. The Office of 
Rightsizing reported over $100 million in costs saved or avoided to the 
U.S. government based on their analysis of the fall 2005 cycle of 
reviews. The estimate was based on an analysis that the Office of 
Rightsizing conducted of post reviews representing 21 missions. 
According to the office, its rightsizing efforts for the fall 2005 
cycle will result in a potential reduction of 683 total desk spaces in 
new embassy compounds, of which 170 are U.S. direct hires. The Office 
of Rightsizing estimated that each eliminated U.S. direct-hire position 
would result in a cost avoidance of about $400,000. The actual cost 
avoidance achieved will depend upon whether offsetting costs can be 
avoided and whether recommended staff reductions are implemented. In 
addition, the Office of Rightsizing reported that the rightsizing 
actions for the fall 2005 cycle have resulted in approximately $90 
million in savings to the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in 
capital security construction costs, which includes cost saved by not 
needing to build four annexes. Although we have not been able to 
independently assess the Office of Rightsizing's estimates, it has 
presented evidence that some major cost avoidance and cost savings have 
occurred. Figure 5 illustrates the posts from the fall 2005 review 
cycle where we interviewed officials as part of our analysis. 

Figure 5: Fall 2005 Cycle Posts GAO Interviewed: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Approach to Conducting Rightsizing Reviews Varies by Post: 

Posts used a variety of means to conduct their reviews. The approach 
used by 19 of the 20 posts (all of which were included in the fall 2005 
review cycle where we interviewed officials) incorporated the 
participation of the post management officer, Deputy Chief of Mission, 
or both. The Office of Rightsizing suggested that posts, in conducting 
rightsizing reviews, use the ICASS Council, working groups, or any ad 
hoc arrangement as a vehicle for discussion and formulation of the 
report and corresponding data. In addition, the Office of Rightsizing 
instructed posts to include all State and non-State agencies, 
constituent posts, and embassy offices in the posts' rightsizing 
analyses. However, posts took diverse approaches to carrying out their 
reviews. Some posts conducted their reviews using rightsizing 
committees, and others directed their review to existing goal oriented 
discussion groups such as those that created the post's Mission 
Performance Plan. 

The Office of Rightsizing also offered posts the opportunity to 
participate in digital video conferences to answer any questions that 
they had about the review. However, officials at 13 of the 20 posts 
mentioned above stated that they did not participate in a video 
conference with the office. Management officers said that their posts 
did not participate because, among other reasons, they did not find it 
necessary; other posts did not have the technological capabilities to 
participate. Moreover, several posts did not participate in a digital 
video conference because officials did not think that the Office of 
Rightsizing required it. Nonetheless, the Director of the Office of 
Rightsizing stated that he found that those posts that took advantage 
of this option had more success with their rightsizing reviews; thus, 
starting with the spring 2006 cycle, the office will require that every 
post participate in a conference. He also stated that he hopes other 
non-State agencies will participate in video conferences as posts 
conduct their rightsizing reviews. Moreover, State, as well as the 
Office of Management and Budget, expects all agencies at each post to 
understand that rightsizing is government-wide and not just a State- 
oriented process. In the course of our structured interviews, 7 out of 
20 management officers identified the need for interagency involvement, 
including agency "buy-in" to ensure that rightsizing can move ahead at 
each post. For example, a management officer in Europe stated that it 
would be very helpful if there was a one-page summary that non-State 
agency officials at each post received from their headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., that describes what they need to do as part of the 
rightsizing review. However, we found that the Office of Rightsizing 
provided posts with very little guidance on interagency participation. 

The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated that he also 
encourages posts to utilize the resources and knowledge within the 
office and recommends that posts, as they conduct the review, share 
sections of it with the office for feedback. The posts participating in 
the fall 2005 cycle generally took this approach, as 13 of 20 posts 
reported that they shared sections of their report with the office 
during the review process. The Office of Rightsizing also indicated 
that this approach may lead to more expeditious approval of reviews and 
that they will therefore strongly recommend that posts participating in 
the spring 2006 rightsizing cycle share sections of their report prior 
to final submission. Additionally, 15 management officers we 
interviewed stated that sharing best practices with other posts through 
online forums or receiving a visit from an expert to help guide the 
post through the rightsizing review process would be very useful for 
enhancing the rightsizing review process. 

Posts Identified Challenges in Conducting Rightsizing Reviews: 

A number of management officers identified various challenges in 
conducting the reviews at their post, including resistance by non-State 
agencies at posts to address rightsizing measures. Another challenge 
mentioned was a lack of direction and opportunities for regionalization 
and outsourcing of services. In addition, overlapping data requests 
from agencies' headquarters, as well as redundant personnel databases, 
complicated the review process. 

Resistance by Non-State Agencies at Posts: 

Several posts that conducted a fall 2005 rightsizing review stated that 
they encountered resistance from non-State agencies when trying to 
obtain interagency involvement during the process. Specifically, four 
post management officers stated that other agencies were not receptive 
to the request to conduct a rightsizing review. According to a 
management officer posted in Europe, non-State agencies at the post did 
not want to share information on future staffing numbers for the 
review. The management officer added that there was a lack of 
recognition by agencies that rightsizing was not just a State 
initiative, but a government-wide initiative. Moreover, some management 
officers explained that they had difficulties in getting agencies to 
buy into the rightsizing review process and faced interagency 
resistance regarding the consolidation of post services. Consolidation 
of services proved to be a common challenge at posts, as 14 of the 20 
management officers we interviewed identified duplication of post 
services or programs, such as motor pool and cashiering, as a result of 
the rightsizing review. Although these posts have identified 
duplicative services or programs, 10 of 20 management officers stated 
that the post has not taken action on consolidating the services and 
programs. According to management officers, common reasons why some 
posts have not yet consolidated these duplicative functions is because 
they are waiting to merge their functions once they move into their new 
embassy compound or because the agencies at the post could not come to 
an agreement about consolidation. For example, a management officer 
posted in Africa stated that USAID headquarters provided its staff at 
the post with conflicting instructions about retaining duplicative 
administrative support services, which countered the ongoing efforts to 
eliminate duplicative services at the post. 

Posts Lack Direction and Opportunities for the Regionalization and 
Outsourcing of Services: 

Several posts that participated in the spring and fall 2005 cycle of 
reviews stated that they lacked direction and opportunities for the 
regionalization and outsourcing of services. The guidance for the 
rightsizing review requested posts to consider regionalization options. 
However, while 18 of 20 posts we interviewed stated that they rely on 
regional support services to meet posts' needs, a few management 
officers indicated that they found it difficult to consider all 
regionalization options without having a base understanding of what 
regional services are available. For example, management officers 
posted in Asia and Africa stated that they lack information on what 
types of regional support could be provided remotely and how to access 
that support. Another management officer in Eurasia stated that posts 
should be provided a baseline listing of services so that post 
officials have a good sense of which services are available regionally. 

Though posts were instructed to assess outsourcing possibilities within 
their reviews, several posts that participated in the spring 2005 cycle 
of rightsizing reviews reported that outsourcing of services is not a 
good alternative due to the lack of choice, quality, and sophistication 
in the marketplace. Another management officer posted in Asia, whose 
post participated in the fall 2005 cycle of reviews, stated that 
outsourcing is a concept that the post is not accustomed to using and 
that the rightsizing review led them to examine which post functions 
can be outsourced. To ascertain current outsourced functions at posts, 
State's Office of Global Support Services and Innovation administered 
an outsourcing survey to which 119 posts responded. According to the 
survey results, the services most likely to be outsourced were copier 
maintenance as well as packing and shipping, while those services least 
likely to be outsourced were procurement, property management, and 
phone billing. Officials at the Office of Global Support Services and 
Innovation stated that the results of the survey will serve as the 
Office of Rightsizing's baseline for outsourcing. 

Rightsizing Reviews Overlap with Additional State Data Requests: 

All of the management officers we interviewed stated that, within the 
last 2 years, they have received other requests or reviews from agency 
headquarters seeking information similar to that requested for the 
rightsizing review. Ten of twenty management officers we interviewed 
identified the Mission Performance Plan as another headquarters request 
for information similar to that of the rightsizing review, and several 
of these posts indicated that there was a high degree of overlap 
between these two data requests. Moreover, more than half of the 
management officers indicated that there was a high or moderate degree 
of overlap between the rightsizing review and other requests from the 
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, such as the Capital Security 
Cost Sharing Program and the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan data 
requests. 

As explained by several posts, it was difficult to complete and keep 
track of all of these overlapping data requests given the limited 
resources at each post. For example, a management officer at a post in 
Africa stated that it took approximately 3 months to complete the 
Capital Security Cost Sharing request and approximately 2 months to 
complete the Mission Performance Plan, with both requests requiring 
interagency staff collaboration. The officer added that the post did 
not have time to focus on all of the requests tasked to the post. 
Another management officer in Africa stated that the post would have 
liked to have one database that was responsive to the needs of all the 
requests from headquarters. In addition, 5 of the 20 posts that we 
interviewed stated that it would be beneficial to streamline the 
rightsizing review by including it with other data and information 
requests,and, moreover, several management officers stated that the 
rightsizing review should draw from information that currently exists 
in databases that are centrally located in Washington, D.C. 

The Office of Rightsizing has recognized the need for a single database 
and told us that State has been working on developing an integrated 
Post Personnel database. According to State officials, this database is 
expected to populate all other databases currently maintained by 
overseas posts to ensure all databases contain the same information. 
Furthermore, Office of Rightsizing officials stated that--once there is 
one authoritative database for all staffing data--they will no longer 
rely on multiple databases and, therefore, will not have to spend as 
much time verifying overseas staffing numbers projected in rightsizing 
reviews. 

Cost Analysis Was Not a Primary Factor in Rightsizing Reviews: 

The Office of Rightsizing did not consider the need for posts to 
conduct cost analyses as an essential supplement to the spring 2005 and 
fall 2005 reviews. The Director of the Office of Rightsizing stated 
that he did not want the post reviews to become a cost cutting 
exercise, but rather to focus more on identifying the needed resources 
to meet the posts' mission and goals and justify current and projected 
staffing compositions. Moreover, he stated that actual cost savings at 
the post level would be hard to determine and that sometimes 
rightsizing requires an increase in staff. 

The guidance for the spring 2005 and fall 2005 rightsizing reviews did 
not require posts to evaluate costs or perform cost analyses for the 
review process. While none of the 20 post reports we reviewed for the 
spring 2005 cycle illustrated within their rightsizing report the 
results of a cost analysis in association with rightsizing efforts at 
posts, 11 of 20 posts for the fall 2005 cycle told us that they 
conducted some or limited cost analyses for various post staffing 
scenarios, such as the outsourcing of services and substitution of 
locally engaged staff for U.S. direct-hire positions. In addition, one 
management officer stated that the post conducted an analysis to 
determine which service provider at the post would be more cost 
effective. However, a management officer stated that it was difficult 
to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost effectiveness of 
service providers because the post did not have comparable data for 
each provider. Moreover, another management officer in Asia stated that 
the post's cost analysis was not comprehensive because post staff did 
not have the necessary expertise to conduct such an analysis. Moreover, 
a management officer added that the post would need more guidance if it 
were to conduct a formal cost analysis with accurate cost data. 

With the upcoming cycles of reviews, the Office of Rightsizing is 
increasingly emphasizing the need to consider costs associated with 
rightsizing. For example, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing 
directed that additional analyses should be undertaken by posts to 
determine the overall cost impact to the U.S. government and all 
customer agencies before actual consolidation of shared administrative 
support services can occur. This analysis should also assess whether 
the formation of the single service provider will, over time, be a more 
viable and effective option for the U.S. government. The Office of 
Rightsizing has not yet provided formal guidance to posts on how to 
conduct an analysis to determine the most cost effective service 
provider, but it is continually developing its guidance for posts, and 
in particular, has developed guidance for a rightsizing competitive 
sourcing business case analysis, which is being incorporated into the 
spring 2006 cycle of reviews.[Footnote 30] Subsequently, all posts will 
be required to complete this cost module as part of their rightsizing 
reviews, according to the Office of Rightsizing. 

Implementation of Rightsizing Review Results Unclear: 

Some management officials we interviewed, as well as officials in 
State's regional bureaus, were unclear about the outcomes of the 
reviews. Although the reviews are intended to eliminate or justify any 
duplicative or parallel functions at posts and consider the possibility 
for reducing U.S. government employees at each post, some executive 
directors in State's regional bureaus pointed out that there is no 
implementation plan with timelines to track rightsizing-related changes 
that have been identified. Most executive directors in regional bureaus 
believe that it should be the Office of Rightsizing's responsibility to 
follow-up with posts to ensure resources have been consolidated in line 
with rightsized staffing levels, while one executive director in a 
regional bureau believes that it should be both the Office of 
Rightsizing as well as the bureau's own responsibility. 

The Office of Rightsizing stated that it has informed posts what their 
staffing configurations should be as a result of their reviews and that 
it is the post's responsibility to carry out corresponding staffing 
changes. Furthermore, the office has asked posts to include the 
distribution of services and schedules of when consolidation will occur 
within their Mission Performance Plans. The office also expects posts 
to establish reduction in force plans, which, according to the Office 
of Rightsizing, should consider attrition, retirement, and vacant 
positions. Moreover, Office of Rightsizing officials stated that they 
are planning to send a yearly cable to posts that have already 
completed rightsizing reviews to remind them of the need to meet agreed-
upon staffing levels and to ensure that rightsizing action has been 
taken before the post moves into a new embassy compound. In early May 
2006, the Director of the Office of Rightsizing told us that, in lieu 
of sending a cable, his office will be tasking posts that conducted 
reviews in the spring and fall 2005 cycles to develop a rightsizing 
action plan leading up to the completion of their new embassy compound. 
However, as of May 9, 2006, the office has not sent an action plan 
tasking to posts. 

As the Office of Rightsizing expects posts to develop their own 
rightsizing implementation plan, some posts may not adhere to the 
staffing figures agreed upon within their reviews. Specifically, some 
management officers we interviewed stated that their posts are waiting 
to move into a new embassy compound before taking any action to 
configure their post staffing numbers. For example, a management 
officer posted in Asia stated that the post's plan to configure the 
staffing numbers as reflected in the rightsizing review is not 
connected to any immediate time frame, but rather will happen when the 
post moves into the new embassy compound. Another management officer 
stated that, because the construction of the post's new embassy 
compound has been postponed, and because agencies at the post have not 
agreed to the staffing changes made by the Office of Rightsizing, no 
immediate post staffing changes are being contemplated. In addition to 
a lack of an implementation plan for those posts receiving a new 
embassy compound, it is also unclear what approach or incentives the 
Office of Rightsizing will use to enforce implementation of rightsizing 
measures for those posts not scheduled to receive a new embassy 
compound. According to an official in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 
Operations, it is important for posts to have an implementation plan of 
how they will reconfigure their staffing, particularly for those posts 
that will be moving into a new embassy compound, because the new 
embassy or consulate will be built based on the staffing numbers 
approved by the Office of Rightsizing for that post. 

Conclusion: 

Progress has been made in implementing the President's Management 
Agenda initiative to rightsize the U.S. government's overseas presence 
at embassies and consulates. Agencies are generally adjusting their 
presence based on mission, security, and cost factors. State is seeking 
ways to reduce support staff overseas and overseas posts are conducting 
rightsizing reviews required by legislation. Moreover, after a slow 
start, State's Office of Rightsizing is beginning to achieve momentum 
in coordinating government-wide rightsizing efforts. However, more 
needs to be done. Of foremost importance is the need to develop 
accurate staffing data with which to measure staffing trends and the 
effects of rightsizing activities. We recognize that efforts are 
currently under way to develop accurate data; however because of the 
importance of having accurate data on overseas staffing and the length 
of time it has taken to develop this data, management oversight may be 
needed to ensure completion of this task. State's Office of Rightsizing 
also needs to aggressively reach out to agencies at the headquarters 
level, and to overseas posts, to ensure that the positive initiatives 
under way are implemented effectively. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that the U.S. government's overseas presence under chief of 
mission authority is accurately accounted for and to ensure that the 
U.S. government's rightsizing goals are being coordinated and that 
posts can maximize savings and gain efficiencies through rightsizing, 
we recommend that the Secretary of State take the following three 
actions: 

* Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a 
single database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel 
staffing numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and 
agencies to keep the database accurate and up to date; 

* Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all 
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share 
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous 
basis; and: 

* Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the 
agreed upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include 
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and 
eliminating duplicative functions. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to State for comment. State's 
comments, along with our responses to them, can be found in appendix V. 
State indicated that it has either recently implemented or is taking 
steps to implement all of our recommendations. 

We received technical comments from State, the Departments of Homeland 
Security, the Treasury, Defense, and Justice and USAID, which we have 
incorporated throughout the report, where appropriate. In addition, the 
Department of Justice stated that it endorses our recommendation that 
State continue to expand its outreach to agencies and departments with 
an overseas presence to enhance discussion and information sharing on 
rightsizing initiatives. Furthermore, the Department of the Treasury 
stated that it would be helpful if agencies with personnel at posts 
developing rightsizing action plans have the opportunity for their 
personnel to participate in the rightsizing reviews and the development 
of the action plans. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to other interested members of Congress, the Library of 
Congress, and the Secretary of State. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. Other GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by:  

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To ascertain the size of the U.S. government's overseas presence we 
spoke with officials in State Department's (State) Office of 
Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence (Office of 
Rightsizing) and the Executive Director of State's Bureau of Human 
Resources; we also discussed the limitations that State faces in 
portraying an accurate number for the overseas presence. In addition, 
we spoke with an official in the Office of Management and Budget to 
determine the methodology used to report the size and cost of the 
overseas presence. To determine the U.S. government's efforts to 
rightsize its overseas presence we spoke with officials at a number of 
agencies in Washington, D.C., that have a presence at overseas posts. 
We spoke with officials from the the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice; as 
well as officials from the General Services Administration and the U.S. 
Agency for International Development. In addition, we reviewed staffing 
documents from numerous agencies, reports by State's Office of 
Inspector General, and rightsizing documents from State's Office of 
Rightsizing. We did not conduct a comprehensive review of each 
agencies' rightsizing efforts. 

We spoke with officials in the Office of Rightsizing about the 
rightsizing process and reviewed rightsizing guidance and related 
documentation. We reviewed and analyzed nine Mission Performance Plans 
for fiscal year 2007, which we were able to obtain from State, to 
determine whether rightsizing considerations were reported in the 
plans. We also spoke with officials in each State regional bureau-- 
Western Hemisphere Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, African 
Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and 
South and Central Asian Affairs--to gauge their involvement with post 
rightsizing reviews and their interaction with the Office of 
Rightsizing. In addition, we spoke with officials in State's Office of 
Global Support Services and Innovation about State's initiatives on 
regionalization and shared services. To determine costs saved or 
avoided as a result of rightsizing exercises, we reviewed cost data 
from State's Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings 
Operations. To assess the reliability of State's data, we interviewed 
officials in the Office of Rightsizing and the Bureau of Overseas 
Buildings Operations to ascertain how the data were captured and 
analyzed and whether there were any limitations to the data. We 
determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 
review. 

To determine if there was a systematic process for reporting 
information in the first cycle of reviews, we reviewed and analyzed 20 
out of about 35 rightsizing reviews that were conducted by posts from 
late 2004 through summer 2005. The Office of Rightsizing provided us 
with over 20 reviews for our analysis. However, we analyzed only those 
reviews for which we had received both the post rightsizing review as 
well as the corresponding analysis of the review conducted by the 
Office of Rightsizing. Between February 2006 and March 2006 we 
administered 20 structured interviews regarding post rightsizing review 
experiences. The interviews were conducted by telephone primarily with 
management counselors or officers at embassies. In one case we spoke 
with the Deputy Chief of Mission at the post. The interviews involved 
20 of the 22 posts that were part of the fall 2005 cycle and which had 
completed their rightsizing reviews by the time we talked to the post. 
The posts were located in: Asuncion, Baku, Bandar Seri Begawan, 
Bucharest, Bujumbura, Colombo, Harare, Jakarta, Islamabad, Kiev, 
Warsaw, Maputo, N'djamena, Pretoria, Reykjavik, Rome, Santo Domingo, 
Moscow, Taipei, and Tunis. We did not conduct interviews with two 
posts--Monrovia and Ankara--because these posts did not follow through 
with our request for interviews. 

The structured interview contained open-and closed-ended questions 
about guidance, timing, the review process, rightsizing considerations, 
headquarters' involvement and feedback, and the impact of the review on 
the post. We developed the interview questions based on our review of 
rightsizing documentation and discussions with post officials during 
our fieldwork in Mexico City and Valletta. We provided an early version 
of the questions to the Office of Rightsizing and the Office of Global 
Support Services and Innovation for their review and comment, and we 
also pretested the interview with three current management officers to 
ensure that the questions were clear and could be answered. We modified 
the interview questions on the basis of the pretest results and an 
internal expert's technical review. We provided the management officers 
and Deputy Chief of Mission with the interview questions in advance to 
allow them time to gather any data or information necessary for the 
interview. We initiated follow-up discussions with 13 posts by 
telephone. We subsequently sent posts follow-up questions by E-mail if 
we were not able to reach them by telephone. The responses of the 
structured interviews are not intended to be representative of all 
posts. We did not talk with management officers or look at rightsizing 
reviews for those posts that were part of the spring 2006 review cycle. 

We conducted fieldwork at the embassies in Mexico City, Mexico, and 
Valletta, Malta; and the consulate in Frankfurt, Germany, to gain a 
better understanding of the rightsizing process. We chose these posts 
because both Mexico City and Valletta had been asked by the Office of 
Rightsizing to conduct a rightsizing review as part of the spring 2005 
cycle. We chose to visit Frankfurt because the consulate had conducted 
an informal rightsizing exercise in response to a report from State's 
Office of Inspector General and because it is a regional hub in Europe. 
At each post we met with State officials as well as other agency 
officials involved in the rightsizing process to discuss their approach 
and outcomes of the review. In addition, we met with the Ambassadors in 
Mexico City and Valletta, as well as the Consul General in Frankfurt to 
understand their views and involvement in the rightsizing process. 

We conducted our work from May 2005 through May 2006, in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: GAO Reports on Staffing and Operations at U.S. Embassies 
and Consulates: 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Observations on a Rightsizing Framework, GAO-02-
659T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2002). 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff Levels 
Can Support Rightsizing Initiatives, GAO-02-780 (Washington, D.C.: July 
26, 2002). 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Framework Can Be Applied at U.S. 
Diplomatic Posts in Developing Countries, GAO-03-396 (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 7, 2003). 

GAO, Embassy Construction: Process for Determining Staffing 
Requirements Needs Improvement, GAO-03-411 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 
2003). 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Systematic Processes Needed to Rightsize Posts 
and Guide Embassy Construction, GAO-03-582T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 
2003). 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Is Key to Considering Relocation of 
Regional Staff to New Frankfurt Center, GAO-03-1061 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 2, 2003). 

GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed to Increase Efficiency and 
Improve Delivery of Administrative Support Services, GAO-04-511 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004). 

GAO, Embassy Construction: Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could Speed 
Construction and Reduce Staff Levels, but Some Agencies Have Concerns, 
GAO-05-32 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004). 

GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are 
Needed to Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support 
Remotely, GAO-06-479 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006). 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Rightsizing Framework and Corresponding Questions: 

This appendix lists the questions pertaining to mission, security, and 
cost that we developed in 2002 to help support rightsizing initiatives 
for existing facilities overseas. 

Physical/Technical Security of Facilities and Employees: 

What is the threat and security profile of the embassy? 

Has the ability to protect personnel been a factor in determining 
staffing levels at the embassy? 

To what extent are existing office buildings secure? 

Is existing space being optimally utilized? 

Have all practical options for improving the security of facilities 
been considered? 

Do issues involving facility security put the staff at an unacceptable 
level of risk or limit mission accomplishment? 

What is the capacity level of the host country police, military, and 
intelligence services? 

Do security vulnerabilities suggest the need to reduce or relocate 
staff? 

Do health conditions in the host country pose personal security 
concerns that limit the number of employees that should be assigned to 
the post? 

Mission Priorities and Requirements: 

What are the staffing levels and mission of each agency? 

How do agencies determine embassy staffing levels? 

Is there an adequate justification for the number of employees at each 
agency compared with the agency's mission? 

Is there adequate justification for the number of direct-hire personnel 
devoted to support and administrative operations? 

What are the priorities of the embassy?[Footnote 31] 

Does each agency's mission reinforce embassy priorities? 

To what extent are mission priorities not being sufficiently addressed 
due to staffing limitations or other impediments? 

To what extent are workload requirements validated and prioritized, and 
is the embassy able to balance them with core functions? 

Do the activities of any agencies overlap? 

Given embassy priorities and the staffing profile, are increases in the 
number of existing staff or additional agency representation needed? 

To what extent is it necessary for each agency to maintain its current 
presence in-country, given the scope of its responsibilities and its 
mission? 

Could an agency's mission be pursued in other ways? 

Does an agency have regional responsibilities or is its mission 
entirely focused on the host country? 

Cost of Operations: 

What is the embassy's total annual operating cost? 

What are the operating costs for each agency at the embassy? 

To what extent are agencies considering the full cost of operations in 
making staffing decisions? 

To what extent are costs commensurate with overall embassy strategic 
importance, with agency programs, and with specific products and 
services? 

Consideration of Rightsizing Options: 

What are the security, mission, and cost implications of relocating 
certain functions to the United States, regional centers, or to other 
locations, such as commercial space or host-country counterpart 
agencies? 

To what extent could agency program and/or routine administrative 
functions (procurement, logistics, and financial management functions) 
be handled from a regional center or other locations? 

Do new technologies and transportation links offer greater 
opportunities for operational support from other locations? 

Do the host country and regional environments suggest there are options 
for doing business differently, that is, are there adequate 
transportation and communications links and a vibrant private sector? 

To what extent is it practical to purchase embassy services from the 
private sector? 

Does the ratio of support staff to program staff at the embassy suggest 
opportunities for streamlining? 

Can functions be reengineered to provide greater efficiencies and 
reduce requirements for personnel? 

Are there best practices of other bilateral embassies or private 
corporations that could be adapted by the U.S. embassy? 

To what extent are there U.S. or host country legal, policy, or 
procedural obstacles that may impact the feasibility of rightsizing 
options? 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: The Office of Rightsizing's Five-Year Rightsizing 
Schedule: 

Table 4 illustrates the 5-year rightsizing schedule, by fiscal year, 
that the Office of Rightsizing has developed. The schedule also depicts 
those posts that are proposed to receive a new embassy compound (NEC) 
and the fiscal year that the facilities are scheduled to be built. 

Table 4: Five-Year Rightsizing Schedule:  

Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
Planned capital projects: Sarajevo NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Burkina Faso; 
Planned capital projects: Ouagadougou NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Congo, Democratic Republic of; 
Planned capital projects: Kinshasa NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal year 2005: Congo, Republic of; 
Planned capital projects: Brazzaville NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Djibouti; 
Planned capital projects: Djibouti NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Ethiopia; 
Planned capital projects: Addis Ababa NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Fiji; 
Planned capital projects: Suva NEC FY05. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Gabon; 
Planned capital projects: Libreville NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Georgia; 
Planned capital projects: Tbilisi Annex FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Indonesia; 
Planned capital projects: Surabaya NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Latvia; 
Planned capital projects: Riga NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Lebanon; 
Planned capital projects: Beirut NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Macedonia; 
Planned capital projects: Skopje Annex, Warehouse, and Marine Security 
Guard Quarters FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Madagascar; 
Planned capital projects: Antanarivo NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Malta; 
Planned capital projects: Valletta NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Mexico; 
Planned capital projects: Mexico City NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Mexico; 
Planned capital projects: Tijuana NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Micronesia; 
Planned capital projects: Interim Office Building FY05. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Nigeria; 
Planned capital projects: Abuja Annex FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Norway; 
Planned capital projects: Oslo NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Palau; 
Planned capital projects: Interim Office Building FY05. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Philippines; 
Planned capital projects: Manila NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: South Africa; 
Planned capital projects: Johannesburg NEC FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Sudan; 
Planned capital projects: Khartoum Annex and Marine Security Guard 
Quarters FY06. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Sudan; 
Planned capital projects: Juba NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Yugoslavia; 
Planned capital projects: Belgrade NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2005: Zambia; 
Planned capital projects: Lusaka NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Algeria; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty] 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Azerbaijan; 
Planned capital projects: Baku NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Bermuda; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Brazil; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Brunei; 
Planned capital projects: Bandar Seri Begawan NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Burundi; 
Planned capital projects: Bujumbura NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Chad; 
Planned capital projects: N'djamena NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Chile; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Colombia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Costa Rica; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Denmark; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Dominican Republic; 
Planned capital projects: Santo Domingo NEC and Annex FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Eritrea; 
Planned capital projects: Asmara NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Finland; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Germany; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Holy See; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Iceland; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Indonesia; 
Planned capital projects: Jakarta NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Ireland; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Italy; 
Planned capital projects: Milan MEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Jordan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Korea; 
Planned capital projects: Seoul NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Liberia; 
Planned capital projects: Monrovia NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Libya; 
Planned capital projects: Tripoli NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Luxembourg; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Malaysia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Morocco; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Mozambique; 
Planned capital projects: Maputo NEC and Annex FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: New Zealand; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Pakistan; 
Planned capital projects: Karachi NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Pakistan; 
Planned capital projects: Peshawar NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Paraguay; 
Planned capital projects: Asuncion NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Poland; 
Planned capital projects: Krakow NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Romania; 
Planned capital projects: Bucharest NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Russia; 
Planned capital projects: St. Petersburg NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia; 
Planned capital projects: Jeddah NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia; 
Planned capital projects: Riyadh NEC FY[A]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Saudi Arabia; 
Planned capital projects: Dhahran NEC FY[A]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Singapore; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: South Africa; 
Planned capital projects: Pretoria Annex FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Sri Lanka; 
Planned capital projects: Colombo NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Switzerland; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Taiwan; 
Planned capital projects: Taipei NEC FY07. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Tunisia; 
Planned capital projects: Tunis Language School FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Turkey; 
Planned capital projects: Ankara NEC FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Ukraine; 
Planned capital projects: Kiev NEC and Annex FY09. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: United Kingdom; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies 
for Food and Agriculture, Rome; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations 
Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2006: Zimbabwe; 
Planned capital projects: Harare NEC and Annex FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bahamas; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bahrain; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Bangladesh; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Barbados; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Belarus; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Belize; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Benin; 
Planned capital projects: Cotonou NEC and Annex FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Botswana; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Burma; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Canada; 
Planned capital projects: Toronto NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Cape Verde; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: China; 
Planned capital projects: Guangzhou NEC FY08. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: China; 
Planned capital projects: Shanghai NEC FY[A]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: East Timor; 
Planned capital projects: Dili NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Equatorial Guinea; 
Planned capital projects: 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Estonia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Grenada; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guinea; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guinea Bissau; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Guyana; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Hong Kong; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India; 
Planned capital projects: Calcutta NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India; 
Planned capital projects: Chennai NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India; 
Planned capital projects: Hyderabad NEC FY[A]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: India; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Israel; 
Planned capital projects: Tel Aviv NEC and Annex FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Jerusalem; 
Planned capital projects: Jerusalem NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kenya; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: U.S. Permanent Mission to United Nations 
Environment Program and United Nations Center for Human Settlements, 
Nairobi; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kosovo; 
Planned capital projects: Pristina NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Kyrgyzstan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Lithuania; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Malawi; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mali; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mauritania; 
Planned capital projects: Nouakchott NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mauritius; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Mongolia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Nepal; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Sierra Leone; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Slovak Republic; 
Planned capital projects: Bratislava NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Slovenia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Surinam; 
Planned capital projects: Paramaribo NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Syria; 
Planned capital projects: Damascus NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Tajikistan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Thailand; 
Planned capital projects: Chiang Mai NEC FY10. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Turkmenistan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Uruguay; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: U.S. Mission to the International Civil 
Aviation Organization, Montreal; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2007: Vietnam; 
Planned capital projects: Hanoi NEC FY. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Angola; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Argentina; 
Planned capital projects: Buenos Aires NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Armenia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Australia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Belgium; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Bolivia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Brazil; 
Planned capital projects: Rio de Janeiro LFO FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cambodia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cameroon; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Central African Republic; 
Planned capital projects: Bangui NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cote d'Ivoire; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Croatia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Cuba; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Czech Republic; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Ecuador; 
Planned capital projects: Guayaquil LFO FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: France; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Gambia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Ghana; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Greece; 
Planned capital projects: Thessaloniki NEC FY[A]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Guatemala; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Laos; 
Planned capital projects: Vientiane NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Lesotho; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Moldova; 
Planned capital projects: Chisinau NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Namibia; 
Planned capital projects: Windhoek NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Netherlands; 
Planned capital projects: The Hague NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Netherlands Antilles; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Niger; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Oman; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Panama; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Senegal; 
Planned capital projects: Dakar NEC & Annex FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Seychelles; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Spain; 
Planned capital projects: Madrid NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Swaziland; 
Planned capital projects: Mbabane NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Tanzania; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Togo; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: Trinidad and Tobago; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: United Arab Emirates; 
Planned capital projects: Dubai NEC FY11. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the European Union; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2008: U.S. Mission to the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Afghanistan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Albania; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Austria; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Bulgaria; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Cyprus; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Egypt; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: El Salvador; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Haiti; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Honduras; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Hungary; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Iraq; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Jamaica; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Japan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Kazakhstan; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Kuwait; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Marshall Islands; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Micronesia; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Nicaragua; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Niger; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Papua New Guinea; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty]. 

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Peru; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Portugal; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Qatar; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Mission: Fiscal Year 2009: Rwanda; 
Planned capital projects: [Empty].

Source: Office of Rightsizing. 

[A] The Office of Rightsizing does not yet know the scheduled date of 
the capital project. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers Managing: 
Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Overseas 
Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More Action 
Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts," GAO Job Code 320338. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Patrick Truhn, Director, Office of Management and Rightsizing, at (202) 
647-6518. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Bradford R. Higgins:  

cc: GAO - John Brummet: 
M - Henrietta Fore: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More 
Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts (GAO-06-737, GAO Code 
320338): 

Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to 
comment on the draft report Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches 
Slowly Taking Hold but More Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out 
Efforts, which discusses the Department's rightsizing efforts. 

We appreciate the contribution this study makes, coming as it does in 
connection with a series of reports on efforts the Department is 
undertaking to modernize its overseas staffing and staffing support. 
The report recognizes the efforts the Department has made to date and 
confirms that the Department is on the right track. 

With respect to the individual areas the GAO addressed, the report says 
(p.4), "The Office of Rightsizing reported over $150 million dollars of 
potential savings or costs avoided based on their analysis of the first 
and second cycles of the rightsizing reviews. However, we have not been 
able to independently verify the actual amount of potential savings." 
Many of these savings are real, not potential. As staffing numbers were 
reduced, the size of overseas buildings was reduced as were funding 
requests to Congress. 

To illustrate a specific example, let us take Embassy Addis Ababa. At 
the time post submitted its Rightsizing Study, post projected out-year 
staffing of 1,032 positions of which 83% are Locally Employed Staff. 
Working with post and the Bureau of African Affairs and making 
independent judgments, the Office of Rightsizing the USG Overseas 
Presence (M/R) arrived at a final rightsized staffing projection, to 
which the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) will build the 
New Embassy Compound (NEC), of 953 positions, a difference of 79. 

In addition, the Embassy had projected a role for itself, that of 
Regional Support Center, which would likely have required additional 
growth over the next several years. Working with the Embassy and AF to 
refine its regionalized services strategy, we were able to agree that 
Mission Ethiopia is not a suitable platform in which to place 
significant additional regional support for other missions in Africa. 
The Embassy now has a more modest and realistic view of its future in 
the region. 

The net result of these changes represents the following savings: 

Avoided Construction Costs (calculated by OBO): 

$3,790,405 --40 desk positions and 39 non-desk positions were 
eliminated from Addis' staffing projection resulting in avoided 
construction costs. 

$10,400,000 --mooted USAID annex. As a result of requiring that the 
management services of the entire embassy be consolidated and/or co- 
located, and that duplicative services be eliminated, a separate annex 
is not needed. Building separate dedicated annexes for agencies is an 
expensive option for the space the U.S. Government requires. Naturally 
they vary in cost depending on the amount of total space required, 
whether the contract is let concurrently with the same firm doing the 
New Embassy Complex project, etc. Since M/R began rightsizing, no 
embassy has required a separate dedicated annex for any agency. 

Avoided salary costs: 

$14,400,000 annual savings in reduced U.S. Direct Hire staffing 
assigned to the Embassy, using an average cost per position overseas of 
$400,000 derived from the Office of Management and Budget's cost data 
provided by individual agencies. Of the Embassy's projected new 
positions, 36 were U.S. Direct Hire positions. 

$1,011,188 annual savings --of the 79 projected positions, which were 
eliminated, 43 are Locally Employed Staff positions (using an average 
global LES salary cost of $23,516 per LES provided by the Bureau of 
Human Resources.) 

In another example, at the time Embassy Sarajevo submitted its 
rightsizing report, staffing in the embassy was 605 positions with 278 
desk positions. The mission identified 64 positions (39 desk positions 
of which 12 were U.S. Direct Hire positions) for elimination. The 
greatest number of these eliminated positions were administrative 
positions made redundant by the consolidation of services and the 
elimination of duplicative positions. 

In this case, the avoided costs were; 

Construction costs; $3,695,645. 

USDH costs; $4,800,000. 

LES; $1,222,832. 

GAO's draft report also states "management officers said they could 
have benefited from additional guidance on conducting cost analysis" 
(page 4, bottom.) The Department has a standard methodology by which it 
does cost analyses using the ICASS software. All posts have been so 
advised. Unfortunately, other agencies have not always provided full 
and complete cost information for comparison purposes, resulting in 
incomplete or misleading data. M/R continues to work with other 
agencies to improve cost information reporting. 

The report notes further that "It is unclear how the rightsizing review 
decisions, such as elimination of duplicative functions, will be 
implemented according to officials at post and officials in State's 
regional bureaus." On June 1 (State 88491), M/R tasked all posts which 
had completed rightsizing studies in the spring and fall 2005 cycles 
(approximately 50 posts) to develop and communicate to M/R (and USAID 
headquarters, when USAID is present) implementation action plans, with 
timelines and deliverables, no later than July 18, 2006. M/R will 
monitor posts' progress in fulfilling these implementation plans until 
they are complete. In the future, posts will be tasked with developing 
and applying such implementation plans at the end of each rightsizing 
cycle. 

Regarding various comments concerning the Capital Security Cost Sharing 
program, while we agree that different agencies use varying practices 
to count overseas staff, OBO believes that the data collected for the 
Capital Security Cost-Sharing (CSCS) program is accurate (p. 3, p. 10, 
p. 12). We do not pull this data from a database; rather it is supplied 
by individuals at post responsible for responding to the CSCS data 
call. For State positions, this data is verified by management at post 
and by State's Regional Bureaus; Post, the bureaus, and OBO reconcile 
any discrepancies. For non-State agencies, the data is verified by 
agency representatives at post and must be signed off on by the agency 
headquarters office. We believe that this process ensures the accuracy 
of the CSCS data. Because OBO requires different data for the 
construction of facilities, there will always be a difference between 
the counts arrived at from the CSCS process, and from the Department's 
Post Personnel application. We agree that it will be helpful to have a 
unified database for all staffing data, which will enable 
representatives of other agencies to monitor their agencies' data at 
any time. 

Contrary to statements in the report, for CSCS, if a position has 
actually been eliminated at post, it will not be counted in CSCS. If a 
position is vacant, but still exists, it is properly counted for CSCS 
(p. 12, bottom of 1st paragraph.) 

Because of the process for collecting and verifying CSCS data, OBO does 
not believe that agencies are incorrectly charged for positions under 
CSCS (on page 12, bottom of 2nd paragraph.) Agencies audit their 
reported staffing at post and in Washington and pay accordingly. 

The report states that the Department estimates that the number of U.S. 
Government personnel overseas ranges from 66,000 to 78,000, indicating 
as much as a 15% disparity. That is not correct. Counting personnel vs. 
positions is a constant source of confusion and complication when 
trying to get an accurate census of the U.S. Government's overseas 
presence. The Department's Post Personnel application indicates that 
there are, at any given time, approximately 66,000 employees overseas, 
including U.S. Direct Hires, Locally Employed Staff (LES), and other 
categories of personnel (each agency has a slightly different way of 
counting and identifying its employees overseas). This number of 
employees overseas fluctuates significantly as: employment attrition 
occurs, personnel rotate out of and into assignments abroad, LES leave 
post's employ, and posts change their staffing continuously to meet 
their changing requirements. As a result, there may be at any given 
time as many as 78,000 positions established overseas, of which 
thousands are always in the process of being filled or eliminated 
annually. The 66,000 to 78,000 is not a range but counts of two 
different quantities. 

The report states that State has not instructed posts to keep Post 
Personnel continuously updated (bottom page 13). In fact, several 
messages, beginning in 2004, have gone to all posts instructing them 
that Post Personnel is the official database for documenting all U.S. 
Government staffing overseas under the authority of the Chief of 
Mission and must be kept complete and current. Further, Regional 
Bureaus have been persistent in reminding posts of this need. The 
Department has informed all posts that the Post Personnel database will 
become the "gold standard" for overseas staffing information, effective 
October 1, 2006. State's regional bureaus have been charged with 
reconciling Post Personnel staffing data against similar data in the 
Capital Security Cost Sharing database by June 15, as a check on the 
accuracy of both databases, in order to ensure that both repositories 
are aligned before their data is merged later this summer, and to 
ensure that this year's CSCS invoices are accurate. 

With respect to the GAO suggestion that M/R should interact directly 
with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) and other DHS bureaus, this is contrary to 
instructions to M/R from the Department of Homeland Security. The State 
Department asked all Executive Branch Agencies to designate points of 
contact for rightsizing communications and activities; DHS designated a 
position within its Office of International Affairs, indicating that it 
preferred a centralized approach rather than having M/R communicate 
directly with individual DHS entities. M/R therefore provides all of 
its rightsizing information, general reports, specific country reports, 
rightsizing schedules, etc. to this single point of contact as 
instructed by DHS. DHS faces considerable challenges in uniting a 
number of formerly autonomous agencies in one department, and M/R does 
not wish to increase these challenges through communications that 
further complicate this task. M/R has provided group briefings to 
multiple DHS entities as a matter of information, but coordination 
discipline should be maintained. 

Comments from other agencies wanting to know outcomes of reviews, know 
ahead of time when reviews are being conducted, have more clearly 
stated standards, etc. (page 24) in our view stem from a number of 
agencies' lack of familiarity with both the President's Management 
Agenda (PMA), which is a mandate from the President to all Executive 
Branch Agencies, not just State or M/R, and Congress's action to 
establish the Office of Rightsizing. M/R has undertaken to fill this 
information gap with the Interagency Rightsizing Summit, which will be 
held on a semi-annual basis as an important vehicle for information- 
sharing. M/R has been continually engaged in outreach since its 
inception via a number of venues, e.g., the ICASS Working Group, the 
ICASS Executive Board and the CSCS Contact Group. The present Director 
of the Office of Rightsizing has personally traveled to the Washington 
headquarters of six agencies since the beginning of FY-06, and has 
given briefings in his office to representatives of three others, which 
agencies comprise the vast majority of U.S. Government positions 
overseas. 

All agencies' rightsizing points of contact are notified of the posts 
tasked with rightsizing studies the very same day that the cable goes 
to the field. The full five-year rightsizing schedule was included in 
M/R's Rightsizing Quarterly Reports of November 2005 and May 2006, 
which were provided to all agencies electronically and in hardcopy at 
multiple levels. The schedule was provided at the Rightsizing Summit, 
and has been available upon request at any time. The schedule was a 
completed deliverable for Getting to Green on the President's 
Management Agenda last year. 

Rightsizing Reports are provided to Bureaus and posts and are available 
to all agencies when they are complete; however, there has been little 
interest and less demand from agencies for these reports. 

In response to the specific Recommendations of the report: 

Provide oversight to ensure the timely development and use of a single 
database that accurately accounts for U.S. overseas personnel staffing 
numbers and has accountability measures to encourage posts and agencies 
to keep the data base accurate and up to date. 

As discussed above, the Post Personnel database will become the "gold 
standard" for accounting for overseas staffing under Chief of Mission 
authority effective October 1, 2006. The regional bureaus are currently 
reconciling the Post Personnel data with Capital Security Cost Sharing 
data to ensure that the consolidated information is correct and 
complete. The Bureau of Human Resources, which owns the application, is 
verifying the data on a periodic basis with other agencies. 

Increase outreach activities with non-State agencies so that all 
relevant agencies with an overseas presence can discuss and share 
information on rightsizing initiatives on a regular and continuous 
basis. 

As noted above, the Director of M/R has been meeting with agencies on a 
regular basis and will continue to do so. M/R plans to conduct semi- 
annual rightsizing summits with all agencies prior to the Fall and 
Spring rightsizing taskings, beginning in December 2006. In addition, 
M/R will continue to provide all agencies at many different levels with 
the Rightsizing Quarterly Reports, reports to Congress, major messages 
to the field, and other relevant information. 

Require that posts develop action plans to transition to and meet the 
agreed upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. This could include 
developing milestones for posts reaching agreement on streamlining and 
eliminating duplicative functions. 

As previously noted, M/R tasked these plans to posts on June 1, 2006 
with a due date of July 18. We believe this recommendation has already 
been addressed. 

The following are our comments on State's letter dated June 9, 2006. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We modified our text to show that, although we have not been able to 
independently assess the Office of Rightsizing's estimates, it has 
presented evidence to show that some major cost avoidance and cost 
savings have occurred. 

2. We recognize that State has a standard methodology by which it 
performs cost analyses using the International Cooperative 
Administrative Support Services software. However, when we talked with 
management officers at posts that had conducted a rightsizing review, 
we were informed that these posts did not have comparable cost data for 
each service provider. In addition, we were informed that the posts did 
not have the necessary tools to make informed decisions about how to 
conduct analysis to determine the most cost effective service provider. 

3. We provided the draft report to State on May 18, 2006. About two 
weeks later, State instructed posts to develop implementation action 
plans. We believe that the action that the Office of Rightsizing has 
taken largely addresses our recommendation. However, until the Office 
of Rightsizing has received all implementation action plans with the 
posts' milestones, due on July 18, 2006, the office will not know what 
additional action might still be needed to ensure that posts meet the 
agreed-upon outcomes of their rightsizing reviews. 

4. We understand that if a position is eliminated at a post it is not 
counted as part of Capital Security Cost Sharing. Our statement was 
simply meant to illustrate that eliminated or vacant positions could be 
reflected in databases used to count overseas staffing numbers. 

5. Our statement reflects non-State agency views. We have amended the 
draft by attributing the statement to non-State agency officials. In 
addition our statement reflects information we obtained from a February 
2006 State cable to all posts about staffing data and position charges 
under Capital Security Cost Sharing. 

6. We have modified our text to illustrate the varying estimates of the 
size of the U.S. overseas presence. We have received numerous 
conflicting estimates on the number of U.S. government officials 
overseas. One source estimated that there are approximately 66,000 U.S. 
government personnel under chief of mission authority, while another 
indicated that there are approximately 69,000. We understand that some 
of the numbers may come from different estimates and data sources. 
State's discussion on staffing data illustrates the difficulty of 
obtaining an accurate count of overseas personnel. We recognize that 
that there are vacant positions and that the total number of positions 
is higher than the number of filled positions. We also note in our 
report that State is in the process of eliminating vacant positions. It 
is important that State continue to update its staffing database to 
ensure that a more accurate accounting of U.S. government personnel 
overseas is available. 

7. We acknowledge that State has sent several messages since 2004 to 
posts instructing them that Post Personnel is the official database for 
documenting all U.S. government staffing overseas. However, in February 
2006, State reported that not all posts are using Post Personnel as 
their main human resources system. In addition, we were told that the 
guidance provided to posts did not include accountability mechanisms 
for ensuring that the staffing information is updated and complete. 

8. It is important that all components of each agency receive 
information from the Office of Rightsizing that pertains to rightsizing 
review efforts and initiatives. During the course of our work at the 
Department of Homeland Security it became clear that certain components 
within the department had not received information on rightsizing. We 
understand that the Department of Homeland Security has a central focal 
point that the Office of Rightsizing works with. The Department of 
Homeland Security and the Office of Rightsizing share responsibility in 
ensuring that agency components are receiving the necessary information 
to ensure that rightsizing efforts are understood. We have modified the 
text to indicate that the Office of Rightsizing was asked by the 
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate through one focal point. 

9. We believe that the actions and measures that the Office of 
Rightsizing is taking, particularly the Interagency Rightsizing Summit, 
are useful steps to implementing our recommendation. However, based on 
our discussions with non-State agencies, we maintain that more outreach 
is needed pertaining to areas involving rightsizing review efforts, 
strategy, and vision. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess Ford (202) 512-4128: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, John Brummet, Assistant 
Director, Ann Baker, Joseph Carney, Virginia Chanley, Lyric Clark, 
Martin De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Beth Hoffman León, Ernie Jackson, 
Andrea Miller, and Deborah Owolabi made key contributions to this 
report. 

(320338): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Department of State, America's Overseas Presence in the 21ST 
Century, the Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); and Department of State, Report of the 
Accountability Review Boards: Bombings of the U.S. Embassies in 
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 
1999). 

[2] See the Office of Management and Budget, The President's Management 
Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001) for a 
description of the President's management priorities. 

[3] Remote locations include overseas and domestic regional centers and 
headquarters offices. 

[4] We defined "rightsizing" as aligning the number and location of 
staff assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities, and security 
and other constraints. Rightsizing may result in the addition or 
reduction of staff, or a change in the mix of staff. Appendix III 
provides further information about our framework. 

[5] A Chief of Mission is the principal officer, usually the 
Ambassador, in charge of a U.S. diplomatic mission abroad, and has full 
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all 
U.S. government executive branch employees in that country. See 22 
U.S.C. 3927. 

[6] The Office of Management and Budget's cost is based on an average 
of cost submissions from more than 30 agencies with an overseas 
presence. However, we have not verified the cost figures. The cost of 
having a U.S. direct hire overseas for an agency can vary 
significantly, depending on where agency officials are located. 

[7] The President's Management Agenda is a set of management 
initiatives designed to improve management throughout the government by 
emphasizing performance and results. 

[8] P.L. 108-199, Div. B, Title IV. Congress made $3 million in funding 
available for the establishment and operations of the Office of 
Rightsizing. 

[9] State has six regional bureaus, each of which is responsible for 
working with posts in a specific geographic region of the world. 
State's regional bureaus include the Bureaus of African Affairs, East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near Eastern 
Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western Hemisphere 
Affairs. State has two regional centers--one is in Ft. Lauderdale, 
Florida, and the other in Frankfurt, Germany--as well as a number of 
other regional operations. 

[10] In accordance with 22 USC 3927, the President's Letter of 
Instruction to Chiefs of Mission gives the Chief of Mission full 
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of 
generally all U.S. government executive branch employees within the 
host country, and also allows him or her to make decisions on the 
levels of staffing at the mission. See 2FAH-2 H-112.1. 

[11] NSDD-38 states that agencies with staff under chief of mission 
authority will ensure that approval from the Chief of Mission is 
sought, in coordination with State, before making any proposed changes 
to the size, composition, or mandate of the agencies' staffing elements 
at the post. 

[12] The ICASS basic package, which includes securing diplomatic 
credentials from the host country and services provided by the post's 
Community Liaison Office, is mandatory for all agencies at the post. 
Other cost centers are optional. 

[13] P.L. 108-447, Div. B, Title VI, §629. 

[14] Historically, funding for new embassies was provided under State's 
appropriations, and costs for new construction were not distributed to 
other agencies. 

[15] The types of spaces in new embassy compounds that are charged 
under Capital Security Cost Sharing include controlled access areas, 
non-controlled access areas, and non-office space. 

[16] The per capita charge for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are 40 and 60 
percent of the full charge, while the charge for fiscal year 2008 will 
be 80 percent of the full position charge. 

[17] Based on agencies' 2007 budget submissions, the Office of 
Management and Budget estimates the total personnel overseas under 
chief of mission authority for 2006 as 66,854. 

[18] The estimate is based on information in State's Post Personnel 
database. 

[19] Database applications utilized by posts include Post Profiles, 
ICASS, Mission Performance Plan, Capital Security Cost Sharing, and 
Post Personnel. 

[20] We have reported on agency concerns about Capital Security Cost 
Sharing and ICASS costs in the past. See GAO, Embassy Construction: 
Proposed Cost-Sharing Program Could Speed Construction and Reduce Staff 
Levels, but Some Agencies Have Concerns, GAO-05-32 (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 15, 2004); and GAO, Embassy Management: Actions Are Needed to 
Increase Efficiency and Improve Delivery of Administrative Support 
Services, GAO-04-511 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004). 

[21] Many of the missions that were tasked to do a review are scheduled 
for planned capital projects for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

[22] A Mission Performance Plan is an annual performance plan that 
outlines the goals and priority initiatives of all agencies in a 
mission. Guidance on including rightsizing considerations in the post 
Mission Performance Plan was sent out for the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 
plans. 

[23] Department of State, Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by 
the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence - 
Volume I (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2005); Department of State Overseas 
Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report by the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. 
Government Overseas Presence - Volume II (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24, 
2005); and Department of State Overseas Rightsizing: A Quarterly Report 
by the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence - 
Volume III (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 2006). 

[24] The most recent Office of Management and Budget scorecard gave a 
"green light" to State's progress toward key rightsizing milestones. 

[25] Department of State, Organizing for Transformation Diplomacy: 
Rightsizing and Regionalization FY 2006 Operational Plan (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 2005). 

[26] State has identified Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, 
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan as the most critical danger posts 
that will be initially affected by State's operational plan focusing on 
non-location specific functions. However, plans for operations in Iraq, 
also considered a critical danger post, are proceeding separately. 

[27] GAO, Overseas Presence: Cost Analyses and Performance Measures Are 
Needed to Demonstrate the Full Potential of Providing Embassy Support 
Remotely, GAO-06-479 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2006). 

[28] Desk positions were for U.S. direct hires and locally employed 
staff. A desk position refers to any position in a post where a desk or 
office space is needed. For example, an economic officer at a post 
would need a desk to work at, while a gardener or a driver would not. 

[29] However, the Office of Rightsizing indicated that it is very 
difficult to make a judgment about the eventual disposition of an 
individual projected position that has been eliminated. In some cases, 
it might be possible and necessary to substitute a locally employed 
individual for a U.S. direct-hire position, or have a U.S. direct hire 
do the work in the United States, so the cost avoided could be less 
than the average cost of $400,000 per year for each position. 

[30] The competitive sourcing module was developed to address State's 
Program Assessment Rating Tool obligation. A Program Assessment Rating 
Tool review helps identify a program's strengths and weaknesses to 
inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program 
more effective. 

[31] Embassy priorities are the U.S. government's priorities in that 
country. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: