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.

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Corporate Authors:	United States. Government Accountability Office, 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
Format:	Government Document eBook
Language:	English
Published:	[Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, [2009]
Subjects:	United States. > Department of State > Reorganization. United States. > Department of State > Rules and practice. Arms control > Government policy > United States. Nuclear nonproliferation > Government policy > United States.
Online Access:	https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/FDLP612

Description
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.
Item Description:	Title from cover screen (GAO, viewed July 16, 2009). "July 2009." "GAO-09-738." Electronic resource.
Physical Description:	1 online resource (iii, 46 pages) : illustrations (some color).
Bibliography:	Includes bibliographical references.