The Foreign Service Journal, June 2008

Including positions at accompa- nied hardship posts, some 70 per- cent of overseas Foreign Service positions are now in hardship posts — half of which are at or above the 15-percent differential level. As a result, over half of the Foreign Service has served at a hardship post within the past five years. Demanding Too Much From Too Few In order to staff the ever-grow- ing number of unaccompanied and other hardship positions, the State Department, with AFSA concurrence, has made dramat- ic changes to the Foreign Service assignments system over the past few years. They include: 2005: Implementation of the Career Develop- ment Program for generalist officers. The require- ment to serve at a greater hardship (15 percent or high- er) post between tenure and promotion to the Senior Foreign Service makes it more difficult to avoid a tour at one or more unaccompanied posts. Similar programs for 18 Foreign Service specialist groups were implemented in 2006. This “ticket-punching” program represents an historic hardening of the conditions of service for career diplomats. It was a dramatic departure from the previous rules that allowed employees to rise to the Senior Foreign Service without ever serving at a hardship post after tenure. 2006: Revisions to the Open Assignments sys- tem. These changes prohibit tour extensions except at greater hardship posts (to force those employees into the available pool to staff hardship posts); require “fair share” bidders without recent service at a hardship post to bid on three greater hardship (15-percent or more) posts and to accept one if selected; and establish a new assignment “pre-season” during which all open unaccompanied posi- tions are to be filled before any other assignments are made. These revisions served to further steer employees toward greater hardship assignments. 2007: More revisions to the assignments system. These redefine qualifying past “fair share” service so that only service at a 15-percent or greater hardship post counts, and lower the “6/8” domestic service rule that had been in effect since 1997, allowing six-year domestic post- ings (with an additional two years in exceptional circumstances), to a “5/8” rule that effectively limits Foreign Service members to two consecutive domestic tours. In addition, State conducted a “prime candidate” exercise that involuntarily placed several hun- dred Foreign Service generalists on lists for possible (but ultimately unneeded) forced assignment to Iraq. It is using the same approach this year. These revisions put even more employees in the mix to staff hardship posts and put the entire Foreign Service on notice to expect to serve at greater hardship posts repeatedly during their careers. Unfortunately, these efforts to steer employees toward service at the most difficult posts have been seriously undercut by the lack of “bench strength” with which to fill the positions. After funding most, but not all, of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Diplomatic Readiness Initiative between 2002 and 2004, Congress turned down all subsequent requests for new positions, except those earmarked for consular affairs and diplomatic security. Between Sec. Powell’s departure in 2005 and Sec. Rice’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget request, Congress turned down requests to add a total of 709 new positions (almost all for Foreign Service personnel). These refusals came despite sharply increasing Foreign Service staffing demands in Iraq, Afghanistan, hard-language training and other emerging priority areas. As a result, literally hundreds of Foreign Service posi- tions are now vacant. In a March media interview, State Department human resources officials said that 12 per- cent of all overseas Foreign Service positions (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan) were vacant and that 19 percent of all Foreign Service positions (domestic plus overseas) were vacant. Furthermore, 19 percent of the filled slots were held by employees “stretched” into a position des- ignated for a more experienced person. This leaves posts around the world struggling to accomplish their missions with hollowed-out Foreign Service staffing. To add insult to injury, overseas posts also limp along with insufficient funding due to inadequate appropriations for State Department operations and the squeeze from the weak- ening dollar. F O C U S J U N E 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 27 While significant incentives are available to encourage war-zone service, FS employees elsewhere continue to suffer from ever-growing financial disincentives.