This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-339 
entitled 'United Nations: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive 
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact' which was released on February 
13, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

February 2004:

United Nations:

Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to Measure 
Impact:

GAO-04-339:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-339, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The U.N. Secretary General launched two reform agendas, in 1997 and 
2002, to address the U.N.’s core management challenges—poor leadership 
of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and programs, 
and the lack of accountability for staff performance. In 2000, GAO 
reported that the Secretary General had reorganized the Secretariat’s 
leadership and structure, but that the reforms were not yet complete. 
As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United 
States has a strong interest in the completion of these reforms.

GAO was asked to assess the (1) overall status of the 1997 and 2002 
reforms, (2) implementation of reforms in four key areas, and (3) 
potential challenges to reform.

What GAO Found:

As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 
1997 agenda and 38 percent of the 66 initiatives in the 2002 agenda 
were in place. In general, reforms under the Secretary General’s 
authority were progressing more quickly than those requiring member 
states’ approval. Since 1997, the Secretariat has implemented reforms 
to provide more unified leadership and coordination across departments 
and offices. However, the Secretariat has implemented other reforms, 
such as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, that 
are only the first step in achieving the Secretary General’s overall 
goals. 

Reforms in four key areas of U.N. operations are in various stages. 
First, the Secretariat has taken positive steps to strengthen its 
human capital management, but reforms in this area are ongoing and 
additional challenges remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to adopt 
results-oriented budgeting, but its monitoring and evaluation system 
does not measure program impact. Third, although the Secretariat 
reorganized its public information department, reforms of library 
management and publications are not fully in place. Fourth, the 
Secretariat’s human rights office implemented the majority of its 
management reforms but does not have the authority to implement 
reforms outside the Secretariat. 

U.N. reform faces several challenges. For example, the Secretariat 
does not conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of 
U.N. reforms. In addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated 
priorities, interim goals, and target dates for overall completion. 
Other challenges include resistance to change from program managers 
and possible resource constraints. 

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State and the Permanent 
Representative of the United States to the United Nations work with 
other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1) report 
regularly on the status and impact of reforms; (2) identify short- and 
long-term goals and establish target end dates for remaining reforms; 
and (3) conduct assessments of the resulting resource implications.

We received comments from the Department of State and the United 
Nations, both of which generally agreed with our conclusions and 
recommendations.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, but 
Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms:

Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, but 
Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear:

Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms:

Conclusion:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms:

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:

Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations:

Tables:

Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status:

Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the 
Status of Their Implementation:

Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and 
the Status of Their Implementation:

Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation:

Figures:

Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present:

Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms:

Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms:

Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform:

Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying 
Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005:

Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets:

Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends:

Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program:

Abbreviations:

DPI: Department of Public Information: 
ECOSOC: Economic and Social Council: 
IASC: Inter-Agency Standing Committee: 
JIU: Joint Inspection Unit: 
OHCHR: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: 
OHRM: Office of Human Resources Management: 
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services:  
OPPBA: Office of Program Planning, Budget, and Accounts: 
UNCTAD: U.N. Conference on Trade and Development 
UNDP: U.N. Development Program 
UNFPA: U.N. Population Fund 
UNICEF: U.N. Children's Fund:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

February 13, 2004:

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Michael Enzi: 
United States Senate:

The United Nations' regular budget for the 2004-2005 biennium exceeds 
$3 billion for the first time. U.N. officials, including the Secretary 
General, have stated that additional funding will be needed to upgrade 
U.N. security worldwide and expand current programs in Iraq. In light 
of these increasing demands, the Secretary General and member states 
have called on the Secretariat to better define priorities and 
eliminate outdated activities. These calls have also highlighted the 
need for more accountable leadership and improvements in key management 
practices. In 1997, the Secretary General launched a major reform 
initiative to restructure U.N. leadership and operations, develop a 
results-oriented human capital system, and introduce a performance-
based programming and budgeting process. In May 2000,[Footnote 1] we 
reported that, while the Secretary General had substantially 
reorganized the Secretariat's leadership and structure, he had not yet 
completed reforms in human capital management and planning and 
budgeting. To encourage the full implementation of the 1997 reforms and 
highlight reforms in public information activities and the human rights 
program, the Secretary General launched a second round of reforms in 
September 2002.

As the largest financial contributor to the United Nations,[Footnote 2] 
the United States has a strong interest in the completion of these 
reforms. In response to your request, we assessed (1) the overall 
status of the U.N. reforms proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary 
General; (2) the Secretariat's efforts to implement specific reforms in 
four key areas:[Footnote 3] human capital management, performance-
oriented budgeting,[Footnote 4] public information activities, and the 
human rights program; and (3) overall challenges facing the 
implementation of U.N. reforms.

To address these issues, we reviewed the Secretary General's 1997 and 
2002 reform plans and interviewed senior officials from several 
Secretariat departments in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. We 
met with officials from the Offices of the Deputy Secretary General, 
the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Departments of 
Management and Public Information, and the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services. In addition, we reviewed reports and bulletins of the 
Secretariat, relevant U.N. resolutions, and related budget documents. 
During the course of our review, we discussed the status of U.N. 
reforms with officials from the Department of State in Washington, 
D.C.; New York; and Geneva (see app. I for more information on our 
scope and methodology).

Results in Brief:

The Secretary General launched two major reform initiatives, in 1997 
and 2002, to address the U.N.'s core management challenges--poor 
leadership of the Secretariat, duplication among its many offices and 
programs, and the lack of accountability for staff performance. The 
1997 reform plan consisted of initiatives that the Secretary General 
could implement on his own authority and those that required the 
approval of member states. As of December 2003, we found that, overall, 
60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda were 
in place. Of the 1997 reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70 
percent of the reforms under his authority, while 44 percent of the 
reforms requiring member state approval are in place. In addition, we 
found that 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the 2002 reform 
agenda--which did not differentiate between the Secretary General's and 
member states' authority--are in place. Since 1997, the Secretariat has 
implemented reforms to provide more unified leadership and coordination 
across departments, programs, and offices. The Secretariat has also 
implemented other reforms, such as developing a written plan or 
establishing a new office, that are only the first steps in achieving 
the Secretary General's goals. However, it is the completion of 
additional efforts, such as providing staff and financial resources, 
and creating performance goals, that will contribute to building an 
effective department or office.

The United Nations is in various stages of implementing reforms in four 
key areas--human capital management, performance-oriented budgeting, 
public information activities, and the human rights program.

* Both U.N. officials and external observers have identified long-
standing weaknesses in the Secretariat's personnel--or human capital--
management, including the extensive time required to recruit and hire 
staff, and the need to hold managers and staff more directly 
accountable for their performance. In response to these concerns, the 
Secretariat developed a reform strategy that included a new recruiting 
and placement system, which decentralized hiring authority and, 
according to U.N. sources, significantly reduced the average time to 
hire staff. The Secretary General also introduced new accountability 
mechanisms, including annual performance agreements for senior managers 
and a new staff performance appraisal system. Further steps are needed, 
however, to implement other human capital reforms. For example, U.N. 
officials cited the need to develop a system to efficiently screen the 
increased number of applications received through the online hiring 
system.

* The United Nations recognized that it lacked a system to evaluate the 
effectiveness of its activities and eliminate programs that were 
obsolete and did not address immediate priorities. In response, it 
began to adopt performance-oriented budgeting in December 2000. A 
performance-oriented budgeting framework includes three key elements: 
(1) a budget that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking 
budgeted activities to performance expectations; (2) a system to 
regularly monitor and evaluate the impact of programs; and (3) 
procedures to shift resources to meet program objectives. The United 
Nations has the first key element in place but does not systematically 
monitor and evaluate program performance to determine the relevance of 
programs so that it can eliminate obsolete programs and move resources 
to priority programs. However, the Secretariat is implementing a 
strategy to strengthen program monitoring and evaluation. The General 
Assembly also adopted an initiative to strengthen the role of one of 
its oversight committees responsible for program monitoring and 
evaluation, but the General Assembly does not evaluate the 
Secretariat's program results to reallocate resources to new 
priorities.

* Several internal and external management reviews concluded that the 
Secretariat should manage its public information activities--including 
the U.N.'s worldwide information offices, libraries, and publications-
-in a more efficient, cost-effective manner. The 2002 reform agenda 
called for the reorganization of the Department of Public Information, 
both at headquarters and in the field, to reduce duplicative 
activities, leverage cost-saving technology, and focus its staff on 
achieving and measuring results. These reforms are substantially in 
place. However, reforms to improve outdated library technology and 
streamline the Secretariat's duplicative publications are only partly 
in place. The success of the latter will depend on the willingness of 
Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to identify unneeded 
publications and discontinue duplicative mandated activities.

* Based on internal management reviews, the Secretary General called 
for reforms of the Secretariat's human rights office to improve its 
financial, human capital, and program management. Although we found 
that these reforms are substantially in place, the Secretary General 
does not have the authority to implement other human rights reforms 
outside the Secretariat. For example, the Secretary General called for 
improvements to the quality of reports submitted to the Commission on 
Human Rights by individuals and groups that monitor and report on human 
rights situations worldwide. In response, the Secretariat's human 
rights office requested and received funding for additional staff to 
assist these reporters. However, the Secretary General cannot implement 
other proposed improvements, such as setting selection criteria for the 
reporters or rating their performance in producing reports.

We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's 
ability to meet the overall goals of the reforms. First, the 
Secretariat does not conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the 
status and impact of reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat 
cannot determine if it is meeting the Secretary General's overall 
reform goals or identify areas where further improvements are needed. 
Second, the 2002 reform agenda did not differentiate between short-and 
long-term goals. Setting implementation goals and a timeline is a key 
practice for organizations engaged in change management 
initiatives.[Footnote 5] Third, some managers have resisted 
implementing certain reforms, but their support is critical for the 
institutionalization of reforms in the long term. Fourth, several U.N. 
officials we spoke with stated that reforms were delayed because 
additional resources were not made available for their implementation. 
The Secretary General stated that departments would need to implement 
reforms within existing resources because additional funding would not 
be available in the regular budget.

This report makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and the 
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to 
work with other member states to encourage the Secretary General to (1) 
report regularly on the status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms 
and other reforms that may follow; (2) differentiate between short-and 
long-term reform goals and establish expected time frames for 
completion of those reforms that are not in place; and (3) conduct 
assessments of the financial and personnel implications associated with 
the implementation of the reforms.

We received written comments from the Department of State and the 
United Nations, which we have reprinted in appendixes III and IV. Both 
State and the United Nations generally agreed with our findings and 
recommendations and commented on ongoing reform efforts.

Background:

The United Nations comprises (1) the Security Council, the General 
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other governing bodies 
of member states that set the work requirements, or mandates, for U.N. 
programs and departments; (2) the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary 
General, which carries out a large part of the mandated work; and (3) 
the funds and programs, such as the U.N. Development Program, which are 
authorized by the General Assembly to conduct specific lines of work. 
Many funds and programs have their own governing bodies and budgets 
(mainly paid for by voluntary contributions from participating 
nations). The Secretary General's reform initiatives do not apply to 
specialized agencies--such as the World Health Organization and the 
Food and Agricultural Organization--and programs that have their own 
governing bodies.

Calls to reform the United Nations began soon after its creation in 
1945. Despite cycles of reform, U.N. member states have had concerns 
about inefficient operations; problems of fragmentation, duplication, 
and poor coordination; and the proliferation of mandates. As one of the 
191 member states, the United States played a significant role in 
promoting U.N. reform, calling for financial, administrative, and 
programmatic changes. The State Department and the U.S. Mission to the 
United Nations actively promoted these reforms such as establishing 
inspector general's offices, many of which have been implemented. The 
State Department continues to promote further reforms and reports on 
the status of major reform initiatives to the U.S. Congress (see fig. 
1).

In July 1997, the Secretary General proposed a broad reform program to 
transform the United Nations into an efficient organization focused on 
achieving results as it carried out its mandates. Although the 
Secretary General does not have direct authority over specialized 
agencies and many funds and programs, the reforms at the Secretariat 
were intended to serve as a model for U.N.-wide reforms. In May 2000, 
we reported that the Secretariat had substantially restructured its 
leadership and operations and partly implemented a performance-oriented 
human capital management system. However, performance-oriented 
programming and budgeting proposals had not yet been adopted.

Figure 1: Major U.N. Reforms and U.S. Legislation, 1945 to the Present:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In September 2002, the Secretary General released a second set of 
reform initiatives with 36 reform actions, some expanding on previous 
reform initiatives introduced in 1997 and others reflecting new 
priorities for the organization. The overall goal was to align U.N. 
activities with the priorities defined by the Millennium 
Declaration[Footnote 6] and the new security environment.

Implementation of U.N. Reforms Has Advanced in Recent Years, but 
Further Actions Are Needed to Complete Reforms:

As of December 2003, 60 percent of the 1997 reforms and 38 percent of 
the 2002 reforms were fully or substantially in place--or 51 percent 
overall (see app. II for the status of U.N. reforms). The Secretary 
General set a target date of 1999 for the implementation of reforms in 
the 1997 agenda, which consisted of initiatives that he could implement 
on his own authority and those that required member states' approval. 
Of these reforms, the Secretary General implemented 70 percent of those 
reforms under his authority, while 44 percent of reforms requiring 
member states' approval were in place. However, the outputs of many 
reforms, such as developing a written plan or establishing a new 
office, are only the first step in achieving the Secretary General's 
overall reform goals. Although many of these reforms are in place, 
departments and offices in the Secretariat are still institutionalizing 
these new plans to improve U.N. operations in the long term.

Secretariat Is Implementing Reforms, but Those Requiring Member State 
Approval Take Longer to Implement:

Since our May 2000 report, the United Nations continued to implement 
reforms from the Secretary General's 1997 reform agenda and began to 
implement initiatives from the 2002 agenda (see fig. 2). We found that 
60 percent of the 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 agenda were in 
place, compared with 38 percent of the 66 reform initiatives in the 
2002 agenda. Overall, 51 percent of reforms from the 1997 and 2002 
agendas were in place. We identified a total of 154 reform initiatives 
from the 1997 and 2002 reform agendas. This number differs from U.N. 
figures because many of the Secretary General's reform action items had 
several components that we identified and counted as separate 
initiatives. To determine the implementation status of these reforms, 
we interviewed senior U.N. officials and reviewed relevant reports, 
bulletins, and resolutions. We then rated the reforms as:

* in place or substantially so--that is, the reform had been approved 
and most key and minor elements were in place;

* partly in place--that is, the reform had been approved, and some key 
elements, as well as some or most minor elements, were in place; or:

* not in place--that is, the reform had not been formally approved and 
minor elements could be in place, but no key elements were in place 
(see app. I for a more detailed description of our methodology).

Figure 2: Overall Status of U.N. Reforms:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The implementation of reforms under the Secretary General's authority 
advanced faster than those under the authority of the member states. We 
found that 70 percent of the 56 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform 
agenda under his authority are fully or substantially in place, 
compared with 44 percent of the 32 initiatives requiring member state 
approval (see fig. 3). The 2002 agenda did not differentiate between 
initiatives that the Secretary General could implement on his own 
authority and those that required member states' approval.

Figure 3: Breakdown of 1997 Reforms:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In particular, the Secretariat made the most progress on the 1997 
reforms to:

* restructure U.N. operations to provide more unified leadership and 
coordination across departments, programs, and offices;

* institute a new human capital management system that sets 
expectations and rates staff performance; and:

* adopt results-based budgeting.

However, the General Assembly did not adopt many reforms, such as those 
to:

* further shorten the length and reduce the cost of its annual 
meetings;

* focus the assembly's yearly debates on a few priority areas; and:

* institute time limits, or sunset provisions, for all new U.N. 
programs.

Delays in acquiring member state approval are due, in part, to the 
longer time needed for the General Assembly to reach agreement. To pass 
resolutions in favor of most specific reforms, the General Assembly 
generally requires a majority vote from the 191 member states.[Footnote 
7] Although the Secretary General acknowledged that these reforms would 
take longer to implement, he set the end of 1999 as the target date to 
complete the 1997 reforms. However, we found that approximately 40 
percent of these reforms are not fully in place.

Secretariat Will Need to Take Additional Steps to Achieve the Secretary 
General's Overall Goals:

More than one-quarter of the Secretary General's completed reforms, 
such as developing a written plan or establishing a new office, only 
represent the first steps in achieving longer-term and more important 
goals. The Secretariat's departments and offices must then use these 
new plans and offices to improve U.N. operations for the long term. For 
example, the Secretary General directed the Secretariat to develop a 
plan to improve its information technology systems. We found that the 
Secretariat implemented a plan to upgrade software programs, enhance 
inter-office communication between headquarters and the field, and 
train staff in the use of these new systems. However, member states 
must continue to invest the necessary resources for the plan's 
implementation to ensure that the technology does not become obsolete 
and to have an impact on U.N. operations in the long term.

In addition, the Secretary General created several new offices as part 
of his reform initiatives. These include a strategic planning office in 
the Secretariat, an office to coordinate emergency humanitarian relief 
programs, and an office in Vienna to manage the U.N.'s interrelated 
programs to combat crime, drugs, and terrorism. Although the 
establishment of any new office can be counted as a completed reform, 
it is only the first step toward impacting the effectiveness of U.N. 
operations and achieving the Secretary General's overall reform goals. 
GAO has previously reported that building an effective department that 
can meet overall objectives requires several components, including a 
staff, financial resources, and performance goals to measure progress 
toward objectives.[Footnote 8]

Reforms in Four Key Areas of U.N. Operations Are Progressing, but 
Overall Impact Is Still Not Clear:

We found that the U.N. has implemented many reforms in four key areas: 
(1) human capital management, (2) performance-oriented budgeting, (3) 
public information activities, and (4) the human rights program. 
Although numerous key initiatives are in place, other tasks are not yet 
complete, such as strengthening the U.N.'s monitoring and evaluation 
mechanisms to measure program impact and issuing additional guidelines 
on the new worldwide staff rotation, or mobility, policy. Therefore, 
the impact of these reforms on the effectiveness of U.N. operations is 
unclear.

Positive Steps Taken to Strengthen Human Capital Management, but 
Implementation of Reforms Is Ongoing and Additional Challenges Remain:

In response to human capital concerns raised by U.N. officials and 
outside observers, including the extensive time required to recruit and 
hire staff, the Secretariat developed a reform strategy to address the 
key elements of human capital management. The strategy included the 
implementation of a new recruitment and placement system that 
decentralized hiring authority and, according to U.N. officials, 
significantly reduced the average time to hire staff. Additional steps 
are needed, however, to fully implement reforms and address remaining 
challenges. For example, U.N. officials cited the need to develop a 
system to efficiently screen the increased number of applications 
received through the online hiring system.

Secretariat's Reform Strategy Addresses Key Elements of Strategic Human 
Capital Management:

The Secretary General's reform strategy called for changes to the 
Secretariat's human capital management to create a results-oriented 
organizational culture supporting high performance, increased 
training, and more effective management. The United Nations' human 
capital management had long been criticized by U.N. officials and 
external observers for the extensive time required for recruiting and 
hiring, the need for increased accountability for performance, and 
limited development and promotion opportunities. In his 1997 plan, the 
Secretary General stated that human capital management has been 
characterized by labor-intensive day-to-day staff administration and 
cumbersome rules and processes. He further stated that these rules and 
processes were seen as impeding program delivery and not maximizing 
staff contributions. The reform initiatives also attempted to bring 
human capital policies up to date with changes that had taken place 
within the organization, such as the move from being primarily 
headquarters-based to having an increasingly large field presence.

In 2000, the Secretariat expanded the reforms by developing a broader 
human capital reform strategy. GAO has developed a human capital model 
that highlights the steps that organizations can take in managing human 
capital strategically. This model encompasses four human capital 
cornerstones that, when taken together, embody an approach to human 
capital management that is fact-based and focused on program results 
and mission accomplishment. We found that the Secretariat's reform 
strategy includes actions in the areas of GAO's four cornerstones of 
strategic human capital management--leadership; strategic human 
capital planning; acquiring, developing, and retaining talent; and 
results-oriented organizational cultures (see fig. 4).[Footnote 9]

Figure 4: Cornerstones of Human Capital Reform:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Leadership:

Leadership is defined as the demonstrated commitment of top leaders to 
continuously improve human capital management and support efforts to 
integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals. Soon 
after taking office, the Secretary General developed the 1997 reform 
plan for the Secretariat. He established a new leadership and 
management structure and began overhauling human capital policies to 
align the organization's human capital capacity with its mission and 
structure. The Secretary General also established core organizational 
values and competencies to develop a results-oriented culture and has 
used this model to improve recruitment, staff development, and 
performance management processes. The Secretary General's 2002 reform 
plan further emphasized the need for human capital improvements, 
including increased opportunities for staff mobility and expanded 
career prospects for support staff.

The leadership cornerstone also emphasizes that human capital 
professionals have an expanded role, beyond paperwork processing, to 
become more integrated in the work of the organization. The 
Secretariat's Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has begun to 
take on additional responsibilities, including developing human capital 
policies, monitoring compliance with these policies, and providing 
guidance on human capital issues. In addition, OHRM has begun to 
provide more automated services to employees. For example, the office 
has streamlined human capital rules and procedures and has made the 
Human Resources Handbook and personnel forms available online. U.N. 
employees reported in a survey that the streamlining of rules and 
procedures was the most successful human capital reform implemented 
since 2000.

Strategic Human Capital Planning:

To improve strategic human capital planning, the second cornerstone, 
the Secretariat is developing its workforce planning activities through 
analysis of the demographic characteristics of Secretariat staff, while 
departmental staffing goals are being integrated with the 
organization's broader human capital objectives. The Secretariat's 
departments and offices also are preparing action plans, which 
incorporate human capital goals and indicators. OHRM holds planning 
sessions with the head of each department to develop measurable targets 
for achieving human capital goals, including targets for hiring staff 
from unrepresented or underrepresented countries. OHRM monitors the 
implementation of these action plans through semiannual reviews of the 
departments' progress in meeting their goals.

The Secretariat also is making increased use of information technology 
in implementing reforms. The electronic Human Resources Handbook, the 
online hiring system, and the electronic performance appraisal system 
are new technology tools that the Secretariat is using to manage human 
capital. Historically, the Secretariat had unique job profiles for most 
positions, but the new recruiting and placement system makes use of 
generic job descriptions in advertising job openings. U.N. officials 
stated that these generic job profiles have increased the accessibility 
and transparency of the application and hiring process and have 
facilitated staff's ability to move to positions in other departments 
or offices.

Acquiring, Developing, and Retaining Talent:

To acquire, develop, and retain talent, the third cornerstone, the 
Secretariat introduced a new recruitment and placement system in 2002 
that entrusts program managers with the responsibility and 
accountability for hiring decisions. U.N. officials stated that the new 
hiring system has streamlined the hiring process, contributing to a 
significant reduction in the average time to hire an employee. In 
addition, an online tool allows individuals to submit their 
applications through the Internet. U.N. officials stated that this tool 
provides information on the status of applications and on management 
indicators, such as the gender balance and geographic distribution of 
applicants.

The Secretariat also increased the emphasis on training and developing 
managers' skills. Although U.N. officials acknowledged that more 
resources are needed for training, the organization is providing 
mandatory people management training for supervisory staff. The 
Secretariat also has implemented a career development policy based on 
the newly developed core competencies for managers and staff. Under 
this policy, managers must demonstrate support for their staff's 
development and career progress. Finally, the Secretariat has 
implemented new initiatives to improve the work environment for staff. 
For example, employees now have more flexible work arrangements to 
address their personnel needs.

Results-Oriented Organizational Cultures:

The key to developing results-oriented organizational cultures, the 
fourth cornerstone, is to create a clear link between individual 
performance and organizational success.[Footnote 10] To do this, the 
Secretary General is holding senior managers accountable for 
accomplishing human capital goals through the use of annual performance 
agreements. On an annual basis, the Secretary General meets 
individually with department heads to discuss human capital priorities 
and goals for the upcoming year and to review indicators, such as the 
percentage of women in staff and management positions and the 
percentage of vacant positions. For these indicators, the managers' 
departments are measured against the Secretariat's overall average and 
their targets for the year. Program managers have been able to 
electronically track these and other indicators daily using a new tool 
developed by the Department of Management.

The Secretary General also implemented a new electronic performance 
appraisal system, introduced in 2002. Rather than having performance 
management take place once a year, the new system emphasizes regular 
conversations and feedback between staff and supervisors related to 
staff performance. Under the system, staff also are assessed against 
newly developed organizationwide competencies. Examples of the 
Secretariat's core staff competencies include communication, teamwork, 
commitment to continuous learning, and technological awareness. 
Managers also are assessed under additional competencies such as 
leadership, empowering others, and building trust. In addition, the new 
performance appraisal system links the individual's performance to 
departmental or team goals and provides mechanisms for dealing with 
poor performers. Staff that have not met performance expectations under 
the appraisal system may have their salary increases withheld or could 
face the termination of their employment contracts.

Secretariat Faces Challenges in Its Efforts to Achieve Its Human 
Capital Reform Goals:

The Secretariat has made progress in implementing its reform agenda, 
but it must address additional human capital challenges if it is to 
meet the Secretary General's overall reform goals. Key challenges 
include (1) delegating increased authority and accountability for 
personnel actions to managers, (2) implementing the organization's 
staff mobility policy, (3) developing a long-range workforce planning 
capacity, and (4) screening the significant increase in applications 
received through the new recruiting system. In addition, although the 
Secretariat has an overall reform strategy in place, this strategy does 
not include specific time frames to complete reform actions. 
Establishing time frames at the outset provides a baseline for 
assessing the Secretariat's progress in implementing reforms and 
achieving its overall human capital reform goals.

First, U.N. officials we met with stated that OHRM has not gone far 
enough in delegating authority for personnel decisions to program 
managers, a component of the leadership cornerstone. For example, U.N. 
officials stated that offices and programs working on humanitarian or 
development assistance often needed to hire staff quickly during crisis 
situations around the world. However, according to these officials, 
U.N. rules and procedures have been a barrier to the hiring process. 
These officials pointed out that the delegated hiring authority is only 
for employees under regular budget positions[Footnote 11] on longer-
term contracts. Field-based programs and offices often hire staff under 
short-term contracts. U.N. officials stated that the authority to hire 
these staff has not been decentralized. In his 2002 reform plan, the 
Secretary General also acknowledged the need to further delegate 
responsibilities to managers.

Second, one of the Secretary General's major reform initiatives was the 
implementation of a staff mobility policy intended to facilitate the 
movement of staff within and between offices and duty stations. The 
policy establishes time limits of either 5 or 6 years for staff to 
occupy a position, depending on the staff's grade level. Although the 
human capital office is developing incentives for staff to move to 
hardship duty stations, U.N. officials have identified key challenges 
that may impede the successful implementation of the mobility policy 
when the requirements go into effect in 2007. U.N. staff, for example, 
are employed under different types of contracts, some of which place 
restrictions on the duration of employment and the type of work an 
employee can undertake. U.N. officials stated that the differences in 
employment contracts would make it difficult to move staff to certain 
positions or locations. Another barrier to staff mobility is spousal 
employment. Some countries place visa and work permit restrictions on 
hiring U.N. employees' spouses. The Secretary General has begun to 
negotiate with countries to ease the restrictions on the employment of 
U.N. spouses.

A related challenge is the need for further improvements in strategic 
workforce planning, linked to strategic goals and objectives. Long-
range workforce planning will enable the organization to remain aware 
of and be prepared for its current and future needs as an organization. 
The Secretary General has recognized the need for building this 
capacity, emphasizing the need for more systematic succession planning 
to account for the expected increase in retirement of U.N. staff. 
Ultimately, the success of an organization's workforce planning process 
can be judged by its results--how well it helps the agency attain its 
mission and strategic goals.[Footnote 12] We have reported that other 
countries' succession planning and management initiatives have 
addressed specific human capital challenges, such as retention and the 
identification of staff with critical skills.[Footnote 13]

Finally, U.N. officials stated that the Secretariat's new recruiting 
and placement system has made screening the increased number of 
incoming applications a challenge. These officials stated that the 
organization now receives an average of approximately 1,000 
applications for each vacancy announcement, compared with a previous 
average of about 100 applications per opening. U.N. officials have 
recognized that it will be a challenge to develop an electronic 
mechanism to effectively and accurately screen the growing numbers of 
applications received.

Performance-Oriented Budgeting Is Being Adopted, but Monitoring and 
Evaluation System Does Not Measure Program Impact and Results:

The United Nations has begun to adopt performance-oriented budgeting, 
but it lacks an adequate monitoring and evaluation system to measure 
program performance and results. GAO has reported that a performance-
oriented budgeting framework includes three key elements: (1) a budget 
that reflects a results-based budgeting structure, linking budgeted 
activities to performance expectations; (2) a monitoring and evaluation 
system; and (3) procedures for shifting resources to meet program 
objectives.[Footnote 14] In December 2000, the United Nations adopted a 
results-based structure for its budgets. We found that this format at 
the United Nations has resulted in clearer linkages between program 
activities and expected results, but some performance indicators lack 
clear measures to assess results. We also found that existing U.N. 
monitoring and evaluation activities do not systematically measure 
program performance and impact. Consequently, the Secretariat has 
developed and is implementing a strategy to improve performance 
monitoring and evaluation. In December 2003, the General Assembly also 
adopted an initiative to strengthen the role of one of its oversight 
committees responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs, but the 
General Assembly does not evaluate the Secretariat's program results to 
reallocate resources to new priorities.

U.N. Budget Reflects New Results-Based Focus, but Some Performance 
Indicators Do Not Measure Results:

The Secretariat has implemented the first key element of the U.N.'s 
performance-oriented budgeting framework by adopting a budget that 
reflects a results-based budgeting format, which involves specifying 
program costs, objectives, expected results, and specific performance 
indicators to measure the results. GAO previously reported that linking 
funding to specific performance goals is a critical first step in 
supporting the transition to a more results-oriented and accountable 
organization.[Footnote 15] Expected results and performance indicators 
are intended to allow the Secretariat to track the progress its 
programs make to meet objectives. By approving the budget, the General 
Assembly can hold the Secretariat accountable for meeting expected 
results.

The Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts, which prepares and 
reviews the Secretariat's budget, issued guidelines and provided 
training sessions to assist program managers and other staff in 
preparing budget proposals in a results-based format. This office also 
created a Web site, which is updated regularly, to post information on 
best practices and lessons learned. The Advisory Committee on 
Administrative and Budgetary Questions[Footnote 16] noted an 
improvement in the clarity and detail of expected results and 
performance indicators between the 2002-2003 biennium budget, which was 
the first submitted in a results-based format, and the 2004-2005 
budget.[Footnote 17] Figure 5 compares the 2002-2003 performance 
indicators for the deployment of peacekeeping police units with those 
developed for the 2004-2005 budget. For the first time, the 2004-2005 
budget includes specific performance targets and baseline data for many 
performance indicators that can help measure performance over time and 
could allow program managers to compare actual achievements to expected 
results. For example, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations plans 
to use baseline data at the end of the budget period to determine 
whether it will be able to deploy police units for peacekeeping 
operations more quickly.

Figure 5: Summary of Selected Performance Indicators for Deploying 
Police Units for Peacekeeping Operations, 2002-2003 and 2004-2005:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

However, oversight committees[Footnote 18] also reported that some 
programs still lack clear and concise expected outcomes and performance 
indicators. For example, the Secretariat established an indicator to 
measure increased coordination among U.N. agencies and programs, the 
Bretton Woods institutions, and the World Trade Organization, and 
called for "closer collaboration" to improve the delivery of economic 
assistance and development projects. The associated performance target 
consists of the estimated number of meetings among these institutions, 
but does not describe what these meetings are to accomplish or how they 
will improve coordination. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and 
Budgetary Questions reported that it cannot determine the impact of 
these activities, which would cost close to $10 million in the 2004-
2005 budget period. It recommended that indicators, such as "closer 
collaboration" or "full utilization of resources," should be replaced 
with more specific and concrete measurements. The vagueness of some of 
these indicators, however, stems from the fact that baseline 
information has not been collected or is missing due to inconsistent 
monitoring of program activities, according to officials from the 
Office of Program Planning, Budget and Accounts.

Secretariat's Monitoring and Evaluation Inadequate to Measure Program 
Impact, but Strategy Developed to Strengthen System:

The Secretariat does not systematically monitor and evaluate program 
impact or resultsæthe second key element of performance-oriented 
budgeting. U.N. regulations require that programs should be regularly 
monitored and evaluated to determine their relevance, effectiveness, 
and impact in relation to their objectives.[Footnote 19] Program 
managers are responsible for monitoring and evaluating programs to 
assess their impact and to determine the extent to which changes are 
needed to meet expected results. However, in 2002, the Office of 
Internal Oversight Services[Footnote 20] (OIOS) found that program 
managers and department and office heads were not complying with U.N. 
regulations. For example, both OIOS and oversight committees reported 
in 2002 that nearly half of program managers were not regularly 
monitoring and evaluating program performance. In addition, program 
managers were not held directly accountable for meeting program 
objectives because U.N. regulations prevent linking program 
effectiveness and impact with program managers' performance. U.N. 
officials told us that a more mature program monitoring and evaluation 
system is needed before program managers can be held responsible for 
program performance.

We found that there were a variety of problems related to the 
Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation of program results and impact. 
Most programs do not have comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plans 
and, in many cases, no systematic management review of evaluations. For 
example, department heads and program managers did not directly review 
the results of evaluation activities, consistent with U.N. guidance, in 
13 out of 25 programs surveyed in 2001.[Footnote 21] OIOS reported 
that, overall, evaluation findings were not used to improve program 
performance. In some cases, such as with the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights, monitoring and evaluation 
responsibilities were assigned to low-level staff with minimal 
oversight from program managers. Further, adequate levels of staff time 
and other resources needed to conduct evaluations have never been 
assessed and programs were not regularly monitored and evaluated, 
according to the U.N.'s oversight office. For example, all U.N. 
programs supporting the economic and social development of Asia and the 
Pacific, which cost approximately $25 million for the biennium, were 
not evaluated in 2000 and 2001. Lastly, for the majority of programs, 
no resources have been specifically allocated for activities related to 
monitoring and evaluation.

To address these weaknesses, the Secretary General tasked the 
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Consulting Division of OIOS to develop a 
strategy to systematically monitor and evaluate program results and to 
introduce information systems needed to implement results-based 
budgeting. The division began to implement its strategy in 2002 and 
expects to have a complete system by 2006. As part of its strategy, 
OIOS introduced an Internet-based system that allows program managers 
to prepare periodic assessments of program impact against stated 
objectives. Program managers are required to submit performance 
assessments after 12 and 18 months, and at the end of the budget 
period. OIOS officials stated that this would allow them to adjust the 
direction of their program to meet objectives before the end of the 
budget cycle. In addition, OIOS is updating its guidelines on 
monitoring and evaluation, which describe new data collection methods, 
such as online surveys, to monitor results and evaluation methods to 
report on results.

General Assembly Lacks System to Evaluate Program Results to Shift 
Resources to New Priorities:

We found that the final component of performance-oriented budgeting--
procedures to review evaluation results, eliminate obsolete programs, 
and move resources to new priority programs--is not in place. The 
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions reported 
in 2003 that it did not receive systematic information from the 
Secretariat on program impact and effectiveness to determine whether a 
program was meeting its expected results. The Secretariat's strategy to 
improve program monitoring and evaluation is part of an effort to 
provide the General Assembly with better program assessments. However, 
in 2003, the Secretary General reported that the General Assembly's 
oversight system was ill-suited to review the Secretariat's evaluation 
results and to determine how best to distribute resources.

In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General proposed redefining 
the roles of U.N. oversight committees to focus on reviewing program 
results. In December 2003, the General Assembly passed a resolution 
changing the role of the Committee for Program and Coordination, the 
first step toward shifting the focus of oversight responsibility to 
assessing program impact. The committee now focuses exclusively on 
reviewing activities planned to meet program objectives and no longer 
reviews budgeting information. Although several committees review the 
U.N.'s planning and budgeting documents for the next biennium period, 
these committees do not systematically review programs to assess the 
impact of previous activities and determine the appropriate level of 
funding (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: General Assembly Oversight of U.N. Plans and Budgets:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to the Joint Inspection Unit,[Footnote 22] the planning and 
budgeting review process was duplicative and redundant. In addition, 
the costs of preparing and printing documents, servicing close to 300 
meetings, and staff time for this review have exceeded $20 million a 
biennium, with little emphasis placed on evaluating program 
performance. To shift the focus to evaluating results, the General 
Assembly in December 2003 required the Committee for Program and 
Coordination to submit a proposal on ways to improve its ability to 
monitor and evaluate program impact. The Secretary General recommended 
that the committee assess the results achieved at the end of the budget 
period and establish priorities to guide the allocation of resources. 
This would support performance-oriented budgeting, according to Joint 
Inspection Unit officials.

In August 2003, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary 
Questions concluded that the General Assembly could not eliminate 
programs and shift resources until it received evaluations that 
addressed program impact. Performance information is necessary for 
decision-making bodies to determine whether programs are meeting their 
stated objectives.[Footnote 23] Program performance reports provided to 
member states focused on outputs (such as the number of staff 
recruited, reports issued, meetings held, or computers purchased), 
instead of measuring program impact. To address this concern, OIOS 
changed the format of the performance report, which now requires 
program managers to link resources to program activities and to use 
performance indicators to measure program impact. The program 
performance report for the 2002-2003 biennium, which will be submitted 
by March 2004, will be the first prepared using the new format.

In December 2003, the General Assembly approved the elimination of 912 
outputs in the 2004-2005 program budget based on the Secretariat's 
review of program activities and more than 50,000 outputs. In addition, 
as a result of this review, the General Assembly has shifted resources 
from these activities--deemed obsolete and inefficient by the 
Secretariat--to more immediate U.N. priorities. In 2003, the Advisory 
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Committee 
for Program and Coordination recommended that program managers in the 
Secretariat continue to identify obsolete outputs in U.N. budgets in 
compliance with U.N. regulations. The committees also reported that 
many sections in the budget lacked justifications for continuing 
certain outputs.

Majority of Reforms of U.N. Public Information Activities Still in 
Early Phases:

We found that the Secretariat had implemented some reforms related to 
U.N. public information activities, but most were still in the early 
phases. With a biennium budget of approximately $156 million, the 
Department of Public Information undertakes news coverage of U.N. 
events through radio, video, and the Internet in six official 
languages; manages the U.N. Web site; manages its overseas branch 
offices;[Footnote 24] and oversees the Dag Hammarskjold library and 
coordinates with depository libraries worldwide.[Footnote 25] 
Following a series of management reviews of U.N. public information 
activities, the Secretary General restructured the department to 
improve its ability to develop coherent, cost-effective communications 
strategies to promote the U.N.'s priorities. In addition, the Secretary 
General consolidated department branch offices in Western Europe into a 
regional branch office in Brussels, Belgium. However, we found that 
reforms of other public information activities are not yet in place. 
For example, reforms related to the Department of Public Information's 
program monitoring and evaluation and library management, as well as 
the Secretariat's publications oversight, are still in the early stages 
of implementation and have had a limited effect on the effectiveness of 
public information activities, according to U.N. officials.

Reorganization of Headquarters and Branch Offices Substantially in 
Place:

Since 1948, internal oversight bodies and external groups have 
conducted at least seven periodic management reviews of public 
information policies and activities. However, these reviews resulted in 
few changes to the Department of Public Information's operations. 
Member states continued to criticize the department, claiming that it 
did not adequately assess the impact of its activities. In his 2002 
reform agenda, the Secretary General highlighted that fact that the 
department suffered from fragmented programs because of too many 
mandates and missions.

To better align the Department of Public Information's structure with 
its mandated activities, highlight priorities, and reduce 
fragmentation, the Secretary General reorganized the department into 
three divisions in November 2002: (1) the Outreach Division, which 
focuses on relationships with civil society, including outreach to 
educational institutions, and manages the Dag Hammarskjold Library in 
New York; (2) the News and Media Division, which aims to expand the 
United Nations' access to media organizations worldwide; and (3) the 
Strategic Communications Division, which develops the U.N's 
communications strategies in partnership with the Secretariat's 
departments and manages the network of overseas branch offices. Within 
this third division, the department created focal points that work 
across the Secretariat's departments in priority areas--including 
development, peace and security, Africa, human rights, Palestine, and 
decolonization--to identify communications strategies and reduce 
duplicative programs. In its spring 2003 session, delegates to the 
Committee on Information[Footnote 26] commented that the department's 
new structure should help focus the department's activities and 
maximize the use of its resources.

To improve the cost efficiency of the department's field operations, 
the Secretary General proposed changes to the structure of public 
information branch offices. Branch offices in developed countries--
including the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union-
-accounted for 40 percent of all branch office expenditures, as of 
September 2002. Therefore, the Department of Public Information was 
devoting a large amount of funding to information activities in 
countries where available technology permitted greater online access to 
its services in the field. In 2003, internal auditors concluded that 
the department should evaluate these offices and consider options such 
as consolidation, regionalization, or closure. Based in part on these 
findings, the Secretary General created a regional branch office in 
Brussels in January 2004 and consolidated offices in nine European 
Union countries as part of his 2002 reform agenda.[Footnote 27] At its 
spring 2004 session, the Committee on Information will review a 
progress report on the implementation of the regionalization proposal 
to determine the feasibility of applying the initiative in other 
regions.

Additional Reforms of Public Information Activities Are Partly in 
Place:

The Secretariat has begun implementing additional reforms of other 
public information activities, but we found that these initiatives are 
only partly in place. The Secretary General stated that the department 
had historically devoted minimal attention to assessing the impact of 
its activities and that a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of its 
activities had never been conducted. Therefore, in 2003, the Department 
of Public Information and internal auditors began a 3-year joint 
process to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the department's 
activities through an annual review process.[Footnote 28] As part of 
its efforts to promote monitoring and evaluation, the department 
provides ongoing training for staff in results-based management within 
existing resources--a challenge, according to public information 
officials. Although these activities are still under way, an official 
from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that the department 
had taken positive steps to implement reforms to improve its monitoring 
and evaluation mechanisms.

Reforms of U.N. libraries are also in the early phases. The United 
Nations has library collections in each of its headquarters offices and 
regional commissions, as well as libraries in many of the 62 branch 
offices and other depositories worldwide. The Secretary General 
reported in 2002 that the public information department needed to 
centralize library policy management and increase its use of technology 
in providing library services. In response, it established a steering 
committee in March 2003 to oversee the implementation of reforms, such 
as increasing the use of online archival systems for library 
collections and expanding information sharing among libraries to reduce 
duplication. The department plans to report to the Committee on 
Information in 2004 on its progress in implementing these reforms.

Lastly, the implementation of reforms of publications activities is 
still under way. The Secretary General directed all departments to 
identify outdated or duplicative publications from more than 1,200 
produced annually. We reported in 2000 that a review of U.N. 
publications in the economic and social affairs area found considerable 
redundancy and overlap.[Footnote 29] Publications activities are also 
extremely costly. For example, the U.N. Chronicle--a publication for 
teachers and students of world affairs--produced by the public 
information department--costs more than $1 million annually to publish. 
In his 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General called for a review of 
the feasibility and cost of increasing online publications delivery, as 
opposed to printing certain publications. This review is not yet 
complete. To improve publications oversight, the relevant executive 
committees[Footnote 30] must approve all new publications proposed by 
the Secretariat pursuant to the 2002 reform plan. Overall, officials 
stated that the implementation of publications reform will depend on 
the willingness of Secretariat officials and the General Assembly to 
identify unneeded publications and discontinue duplicative mandates. On 
a positive note, in December 2003, the General Assembly approved the 
Secretary General's 2004-2005 budget proposal calling for the 
discontinuation of 192 publications and reports.

Reforms of the U.N. Human Rights Program Outside the Secretariat's 
Authority Are Incomplete:

In recent years, management of the Secretariat's human rights office 
has been complicated by several factors, such as weak financial and 
program management and a heavy reliance on voluntary funding to 
administer core activities. In addition to technical assistance, 
training, publications, and human rights advocacy, the office provides 
support to other parts of the human rights program outside the 
Secretariat, such as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We found that 
the office has implemented reforms to address its management 
deficiencies. In addition, we found that the human rights office has 
implemented reforms to improve its support to the actors outside the 
Secretariat, including requesting funding for additional staff. 
However, the Secretary General only has authority over the management 
of the Secretariat's human rights office and cannot implement reforms 
across the entire U.N. human rights program, according to human rights 
officials.

Management of the U.N. Human Rights Program Is Complicated by Several 
Factors:

Several factors affect the management of the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights--the Secretariat's human rights office. 
For example, in 2002, OIOS concluded that the human rights office had 
poor financial controls and human capital management, as well as weak 
internal oversight procedures. According to a senior human rights 
official, for example, the office did not accurately track its unused 
voluntary funding in the past.[Footnote 31] According to the human 
rights office, this problem has been rectified and the office is 
tracking voluntary funding levels. In addition, the office relies 
heavily on voluntary funding to administer its core activities. Regular 
budget funding accounted for about 38 percent, or $24.2 million, of the 
office's activities in 2002, whereas voluntary contributions accounted 
for about 62 percent, or $40 million (see fig. 6 for funding trends for 
the human rights office). Human rights officials stated that the heavy 
reliance on voluntary funding poses management challenges, including 
the resulting uncertainty of funding for future projects and low morale 
among staff unsure about job security.

Figure 7: Human Rights Office's Funding Trends:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As shown in figure 8, the human rights office also provides 
administrative, technical, and substantive support to parts of the 
human rights program outside the Secretariat, including:

* the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is a functional commission 
of the Economic and Social Council that meets annually to discuss human 
rights issues and standards and governments' adherence to them;

* independent reporters and working groups, appointed by the commission 
to examine, monitor, and publicly report on human rights situations in 
specific countries or territories or on major human rights themes--
there are reporters who focus on the right to education and on the 
situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo;[Footnote 32] and:

* independent committees, established by international human rights 
treaties, comprising independent experts that monitor governments' 
compliance with treaty obligations.[Footnote 33]

Figure 8: U.N. Human Rights Program:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The workload generated by these independent groups affects the human 
rights office's management. For example, the office provides 
administrative support, such as report processing, to the monitoring 
committees and national governments to ensure compliance with treaty 
reporting requirements. As the number of signatories increases, the 
Secretariat's administrative burden increases. In addition, the 
Secretary General reported in 2002 that the more than 40 human rights 
reporters and working groups pose a management burden for the human 
rights office because they have grown in recent years in an ad hoc 
fashion and without clear rules for their responsibilities. The 
fragmentation and lack of clear working guidelines complicated the 
office's support to these individuals and groups in the preparation of 
reports to the commission. As an independent body, the Commission on 
Human Rights appoints new human rights reporters. However, OIOS 
reported that the General Assembly has not provided commensurate 
additional regular budget funding to the human rights office for their 
support. As a result, the office has increasingly resorted to using 
voluntary funding to recruit additional staff to fulfill its 
responsibilities to the commission and monitoring committees.

Secretary General Does Not Have Authority to Implement Reforms of Human 
Rights Activities outside Secretariat:

The Secretary General's reform agendas called for the Secretariat's 
human rights office to develop a strategy to strengthen its financial 
and human capital management and internal oversight procedures, among 
other things. We found that the office has developed and is 
implementing this strategy. For example, it established both the 
senior-level Management Board and Project Review Committee, in 1997 and 
1998, respectively, to monitor the planning, budgeting, and 
implementation of the office's programs and to identify outdated or 
nonpriority activities. The human rights office reported that it 
strengthened its program oversight and planning throughout 2003. 
Officials stated that the 2004 annual appeal, for example, presented a 
more strategic work plan than in prior years, which resulted in a 12 
percent decline in voluntary funding requirements for the 2004 annual 
appeal, from $62.5 million in 2003 to $54.8 million in 2004. In 
addition, the office established the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues 
in March 1999 to evaluate the office's use of temporary staff and staff 
funded with voluntary resources and ensure the equitable geographic 
distribution of staff from member states. It also restructured its 
three main branches to reduce duplicative activities and leverage its 
personnel and financial resources.

We found that the human rights office has also implemented reforms that 
indirectly address areas of the U.N. human rights program outside the 
Secretary General's authority. For example, to help improve the quality 
of human rights reports, the office developed an induction kit for 
human rights reporters and working groups. The kit is updated regularly 
and used to brief new reporters on their rules and procedures. In 
addition, the office is working to keep them informed about the latest 
General Assembly resolutions that may affect reporting procedures, such 
as page limits and submission deadlines. In December 2003, the General 
Assembly also approved the Secretary General's request for funding in 
the 2004-2005 budget for additional staff to improve the office's 
ability to respond to increasing demands from the Commission on Human 
Rights and its human rights reporters and working groups.

Nevertheless, the implementation of the Secretary General's proposals 
is incomplete because he does not have authority over human rights 
activities outside the Secretariat's human rights office. For example, 
because the majority of human rights reporters are selected by the 
chair of the Commission on Human Rights, the Secretariat's human rights 
office could only recommend that the commission consider developing 
criteria for their selection. Moreover, only the commission can 
determine standard entrance criteria for its reporters and working 
groups. Thus, any reform related to the human rights reporters is 
dependent upon the support of commission members. In addition, in his 
September 2002 reform agenda, the Secretary General stated that 
governments should be allowed to submit a single report to the 
monitoring committees summarizing their adherence to human rights 
treaty obligations. Given his lack of authority over the monitoring 
committees, the Secretary General requested that the human rights 
office consult with the committees on methods of streamlining the 
governments' various treaty-reporting requirements. The monitoring 
committees, however, resisted the concept of a single report, according 
to the human rights office. The proposal resulting from these 
consultations instead calls for an expanded core report containing 
standard information pertinent to all of the monitoring committees, 
with separate, more detailed reports going to individual committees.

Various Factors May Impede Full Implementation of U.N. Reforms:

We identified several challenges that may impact the Secretariat's 
ability to meet the overall reform goals: (1) the Secretariat does not 
conduct periodic, comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of 
reforms; (2) the Secretary General did not differentiate between short-
and long-term goals in the 2002 reform plan; (3) resistance from 
managers and staff has slowed the implementation of reforms; and (4) 
potential financial and personnel resource implications are associated 
with some reforms.

First, we found that the Secretariat does not conduct systematic, 
comprehensive assessments of the status and impact of the Secretary 
General's reforms. Without such assessments, the Secretariat is not 
able to determine where further improvements are needed. In 1998 and 
2003, the Secretary General issued reports on the status of the 1997 
and 2002 reforms, respectively. These reports, however, did not include 
a comprehensive impact assessment.[Footnote 34] We found that 
individual departments and offices within the Secretariat oversee 
specific reforms within their area of work; for example, the Office of 
the High Commissioner for Human Rights oversees the implementation of 
reforms of the U.N. human rights program. However, the Deputy Secretary 
General, who is responsible for overseeing the overall reform process, 
has only one full-time professional staff member dedicated to this 
effort. The Steering Committee on Reform and Management--comprising 
department heads within the Secretariat and chaired by the Deputy 
Secretary General--also tracks key reform issues and policy 
implementation. However, the Deputy Secretary General's office neither 
systematically assesses departments' performance in implementing 
reforms nor holds managers directly accountable. Furthermore, OIOS only 
monitors and evaluates the impact of select reforms and is not 
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the overall reform 
agendas.

Second, the Secretary General has not differentiated between short-and 
long-term goals in his 2002 reform plan, and he has not consistently 
established time frames or milestones for their completion. GAO has 
identified the setting of implementation goals and a timeline to build 
momentum and show progress as key practices for organizations 
undertaking change management initiatives. We found that a few reforms 
required departments and offices to conduct evaluations and report 
their findings to the Secretary General by a certain date, but many 
reforms did not specify time frames for completing these actions. For 
example, the Secretary General called for the Department of Public 
Information and OIOS to complete an evaluation of the impact and cost 
effectiveness of the department's activities within a three-year period 
(which started in 2003). However, when the Secretary General called for 
a review of the feasibility and cost of increasing the Secretariat's 
delivery of online versus printed publications, he did not specify a 
deadline. Without prioritizing efforts and establishing deadlines, it 
is difficult to hold managers accountable for completing the reforms.

Third, according to budget and human capital officials, some program 
managers and staff have resisted implementing certain reform 
initiatives. Human capital officials stated that program managers, for 
example, have raised concerns about the staff mobility policy because 
they fear losing expertise when staff rotate to new positions. In 
addition, OIOS reported that about half of program managers across the 
Secretariat have not complied with U.N. regulations to monitor and 
evaluate the performance of program activities. The Secretariat lacks 
clear rules and procedures for conducting regular monitoring and 
evaluation exercises, according to OIOS officials. Some managers also 
stated that they lacked resources to support this work and were 
concerned that these evaluation requirements would detract time and 
money from their regular work responsibilities. Consequently, the 
Secretariat is providing training to all departments to assist managers 
and staff in conducting self-monitoring and evaluation exercises to 
comply with performance-oriented budgeting and overcome resistance. 
Managers' support is critical for the institutionalization of reforms 
in the long term.

Fourth, U.N. officials stated that they have encountered delays in 
implementing reforms due to a lack of available regular budget 
resources. For example, public information officials stated that their 
department did not have a specific budget for new monitoring and 
evaluation activities--a key aspect of public information reform. In 
addition, human capital officials stated that they developed the online 
recruiting and hiring system after receiving resources from another 
department in the Secretariat. The Secretary General stated that 
departments would need to implement reforms within existing resources 
because additional funding would not be available in the regular 
budget. He also stated that program managers should streamline 
operations and eliminate obsolete activities to make resources 
available to implement reforms. According to U.N. officials, the 
Secretariat did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the 
personnel and budgetary implications during the development of his 2002 
reform agenda. Rather, departments have conducted resource assessments 
for individual reforms on a case-by-case basis as a part of the budget 
process.

Conclusion:

In 1997 and 2002, the Secretary General proposed sweeping reforms of 
the United Nations in response to recurring calls to improve its 
efficiency and effectiveness in spending member states' contributions. 
Many reforms have been completed since our 2000 report, including key 
measures to improve human capital management, focus the United Nations 
on results-based management, and strengthen the management of the human 
rights program. However, the United Nations faces many challenges to 
completing reforms, including potential resource constraints. 
Moreover, the Office of the Deputy Secretary General does not 
periodically and comprehensively assess the impact of reforms on the 
effectiveness of U.N. operations. Given that the Secretary General does 
not provide regular, comprehensive reports on the overall status and 
impact of reforms, it is difficult to hold staff accountable for 
implementing these reforms and their impact is unclear. In addition, 
the 2002 reform agenda did not specify short-and long-term goals or 
establish expected time frames for their completion--practices that 
increase the transparency and accountability of the reform process. 
Adopting key practices in management, oversight, and accountability for 
reforms, such as systematic monitoring and evaluation, could facilitate 
the achievement of the Secretary General's overall reform goals. As the 
U.N.'s largest financial contributor and a proponent of reform, the 
United States would also benefit from the adoption of these practices.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To promote full implementation and accountability of the Secretary 
General's overall reform actions, we recommend that the Secretary of 
State and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the 
United Nations work with other member states to encourage the Secretary 
General to:

* report regularly through an existing U.N. reporting mechanism on the 
status and impact of the 1997 and 2002 reforms and other reforms that 
may follow;

* differentiate between short-and long-term reform goals and establish 
time frames for completion for those reforms that are not in place; 
and:

* conduct assessments of the financial and personnel implications 
needed to implement the reforms.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

The Department of State and the United Nations provided written 
comments on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV). State agreed 
with our recommendations, stating that it will continue to encourage 
the full implementation of all reform initiatives at the United 
Nations. In particular, State noted several efforts it is pursuing 
through the General Assembly, including further reforms related to 
human capital management and the Department of Public Information, 
among others. Moreover, State agreed with our conclusion that many 
reforms from the 1997 and 2002 agendas are first steps in achieving the 
Secretary General's overall reform goals. State also said that the 
report provides a comprehensive analysis of the status of U.N. reforms 
and the challenges affecting their implementation. State noted that our 
report did not contain an in-depth analysis of reforms of the 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations--a point that we acknowledge in 
our scope and methodology (see app. I). In addition, State provided 
technical comments on our draft report, which were incorporated into 
the text, where appropriate.

The United Nations also provided written comments on a draft of this 
report. Although we did not make recommendations directly to the United 
Nations, it generally agreed with the report's findings. In particular, 
the United Nations acknowledged that the implementation of certain 
reforms is proceeding more slowly than others. The United Nations also 
provided observations regarding its efforts to implement its ambitious 
reform agenda. In addition, the United Nations provided technical 
comments, which were incorporated into the text where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of 
Congress. We are also providing copies of this report to the Secretary 
of State, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the 
United Nations, and the United Nations. 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 http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov, or Phyllis Anderson 
at (202) 512-7364 or andersonp@gao.gov. In addition to the persons 
named above, Jeremy Latimer, Leland Cogliani, Lynn Cothern, Martin de 
Alteriis, Kathryn Hartsburg, and Monica Wolford made key contributions 
to this report.

Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade:

Signed by Joseph A. Christoff: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

At the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations and Committee member Michael Enzi, we examined the status of 
U.N. reform activities to follow up on GAO's 2000 report.[Footnote 35] 
Specifically, we assessed (1) the overall status of U.N. reforms 
proposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Secretary General; (2) the 
Secretariat's efforts to implement reforms in four key areas: human 
capital management, performance-oriented budgeting, public information 
activities, and the human rights program; and (3) the challenges facing 
the implementation of U.N. reforms.

We focused our work on the Secretary General's 1997 and 2002 reform 
agendas. These reforms applied to the Secretariat and member state 
governing bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic and 
Social Council, and the Security Council. We did not include U.N. 
specialized agencies or funds and programs in our review. We did, 
however, meet with officials and collect information from the 
International Labour Organization, the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees, and the World Health Organization to discuss their 
progress and challenges in implementing management reforms similar to 
those that the Secretary General is undertaking.

Overall, we identified 88 reform initiatives in the 1997 reform agenda 
and 66 in the 2002 agenda, for a total of 154 reform initiatives. This 
number differs from U.N. figures because many of the Secretary 
General's reform action items had several components that we identified 
and counted as separate initiatives. For example, one of the Secretary 
General's action items called for improving the information technology 
systems of the United Nations, which involved upgrading the U.N.'s Web 
site; modernizing internal systems that produce, store and disseminate 
documents; and adopting an information technology strategy for New York 
headquarters and field offices. We counted each one of those actions as 
separate initiatives, while the Secretariat grouped them into one 
action item.

To determine the overall status of the reforms, we developed a 
methodology to code them as (1) substantially or completely in place, 
(2) partly in place, or (3) not in place (see table 1 for our 
definitions). We discussed our methodology with U.N. officials, and 
they agreed to its utility for assessing the status of U.N. reforms.

Table 1: Definition of Ratings Scale for Reform Status:

Rating: Substantially or completely in place; Scale: The reform has 
been approved. Most key and minor elements are in place.

Rating: Partly in place; Scale: The reform has been approved. Some key 
elements, as well as some or most minor elements, are in place.

Rating: Not in place; Scale: The reform has not been formally approved. 
Minor elements may be in place, but no key elements are in place.

[End of table]

We defined a key element as one that is critical or central to the 
reform. We considered that reforms could not be implemented or 
institutionalized without these key elements (e.g., staff or budget). 
All other elements were considered as minor. We considered a reform to 
be in place if it had moved from the planning stage to implementation. 
Implementation should have been well under way, though it may not have 
been completed and the reform may not have been institutionalized. For 
reforms with more than one key element, we considered the following 
factors to determine whether some or most key elements were in place: 
(1) the number of elements, (2) the relative importance of the 
elements, (3) the relative difficulty of implementation, and (4) the 
degree of implementation of each of the elements.

To assess the status of the reforms, we reviewed the Secretary 
General's 1997 and 2002 reform plans and obtained and reviewed official 
reports of the Secretariat and the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services (OIOS), budget documents, General Assembly resolutions, 
Secretary General bulletins, Web sites, and statements from U.N. 
officials. We interviewed senior officials from U.N. departments in New 
York City and Geneva. Specifically, we met with the Deputy Secretary 
General and her staff, and officials from the Department of Management, 
the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM), the Office of Program 
Planning, Budget, and Accounts (OPPBA), the Department of Public 
Information (DPI), and the Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights. 
We also met with officials from OIOS and the Joint Inspection Unit 
(JIU). During the course of our review, we also discussed the status of 
U.N. reforms with U.S. Department of State officials in Washington, 
D.C.; New York; and Geneva.

We selected reforms in the areas of human capital management, the 
performance-oriented budgeting system, public information activities, 
and:

the human rights program to assess in more detail. In our discussions 
with U.N. and U.S. officials, and in our review of U.N. documents, we 
determined that these were key areas of the Secretary General's 1997 
and 2002 reform plans. A detailed assessment of the reforms for 
peacekeeping and improving the coordination among U.N. departments and 
offices and between the U.N. and civil society was beyond the scope of 
this review.

To assess the status of human capital management reforms, we compared 
the Secretariat's human capital reform strategy with criteria from 
GAO's model of strategic human capital management.[Footnote 36] This 
model provides a framework for examining an organization's human 
capital practices and is based upon the actions that are characteristic 
of high-performing organizations. To collect information on the 
Secretariat's progress in implementing its reform strategy, we reviewed 
internal and public human resources documents detailing the new 
recruitment and hiring system, the performance appraisal system, human 
resources action plans, and a survey of U.N. staff views on human 
capital reforms. We discussed human capital management reforms with 
OHRM officials who are planning and implementing the office's reform 
initiatives. We also met with the chief personnel officer for the U.N. 
Geneva Office, as well as personnel officers at the Office for the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, 
and the Internal Labour Organization, to discuss the status and 
problems of human capital reforms in their organizations. We did not 
evaluate the effectiveness of implemented human capital reforms.

To assess the implementation of budgeting and monitoring and evaluation 
reforms, we analyzed the last three U.N. biennium budget documents 
(2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005) to determine changes in the 
budget's format after the adoption of a results-based budgeting format. 
We also examined budget-related documents prepared by the Committee for 
Program and Coordination and the Advisory Committee on Administrative 
and Budgetary Questions. In addition, we examined Secretariat documents 
on program monitoring and evaluation activities to determine the U.N.'s 
ability to report on and assess program results and impact, as well as 
strategies the Secretariat developed to strengthen the monitoring and 
evaluation system. We discussed performance-oriented budgeting reforms 
with OPPBA, JIU, and OIOS officials from the Monitoring, Evaluation, 
and Consulting Division. We also met with budget officers at the 
International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization to 
discuss the status and lessons learned from implementing performance-
oriented budgeting at their organizations.

To determine the status of reforms of U.N. public information 
activities, including DPI's reorganization, the restructuring of the 
department's branch offices, library management, and publications, we 
reviewed reports from OIOS, the General Assembly's Committee on 
Information, and the Secretary General. We also spoke with DPI 
officials, including the Under Secretary General, the department's 
senior managers, and senior library officials in New York. In addition, 
we interviewed officials from DPI's branch office and U.N. library in 
Geneva to determine the extent to which operations in the field have 
been affected by these reforms.

To determine the status of efforts to reform the U.N. human rights 
program, we reviewed official reports from the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)--including annual appeals and 
reports--detailing the steps the office is taking to implement these 
reforms. We also reviewed internal audit reports and external reviews 
by independent contractors highlighting the key management challenges 
facing OHCHR and its efforts to improve in these areas. In addition, we 
interviewed human rights officials in Secretariat offices in Geneva and 
New York. To assess the Secretariat's efforts to improve the management 
of the human rights program, we spoke with the Acting High Commissioner 
for Human Rights and senior management officials responsible for 
implementing the Secretary General's reforms. To determine the status 
of reforms related to the monitoring committees and human rights 
reporters and working groups, we analyzed relevant Secretary General, 
General Assembly, and Commission on Human Rights reports, resolutions, 
and other official documentation, and we spoke with OHCHR officials. We 
did not review the work or membership of the Commission on Human Rights 
or the performance of individual human rights reporters.

To determine the challenges facing the implementation of U.N. reforms, 
we reviewed reports and documentation of the Secretariat, General 
Assembly, OIOS, and JIU. We also reviewed reports from outside 
observers of the U.N. system, including nongovernmental organizations 
and members of academia. In addition, we spoke with U.N. officials in 
New York and Geneva. These included officials from the Office of the 
Deputy Secretary General, the Department of Management, OHRM, OPPBA, 
DPI, OHCHR, OIOS, and JIU. We also spoke with U.S. officials in 
Washington, New York, and Geneva.

We conducted our work from June 2003 through January 2004, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Status of U.N. Reforms:

Table 2: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of Member States and the 
Status of Their Implementation:

Reform actions: New leadership and management: 
Establish the post of Deputy Secretary General; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Increase the public's interest in and effectiveness of the General 
Assembly by deciding, 2 years in advance, the subject for a special 
high-level session of meetings on an important issue or theme; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Organize General Assembly meetings in the same fashion as U.N. 
conferences; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Identify an annual thematic focus for the work of each of the main 
committees; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Organize the agenda around the eight priority areas of the medium-term 
plan; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Issue recommendations to member states in the form of resolutions, 
while requests for reports by the Secretary General and other 
procedural work would be in the form of simple decisions; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Working methods of the General Assembly: 
Limit the General Assembly's annual sessions from extending beyond 
November; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Member states establish the practice of providing information to the 
Secretary General to strengthen his efforts to deter conflicts; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
General Assembly and Security Council consider measures to enhance the 
rapid reaction capacity of the United Nations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
When establishing a peacekeeping operation, urge the Security Council 
to prescribe a time frame for the conclusion of a status-of-forces 
agreement with the host government; pending the conclusion of such an 
agreement, the model status-of-forces agreement would apply; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Review the work of the Disarmament Commission and the First Committee 
to update and streamline their work; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) considers holding its various 
sessions at different, preestablished periods during the year and 
extending the duration of the sessions to provide effective policy 
guidance to the different programs and funds; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Replace the Committee for Development Planning with panels of experts 
set up by ECOSOC; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Extend the time allotted to discuss development work in informal 
discussions between ECOSOC and heads of U.N. funds and programs and 
establish a trust fund to encourage participation of officials from 
the least developed countries; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Establish the Commission on Sustainable Development, consolidating the 
Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and Energy for 
Development and the Committee on Natural Resources; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Make the Commission on Science and Technology for Development a 
subsidiary body of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development's 
(UNCTAD) Trade and Development Board; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Consolidate the functions of the Commission on Crime Prevention and 
Criminal Justice and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs into a single 
commission, and the International Narcotics Control Board would report 
to this new commission; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Maintain the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on International 
Standards of Accounting and Reporting as an expert body reporting 
through the UNCTAD Commission on Investment, Technology and Related 
Financial Issues; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Review the work of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts in International Tax 
Matters after it finishes its mandated activities; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
The Committee on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights should report 
to ECOSOC through the Commission on Human Rights; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
ECOSOC should review the regional commissions to determine core 
competencies and the most appropriate division of labor for standard-
setting and technical cooperation activities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Convene joint meetings of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), U.N. 
Population Fund (UNFPA), and U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) executive 
boards to discuss issues and matters of common concern; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Establish a new system to finance U.N. funds and programs consisting 
of voluntary contributions and negotiated pledges paid in multiyear 
tranches; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Environment, habitat, and sustainable development: 
Discontinue the High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Designate the Emergency Relief Coordinator to oversee U.N. 
humanitarian assistance and transfer natural disaster mitigation 
activities to UNDP; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Establish a humanitarian affairs segment of ECOSOC; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Establish a revolving credit fund with up to $1 billion from voluntary 
contributions; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Retain any unspent balances under the regular budget; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Review the mandate, membership, and procedures of the International 
Civil Service Commission; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Approve the Secretariat's Code of Conduct; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Establish an account funded from savings in administration and other 
overhead costs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing support capacities: 
Adopt performance-oriented budgeting; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

[End of table]

Table 3: 1997 Reforms under the Authority of the Secretary General and 
the Status of Their Implementation:

Reform actions: New leadership and management: 
Establish a senior management group to set and direct unified 
Secretariat strategies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: New leadership and management: 
Establish a strategic planning unit; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Develop a plan to end the use of gratis personnel in the Secretariat; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Make the Special Representative of the Secretary General the ranking 
U.N. country official; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Make the Department of Political Affairs the focal point for 
postconflict peace building and the Executive Committee on Peace and 
Security responsible for the design and implementation of peace-
building initiatives; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Peace, security, and disarmament: 
Create a Department for Disarmament and Arms Regulation; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Establish a secretariat, or staff office, for the Department of 
Economic and Social Affairs to better support the Economic and Social 
Council; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Review activities shared by the Department of Economic and Social 
Affairs and UNCTAD in the macroeconomic area to increase cooperation 
and reduce duplication; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Economic and social affairs: 
Establish the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, comprising 
the Center for International Crime Prevention and the U.N. 
International Drug Control Program, in Vienna, to consolidate crime, 
drug, and terrorism issues into a single office; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Establish the U.N. Development Group; the Development Group Executive 
Committee will be composed of UNDP, UNICEF, and the U.N. Population 
Fund (UNFPA); 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
The Development Group Executive Committee will develop counterpart 
arrangements at the country level; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Create a development assistance framework for developing countries to 
coordinate efforts at the country level; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Establish resident coordinators to coordinate activities of different 
funds and programs at the country level; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Implement common premises, or "U.N. Houses," at the country level; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Issue a proposal detailing ways to have more predictable and 
consistent financial contributions from member states to meet 
development goals; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Development cooperation: 
Establish an Office for Development Financing to seek new and 
additional resources for development programs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Environment, habitat, and sustainable development: 
Develop plans to strengthen the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N. 
Center for Human Settlements; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Establish an Office of the Emergency Relief Coordinator to replace the 
Department of Humanitarian Affairs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Designate an Emergency Lead Coordinator to lead and coordinate all 
U.N. action on complex emergencies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Transfer responsibility for disaster prevention and preparedness to 
UNDP and for demining activities to the Department of Peacekeeping 
Operations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Strengthen the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) on humanitarian 
affairs and establish an IASC Steering Committee to coordinate its 
activities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
IASC will work to improve the consolidated appeal process for U.N. 
humanitarian affairs agencies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Humanitarian affairs: 
Give the Emergency Relief Coordinator authority to designate a lead 
agency to coordinate complex emergencies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
Establish an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
Integrate human rights' concerns into the broad range of U.N. 
activities, including development operations and humanitarian affairs, 
and assign a representative from the High Commissioner's office to 
participate in executive committee meetings; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
OHCHR will issue recommendations to increase the coordination of human 
rights technical assistance activities provided to member states; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
Increase the representation of the High Commissioner's office at 
headquarters in New York; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
OHCHR will review human rights programs across the U.N. and recommend 
ways to simplify their work and improve their efficiency; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human rights: 
Restructure OHCHR to provide better substantive and technical support 
to U.N. legislative bodies and monitoring committees.; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private 
sector: 
Meet with members of civil society to strengthen partnerships and 
enlist their support; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private 
sector: 
Designate a nongovernmental organization liaison officer for all U.N. 
departments and offices; facilitate cooperation between the U.N., 
member states, and civil society; 
and add training programs for U.N. staff that involve cooperation with 
civil society; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private 
sector: 
Establish a business liaison service to provide information to 
business groups on U.N. activities and on investment opportunities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Partnerships with civil society and the private 
sector: 
Increase participation of business groups in U.N. decision-making 
activities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Encourage movement of personnel across functions, departments, and 
duty stations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Create a simplified, flexible, and cost-effective system of 
recruitment and placement; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Establish accountability standards for program managers to improve the 
efficiency of program delivery; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Strengthen the performance appraisal system to reward high-performing 
staff and provide accountability for performance; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Improve channels of communication between staff and management; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Give managers greater flexibility in making permanent and fixed-term 
staff hiring decisions; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Establish a one-time training and redeployment program for staff 
affected by the reform process; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Establish an informal group of independent advisers to comment on 
senior-level appointments; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Issue specific savings targets for departments and offices to reduce 
administrative and other overhead costs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Review management practices to implement program activities more 
efficiently, improve services to member states, and reach targets set 
to reduce overhead costs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Delegate maximum authority to line managers in the areas of human 
resources and financial management; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Streamline administrative rules and procedures; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Simplify human resources and financial management policies, rules, and 
processes; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Consolidate headquarters' procurement services by expanding the use of 
electronic procurement and organizationwide competitive contracts; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Develop a unified management structure to provide information 
technology and telecommunications infrastructure and services on a 
cost-effective basis; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human resource and financial management: 
Establish one or more common service facilities at U.N. headquarters 
in New York, Geneva, and Vienna; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Modernizing information technology: 
Upgrade the U.N.'s Web site, home page, and other electronic 
postings; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Modernizing information technology: 
Modernize internal systems that produce, store, and disseminate 
documents; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Modernizing information technology: 
Enhance the use of the Intranet to facilitate internal communication 
and administrative simplification and streamlining; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Modernizing information technology: 
Adopt an information technology strategy for New York headquarters and 
field offices; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Modernizing information technology: 
Introduce methods to share information across agencies and identify 
lead agencies that would establish issue management networks; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes. 

Reform actions: U.N. university, research institutes, and related 
bodies: 
Improve coordination between the United Nations University and other 
U.N. research institutes; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: U.N. university, research institutes, and related 
bodies: 
Coordinate activities of the United Nations Staff College and other 
U.N. research institutes when preparing courses for U.N. civil 
servants; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

[End of table]

Table 4: 2002 Reforms and the Status of Their Implementation:

Reform actions: Strengthening human rights: 
Strengthen human rights-related actions at the country level; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Strengthening human rights: 
Develop recommendations to streamline reporting procedures to the 
treaty monitoring bodies by September 2003; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Strengthening human rights: 
Review human rights special procedures to find ways to enhance their 
effectiveness and report to the Secretary General by 2003; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Strengthening human rights: 
Develop a plan to strengthen the management of the Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Establish a Division of Strategic Communications in the Department of 
Public Information (DPI) to disseminate and evaluate U.N. messages 
around the world; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Establish an Outreach Division in DPI to group together services for 
delegations, civil society, and the general public; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Strengthen DPI's News and Media Division; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Transfer DPI's Cartographic Section to the Department of Peacekeeping 
Operations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Conduct an evaluation of the impact and cost- effectiveness of all of 
DPI's activities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Centralize U.N. information activities around regional hubs, starting 
with the creation of a Western European hub; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
The Dag Hammarskjold Library will set policy and coordinate the work 
of all U.N. libraries; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Develop a plan to integrate the library services of various U.N. 
locations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Develop and implement a plan to improve electronic access to U.N. 
collections, move from paper-based to electronic-based files, and 
provide training to depository librarians; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Executive Committees will organize publications to reduce their number 
and improve their coherence and focus; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Reestablish the Publications Board, which will establish standards and 
quality controls for publications; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Review the feasibility and cost of online publications delivery; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Enhancing public information: 
Discontinue publication of The Repertory of Practice of United Nations 
Organs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Streamlining reports: 
Consolidate duplicative reports on related subjects; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Streamlining reports: 
Publish clearer and more focused reports with specific 
recommendations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Streamlining reports: 
Adhere to mandated page limits; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Streamlining reports: 
Encourage the General Assembly to establish a system to review the 
relevancy of existing reporting requirements; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Managing conferences and meetings: 
Strengthen the planning and management of General Assembly meetings 
and documentation; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Coordinating U.N. field activities: 
Develop a plan to strengthen field coordination in developing 
countries; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and 
staff responsibilities: 
Prepare a document clarifying roles and responsibilities in the area 
of technical cooperation; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and 
staff responsibilities: 
Propose the addition of an Assistant Secretary General position in the 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and 
staff responsibilities: 
Establish a policy planning unit in the Department of Economic and 
Social Affairs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Clarifying the Secretariat's leadership roles and 
staff responsibilities: 
Transfer resources allocated to the Office of the Special Coordinator 
for Africa and the Least Developed Countries to the Advisor for 
Special Assignments in Africa, who would coordinate the preparation of 
Africa-related reports; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Promoting partnerships with civil society and the 
private sector: 
Establish a panel to review the relationship between the U.N. and 
civil society and offer recommendations for improving their 
interaction; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Promoting partnerships with civil society and the 
private sector: 
Establish a Partnerships Office to integrate the activities of the 
Global Compact Office and U.N. Fund for International Partnerships; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Link the program budget to Millennium Declaration; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Submit a shorter, more strategic medium-term plan, covering 2 years 
rather than 4, and submitted closer to the time of implementation; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Submit a budget outline with the medium-term plan; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Prepare a shorter, more strategic budget; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Give program managers greater flexibility to reallocate resources 
among programs and between program and personnel activities; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Strengthen the program monitoring and evaluation system; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Assign responsibility for reviewing U.N. budgeting information to the 
Fifth Committee instead of both the Fifth Committee and the Committee 
for Program and Evaluation; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Streamline and shorten peacekeeping budgets; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Consolidate and reduce the number of trust funds; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Harmonize the rules and requirements for trust fund management and 
reporting; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Revise the system used to account for administrative and other 
overhead support costs; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improving the planning, budgeting, and monitoring and 
evaluation system: 
Streamline procedures for accessing trust fund monies; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review contractual arrangements and benefits offered to Secretariat 
staff in field locations to make them comparable to those of the U.N. 
funds and programs; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review mobility arrangements between the Secretariat and the U.N. 
funds, programs, and specialized agencies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Create longer-term contractual arrangements for staff in field 
missions; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Identify special recruitment and reward incentives for duty stations 
with high vacancy rates; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review arrangements between the Secretariat and the U.N. funds, 
programs, and specialized agencies to assist spouses of U.N. staff 
applying for posts in field locations; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Explore possibilities to renegotiate host country agreements to allow 
U.N. spouses to work in those countries; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Lift restrictions on the numbers of general service staff eligible for 
promotion to the professional category; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review general service functions, responsibilities, and competencies; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Improve general service induction and career planning 
systems; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Provide more opportunities and incentives for staff mobility across 
functions, offices, and services in the field and peacekeeping 
missions; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Refer to all employees of the Secretariat as international civil 
servants; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Introduce flexible working arrangements in Secretariat departments and 
offices; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Increase opportunities of part-time employment for Secretariat 
staff; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Improve planning for replacing departing staff members; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Develop more targeted recruitment systems; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Enhance existing departure packages to include career placement 
assistance and transition arrangements; 
Status: Not in place: Yes; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Recommend a significant increase in resources allocated to training in 
the 2004-2005 biennium budget; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review flexibility given to program managers to manage resources; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Department of 
Management and those of the executive offices to increase delegation 
of authority; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Provide more and better training for managers across the U.N.; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Implement fully the U.N.'s policy on HIV/AIDS; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Review the current system of internal justice to improve the system's 
efficiency, and to allow staff fair and due process; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Encourage the International Civil Service Commission to submit its 
proposals for a more competitive pay and benefits system; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Human capital management: 
Encourage an independent review of the operations and functions of the 
International Civil Service Commission; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: Yes; 
Status: In place or substantially so: No.

Reform actions: Managing reform: 
Assign responsibility for overseeing the implementation of reforms to 
the Deputy Secretary General; 
Status: Not in place: No; 
Status: Partly in place: No; 
Status: In place or substantially so: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. information.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:

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

FEB 2 2004:

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "UNITED 
NATIONS: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to 
Measure Impact," GAO-04-339, GAO Job Code 320202.

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 
George Abrahams, Deputy Director, International Organization Bureau, at 
(202) 647-8270.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Christopher B. Burnham: 

cc:	GAO - Jeremy Latimer 
State/OIG - Luther Atkins 
State/H - Paul Kelly:

Department of State and USUN Comments on the GAO Draft Report, "UNITED 
NATIONS: Reforms Progressing, but Comprehensive Assessments Needed to 
Measure Impact" GAO-04-339 Job Code 320202:

The State Department and the United States Mission to the United 
Nations (USUN) welcome the report of the General Accounting Office on 
UN Management and Reform. UN reform is one of the United States' 
highest priorities and the U.S. has a longstanding history as a leading 
proponent of the Secretary-General's reform initiatives. Overall, we 
find the report comprehensive and insightful, providing a useful 
analysis of the challenges faced by the UN in implementing its reform 
agenda, including the lack of Member State consensus in implementing 
certain reforms, and we agree with its recommendations.

The report highlights significant achievements reforming UN management 
and operations while at the same time recognizing that reform is, as 
Secretary-General Annan said, "a process, not an event" comprised of 
many stages. We agree with the report's observation that the 1997 and 
2002 reform initiatives have led to better coordination across 
departments, a more unified leadership structure, and a results-
oriented approach to resource allocation. GAO correctly points out that 
many of the reforms implemented, such as developing a plan of action, 
are the first step in achieving the UN's longer-range goals.

To that end, the State Department and USUN will continue to push for 
meaningful reforms and full implementation of all reform initiatives at 
the UN, as is recommended by GAO in its report. This past fall, for 
example, the United States was successful in negotiating a resolution 
improving the budgetary process and strengthening program monitoring 
and evaluation. As GAO points out, the UN lacks a mechanism to 
adequately measure program impact and feed the results into future 
resource allocation decisions. The improved program monitoring and 
evaluation process is aimed at moving the UN toward becoming a 
genuinely results-oriented organization.

We note that the report does not address the reforms in the Department 
of Peacekeeping Operations from 1999-2001. The restructuring of the 
department responsible for peacekeeping and civilian police operations 
and the establishment of a UN base at Brindisi to store key supplies 
needed to stand up peacekeeping missions quickly and effectively 
represents a fundamental achievement by the UN.

Since the drafting of this report, the General Assembly adopted a 
budget for 2004-2005 that includes other noteworthy advances on the 
reform front. Of particular importance is the increased authority given 
to the Secretary-General to redeploy positions between and among 
sections of the budget to respond to priority needs. This measure 
should promote greater Organization-wide prioritization, which we hope 
will lead to a decrease in the number of posts requested by the 
Secretary-General in future budget proposals. The General Assembly also 
suspended recruitment of General Service (i.e., mainly administrative) 
posts with the intent of advancing a culture that stresses 
prioritization and efficiency in light of information technology 
benefits.

As a result of the savings realized from the consolidation of UN 
Information Centers (UNIC) in Western Europe, the General Assembly 
reduced the UNIC budget by $2 million. In addition, the membership 
requested that the Department of Public Information's three-year impact 
study be shortened to two years so that the results can be considered 
in 2004. The General Assembly has also requested an operational and 
management review of all UN libraries with a sharp focus on the 
libraries' staffing requirements in light of the increased investment 
in information technology.

To maintain momentum for UN improvements, the General Assembly also 
requested a variety of other studies, including: ways in which the 
performance of the Development Account may be improved; review of the 
Regular Program of Technical Cooperation; methods to improve the 
implementation of the UN's planning and budget regulations for greater 
prioritization of activities; the structure and function of all liaison 
offices; and the potential for reducing staffing costs through local 
recruitment of needed skills.

Further, this fall the General Assembly also approved a resolution as a 
first step toward revitalizing its work by reorganizing and reducing 
its agenda and documentation, creating mechanisms for closer 
collaboration with the two other main bodies of the UN - the Economic 
and Social Council and the Security Council - and improving its working 
methods.

The U.S. is pleased with the new recruitment and hiring system and a 
revised performance appraisal system, both of which have made 
significant strides in reforming the UN's human capital management. 
However, as GAO points out, more could be done in managing staff 
movement across organizations and geographic locations and in 
decentralizing authority and accountability for personnel decisions. 
Furthermore, the UN needs to develop a better system to screen the 
increased number of applications received through its online recruiting 
and hiring system. This system should also include a mechanism to 
inform/update candidates on the status of their application, including 
whether they have been "short-listed.":

We appreciate GAO's work in assessing the efforts made by the UN in 
implementing its reform agenda.

Signed by: 

Kim R. Holmes 
Assistant Secretary 
Bureau of International Organization Affairs 
Department of State:

Signed by: 

John D. Negroponte 
U.S. Representative to the United Nations:

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the United Nations:

United Nations:	
Nations Unies:

HEADQUARTERS * SIEGE	
NEW YORK, NY 10017 TEL.: 1 (212) 963.1234 
* FAX: 1 (212) 963.4879:

REFERENCE:

4 February 2004:

Dear Mr. Christoff,

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the draft 
GAO report United Nations: Reforms Progressing but Comprehensive 
Assessments Needed to Measure Impact (GAO-04-339).

It is encouraging to note that the GAO's assessment of implementation 
indicates that 85% of the reforms proposed in the 1997 and 2002 reform 
packages are either fully or partly implemented. We acknowledge that 
implementation rates are somewhat slower in those areas requiring the 
consent of Member States. In addition, the full impact of the latest 
reform measures, launched at the Secretary-General's own initiative in 
September 2002, cannot be demonstrated until the 2004/2005 programme of 
work - one that reflects a major update and reallocation of resources - 
has been implemented.

We take special note of the observations made in four key areas of UN 
operations, namely, Human Capital Management, Performance-Oriented 
Budgeting, Public Information Activities and Human Rights Programme. 
The Steering Committee on Reform and Management, chaired by the Deputy 
Secretary-General, will continue to ensure that these areas receive due 
attention in 2004. Work has already begun on strengthening the UN's 
internal system of programme monitoring and evaluation. Ongoing reforms 
in the areas of human resources management and public information are 
also scheduled for 2004. Progress reports on these three areas will be 
submitted to upcoming sessions of the General Assembly.

On the GAO's assessment of the challenges to reform implementation and, 
in particular, on assessing the "status and impact" of UN reforms, we 
would like to point out that the Organization provides periodic updates 
to the General Assembly. The Secretary-General's report on the 
implementation status of the 2002 reform package is a recent example 
(ref A/58/351). Internally, reform progress is closely tracked through 
the Steering Committee on Reform and Management. Programme managers are 
held individually accountable for the implementation of reforms falling 
within their respective purview. It is hoped that a strengthened system 
of programme monitoring and evaluation will ensure that the Secretary-
General can better demonstrate the impact of reforms to the General 
Assembly.

Finally, the report alludes to some resistance to certain reform 
initiatives from programme managers and staff. This is to be expected 
in any organization undergoing meaningful change. The reform agenda has 
been an ambitious one. We believe that the UN has shown itself quite 
capable of adaptation and modernization over the last six years. Yet we 
require that the development of a results-based culture is a longer-
term challenge, requiring a behavioural shift on the part of UN staff 
as well as member state representatives in the General Assembly.

It would be appreciated if these comments could be included in the 
final report.

Yours sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Catherine Bertini 
Under-Secretary-General for Management and Security Coordinator a.i:

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff 
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

[End of section]

FOOTNOTES

[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, United Nations: Reform Initiatives 
Have Strengthened Operations, but Overall Objectives Have Not Yet Been 
Met, GAO/NSIAD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2000). 

[2] The United States is assessed to pay 22 percent of the U.N.'s 
regular budget. The United States also is assessed 27 percent of the 
U.N. peacekeeping budget, and makes voluntary contributions to the 
United Nations and its specialized agencies that are primarily for 
humanitarian and development programs and activities. Overall, the 
United States contributed more than $3 billion to the U.N. system in 
2002.

[3] We did not examine U.N. peacekeeping reform in detail other than to 
assess the status of specific reforms in the 1997 and 2002 agendas (see 
app. II). In September 2003, GAO reported on some U.N. peacekeeping 
reforms, including performance-oriented planning and programming. See 
U.S. General Accounting Office, U.N. Peacekeeping: Transition 
Strategies for Post-Conflict Countries Lacked Results-Oriented 
Measures of Progress, GAO-03-1071 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003).

[4] Performance-oriented budgeting is the process by which budgeted 
activities are linked to expected results, programs are monitored and 
evaluated regularly, and resources are shifted to meet new priorities.

[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: 
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational 
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

[6] In 2000, the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration, 
which contains a set of priorities and specific time frames for meeting 
development goals. The Millennium Declaration and the Secretary 
General's Road Map toward implementation of the U.N. Millennium 
Declaration provide the overall priorities for all U.N. activities. 

[7] Reforms to change the budgeting process require a two-thirds 
majority vote of member states. 

[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and 
Program Risks: Department of Homeland Security, GAO-03-102 (Washington, 
D.C.: January 2003). 

[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital 
Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: 
Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and 
Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003). 

[11] Regular budget positions are those funded from the U.N. regular 
budget.

[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for 
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: 
December 2003). 

[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Insights for U.S. 
Agencies from Other Countries' Succession Planning and Management 
Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003).

[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency 
Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial 
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: January 2002); Program 
Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program 
Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000); 
Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).

[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency 
Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budget and Financial 
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: January 2002).

[16] The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
reviews financial documents submitted by the Secretariat to the General 
Assembly. 

[17] See First Report on the Proposed Program Budget for the Biennium 
2004-2005, Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
(New York: United Nations, Aug. 5, 2003).

[18] In this report, U.N. oversight committees refer to the Committee 
for Program and Coordination, which reviews the U.N.'s planning and 
budgeting documents and the work planned under each program, and the 
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. These 
committees report to the Fifth Committee, which is the General Assembly 
committee responsible for financial oversight of the Secretariat.

[19] See Regulations and Rules Governing Program Planning, the Program 
Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods 
of Evaluation (New York: United Nations, Apr. 19, 2000).

[20] OIOS is the United Nations' audit and internal evaluation unit. 

[21] Statistics are current as of Jan. 1, 2004. OIOS will review the 
Secretariat's monitoring and evaluation activities for the 2002-2003 
biennium in 2004.

[22] The Joint Inspection Unit is an investigative unit with broad 
authority to examine the efficiency of all U.N. organizations.

[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: 
Opportunities and Challenges, GAO-02-1106T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 
2002). 

[24] In this report, we refer to U.N. Information Centers as branch 
offices.

[25] The department also maintains relationships and establishes 
partnerships with media groups and civil society groups, including 
nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions, and 
organizes special events and exhibits with other U.N. partners.

[26] The General Assembly's oversight Committee on Information meets 
annually to examine the U.N.'s public information activities. 

[27] The offices in Athens, Bonn, Brussels, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London, 
Madrid, Paris, and Rome were consolidated. 

[28] The Department of Public Information will report the results from 
its first program impact review to the Committee on Information in 
2004. 

[29] GAO/NSIAD-00-150.

[30] There are four executive committees--Peace and Security, 
Humanitarian Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs, and the Development 
Group--headed by Under Secretaries General, who oversee the activities 
of the Secretariat's departments and offices. For example, the 
Executive Committee on Peace and Security oversees the Department of 
Political Affairs. A representative of the High Commissioner for Human 
Rights serves on all four committees.

[31] Donors, including governments, foundations, and private companies, 
provide voluntary contributions toward activities outlined in the human 
rights office's annual appeals. Ten major donors provided 81 percent of 
the office's total voluntary contributions in 2002.

[32] The human rights reporters, or Special Rapporteurs, and working 
groups are known collectively as the Special Procedures of the 
Commission on Human Rights. In this report, we refer to them as human 
rights reporters and working groups.

[33] There are seven committees or treaty-monitoring bodies. The 
committee members are elected by national governments that are party to 
the treaties. The human rights office provides support to all the 
committees except the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination 
against Women, which receives support from the Division for the 
Advancement of Women in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
in New York.

[34] Officials from the Deputy Secretary General's office stated that 
they were unsure if that office would issue additional status reports.

[35] GAO/NSIAD-00-150.

[36] GAO-02-373SP.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting 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. General Accounting 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.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: