State Department : key transformation practices could have helped in restructuring arms control and nonproliferation bureaus : report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.

Format:

Book

Government document

Author/Creator:

United States. Government Accountability Office

Contributor:

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

United States. Department of State--Reorganization.

United States.

United States. Department of State--Rules and practice.

United States. Department of State.

Arms control--Government policy--United States.

Arms control.

Nuclear nonproliferation--Government policy--United States.

Nuclear nonproliferation.

Administrative agencies--Reorganization.

Arms control--Government policy.

Nuclear nonproliferation--Government policy.

Genre:

Rules and practice.

Rules.

Physical Description:

1 online resource (iii, 46 pages) : illustrations (some color)

Other Title:

Key transformation practices could have helped in restructuring arms control and nonproliferation bureaus

Place of Publication:

[Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, [2009]

Summary:

In 2004, the Department of State (State) Inspector General (IG) concluded that State's three-bureau structure for conducting arms control and nonproliferation policy did not adequately address post-September 11 challenges, including possible terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. The IG also noted that State had yet to formalize the responsibilities of the three bureaus in its Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which sets out agency organization and functions. Between late 2005 and early 2006, State created a new two-bureau structure to better address these issues and improve efficiency. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which State addressed (1) the objectives of its 2005-2006 reorganization and (2) key transformation practices. For this effort, GAO reviewed State documents pertaining to the reorganization and staffing data for the affected bureaus in the periods before and after the reorganization and interviewed former and current State officials in Washington, D.C. GAO recommends that State (1) formally delineate in the FAM the roles of the two new bureaus and (2) direct that key transformation practices and steps be incorporated into the FAM.

Contents:

Background

State cannot demonstrate that it achieved the objectives of its 2005-2006 reorganization

State lacks reasonable assurance that it achieved its reorganization objectives because State addressed few key transformation practices

Conclusion.

Notes:

Title from cover screen (GAO, viewed July 16, 2009).

"July 2009."

Includes bibliographical references.

"GAO-09-738."

OCLC:

426040784