Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts

Monday, June 13, 2011

Newtster News: Gingrich to move embassy to Jerusalem on 1st day in office; to restructure State Dept -- details in 392 words!

His political campaign may have imploded post-Greek isle cruise, donors may have deserted him and Callista, but Newt Gingrich promises to "endure the challenges" and slog on with his presidential campaign.

Over the weekend, he gave an address to a Jewish group, promising no less that he'd  move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on his first day in office, resurrecting USIA to fight the battle of ideas once more, and oh yeah, restructuring the U.S. Department of State, too.

Newt's Address to the Republican Jewish Coalition | Selected quips below:

#1. As a demonstration of this new resolve, the United States should move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Israel has every right as a sovereign free nation to choose its own capitol and we should respect that choice. As President, on my first day in office, I would issue an executive order directing the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem as provided for in the legislation I introduced in Congress in 1995.

#5. We must also re-establish the United States Information Agency as a robustly funded worldwide anti-terrorism and pro-freedom communications and advocacy system. The USIA fought for our side in the war of ideas during the Cold War and helped us win.
In 1999, this agency was dismantled because we thought the war of ideas was over. We discovered on 9/11 that it was not.
[...]
The USIA helped America win the Cold War and it can help us win the war against evil terrorist organizations and dictatorships. But to do this we must ensure that the USIA once again has independent board of governors reporting to the President and coordinating with the State Department but not controlled by the diplomats.

8. All of this will require a restructured State Department, a new level of training and management for Ambassadors, a new promotion system, and a profound shift in the culture of the Foreign Service.  The quickest way to change the culture at the State Department is to inject new blood into the system. We must engage in fundamental reform of the overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service.

Change on this scale will be bitterly fought by the old guard at State and their media allies. It will require a strong, experienced, and knowledgeable Secretary of State and a deeply committed team around him.

My campaign website newt.org contains a detailed document outlining the other changes that will be necessary to transform the State Department's historic aversion to moral clarity about the difference between terrorism and civilization, which have weakened both the United States and Israel.

I am, of course, a sucker for detailed documents that seek to transform the State Department. So I followed the link and here is what I found:

The Newtster's "detailed document" is a 392- word piece entitled: Newt: A Real Peace Process Requires Fundamental Reform of the State Department.



Not kidding, take a look.

Besides that weighty 392- word piece in what must be a Twitter version of restructuring a government agency, Mr. Gingrich's piece links to two additional info:

How to Block the Palestine Statehood Ploy: Congress can take a cue from Jim Baker in 1989 and threaten to cut U.S. money for the U.N.html]

That's an article by former UN Ambassador John Bolton in the WSJ  dated June 3, 2011. Oh, maaaan!

The second link in the Newtster's website is to the "Hart-Rudman Commission recommendations on State Department reform." The link takes you to a 10 years old document of the Commission titled  - "Volume V - Department of State"a 229 page long addendum on "structure and process analysis" which contains outdated org charts, stats and backgrounders dating back to the late 1990s. A quick scan does not indicate that this volume even contains the suggested reforms from 10 years ago, only "observations" of selected bureaus. Which by the way, does not have a separate section for "M" as in management.

Oh dear! Did anyone from the campaign actually read Volume V before they linked to it?

The report is titled, United States Commission on National Security/21st Century April 15, 2001 National Security Study Group assisted by Booz·Allen & Hamilton. Click on this for a Wikipedia description.

This strikes me as rather odd for someone of Gingrich's stature: The Newster calls for reforms in the State Department but has not bothered to look under the rocks?

Seriously. A 392-word "detailed document" which includes this:
The quickest way to change this culture is to inject new blood into the system.  The overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system must be fixed to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service.  The promotion system of the State Department, which like in many bureaucracies, is known to favor mediocrity and discourage creative thinking, also requires fundamental reform.

Change on this scale will be bitterly fought by the old guard at State and their media allies. It will require a knowledgeable and strong Secretary of State and a deeply committed team around him.

The Newtster says, "security clearance system must be fixed to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service."

Holy mother of goat -- what the heck is he talking about?

Wait, wait, that preceding paragraph sounds a lot like his speech at the Jewish Coalition, too.

If that's not cut and paste, he must just really, really like that section. Or perhaps his speech writer quit, too?

Anyway, a strong Secretary of State?  Sounds like SoS John Bolton under a Gingrich Administration, you betcha!

Unless, of course, Mr. Bolton also runs for president. And he might yet do that, and then Mr. Gingrich would have to find another strong SoS. Or they could agree ahead of time that whoever loses the presidential run gets to restructure the State Department. Sounds only fair.

I have no objection to restructuring this agency or that, even the State Department, if it makes the organization works more effectively. But I'd like to know that the Newtster actually knows what he is talking about and not just engaging in political panhandling.


 



Sunday, February 20, 2011

#Libya violence and economic relations, Europe under hot pressure to act....

Via




As I was putting this up, I see that the EU ministers have condemned the bloody crackdown on protesters. Via ABC news:
We condemn the repression against peaceful demonstrators and deplore the violence and the death of civilians," said a statement issued after a meeting of European foreign ministers.

"The EU urges the authorities to exercise restraint and calm and to immediately refrain from further use of violence against peaceful demonstrators," the ministers said, adding that "the legitimate aspirations and demands of the people for reform" must be addressed through dialogue.


Note that these words of condemnation (not even actions) did not sit well with the Libyan regime who has warned the EU against lending vocal support to the protesters.  AlertNet Reuters reports that "The Hungarian ambassador was called in in Libya on Thursday and was given the message that Libya is going to suspend cooperation with the EU on immigration issues if the EU keeps making statements in support of Libyan pro-democracy protests," a spokesman for Hungary, which holds the EU's rotating six-month presidency, said.

Apparently, Libya has frequently threatened to cancel cooperation with the EU on illegal migration in the past. In December, a minister said Libya would scale back efforts to stem the flow of migrants unless the EU paid 5 billion euros ($6.8 billion) a year.

Via Reuters:
The International Organization for Migration estimates that migrants from across Africa account for about 10 percent of Libya's six million population, although only a minority of those attempt to travel on to Europe to find work.Tens of thousands of illegal migrants try to make the journey from the northern coasts of Tunisia and Libya to islands off Italy every year, with hundreds having to be rescued by Italy's coastguard and housed in migration centres.The European Commission said in October it would spend 50 million euros to help Libya tackle illegal migration and protect migrants' rights.

Just after midnight in WDC on Sunday, Reuters is reporting that the US has issued its strongest condemnation yet of Libya's violent crackdown on protesters, citing what it called credible reports of hundreds of deaths and injuries and threatening to take "all appropriate actions" in response.

   
Libya will surely have a come back for that. I suspect that the ordered departure for US personnel in Tripoli can happen quickly.




Related post:
Deadly crackdown of protesters in #Libya ... paging EU's Catherine Ashton, where are you? | February 19, 2011







Saturday, February 19, 2011

#Bahrain's National Dialogue Starts with the Bloody Kind

Viewer discretion is advised.

This is horrifying to watch, a government that turned against the peaceful assembly of its people. Yesterday, Bahrain's government was reported as saying it used proportional force against the demonstrators. I hate to imagine what its disproportional force looks like.






Today, the BDF was ordered to leave the Pearl Roundabout and the crowd has surged back.  Here is an update via NYT:

The government had ceded the square before, on Wednesday, only to return with a deadly assault on Thursday. On Friday, the army opened fire on a group of about 1,000 peaceful demonstrators trying to walk into the square.

The varying responses appeared to reflect an inner turmoil within the government to grapple with a response to the uprising. The confrontation on Friday, with the Bahrain Defense Forces firing on Bahraini citizens in plain light, seemed to be the shock that forced a change in the government’s approach.

On Saturday, it was Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the son of the king and deputy commander of the military, who ordered troops to leave the square.

NYT's Nick Kristof who is in Bahrain writes:

We don’t know what exactly President Obama said to the king in his call last night, but we do know that the White House was talking about suspending military licensing to Bahrain. This may have been a case where American pressure helped avert a tragedy and aligned us with people power in a way that in the long run will be good for Bahrain and America alike.

Americans will worry about what comes next, if people power does prevail, partly because Gulf rulers have been whispering warnings about Iranian-influence and Islamists taking over. Look, democracy is messy. But there’s no hint of anti-Americanism out there, and people treated American journalists as heroes because we reflect values of a free press that they aspire to achieve for their country. And at the end of the day, we need to stand with democracy rather than autocracy if we want to be on the right side of history.

To follow the protests sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, check out our list in Twitter:

http://twitter.com/Diplopundit/protests-updates-8






Thursday, December 30, 2010

That’s preposterous ... yeah, but will anyone has the cojones to change it?

Nicholas Kristof's December 25 column talks about The Big (Military) Taboo. Excerpt:  

I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.

What’s more, if you’re carrying an armload of hammers, every problem looks like a nail. The truth is that military power often isn’t very effective at solving modern problems, like a nuclear North Korea or an Iran that is on the nuclear path. Indeed, in an age of nationalism, our military force is often counterproductive.
[...]
Paradoxically, it’s often people with experience in the military who lead the way in warning against overinvestment in arms. It was President Dwight Eisenhower who gave the strongest warning: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” And in the Obama administration, it is Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has argued that military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny; it is Secretary Gates who has argued most eloquently for more investment in diplomacy and development aid.
[...]
There are a few signs of hope in the air. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposes cutting money for armaments, along with other spending. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled a signature project, the quadrennial diplomacy and development review, which calls for more emphasis on aid and diplomacy in foreign policy.

“Leading through civilian power saves lives and money,” Mrs. Clinton noted, and she’s exactly right. The review is a great document, but we’ll see if it can be implemented — especially because House Republicans are proposing cuts in the State Department budget.

Active links added above.  Read the whole thing here.

Our guess -- no. Even if somebody grows a pair, and change all that needs changing, it is political harakiri. You will die a very painful death where you will be called a bunch of nasty names all the way to your graveyard, and even as they shovel dirt over you. And then you die.  And life as we know it, will go on as the world turns.

We've become a great cynic in my odd years of old.  We think that diplomacy will remain a pauper and the billionaire military complex is here to stay. And we will fight these forever wars, until, well -- until they take away all our checks and all our credit cards. And when nobody is willing to accept our IOUs anymore. That would make us very poor and very sad.

Not our  fault we're feeling so totally purple blue these days.  It's this awful cold weather and this Kristof talking on and on about this old taboo.  The new year is just around the corner and we can't even feel festive about the military pork set aside for our home states? Ay caramba!   

Meanwhile, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who is reportedly one of those eying the wide Republican field for 2012 has something important to say about the defense budget and the ballooning deficit: Via
"I think you've got to be just as much on the outlook for waste and fraud on defense spending as anywhere else, but the fact is we're entering a very uncertain period in the world. We've got a lot of threats out there that we're not prepared for. Not just nuclear proliferation, but chemical and biological weapons.... This is not the time to cut back. I understand there's a lot of pressure to get deficits down. I'm all in favor of it. But national security comes first, pure and simple, as far as I'm concerned."

Now that absolutely just cheer us up. Cut everything -- schools, health care, medicare, etc. etc. etc.  Everything.  EXCEPT the untouchable pot of gold -- in the name of defense.

Pray tell, who's going to defend us from ourselves?           







Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Marvelous QDDR quietly forgets about the State Dept's EFM talent pool

Chapter 5 of the newly rolled out QDDR is titled Working Smarter: Reforming Our Personnel, Procurement, and Planning Capabilities to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

This section highlights six areas of reform needed to achieve that vision:

  • 1. Marshalling expertise to address 21st-century challenges
  • 2. Rewarding and better utilizing the civil service
  • 3. Closing the experience gap through mid-level hiring
  • 4. Recruiting and retaining highly skilled locally employed staff
  • 5. Training our people for 21st-century missions
  • 6. Aligning incentives and rewarding performance

The QDDR provides more discussion on its plans for direct hire FS employees, civil servants and foreign service nationals, starting on page 174. Not one mention on expanded employment opportunities for EFMs and partners. Or how to put the language skills of foreign born spouses and those trained at FSI to effective use.  Or how to put to best used their double MAs, Ph.Ds, JDs, etc. as they trail after their employee spouses from one end of the globe to another.  Just one more proof that EFM issues particularly when it comes to employment in nowhere near anyone's radar screen at the State Department. FLO as an employment advocate has false teeth when it comes to spouse employment . Why?  Because without the employment equalization fund, it cannot provide carrot to posts to hire XYZ above the FSN rates.    

Spouse employment is considered by many decision makers as nothing more than gravy (you already have free housing, why do you need to work? Gooo -- find a hobby to keep yourself occupied).  Remember that, the next time you weep over your next Social Security statement. But why should they think of expanding employment opportunities for the spouses and partners? Close to 30,000 folks applied for the FS exam last year.  If State is authorized to hire 745 new employees this year, that's about 40 applicants for each vacancy.      

Meanwhile, the State Department's Family Liaison Office has hired 17 Global Employment Advisors in the last couple of years. They are tasked with providing in-country and regional support to 2/3 of some 10,000 EFMS and partners looking for jobs overseas. 

The Global Emloyment Initiative (GEI) is "designed to help family members with career development and identification of employment opportunities. GEI establishes global partnerships with multinational corporations, organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide family members of U.S. direct-hire employees serving abroad with the contacts necessary to develop and sustain their career ambitions."

Unfortunately, we can no longer locate its flyer that says how wonderful is this State Department talent pool; basically, multinationals should grab each one as soon as they can and come back for more.

Frankly, if we were working as the hiring manager of a multinational corporation overseas, we'd like to know why -- if this talent pool is so great -- how come the US Government has no real interest in tapping it?

We'll write about the diplomatic spouse career track one of these days. For now, it is enough to say that it is harder than it looks --  and some days like today -- we think it is totally depressing as the news about Norman, Oklahoma, which has the highest level of chromium 6 among 35 cities in the country. At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the form of cancer-causing hexavalent chromium. The last remaining super power in the world, and we can't drink the tap water!  We are officially depressed now. 

 


   


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Town Hall Meeting on the First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development (QDDR) Review

Remarks at Town Hall Meeting on the Release of the First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, "Leading Through Civilian Power"

Remarks:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director
Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management
Rajiv Shah, USAID Administrator

Dean Acheson Auditorium, Washington, DC, December 15, 2010


Video length: 1:01:59

Transcript of the town hall meeting is here.

QDDR Fact Sheet
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153109.pdf

QDDR Executive Summary

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153139.pdf

QDDR Full Report High Res (242 pages)

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153108.pdf

QDDR Full Report Low Res (242 pages)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153142.pdf



Excerpts of interest from the townhall:

On mid-level gaps:
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ll start, and then Raj wants to add.

Look, we want to take advantage of the experience that is available. And our first preference is, of course, to take advantage of Foreign Service experience. And we will look at ways of reaching out and attempting to do so. But we will not stop there if we cannot find the experience. And I just think you need to recognize that we are very respectful and – (applause) – and deeply grateful for the level of experience, expertise, and dedication that we have in our Foreign Service family, but we also have a job to do. And so we will give every effort to try to find people, whether they’re willing to come out of retirement or what else we can entice them to do. But at the end of the day, I’m responsible for making decisions that are in the best interests of the United States of America, and that’s what I will do. (Applause.)

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH: I’ll just add that that question, obviously, was specific to the State Department Foreign Service, but the same issue, of course, is something we’ve tried to be very thoughtful about, at the Secretary’s guidance, with respect to USAID. And we’ve had a chance to both quantify the needs at mid-level and explore how what we’ve learned from the Development Leadership Initiative, which has now brought in 625 new Foreign Service officers at USAID over the last several years. And we have proposed this – a limited but focused and skill-based targeted increase with the mid-level career hiring. And – but we want to do it in a way that’s respectful of all the points you raised, that allows for training, that protects the career growth opportunities for especially new entrants into the Foreign Service, and that enhances our capacity to deliver the types of results the Secretary spoke about. So thank you.

On inclusive and collaborative leadership
SECRETARY CLINTON:
So in all of these areas, part of it is organizational, part of it is operational, part of it is funding, but a lot of it is attitude and mindset. And it doesn’t take anything away from State or AID or DOD or HHS or anybody else if we recognize the value added that everybody brings. And so that’s my goal. Because frankly, we – if you look at sort of the problems we face and the challenges we will have in funding our responses, we’ve got to work together and we also have to create this partnership, as Steve was saying, with DOD to kind of enhance what each of us can do more effectively.

ADMINISTRATOR SHAH:
the concept of inclusive leadership. So to give you a very specific example, we just completed – we’re in the process of doing the senior management group assignments for USAID. We restructured how we do that process so that each senior manager gets evaluated on their interagency performance and skill. That’s basically how we interpret inclusive leadership. And the resulting set of recommendations I got for the top priority mission leadership posts were substantively different. Different people were chosen because we changed the criteria, and the group that came together to debate who’s going to perform well against these new criteria came up with different answers.

We’re going to take that even further by building that criteria into actual performance reviews for the Foreign Service and the SES Civil Service. And we’ve actually had a lot of great conversation at different levels of the agency and amongst the new Development Leadership Initiative members of the Foreign Service about what that means and how that – how we need to have a shift in our mindset as it relates to that point. So I would just add that it’s a very clear aspiration in the document. No document gets you the outcome. We have to manage to that in very specific and concrete ways.

A changed world .... "everyone a potential leaker"  (teh-heh!)

SECRETARY CLINTON:
Otherwise, as we now know, it’s not the world of 10 years ago, let alone 50 or 100 years ago. Everybody is a potential source. Everyone is a potential blogger. Everyone is a potential leaker. (Laughter.) And therefore it would be, I think, beneficial for American foreign policy if we demonstrated as strong a presence as possible in a country after having worked through all the various and sundry jurisdictional turf problems that we know exist. This is a work in progress. It’s not going to happen overnight. But we have had enough examples in the past whereas if we don’t have that unified U.S. Government position, we are working at cross-purposes to our own ends, and that is just not going to cut it in the 21st century.

No reward for good infighters:

MR. STEINBERG: Just to be very specific, we’ve been – Anne-Marie and I have been talking with all of our ambassadors around the world and all of our mission directors together, and we’ve done it specifically together to communicate the same message. And one of the things that we’ve been communicating to all of our AID mission directors is you will no longer be rewarded for being a good infighter. It’s not about fighting for turf. It’s not about AID-centric activities. It’s about the results that you produce; and recognize that in order to produce those results, you need to be working as an inclusive leader with the interagency process. And one of the clear messages that the QDDR communicates is that the AID mission director is the development advisor within the missions overseas. But it also says, with that designation, comes the responsibility for changed behavior. (Applause.)






Tuesday, December 14, 2010

AFSA opposes mid-level lateral entry program to address mid-level experience gaps (updated)

The Harry S. Truman Building located at 2201 C...Image via WikipediaThe leaked QDDR contained a couple of sections on staffing issues at both USAID and the US Foreign Service. See below:


Building USAID as the World’s Premier Development Agency

Challenge 

  • USAID experienced a 38% decline in its workforce between 1990 and 2007 resulting in diminished capacity to manage programming and resources
  • Reduced capacity has increased reliance on contracting to fulfill USAID’s mission
  • Other U.S. agencies and offices have assumed roles that affect USAID’s programming

QDDR Response 
  • Advance the following QDDR reforms, introduced as part of USAID Forward:
  • Triple mid-level hiring at USAID by increasing the cap on mid-level Development Leadership Initiative hires from 30 to 95 per year
  • Bolster USAID’s policy leadership by creating the Policy, Planning and Learning Bureau and the Office of Science and Technology
  • Build budget capacity through the Office of Budget and Resource Management, to prepare a comprehensive USAID budget proposal by FY13, to be reviewed and approved by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and incorporated into the overall assistance budget
    Create a Working Capital Fund by charging a fee for acquisition and assistance awards to help align and fund USAID programs
    Introduce more outcome-level indicators to track program progress and launch a new evaluation policy starting in January 2011


Recruiting, Training and Retaining a 21stCentury Workforce

Challenge

  • U.S. diplomats and development experts are the backbone of America’s civilian power. State and USAID must recruit, train and retain a 21st century workforce
  • Over the past five years, State and USAID have been called upon to significantly expand their presence and operations in frontline states such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
  • Global civilian operations require a workforce that is ever more innovative, entrepreneurial, collaborative, agile and capable of taking and managing risk

QDDR Response
  • Close the experience gap by tripling mid-level hires in the Development Leadership Initiative at USAID and expanding limited-term appointments at State
  • Recruit and retain highly skilled Foreign Service Nationals by creating expert level positions at USAID
  • Seek more flexible hiring authorities to attract expertise; enlarge the pool of candidates with specialized skills
  • Expand Foreign Service Officer conversion opportunities for State Department Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel
  • Tie promotion to training and expand the range of training opportunities


AFSA apparently has not been invited into the QDDR discussion.  Susan Johnson, the President of AFSA has sent a Message on QDDR Draft Recommendations on "Recruiting & Training" (h/t to Digger of Life After Jerusalem). Excerpt below:

In its briefing to AFSA, the department has asserted that it does not intend to establish a mid-level lateral entry program at the State Department. We will work to ensure that this does not happen. What has so far been revealed about the QDDR draft recommendations relating to recruiting and training suggests that it seeks to address the (unspecified) mid-level experience gap in broad terms. AFSA’s position remains clear: We believe that mid-level hiring programs are not and have not been the best way to address mid-level experience gaps for the Foreign Service at all agencies. Like our military, the Foreign Service consists of commissioned officers, who serve on an up-or-out basis and are subject to the discipline of worldwide availability. Lateral entry is disruptive to the system and undermines morale in the same way it would if introduced into our military services.

At State, the “hiring surge” of the last few years has brought in thousands of new entry-level officers, many with strong academic credentials and extensive work experience. We believe that a better, more flexible, quicker and less costly way to address any mid-level gap is to identify and give opportunities for rapid advancement and training in supervision and management to the best of the entry level officers and to draw on Foreign Service retirees – in effect, our “Foreign Service reserve” – who have the needed experience, need no training, know how embassies and missions work, can mentor and coach, and are, by definition, short term. More flexible hiring authority to use retirees to fill mid-level experience gaps, with appropriate sunset provisions, is a tool the Secretary of State should have and should use.

In contrast to the State Department, the QDDR recommends hiring 95 mid-level technical experts at USAID. While AFSA recognizes the occasional need to bring in mid-level technical experts not currently available in the agency, we are not convinced that the numbers proposed are critical to carry out USAID’s work. The need at the FS-2 and FS-3 levels can be largely met in a cost-effective manner by appointing personnel with the same skills at the FS-5 and FS-4 levels. In any case, AFSA needs to be included in any work-force analysis in order to assure that only justifiable hiring takes place.

The QDDR recommends expanding opportunities for State Department Civil Service personnel to convert to the Foreign Service, seeking more flexible hiring authorities to attract expertise, and tying promotion to training. The current conversion procedures were negotiated with AFSA, and we continue to welcome qualified career Civil Service colleagues who utilize these existing procedures.

We have asked for a detailed briefing about the scope and nature of the mid-level deficit of positions at State and USAID, and expect to receive it shortly.
[...]
We remain ready to contribute constructive proposals to ensure that the QDDR process enhances the operation of the Foreign Service. We look forward to working with management to ensure that: (1) any mid-level needs are carefully and transparently identified and documented; (2) established procedures to fill such gaps are followed; and (3) any remedial measures proposed strengthen our professional diplomatic and development services rather than weakening or politicizing them.

Read the whole thing here.

Not too long ago, we talked to an FSO who was holding down the fort at his/her post, juggling three other jobs beside his/her own. He/She could not take any long vacation because the work does not get done while he/she is away -- it just balloons up for him/her to tackle on the next work day.  That officer was a breath away from total burnout.

The experience gap is a particularly important issue to address in an agency not known for growing its leaders effectively.  State needs good leaders and managers to teach the entry level officers the ropes of the trade so to speak.  But if you have a shortage of midlevel officers, who will do the teaching and mentoring? And if you have midlevel officers already handling one or two other jobs, how will they find time to mentor their junior officers?

Given the budget situation being what it is, it is hard to imagine that the staffing spurts for the State Department in the last couple of years could be sustained in the coming years.  As well, the expected departures of boomers in the next several years (sooner if the economy picks up) gave us pause.  We are speculating that the experience gaps at the midlevels will actually get worse in the foreseeable future. 

This problem has been persistent in the last several years. We have not seen or heard any creative ideas to resolve this problem for the long term.  How much longer will the "when we're fully staffed" be part of the FS wish list for Santa?  How many of the expanded limited appointments would be spouses and partners? How much expansion in the CS to FS conversion? Most limited appointments going to the warzones, how many are going to temporarily fill in the gaps in the hardship posts that are not in the warzones?     

We also note that a GAO report released in 2009 concluded that "State faced a 28 percent greater deficit at the FS-02 level than it did in 2006, with mid-level positions in the public diplomacy and consular cones continuing to experience the largest shortages of staff overall.”

We asked some FS folks about their thoughts on AFSA's message and the midlevel staffing issues particularly in reference to the GAO conclusion above. Below is what we got, all in blind quotes for understandable reasons:

From a midlevel FSO currently posted in a warzone:
"I don't have particularly strong opinions on this topic. (To confess my ignorance: I don't even know what QDDR stands for). I can see how AFSA would be opposed to such a program; simultaneously, USAID has a mid-level entry program that seems to work fine. It seems like upping the number of mid-level officers might make bidding (a process I currently find nauseatingly Byzantine, right at the cross roads of high school popularity contest and begging for coins on the side of the road) more difficult, but if it's good for the service, it hardly seems fair to complain."


From an upper midlevel FSO currently assigned in WDC:
I heard several times in meetings here that in Summer 2011, there will actually be 40% fewer FS-02 officers than FS-02 jobs.  Then, of course, you have the recent huge hiring surge and no places to put those people, because the shortage is at mid-level, not entry level.  So bureaus are in the position of ceding massive numbers of mid-level jobs to entry-level just to get them filled.

[M]id-level entry is problematic for a variety of reasons, many of which involve fairness to those who came in the traditional way, not the least of which is negatively impacting career mobility.  The solution to all of this, of course, is to consistently fund DOS, instead of going through these boom or bust cycles that cause these bubbles to begin with.


From a senior FSO who retired from the FS:
I agree with AFSA on this issue. It is not 02 bodies that the service needs; it needs experienced, competent 02s. I can't speak for PD, but I know that CA management has - and could easily acquire more of - a great deal of knowledge about its individual officers. I also know that CA still frequently fills positions because they need to be filled and there is an officer willing to go there, not because the officer is a good fit for the position, or is even competent. There are at least two SFS officers I personally know of who should never be allowed to run a house-cleaning service, let alone a large, sensitive consular section. Yet they continue to get assignments, and perform them badly.


Equally, CA has sometimes not removed officers from obviously bad fits because they were unwilling or unable to easily locate and recruit competent replacements. These two faults are not inexcusable, but they could be remedied.


I would say that CA needs to exercise more flexibility in assigning and moving officers, including - for example - asking selected 03 officers to fill open 02 positions; in re-training others; in conducting come-to-Jesus meetings with those who aren't doing as well as they could; in letting known, irredeemably bad ones walk the halls; in asking consular-coned officers who serve most of their careers outside consular, to come back home for selected assignments; in guaranteeing that new officers receive both the training and the nurturing that they need to assure their competence, their confidence, and their pleasure in their new chosen profession, and to make them happy to do consular work. Etc.


A good private company would not run so haphazardly. I have enormous confidence in the basic competence of CA management, and its sense of responsibility. What I don't have is confidence that CA takes its responsibilities seriously enough to change its overall philosophy.


From an FSO who has been in the service for 3-5 years, currently overseas:
I'm torn.  On the one hand, don't we already do something like this - let people who have no clue about FS culture and practice run missions or offices, as long as they pay enough money to the right candidate?  On the other hand, I do believe that it's a rare person who can come into an organization that's as insular, interdependent, and self-reverential as we are and truly fit in well, or effect change in a constructive manner.


I've purposely written that to sound a bit whiny, because I think the position is a bit whiny.  Nonetheless, it's one I hold.  What organism or organization doesn't have self-interest in perpetuating its inertia?  I know we tried mid-level hiring once, and by accounts it was a disaster.  So maybe there's another way to do it - isn't that why we're hired, to think creatively and flexibly? 


I was hired at the end of the post-DRI period, when hardly anyone was coming into the system.  People hired in the four years or so before me are shooting up the system rather quickly, but because of the huge bubble right behind me, I actually get into the bidding process and it's going to be a nightmare.  So yes, it personally sucks for me...  but that doesn't mean I oppose the ramp-up in hiring.  Maybe midlevel hiring is the way to fix that gap?  Or maybe just continuing the expanded hiring of JOs, knowing that it will eventually sort itself out.
An FS-02 Consular Officer writes (added on 12/14/2010):

I've always thought that bringing in some people at the mid-level would help shake up the "group think" that is indoctrinated in to most (but not all) FS generalists.  But one thing really irks me about the QDDR proposal -- where are the hard cold (detailed) stats to support that the notion that there is this horrible mid-level gap.  I am an -02 consular officer (and generally not half bad at my job) but yet I look at the recent promotion stats and see that the recently released 2010 promotion stats show that consular officers were promoted at the 2nd to last rate of all generalists at the -02 (to -01) level.  [Combining the classwide and functional board stats, only 30 of 209 promotion-eligible consular officers were promoted last summer.  And let me tell you that bidding as an -02 or -01 consular officer definitely illustrates that there are far more consular officers than consular jobs at this level.  I can't imagine where the stat comes from that there are 40% fewer consular officers at the -02 level than consular jobs at that level.  I would need to see lists of both to really believe it.  From previous assignments serving inside HR, I know they are well versed at spinning numbers to support whatever they are after.  So I'm putting aside my dreams of independent thinkers (mid-level entrants) and waiting for the Department to prove what it is talking about re mid-level gap.

 
Related item:

Leading through Civilian Power 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review








Wednesday, December 8, 2010

AFSA opposes mid-level lateral entry program to address mid-level experience gaps

Caption: "The old state department buildi...Image via WikipediaThe leaked QDDR contained a couple of sections on staffing issues at both USAID and the US Foreign Service. See below:


Building USAID as the World’s Premier Development Agency

Challenge 

  • USAID experienced a 38% decline in its workforce between 1990 and 2007 resulting in diminished capacity to manage programming and resources
  • Reduced capacity has increased reliance on contracting to fulfill USAID’s mission
  • Other U.S. agencies and offices have assumed roles that affect USAID’s programming

QDDR Response 
  • Advance the following QDDR reforms, introduced as part of USAID Forward:
  • Triple mid-level hiring at USAID by increasing the cap on mid-level Development Leadership Initiative hires from 30 to 95 per year
  • Bolster USAID’s policy leadership by creating the Policy, Planning and Learning Bureau and the Office of Science and Technology
  • Build budget capacity through the Office of Budget and Resource Management, to prepare a comprehensive USAID budget proposal by FY13, to be reviewed and approved by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and incorporated into the overall assistance budget
    Create a Working Capital Fund by charging a fee for acquisition and assistance awards to help align and fund USAID programs
    Introduce more outcome-level indicators to track program progress and launch a new evaluation policy starting in January 2011


Recruiting, Training and Retaining a 21stCentury Workforce

Challenge

  • U.S. diplomats and development experts are the backbone of America’s civilian power. State and USAID must recruit, train and retain a 21st century workforce
  • Over the past five years, State and USAID have been called upon to significantly expand their presence and operations in frontline states such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
  • Global civilian operations require a workforce that is ever more innovative, entrepreneurial, collaborative, agile and capable of taking and managing risk

QDDR Response
  • Close the experience gap by tripling mid-level hires in the Development Leadership Initiative at USAID and expanding limited-term appointments at State
  • Recruit and retain highly skilled Foreign Service Nationals by creating expert level positions at USAID
  • Seek more flexible hiring authorities to attract expertise; enlarge the pool of candidates with specialized skills
  • Expand Foreign Service Officer conversion opportunities for State Department Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel
  • Tie promotion to training and expand the range of training opportunities


AFSA apparently has not been invited into the QDDR discussion.  Susan Johnson, the President of AFSA has sent a Message on QDDR Draft Recommendations on "Recruiting & Training" (h/t to Digger of Life After Jerusalem). Excerpt below:

In its briefing to AFSA, the department has asserted that it does not intend to establish a mid-level lateral entry program at the State Department. We will work to ensure that this does not happen. What has so far been revealed about the QDDR draft recommendations relating to recruiting and training suggests that it seeks to address the (unspecified) mid-level experience gap in broad terms. AFSA’s position remains clear: We believe that mid-level hiring programs are not and have not been the best way to address mid-level experience gaps for the Foreign Service at all agencies. Like our military, the Foreign Service consists of commissioned officers, who serve on an up-or-out basis and are subject to the discipline of worldwide availability. Lateral entry is disruptive to the system and undermines morale in the same way it would if introduced into our military services.

At State, the “hiring surge” of the last few years has brought in thousands of new entry-level officers, many with strong academic credentials and extensive work experience. We believe that a better, more flexible, quicker and less costly way to address any mid-level gap is to identify and give opportunities for rapid advancement and training in supervision and management to the best of the entry level officers and to draw on Foreign Service retirees – in effect, our “Foreign Service reserve” – who have the needed experience, need no training, know how embassies and missions work, can mentor and coach, and are, by definition, short term. More flexible hiring authority to use retirees to fill mid-level experience gaps, with appropriate sunset provisions, is a tool the Secretary of State should have and should use.

In contrast to the State Department, the QDDR recommends hiring 95 mid-level technical experts at USAID. While AFSA recognizes the occasional need to bring in mid-level technical experts not currently available in the agency, we are not convinced that the numbers proposed are critical to carry out USAID’s work. The need at the FS-2 and FS-3 levels can be largely met in a cost-effective manner by appointing personnel with the same skills at the FS-5 and FS-4 levels. In any case, AFSA needs to be included in any work-force analysis in order to assure that only justifiable hiring takes place.

The QDDR recommends expanding opportunities for State Department Civil Service personnel to convert to the Foreign Service, seeking more flexible hiring authorities to attract expertise, and tying promotion to training. The current conversion procedures were negotiated with AFSA, and we continue to welcome qualified career Civil Service colleagues who utilize these existing procedures.

We have asked for a detailed briefing about the scope and nature of the mid-level deficit of positions at State and USAID, and expect to receive it shortly.
[...]
We remain ready to contribute constructive proposals to ensure that the QDDR process enhances the operation of the Foreign Service. We look forward to working with management to ensure that: (1) any mid-level needs are carefully and transparently identified and documented; (2) established procedures to fill such gaps are followed; and (3) any remedial measures proposed strengthen our professional diplomatic and development services rather than weakening or politicizing them.

Read the whole thing here.

Not too long ago, we talked to an FSO who was holding down the fort at his/her post, juggling three other jobs beside his/her own. He/She could not take any long vacation because the work does not get done while he/she is away -- it just balloons up for him/her to tackle on the next work day.  That officer was a breath away from total burnout.

The experience gap is a particularly important issue to address in an agency not known for growing its leaders effectively.  State needs good leaders and managers to teach the entry level officers the ropes of the trade so to speak.  But if you have a shortage of midlevel officers, who will do the teaching and mentoring? And if you have midlevel officers already handling one or two other jobs, how will they find time to mentor their junior officers?

Given the budget situation being what it is, it is hard to imagine that the staffing spurts for the State Department in the last couple of years could be sustained in the coming years.  As well, the expected departures of boomers in the next several years (sooner if the economy picks up) gave us pause.  We are speculating that the experience gaps at the midlevels will actually get worse in the foreseeable future. 

This problem has been persistent in the last several years. We have not seen or heard any creative ideas to resolve this problem for the long term.  How much longer will the "when we're fully staffed" be part of the FS wish list for Santa?  How many of the expanded limited appointments would be spouses and partners? How much expansion in the CS to FS conversion? Most limited appointments going to the warzones, how many are going to temporarily fill in the gaps in the hardship posts that are not in the warzones?     

We also note that a GAO report released in 2009 concluded that "State faced a 28 percent greater deficit at the FS-02 level than it did in 2006, with mid-level positions in the public diplomacy and consular cones continuing to experience the largest shortages of staff overall.”

We asked some FS folks about their thoughts on AFSA's message and the midlevel staffing issues particularly in reference to the GAO conclusion above. Below is what we got, all in blind quotes for understandable reasons:

From a midlevel FSO currently posted in a warzone:
"I don't have particularly strong opinions on this topic. (To confess my ignorance: I don't even know what QDDR stands for). I can see how AFSA would be opposed to such a program; simultaneously, USAID has a mid-level entry program that seems to work fine. It seems like upping the number of mid-level officers might make bidding (a process I currently find nauseatingly Byzantine, right at the cross roads of high school popularity contest and begging for coins on the side of the road) more difficult, but if it's good for the service, it hardly seems fair to complain."


From an upper midlevel FSO currently assigned in WDC:
I heard several times in meetings here that in Summer 2011, there will actually be 40% fewer FS-02 officers than FS-02 jobs.  Then, of course, you have the recent huge hiring surge and no places to put those people, because the shortage is at mid-level, not entry level.  So bureaus are in the position of ceding massive numbers of mid-level jobs to entry-level just to get them filled.

[M]id-level entry is problematic for a variety of reasons, many of which involve fairness to those who came in the traditional way, not the least of which is negatively impacting career mobility.  The solution to all of this, of course, is to consistently fund DOS, instead of going through these boom or bust cycles that cause these bubbles to begin with.


From a senior FSO who retired from the FS:
I agree with AFSA on this issue. It is not 02 bodies that the service needs; it needs experienced, competent 02s. I can't speak for PD, but I know that CA management has - and could easily acquire more of - a great deal of knowledge about its individual officers. I also know that CA still frequently fills positions because they need to be filled and there is an officer willing to go there, not because the officer is a good fit for the position, or is even competent. There are at least two SFS officers I personally know of who should never be allowed to run a house-cleaning service, let alone a large, sensitive consular section. Yet they continue to get assignments, and perform them badly.


Equally, CA has sometimes not removed officers from obviously bad fits because they were unwilling or unable to easily locate and recruit competent replacements. These two faults are not inexcusable, but they could be remedied.


I would say that CA needs to exercise more flexibility in assigning and moving officers, including - for example - asking selected 03 officers to fill open 02 positions; in re-training others; in conducting come-to-Jesus meetings with those who aren't doing as well as they could; in letting known, irredeemably bad ones walk the halls; in asking consular-coned officers who serve most of their careers outside consular, to come back home for selected assignments; in guaranteeing that new officers receive both the training and the nurturing that they need to assure their competence, their confidence, and their pleasure in their new chosen profession, and to make them happy to do consular work. Etc.


A good private company would not run so haphazardly. I have enormous confidence in the basic competence of CA management, and its sense of responsibility. What I don't have is confidence that CA takes its responsibilities seriously enough to change its overall philosophy.


From an FSO who has been in the service for 3-5 years, currently overseas:
I'm torn.  On the one hand, don't we already do something like this - let people who have no clue about FS culture and practice run missions or offices, as long as they pay enough money to the right candidate?  On the other hand, I do believe that it's a rare person who can come into an organization that's as insular, interdependent, and self-reverential as we are and truly fit in well, or effect change in a constructive manner.


I've purposely written that to sound a bit whiny, because I think the position is a bit whiny.  Nonetheless, it's one I hold.  What organism or organization doesn't have self-interest in perpetuating its inertia?  I know we tried mid-level hiring once, and by accounts it was a disaster.  So maybe there's another way to do it - isn't that why we're hired, to think creatively and flexibly? 


I was hired at the end of the post-DRI period, when hardly anyone was coming into the system.  People hired in the four years or so before me are shooting up the system rather quickly, but because of the huge bubble right behind me, I actually get into the bidding process and it's going to be a nightmare.  So yes, it personally sucks for me...  but that doesn't mean I oppose the ramp-up in hiring.  Maybe midlevel hiring is the way to fix that gap?  Or maybe just continuing the expanded hiring of JOs, knowing that it will eventually sort itself out.

 
Related item:

Leading through Civilian Power 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy & Development Review







Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Debt Commission: Goodbye to Locality Pay, and Hello Post Closures, Again?

Pho failImage by interpunct via FlickrThe bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was created by President Obama to to address our nation's fiscal challenges. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. The Commission is tasked with proposing recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.

The Commission has put up online a document called $200 Billion in Illustrative Savings.  Read the whole thing here. Excerpted below are the items included in the list that affect the State Department, particularly the "locality pay" for overseas employees, USAID and slowing foreign aid growth, reduction of contribution to the UN and the elimination of OPIC. And charge for services by US Foreign Commercial Service.

14. Reduce overhead cost of diplomatic operations.
29
The administration has requested $9.55 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) in FY2011, with plans to increase this to $12.5 billion by FY2015. Diplomatic and Consular Program funding provides for the day-to-day costs of running U.S. diplomatic operations such as maintenance and security of embassies and consulates, the salaries of ambassadors, and Foreign Service staff. This option would cut the budget by 10 percent. This reduces the rate of growth by trimming overhead costs while still allowing for significant growth from FY2010, when Diplomatic and Consular Programs were funded at $8.2 billion. 30
This reduction in future growth can be achieved in many ways and can be done in such a way that does not jeopardize the security of Americans and our allies working in embassies and consulates around the world.

One area that will cost the State Department a significant amount in resources is any decision to pay Foreign Service Officers serving overseas an additional bonus called “locality pay.” Locality pay is paid to federal employees, including Foreign Service Officers who live and work in Washington D.C. but not federal employees serving overseas. Foreign Service Officers have sought to end this so-called “pay gap” which they claim is above 20 percent.31 The Department of Defense’s employees serving overseas do not receive any locality pay either, but there are currently no proposals to give them this benefit. Proponents of this benefit claim that it is needed to address recruiting and retention problems, but the foreign service career field remains highly competitive with 25,000 applicants competing for 300 to 900 positions annually. The “pay gap” was temporarily fixed in 200932 and 201033 but a permanent fix has not been legislatively implemented. Based on Congressional Budget Office assessments, permanently repealing Washington D.C. locality pay for overseas State Department workers could save $427 million in FY2013.34

The State Department should also examine all consulates to determine cost savings from closing down those consulates that may have been more relevant in the Cold War, but are not longer absolutely necessary for the U.S. to conduct its diplomatic mission. Another area that the State Department should review is its plans for new construction. Many of these plans have included costly security measures that may not be necessary, or may cost more than is justified by the benefit they will give to the United States. For instance, in Krakow, Poland, the United States plans to build a consulate that will cost U.S. taxpayers $80 million but will house only ten American employees.35 The State Department should determine whether expensive security measures are appropriate for all countries. In addition it should consider whether there are some consular areas that should be consolidated or utilize teleconferencing and the internet to more efficiently perform its mission.

15. Slow the growth of foreign aid.36

The President’s budget calls for over $14 billion of increases in international affairs spending between 2011 and 2015. Nearly all of this growth is due to large increases in spending for international development and humanitarian assistance. 37 Since 2008, the budget for international development and humanitarian assistance has increase over 80 percent from over $17 billion to over $32 billion, and is expected to grow another 40 percent to over $45 billion by 2015 – more than double previous levels. This option slows the growth of this budget category, reducing the allocations 10 percent from the President’s budget, saving $4.6 billion in 2015.
A cut of this amount will slow the growth over the period, while still allowing for an increase of about 30 percent by 2015.

26. Reduce voluntary contributions to the United Nations.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the United States provided over $6.3 billion in taxpayer funds to the United Nations in FY2009. Less than half ($2.7 billion) of that total went to “assessed”  dues – payments that the United States is charged for being a member and for its share of peacekeeping operations around the world.57  The United States is by far the largest donor to the United Nations in terms of assessed dues. However, the United States gives the United Nations more than $3.5 billion in “voluntary” funds each year.58 This option allows the United States to remain a member in good standing of the United Nations by contributing the full dues that will be assessed, but reduces voluntary payments by 10 percent, which will save $300 million per year.

28. Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
.60
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) offers private U.S. companies subsidized financing for foreign investments and insurance against political risks to those investments, including nationalization. The aim is to support economic development in some countries that are “strategically important” to the United States. This option would eliminate new activity by OPIC, although it would continue to service its existing portfolio. The main rationale for implementing this option is that the activities of OPIC may not provide net public benefits to the United States. Its subsidies deliver benefits to foreigners and selected U.S. businesses. Furthermore, its subsidies to nations of strategic importance to the United States tend to overlap with and duplicate those provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development and by private insurance firms. They also could hamper the development of local financial institutions and markets in those countries.


36. Charge beneficiaries for the cost of the International Trade Administration’s trade promotion activities.74The International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department of Commerce oversees a trade development program that monitors the competitiveness of  U.S. industries and operates the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Services to promote exports. Currently ITA’s mission is to create prosperity by strengthening the competitiveness of U.S. industry, promoting trade and investment, and ensuring fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements. The President’s FY2011 budget request for the ITA was $534.3 million, a 20 percent increase from the FY2010 request. This increase includes an additional $78.5 million to support ITA’s export promotion efforts. Services provided by ITA’s U.S. Commercial Services and other Divisions directly providing assistance to U.S. Companies should be financed by beneficiaries of this assistance. While the agency charges fees for those services, its fees do not cover the costs of all its activities. Additionally, it is argued that the benefits of trade promotion activities are passed on to foreigners in the form of decreased export costs. According to a study by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), businesses can receive similar services from state, local, and private-sector entities. The CBO option to eliminate ITA’s promotion activities or charge the program’s beneficiaries saves $267 million in 2010 and $1.6 billion through 2014.

Active links added above. 

By the way, the last time the State Department had a huge round of post closures was during the tenure of Warren Christopher in the 1990's. Some 32 US embassies and consulates were closed between 1993 and 1997.

You can have your say on these issues --
 
"The Commission welcomes your input as we seek out creative solutions to our nation's mid- and long-term fiscal challenges. Anyone can submit comments, ideas, and suggestions at anytime via email by contacting commission@fc.eop.gov. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record. Due to the volume of comments we receive, we are not able to respond to each submission."

How about for item#59, we add, "Bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and let these countries do their own nation building."

How many billions would that save us?





Thursday, July 15, 2010

Senators Kerry, Lugar and the future of USAID

United States Agency for International DevelopmentImage via Wikipedia
In late June, the GAO released its report, Foreign Assistance: USAID Needs to Improve Its Strategic Planning to Address Current and Future Workforce Needs (GAO-10-496 June 30, 2010). Here is a quick summary:

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) oversees U.S. foreign assistance programs in more than 100 countries. In 2003, GAO recommended that USAID develop a comprehensive workforce planning system to better identify its staffing needs and requirements. Key principles for effective strategic workforce planning are important to an agency's ability to carry out its mission. GAO examined (1) changes in USAID's workforce and program funding since 2004, (2) the extent to which it has developed a strategic workforce plan, (3) the efforts it has taken to implement two key human capital initiatives, and (4) the challenges and constraints that affect its workforce planning and management. To conduct the work, GAO analyzed staffing and program funding data; reviewed documentation related to the agency's workforce planning; and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and at six overseas missions selected to obtain an appropriate mix of geographic coverage, programs, and workforce size and composition.

USAID's workforce declined 2.7 percent from 2004 to 2009. While the decline is primarily due to decreases in the number of U.S. and foreign national personal services contractors, these staff continue to comprise the majority of USAID's workforce. Over the same period USAID's program funding increased 92 percent to $17.9 billion. USAID also faces some workforce gaps and vacancies at the six missions visited by GAO. Mission officials cited recruiting difficulties and the need for staff in priority countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as factors contributing to these vacancies. According to mission officials, it is not uncommon for positions to remain vacant for a lengthy period. During this time staff may assume multiple responsibilities and accept additional workload, which present some challenges in the agency's ability to manage and oversee its activities. For example, workforce gaps and heavy workload may limit mission staff's ability to travel to the field to monitor and evaluate the implementation of projects. USAID's 5-year workforce plan for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 discusses the agency's challenges and the steps it has taken and plans to take to strengthen its workforce. However, the plan lacks several key elements that GAO has identified as critical to strategic workforce planning. For example, the plan generally does not include a major portion of USAID's workforce--U.S. and foreign national personal services contractors. In particular, it is not comprehensive in its analysis of workforce and competency gaps and the staffing levels that the agency requires to meet its program needs and goals. USAID has taken actions to implement two key initiatives specified in its workforce plan--a workforce planning model and expansion of its Foreign Service--but it generally lacks documented plans to help ensure they are implemented successfully. For example, USAID implemented the workforce planning model to project its workforce and budgetary needs, but it has not developed plans for providing all missions comprehensive information about the model and its projections to inform missions of how it will affect their workforce planning. In addition, USAID has not fully met its Foreign Service hiring targets nor developed plans for how it will meet its hiring goals, and it has not planned the required overseas training assignments for all new hires to help ensure that missions have the necessary resources and mentors. USAID faces several challenges in its workforce planning and management. First, USAID lacks a sufficiently reliable and comprehensive system to record the number, location, and occupation of its staff. Second, according to mission officials, operating in an uncertain environment with shifting program priorities and funding can make it difficult to ensure that missions have the staff available with the necessary skills when needed. Third, the processes USAID must use to plan for the placement of its overseas staff require coordination with State; however, USAID has not consistently developed and shared its plans for the numbers and specific locations for these assignments.

As expected, the report got a response from Congress - specifically the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In response to the GAO report emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategic planning to meet workforce needs at USAID, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-IN), who authored the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009 to help address USAID’s gaps in capacity issued the following statement:
“The strength of USAID lies with its people, officers who are on the frontlines building schools, delivering health programs, and distributing food. But over the past decade, we have undermined our foreign service corps by not providing the agency with the resources to expand personnel so they can meet the demands of USAID programming. This GAO report underscores these workforce gaps and reaffirms the urgent need for critical changes, which Senator Lugar and I addressed in last year’s Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act. The Foreign Relations Committee will continue our push for reform,” said Chairman Kerry.

“I am hopeful this report will give momentum not only to our legislation, but also to Dr. Shah’s attempts to reform the agency by recreating a policy planning shop and revitalizing a unit dedicated to evaluating and analyzing programs and projects,” Ranking Member Lugar said.

Following is a summary of the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act, which was introduced in July 2009 and passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 2009.

Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009

Build Policy and Strategy Capacity:

  • Reestablish a Bureau of Policy and Strategic Planning in USAID.  Currently, USAID has very limited policy and strategic planning capacity.  The last Administration closed down the policy bureau and relegated USAID as a program implementer instead of a policy actor.  This bill begins to restore thinking, strategic decision-making, and policy innovation to the Agency.  It will also add a second deputy Administrator for management and operations, and an Assistant Administrator to oversee the policy bureau.
  • Strengthen and coordinate U.S. foreign aid in the field.  The bill makes the USAID mission director responsible for coordinating all U.S. development and humanitarian assistance efforts in a given country, under guidance of the Chief of Mission.  It also urges the Agency to fundamentally reconsider the role, responsibility, structure, and function of USAID missions in the 21st century.
Increase Accountability:
  • Establish a Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance.  As we look to double U.S. foreign assistance programs by 2015, we need a better way to evaluate which development programs work, which have minimal impact, and what factors determine success or failure.  Our current system is unable to provide this analysis.  This evaluation group would be based in the executive branch, but it would operate independently under the auspices of an interagency board.  Its mandate is to objectively evaluate the impact and results of all development and foreign aid programs undertaken by the U.S. Government.  The group would have a second division focused on innovation research that would be an incubator for cutting-edge development projects and would be modeled after the Defense Department’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
  • Reestablish “lessons learned” center in USAID.  The bill reestablishes a “lessons learned” center so that we can better understand what projects work, which projects fail, and how to design future programs for maximum impact.
  • Transparency.  The bill establishes important transparency standards so that taxpayers have a clearer understanding of where their money is going, what projects are being funded, and what outcomes are resulting.
Personnel and Human Resources: 
  • Establish a human resources and personnel strategy for USAID.  This bill jump-starts the rebuilding process by mandating a comprehensive review of all aspects of human resources, establishing a high-level task force to advise on critical personnel issues, and directing GAO to assess the new personnel strategy.
  • Rebuild expertise: rotations and training.  The bill requires personnel to undertake interagency and international rotations to bring a cross-disciplinary focus to USAID.  It encourages external training and education opportunities, and it provides new flexibilities in the operating expenses account so that Foreign Service officers and civil servants can better monitor programs and advise missions on development issues.

Can you feel impatience in the air?  The previous four USAID directors have written about the future of USAID here.  Josh Rogin of The Cable has also written about the growing angst about the agency's future...








Related item:

Foreign Assistance: USAID Needs to Improve Its Strategic Planning to Address Current and Future Workforce Needs | GAO-10-496 June 30, 2010