Inspection of the Foreign Service Institute

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ISP-I-13-22 Office of Inspections March 2013 Inspection of the Foreign Service Institute IMPORTANT NOTICE: This report is intended solely for the official use of the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or any agency or organization receiving a copy directly from the Office of Inspector General. No secondary distribution may be made, in whole or in part, outside the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, by them or by other agencies of organizations, without prior authorization by the Inspector General. Public availability of the document will be determined by the Inspector General under the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 552. Improper disclosure of this report may result in criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY OF THE INSPECTION This inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation, as issued in 2011 by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Inspector’s Handbook, as issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of State (Department) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Office of Inspections provides the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the BBG, and Congress with systematic and independent evaluations of the operations of the Department and the BBG. Inspections cover three broad areas, consistent with Section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980: • Policy Implementation: whether policy goals and objectives are being effectively achieved; whether U.S. interests are being accurately and effectively represented; and whether all elements of an office or mission are being adequately coordinated. • Resource Management: whether resources are being used and managed with maximum efficiency, effectiveness, and economy and whether financial transactions and accounts are properly conducted, maintained, and reported. • Management Controls: whether the administration of activities and operations meets the requirements of applicable laws and regulations; whether internal management controls have been instituted to ensure quality of performance and reduce the likelihood of mismanagement; whether instance of fraud, waste, or abuse exist; and whether adequate steps for detection, correction, and prevention have been taken. METHODOLOGY In conducting this inspection, the inspectors: reviewed pertinent records; as appropriate, circulated, reviewed, and compiled the results of survey instruments; and reviewed the substance of the report and its findings and recommendations with offices, individuals, organizations, and activities affected by this review. Inspectors conducted on-site interviews with available direct-hire staff and many contract staff in the School of Professional and Area Studies, School of Applied Information Technology, Leadership and Management School, Transition Center, and Executive Office. To inspect the School of Language Studies, inspectors interviewed direct-hire and selected contract staff in the Foreign Service Institute’s five largest language programs: Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. The team also reviewed the following nine medium-sized, small, and microlanguage programs: Dari, Georgian, German, Kinyarwandan, Korean, Kurdish, Portuguese, Tajiki, and Tibetan. In FY 2012, these 14 languages composed 52 percent of the resource expenditure of the School of Language Studies, 58 percent of its staff, 73 percent of its Department students, and 71 percent of its students from other agencies. The operations of the Foreign Service Institute’s 3 overseas schools and 11 regional language programs were outside the scope of this inspection. i SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General PREFACE This report was prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended. It is one of a series of audit, inspection, investigative, and special reports prepared by OIG periodically as part of its responsibility to promote effective management, accountability, and positive change in the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This report is the result of an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the office, post, or function under review. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observation, and a review of applicable documents. The recommendations therein have been developed on the basis of the best knowledge available to the OIG and, as appropriate, have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is my hope that these recommendations will result in more effective, efficient, and/or economical operations. I express my appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. Harold W. Geisel Deputy Inspector General ii SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED Table of Contents Key Judgments 1 Context 3 Executive Direction 4 Crosscutting Issues 9 School of Language Studies 12 School of Professional and Area Studies 36 School of Applied Information Technology 46 Leadership and Management School 48 Transition Center 51 Resource Management 52 Security 72 Quality of Life 74 Management Controls 75 List of Recommendations 76 List of Informal Recommendations 84 Principal Officials 87 Abbreviations 89 iii SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED Key Judgments • The rapid growth of Foreign Service Institute (FSI) staff, students, courses, and facilities reflects the Department of State’s (Department) commitment to professional training. The director has managed this transition with dedication and energy. Enrollment has more than quadrupled over the past decade, in part because of FSI’s creative use of distance learning and regional training. • Improved communication and clearer delegation of authority are needed to address staff’s perception that FSI leadership exercises excessive control over details to the detriment of initiative and supervisor growth. • The School of Language Studies (SLS) teaches more than 70 languages, with 60 percent of students reaching target proficiency levels on time, even though the Department no longer considers employees’ language aptitude when making assignments. The Department needs to reinstitute language aptitude screening and establish a policy of assigning employees who lack demonstrated prior success in language learning or tested language aptitude to hard or super hard language training only if there are no other qualified bidders available. • SLS needs organizational and programmatic changes to strengthen pedagogy, coordination, and strategic planning. Outside review of a portion of recorded language test samples and other steps are required to address the inherent conflict of interest of SLS instructors serving as testers. • The School of Professional and Area Studies (SPAS) responds effectively to Department and congressional requirements for new courses on issues such as democracy, development, and refugees. Consular, public diplomacy, and economic training are linked well to policymakers’ priorities; other functional areas are not. • The Leadership and Management School’s (LMS) courses are highly praised by Department and interagency participants. Demand for some of its offerings outstrips LMS’s capacity. Morale among staff members was low due to leadership deficiencies but is improving. • The School of Applied Information Technology (SAIT) successfully delivers technical training to Department employees but should improve internal cohesion and determine whether it could realize savings by having a commercial vendor teach its industry-standard courses. • The Transition Center is small but effective in preparing Department employees and family members for diplomatic life, service overseas, and retirement. • FSI’s Executive Office (FSI/EX) generally supports FSI’s training program efficiently, a significant accomplishment given FSI’s size. However, FSI/EX needs to improve procedures, office structures, and customer service in its human resources and general services offices. 1 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED • Deficiencies in project management as well as contracting and budgeting practices resulted in inadequate tracking of major application development costs and timelines. • FSI and other Department entities will require new resources to carry out all of the inspection team’s recommendations. Some of these resources should be offset by the resulting medium- and long-term savings to the Department. All findings and recommendations in this report are based on conditions observed during the on-site review and the standards and policies then in effect. The report does not comment at length on areas where OIG did not identify problems that need to be corrected. The inspection took place in Washington, DC. The first phase was between May 2 and July 3, 2012, and covered executive direction, crosscutting issues, SPAS, SAIT, LMS, the Transition Center, and FSI/EX. (b) (6) The second phase was between September 18 and December 12, 2012, and covered executive direction, crosscutting issues, and SLS

Load more