NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TEAM REVIEWING THE CIA LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00269R001300070001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 127
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 18, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 19, 1980
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Secret
FINAL REPORT
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
TEAM REVIEWING
THE CIA LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
19 SEPTEMBER 1980
RVW 19 SEPT. 1986
141
Secret
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
PERSPECTIVE ON THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM
a.
THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
1
b.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES ? POLICY NEEDS AND FULFILLMENT
4
c.
LANGUAGE INCENTIVE SYSTEMS IN THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES
9
d.
INCENTIVES PLUS
12
e.
SUMMARY ? PERSPECTIVE ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROBLEMS
13
2.
THE AGENCY'S LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
14
a.
OVERVIEW
14
b.
PRESENT IDENTIFICATION OF LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
15
c.
THE NAPA TEAM PERCEPTIONS OF AGENCY NEEDS
16
d.
CURRENT AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES
19
(1) DATA ON REQUIREMENTS
19
(2) DATA ON RESOURCES
19
3.
MEANS USED TO MEET AGENCY LANGUAGE NEEDS
22
a.
RECRUITMENT
22
b.
TRAINING
24
(1) THE ROLE OF TRAINING IN MEETING AGENCY FOREIGN LANGUAGE NEEDS
24
(2) THE LANGUAGE SCHOOL
24
(a) PROGRAM
25
(b) STAFF
31
(c) INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT FACILITIES
31
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(3) EXTERNAL TRAINING
32
(4) PROBLEMS
32
(5) RESOURCES
35
c.
HIRING, RETAINING AND REWARDING "LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS"
36
d.
LANGUAGE AS A FACTOR IN CAREERS IN THE AGENCY
38
4.
THE LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
41
a.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
41
b.
ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS
41
c.
GENERAL OVERVIEW
42
d.
THE LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
43
(1) DESCRIPTION
43
(2) STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE LAA
44
e.
THE LANGUAGE USE AWARD
44
(1) DESCRIPTION
44
(2) STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE LUA
45
f.
THE LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AWARD
47
(1) DESCRIPTION
47
(2) STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE LMA
47
g.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
48
5.
TESTING
51
a.
BACKGROUND
51
b.
ORAL STRUCTURED INTERVIEW TESTING
51
c.
THE OLDER READING TESTS
55
d.
TESTING PERFORMANCE
56
e.
PROBLEMS IN TESTING PERFORMANCE
56
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
?
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
f.
g.
h.
i.
CRITICISMS OF TESTING
COMMENTS ON CRITICISMS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON PERFORMANCE TESTING
APTITUDE TESTING
58
59
64
65
6.
SYSTEM-WIDE ISSUES
68
a.
PROGRAM GOALS/AWARDS CRITERIA
68
b.
INEQUITIES
69
c
PROGRAM LEADERSHIP
71
d.
TRACKING RESULTS/PROGRAM EVALUATION
71
e.
RELATIONSHIP OF LANGUAGE AWARDS TO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
72
f.
PROGRAM UNDERSTANDING/COMMUNICATION
72
g.
FUNDING ?
72
7.
IMPROVING LANGUAGE CAPABILITY IN CIA
74
a.
INTRODUCTION
74
b.
ESTABLISH AGENCY-WIDE POLICY ON THE IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE
74
c.
INSTITUTIONALIZE LEADERSHIP FOR THE PROGRAM
77
d.
NEEDED RESOURCES
79
e.
LANGUAGE CONSIDERATIONS IN RECRUITMENT
81
f.
TRAINING
82
g.
TESTING
83
h.
THE LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
85
(1) THE LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS PROGRAM
85
(2) THE LANGUAGE USE AWARD
85
(3) THE LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AWARD
86
(4) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LANGUAGE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
88
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 200RF/P/S6 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
i. HIRING, RETAINING AND REWARDING LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS 92
8. GOALS
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
94
UI
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
INTRODUCTION
Dramatic international events in the late 1970's forced the CIA to
reexamine its language capabilities. As a result, the Agency recognized the
need to both maintain and increase its language skills. A new Language
Incentive Program was established effective 1 October 1979 as a means of
assuring that the Agency will be able to meet its heavy responsibilities of
the 1980's; a part of the new Program is an annual review to assess its
effectiveness.
In July 1980, the Agency contracted with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) to conduct the first annual review. It became evident
to the NAPA Team early in its review that the Language Incentive Program is
one aspect of an overall program needed to identify language requirements and
to employ, develop and utilize resources to meet those requirements. This
report, therefore, includes the NAPA Team's findings, conclusions and recommen-
dations on all aspects of a total language program.
Our findings indicate that the Language Incentive Program has been extremely
useful in showing top management support for language capabilities, in getting
managers to think in terms of requirements and resources, and in encouraging ILLEGIB
employees to achieve, use and maintain languages.
The Agency has made a fine start. Our report is intended to provide a
framework and sense of direction for building on that start and includes
recommendations in terms of specific actions and priorities.
It has been a pleasure for NAPA to serve the Agency again. It is our
hope that this report will contribute to CIA's ability to meet its goals.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Methodology
The NAPA Team, comprised of Dr. Richard L. Chapman, Dr. Howard Sollenberger,
Dr. Erasmus Kloman and Mr. George Maharay, started its work on 14 July 1980.
It received briefings from the Office of Training and met with the Language
Development Committee, representatives from each Directorate, 20 Division or
Office Directors and their staffs, DDO overseas returnees,
students
25X1
in the part-time language program and others in the Agency. In addition, the
Team contacted the Office of the Director General and the Foreign Service
Institute in State, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Foreign Agricultural
Service, the Modern Language Association and the Business Council for International
Understanding. Reports and records within the Agency and from outside, such as
the President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies, State's
report on "Officer Positions Overseas and Language Skills of Incumbents," and its
proposed regulations on its new language incentive program, were reviewed. A
listing of meetings held by the NAPA Team and a bibliography of references and
reports reviewed are contained in Appendices 1 and 2.
When the first draft of this report was completed, it was distributed to
the Language Development Committee and to the persons in the Agency previously
contacted for a quick "turn-around" review and comment. At this point, Ambassador
Carol G. Laise and Bertrand M. Harding, leaders of the earlier NAPA Study on
"The CIA Personnel Management System," participated in reviewing comments
received and developing the final report.
As with the earlier NAPA Report, it is hoped that wide distribution of
this report will be made and that action based upon it will ensue only after
careful analysis of requirements and the options available to meet them.
11
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
1
71
111
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Background
In September 1979, the Agency initiated a new Language Incentive Program
as a means of assuring that language skills were being achieved, utilized and
maintained.
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) was called upon Co
make an assessment of the Language Incentive Program in terms of how well it
was meeting the purposes for which it was intended. Our report contains that
assessment in terms of findings and conclusions as well as recommendations and
priorities for action. It covers the Language Incentive Program but, of
necessity, goes beyond it and deals with all aspects of the language program
including requirements, goals, acquiring, using and maintaining language capa-
bility, leadership for the language program, and accountability for implementing
it, and finally, the institutionalization of the program.
B. Perspective on the Foreign Language Problems
The problems the Agency faces must also be seen as interrelated with
national and US governmental problems, policies and programs.
The background evidence to the Helsinki Accords, which were signed by the
United States, indicates that growing ethnocentric nationalism is one of the
present realities; and that understanding (if not agreement) depends to a large
extent on effective linguistic communication.
The report of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and Inter-
national Studies entitled StrengthThrough Wisdom - A Critique of US Capability
(November 19, 1979) said, "Nothing less is at issue than the nation's security..
the United States requires far more reliable capacities to communicate with its
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
allies, analyze the behavior of potential adversaries and earn the trust
and sympathies of the uncommitted. Yet there is a widening gap between
these needs and the American competence to understand and deal successfully
with other peoples in a world in flux."
Personnel in Foreign Affairs Agencies require a knowledge and under-
standing of foreign cultures, the ability to operate within them and a
"working" or "professional" level of proficiency in the language or languages
of the countries with which we deal either as friends, allies, or competitors.
A general comparison of the extent to which stated needs currently are
being met helps in focusing attention on the unique problems confronting the
CIA. Available data indicates that of the major agencies having 1,000 or more
people overseas, State has 71% of its language needs met, CIA has 30%. Another
30% of CIA personnel overseas in language designated positions, while not having
the level of proficiency required, do in fact have working proficiency in
the language.
Our findings in this Agency coincide With the experience of other Foreign
Affairs Agencies--incentives alone Will not significantly improve the Agency's
ability to increase its language skills and help it meet itslanguage require-
ments. A broad comprehensive Agency langUage program is needed; one which
includes (1) identifying language skills required, (2) meeting those needs
through recruiting and training, (3) adhering to an assignment policy of
assigning persons who have the requisite language skills of the position or
unit to which assigned, (4) giving proper consideration to language skills in
promotion, (5) providing adequate resources, and (6) giving recognition through.
an incentive program to those Who acquire Use and Maintain languages jfl
some
II
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
accord with Agency needs.
C. The Agency's Language Requirements
In looking at how language skills meet Agency requirements, two significant
factors become apparent.
-- First, language skills frequently are used to describe broader
competence required; they "open the door" to understanding the culture
of foreign countries, understanding and being able to analyze events in
foreign countries and their significance, and communicating with foreign
officials, foreign nationals and agents.
-- Second, the variables concerning language skills and their usage
in the Agency are extremely complex.
The Agency's language needs are currently stated in terms of "Unit Language
Requirements (ULRs), i.e., the requirements for specific language skills in a
specific organizational unit. The criterion for a Unit Language Requirement is
whether or not the specified language is truly essential and without which an
incumbent cannot perform satisfactorily with interpretation or translation
assistance. The Unit Language Requirements as of 30 June 1980 were 83 in DDA,
570 in NFAC, 290 in DDS&T and 1352 in DDO. These figures do not reflect an
accurate picture, for as of the end of December 1979, NFAC discontinued paying
Language Use Awards because of problems it had with its "requirements." Further,
there is lack of agreement on requirements in DDO where the issue is the relative
importance of language as a prerequisite to overseas assignment.
While there is no solid data on Agency language requirements now or for
the future, there is general agreement that Agency needs can be described and
categorized in terms of (1) the environment in which the language is used;
III
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(2) the stability of language requirements for the individual employee; (3)
whether language is a critical consideration in hiring; (4) the importance
of language ability in performance, i.e., essential or desirable, or a morale
factor; (5) the extent or scope of skills required--reading and/or speaking
and/or understanding (R, S, U); (6) the level of skills required; and (7) the
difficulty of the language involved.
The NAPA Team charted the needs as an illustration of total requirements
and variables.
Efforts are being made to develop a data base on ULRs and resources.
These will be inadequate unless and until language objectives are clarified
and translated into criteria and they are applied.
D. Means Used to Meet Agency Needs 11
The Agency meets its language capabilities requirements through recruiting,
training and recognizing the importance of language skills in compensation and
11 in careers.
1. Recruitment
If foreign language skills are important, it is obvious that the Agency
should recruit persons with such skills and/or those who have a high language
aptitude.
.11
IV
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Hiring of so-called "language specialists," where the language skill
is primary, is not a critical problem, except where a combination of language
skills and other professional qualifications are required, i.e., engineering,
technical or scientific background in combination with a particular foreign
language.
Except for language specialists, it appears that varying degrees of
emphasis are given to language skills in hiring other new employees. No emphasis
is given to language ability or aptitude in hiring clerical personnel.
No sustained effort seems to have been made to consider salaries above
the minimum step or to consider special salary scales to meet "hard-to-fill"
language specialist requirements.
2. Training
Training may be the most important and effective means by Which the
Agency can meet its most pressing needs and begin the long process of developiqg
its foreign language Capabilities
Language training has been dissipated to a dangerously low level during
the past several years. Clearly limited resources in the Directorates is a
critical factor in accomplishing the training that is required if the Agency
is going to meet its immediate and long-range requirements. The Agency should
return as soon as possible to a language training complement that is not
charged against the operating areas. This would serve to institutionalize and
protect a level of language training commensurate with the needs of the Agency.
It is evident from experience in other Foreign Affairs Agencies that
agencies with the best record in fulfilling their language needs have rigorous
policies requiring language training as a part of the process of assignment to
V
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
positions requiring foreign language skills.
The Language School is limited in doing its job by the extent to which
students are assigned to training. It is generally respected by the students
and, considering all of the operational problems, the success of the School is
in fact quite remarkable.
Yet, there are serious problems in the training which include:
-- Inadequate numbers of people being assigned to training prior to
assignment to jobs requiring language skills.
-- Insufficient periods are given to training; thus, even where
training is given, most employees being moved to new assignments are
sent without having the proficiency levels required.
-- Adjusting Language School schedules and programs to meet short-
term operational requirements has reduced the efficiency of the Language
School.
-- If language requirements of the Agency are to be met, more resources
will be required, and greater use will have to be made of available
external training.
3. Hiring, Retaining and Rewarding "Language Specialists"
The term, "language specialist," as used in the Agency covers a variety
of positions. As used, the term is confusing and may create difficulties in
administration and work to the detriment of the employees and management.
Many comments were received about hiring, retaining and rewarding
"language specialists." Specifically,
STAT
OTS are having success in recruiting "language specialists:"
others--particularly DDO-- are having difficulty now or anticipate it in
the future.
VI
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
o Line managers perceive classification as a problem in that it does
not recognize the importance of language to the Agency. The LUA recognizes
the professional aspects of language skills and has been an "escape" from
classification ceilings.
o Career opportunities for "language specialists" exist but in limited
numbers.
4. Language as a Factor in Careers in the Agency
For persons other than "language specialists," the importance of lan-
guage as a factor in a career 18 fairly nebulous.\ The Agency has gone from a
point where language as a factor in careers was important, perhaps to an extreme,
to a point where its iTp(21.ance is not readily perceived. Some point between
_ _
these two extremes is the correct one; one which should vary by occupation and
extent of use of language in a career.
E. The Language Incentive Program
A new CIA Language Incentive Program, (LIP) was initiated by the Deputy
Director of Central Intelligence, effective 1 October 1979
dated 25X1
6 September 1979). This program, aimed at encouraging the development and
maintenance of foreign language skills, modified the cash awards schedule for
the existing Language Achievement Award (LAA) and added two new awards--a
Language Use Award (LUA) and a Language Maintenance Award (LMA), as follows:
The Language Achievement Award (LAA) for upgrading or achieving
language proficiency in an incentive language. This is a lump sum award
ranging from $800-$1500 for achieving a single level and a maximum of $4700 for
achieving from a 1 through 4 level in the most difficult languages. The LAA
program recognizes both differences in difficulty of languages and differences
VII
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
in the extent of skills achieved (one-half of the total award is paid for
reading or speaking only). The LAA is well accepted; the only suggestions
received were that the amounts should be increased. The purpose/criteria and
application of the award need clarification.
The Language Use Award (LUA) for persons filling a ULR position who
have at least a 3 level in required language skills. This is a biweekly award
and amounts to $1300 a year. This award presents the biggest problem to the
Agency because of payment of the award to those hired for their language
STAT skills Language School Instructors, DDO Translators) and the
problems with designating Unit Language Requirements (ULRs). The LUA is well
accepted overseas; it is very controversial in the United States. On the
positive side, it signalled top level interest in languages, it made managers
and employees think about language requirements and skills, it stimulated
testing and the basis for better data and it will force a better definition
of requirements.
On the negative side, it does not recognize differences in environment,
the extent or level of skills used; the difficulty of the language involved or
effects on mobility, costs, training and testing. As with the LAA, the purpose,
the criteria and the application need attention.
The Language Maintenance Award (LMA) for maintaining proficiency in
an incentive language at the Level 4 or below level. It parallels the Achieve-
ment Award in that it is a lump sum award; it also recognizes differences in
difficulty of languages. Actual payment of LMAs starts 1 October 1980. The
Program also appears to be well accepted. It has potential for improving the
reservoir of skills required to meet the total Agency's critical needs. As
VIII
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
with the LAA, purpose, criteria and application need clarification. The
Program could get out of hand if not better defined.
There are a number of system-wide issues that relate to the Language
Incentive Program but which also have implications that gobeyond the Language
Incentive Program. These issues deal with: (1) Language Incentive Program
goals/criteria, (2) inequities, (3) language testing, (4) program leadership,
(5) tracking results/program evaluation, (6) relationship of awards to per-
formance appraisal, (7) program understanding/communications and (8) funding.
The most significant is that broad Issues on the importance of language
are not being and cannot be addressed by OTR, the Language Development Committee
or the Directorates individually; a focal point for leadership is needed.
The Language Incentive Program was designed to assist the Agency in meeting
its current and projected needs for language skills. In terms of order of
importance, the major problem the Agency faces is (1) that it is not meeting its
requirements for language skills overseas; (2) requirements for language skills
are not quite as high in the United States and the environment in which they
are used is far less demanding on the employee; and, (3) problems with respect
to hiring "language specialists," with some exceptions, are less than for the
first two categories.
Yet, the existing program does not provide incentives in relation to the
order of importance of the problems of the Agency; specifically, (1) the amount
of the award for the LUA is the same in the US as it is overseas; (2) almost
half of the LUA's are going to "language specialists;" (3) granting the LUA to
persons hired for their language skills is at odds with the objectives of the
LIP and results in inequitable treatment favoring "language specialists;"
IX
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2003/07/30: CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
further, it is not consistent with practices of other Foreign Affairs Agencies
and there is no substantial rationale for being different.
The choices are: (1) eliminate the LUA for "language specialists"
abruptly; (2) provide a transition from the LUA to some other form of
recognition; or, (3) continue the LUA despite the fact that this does not
meet Agency needs and creates inequities that are not fully justified. Some
means needs to be found which are consistent with the Agency's overall needs,
that are equitable, and that are not burdened by the disadvantages of the
present practices.
F. Testing
Testing is indispensable to improving language capabilities in the Agency.
All incentive payments are based on certified test scores; testing is necessary
in establishing an inventory of language skills, and testing is an essential
part of the training process.
Considering the increased demands created by the Language Incentive
Program, the Language School's testing unit has performed well.
There are problems in testing, however; these are:
-- The demands for testing have increased rapidly and could jump 50%
more in the near future.
-- CIA has a testing capacity in only 31 of the 83 languages it uses.
-Test development is a very slow and expensive process.
-- For many languages; demands are so limited that fully tested and
normed tests are not practicable.
The present inventory of language skills is seriously incomplete.
In addition to the above, the NAPA Team heard criticisms of foreign language
X
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
testing. Most of these (1) have to be viewed in terms of what tests can and
cannot do or (2) related to proposed variations in training and testing for
various categories of CIA employees. While there is always room for improve-
ment, the testing staff is dealing effectively with testing issues and should
be supported and defended by management.
Testing for aptitude in learning a foreign language has been used in the
Agency for some time, both in connection with recruiting and training, but its
application has been somewhat lax. This is particularly important in recruiting
CTs (9% of the last four classes had poor MLAT scores) and in assigning employees
to long-term "hard language" training (where the MLAT is currently used to explain
lack of success rather than predict success).
G. Improving Language Capability in CIA '
Language capability in CIA can be improved, but improving language capability
is a long-term proposition; improvement will depend upon a broad approach--one that
includes but goes far beyond the Language Incentive Program.
The three most important factors are: (1) clearly establish Agency-wide
policy that foreign language is to be an important factor in career progression
within the Agency; (2) institutionalize leadership for the program to ensure a
long-term consistent approach in carrying it out and, (3) applying needed
additional resources to the program.
1. Establishing an Agency-wide Policy on the Importance of Language
A basic policy commitment by the DCI is needed which indicates the V -
importance of language skills to the Agency and serves as a framework upon which
specific actions could be develued and against which results could be measured.
XI
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Beyond this basic policy, specific actions need to be taken to ensure
that language capability consideration will, in fact, become an integral part
of personnel assignment, appraisal and promotions.
2. Institutionalizing Leadership for the Program
Leadership for promoting language capability currently is too dispersed
and its importance submerged. The Language Program requires DCl/DDCI policy
leadership, surveillance and commitment.
Program staff responsibility should be assigned to the DDA or OPPPM to
assure direct access to the DCl/DDCI and appropriate involvement of the Executive
Committee for major program policy.
The Language Development Committee should be continued as the principal
coordinating body advising the DDA or the Director of OPPPM on all aspects of
the Agency-wide Language Program. OPPPM and OTR should be assigned significant
support roles. Each Directorate should identify a specific focal point for
Directorate-;vide monitoring and leadership in execution of the program. Line
managers should be held accountable for defining requirements and for acquiring,
developing, utilizing and maintaining skills of their employees necessary to meet
them. Employees should be informed of the extent to which language skills are or
will be important to their careers.
Special attention needs to be given to an adequate monitoring and
information system.
The data listed in the body of the Report and reports developed from it
should be the primary basis for monitoring and periodic evaluations of the program.
3. Needed Resources
It is Clear that if the-A enC is to meet its lan ua e need additional
XII
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
resources will be needed. These include:
-- Adequate resources to permit employees to take and complete language
training without undue interruption to the work of their organizations. A
developmental complement, such as the Agency has had in the past and other
agencies use, is recommended; an initial complement equivalent to 6% of
the ULRs or approximately 130 man-years should be established.
-- Resources to permit the Language School to meet its training
requirements. Emphasis will have to be on training by the Language School
if the Agency is to meet its language needs.
-- Resources to meet the testing requirements of the Agency. As
indicated, the Language Incentive Program turned the spotlight on testing.
A total Language Program would increase the intensity involved.
4. Language Considerations in Recruitment
o Language requirements should be considered in recruitment in relation
ship to their importance to performance; they should be clearly identified
for recruiters and prospective employees.
o Where language is important and a person has no language proficiency,
the MLAT should be used as a screening device. Anyone With a "poor" or
-"below average" aptitude Should be employed Only as an exception.
o Where language is an important consideration in hiring, use should be
made of a rate above the minimum where appropriate; where difficulty is
encountered in recruiting language specialists, consideration should be
given to establishing "special salary rates."
5. Training
Training may be the most important and effective means by which the
XIII
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Agency can improve its language capabilities.
o Both immediate and long-range efforts to plan and project assignments,
to include training, are essential if stated job requirements are to be
met.
o More systematic use should be made of aptitude test results selecting
persons before making a heavy training investment--i.e., to study "hard"
languages.
o Length of training should be revised to produce the proficiency levels
required.
o Pulling a person out of training before completing the prescribed
course should become the exception rather than the rule.
1' The first goal the Agency might establish is having 60% of the students
assigned to training complete their training periods.
o With limited staff, it is important that the School determine its
priorities aimed at developing higher proficiency levels and meeting
specialized requirements.
6. -Testing
o The Agency Should adopt Mandatory testing to assure a-tore Accurate
inventory Of skills.
o With limited resburces., priorities should be set for developing new
tests. Alternative arrangements for testing in many languages will have to
suffice.
o Research and development on tests and testing should be encouraged.
o For the present, judgments from testing beyond proficiency should
not be expected, measuring communicative facility is a different issue.
XIV '
is I s i_re-:.:es .?rss ill sits
Approved For Release 2003/07/30: CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
7. Language as a Factor in Careers in the Agency
Lan
ua
e skills should be h hli hted as a factor in s ecific ositions,
in occupations and in careers as appropriate. Language factors should be
addressed in connection with: a CT's completion of probation, position descrip-
tions, performance appraisals and consideration for promotion.
Where having a difficult language of limited use appears to restrict
an employee's career opportunities, special actions in terms of assignments and
rewards to compensate for the limitations should be considered.
8. The Language Incentive Program
o The purpose of the Language Incentive Program and its subparts need
to be clearly spelled out.
o The NAPA Team found the Language Achievement and Language Maintenance
Awards Program to be basically serving intended purposes and to be working
reasonably well.
o The Language Use Award should apply only to use in an overseas
environment; the Language Maintenance Award should be substituted for
the LUA in the United States.
? Persons hired or appointed to their present positions based primarily
on their language skills should be excluded from the LUA, LAA and LMA in
the language or mutually intelligible languages upon which that appointment
was based.
o The proposed modifications of the LUA to recognize lower than required
proficiency is endorsed for persons overseas.
o A modified Language Use Award, based upon a percentage of basic
compensation and similar to State's new program is recommended for
XV
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
situations in which a difficult language is involved at a hardship post
and the language has limited use in an employee's career.
o Guidelines should be issued to make sure that language maintenance
activities are in keeping with overall Agency needs.
9. Hiring, Retaining and Rewarding Language Specialists
Hiring, retaining and rewarding language specialists present unique.
problems to the Agency. Action should be taken to deal with them.
o A Task Force should be established to look at and report upon the
classification and compensation of language specialists.
o After the Task Force has reported and action started to implement
the report, the LUA for language specialists should be discontinued.
o The effective date of discontinuing the LUA for language specialists
should be 1 October 1981 or some other earlier date which would minimize
any possible adverse effects of discontinuing the LUA.
H. Goals
If CIA is to improve its language capabilities, as it must, we believe
that it should act now to establish certain attainable goals. We suggest that
the following be included in a total listing of goals that should be developed
and met.
Goal 1: Every employee who is potentially available for overseas
assignments or for assignment to a domestic position requiring a foreign
language competence, should have a tested proficiency at the comprehensive
S-3, R-3 level or better in at least one foreign language before being
advanced to the mid-career level. Desirably every officer in the above
categories should have 2 foreign languages as early in mid-career as
XVI
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
possible, and before being advanced to the senior levels. This goal
should be taken into account by promotion panels, beginning in Calendar
Year 1982..
Goal 2: After 1 January 1982, 60% of all new assignments should be
filled by persons fully qualified in the requited foreign language. This
goal should be advanced to 80% by 1985-which is probably the maximum
practicable achievement.
Goal 3: Foreign language testing should be made mandatory. The first
round of Agency testing of personnel who have a claimed foreign language
skill or skills should be completed by 1 January 1983.
Goal 4: A language training complement, equivalent to 6% of "Unit
Language Requirements" positions (130 man-years at present) should be
established tt, cover serious full-time assignments of more than 12 weeks
duration: -This should be accomplished by:FY 83. This would include
language training assignments of CTs, as well as language training in
anticipation of assignment to a position requiring proficiency in a foreign
language.
Goal 5: The Task Force On "Language Specialists" should be established
by 1 January 1981 and its report Completed and implemented by 1-January 1982.
XVII
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
I. Perspective on the Foreign Language Program
a. The International and National Environment
In reviewing the Central Intelligence Agency's Foreign Language
Incentive Program (LIP), the NAPA Review Team has found it necessary to examine
the program in the larger context of the problems the Agency is having in
meeting its needs for a wide range of skills in foreign languages.
The problems the Agency faces must also be seen as interrelated with
national and US governmental problems, policies and programs.
There is a growing realization that language skills are becoming
increasingly important and in some instances, critical.
The Helsinki Accords committed the signatory states, including the US,
to "Encourage the study of foreign language and civilization as an important
means of expanding communication among peoples." The background evidence
influencing this Act indicates that it was more than just a pious expression of
support for education and understanding. It was also an indication that growing
ethnocentric nationalism is one of the present realities; and that understanding
(if not agreement) depends to a large extent on effective linguistic communica-
tion. In a way it was also telling the English-speaking world, and particularly
the US, that even though others were learning English in increasing numbers,
we should not count on the rest of the world learning English as an accommodation
to us, or as an expression of eagerness to adopt American culture and values.
The importance of foreign language communication and knowledge of other
parts of the world has also been expressed in the report of the President's
Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies entitled "Strength
Through Wisdom - A Critique of US Capability (November 19, 1979). The following
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
excerpts summarize the Commission's findings.
"America's position in the world has changed radically over the last
quarter century. Powerful competitors challenge our military and economic
position, while the revolution of rising expectations in the Third World
exerts more pressures and makes new demands on us. Nuclear monopoly has given
way to nuclear proliferation. The United States is no longer the only major
center of scientific and technological progress. We confront a potent combination
of social ideologies and national aspiration that have extensive consequences
for America's domestic well being.
"Nothing less is at issue than the nation's security. At a time when
the resurgent forces of nationalism and of ethnic and linguistic consciousness
so directly effect global realities, the United States requires far more reliable
capacities to communicate with its allies, analyze the behavior of potential
adversaries and earn the trust and sympathies of the uncommitted. Yet there is
a widening gap between these needs and the American competence to understand
and deal successfully with other peoples in a world in flux.
"We are profoundly alarmed by what we have found: a serious deteriora-
tion in this country's language and research capacity, at a time when an
increasingly hazardous international military, political and economic environment
is making unprecedented demands on America's resources, intellectual capacity
and public sensitivity."
The Reports of the Modern Language Association - American Council of
Learned Societies (MLA-ACLS) Language Task Forces entitled Language Study for
the 1980s underscore the problem in American education.
...of 22,737 secondary school in the US, 4,344 do not offer any
foreign language instructions."
2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
"...In colleges, only 10% of all students presently are studying a
foreign language and no comprehensive information exists regarding
their proficiency at graduation."
"...The percentage of colleges which had language requirements for a
BA degree dropped from 90% in 1966 to 53% in 1975."
"...Currently only 18% of US colleges have a foreign language entrance
requirement."
"...There has been a significant decline in the enrollments in such
widely taught languages as French, German and Russian. Only Spanish
has sustained its enrollments during the past decade."
...only 1% of the nation's secondary school foreign language enrollments
and 10.2% of the post-secondary enrollments are studying the less
commonly taught languages; yet these are languages spoken by over
80% of the world's population, and several of them have for many
years been classified as 'strategic' or 'critical' from the point
of view of the national interest of the US."
The national decline, at a time when foreign language skills are
becoming increasingly important, has been attributed by the MLA Task Forces
to a number of factors:
(1) There is a lack of conviction on the part of institutional
policymakers as to the importance or need for teaching foreign language
skills at the college level. (Certainly there is a lack of support.)
(2) Failure of the language teaching profession itself to identify
purposes and definable goals of performance-based learning.
(3) Both policymakers and teaching generally have failed to respond
3
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
to social change, i.e., changing needs in our own society and in the
world community and the changing nature of student clientele.
(4) The professions, business and government, have not clearly
defined needed language skills in performance-based terms.
(5) Standards and methods for determining performance-based
proficiency are not widely accepted.
(6) Too little funding.
Experts generally agree that this situation is not going to be quickly
turned around; and that it will be a long time before government recruitment for
needed foreign language skills coupled with other professional qualifications
will show much improvement.
b. Foreign Affairs Agencies - Policy Needs and Fulfillment
(1) Policies
What is unique about the Foreign Affairs Agencies is not that they
need people trained in the various disciplines, sciences, and professional fields
or that they need managerial, operational and clerical skills, but that they
conduct their business in or in reference to foreign countries and cultures.
This fact alone requires, on the part of foreign affairs personnel, a knowledge
and understanding of foreign cultures, the ability to operate within them and a
"working" or "professional" level of proficiency in the language or languages
of the countries with which we deal either as friends, allies, competitors,
opponents or enemies.
This has been recognized by the Congress in Sections 500 and 578
of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 as amended.
-- Section 500 provides that, "to the maximum extent practicable,
4
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Chiefs of Mission and Foreign Service officers shall have among their
qualifications, a useful knowledge of the principle language of the
country in which they serve and an understanding of its culture."
-- Section 578 provides that "overseas positions requiring a useful
knowledge of a foreign language shall be so designated and shall be
filled only by officers with the required level of proficiency."
These are statutory requirements for State, AID and USICA. Certain
elements of the DOD (principally the Military Attache Service and Military
Assistance Advisory Group), the Foreign Agricultural Service of USDA and the
(new) Foreign Commercial Service of the Department of Commerce, the Drug Enforce-
ment Agency (DEA), Internal Revenue Service - Overseas Division, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, the Peace Corps Overseas Staff (Peace Corps Volunteers
are normally trained in the language of the country of assignment), as well as
the CIA, accept the intent of these requirements as applying to them, or at least
to their personnel attached officially to an American Embassy or diplomatic post
overseas.
(2) Determining Needs in the Foreign Affairs Agencies
To varying degrees, all of these agencies have designated overseas
positions requiring foreign language skills (Unit Language Requirements - ULRs
in the case of CIA). These designations constitute the basis for determining
needs by language, by language skill as appropriate (Speaking - S, Reading - R
and/or Understanding/Comprehension - U), and by level of proficiency on a scale
of "0" to "5". The "5" level being equated as the proficiency of an educated
native speaker of the language.
The definitions for measuring speaking and reading capabilities
are in Section 5.b.
5
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
In commenting on the Federal Government's foreign language needs
and capabilities, the Report of the President's Commission on Foreign Language
and International Studies states that:
"Studies prepared for the Commission indicate serious
deficiencies in foreign language capabilities of federal government
employees who work in foreign affairs."
In response to the above findings, the Commission formulated the
following Recommendations:
"A. Those agencies of the federal government that have positions
designated as requiring a foreign language competency should achieve 100
percent compliance with these requirements as soon as possible, and no
later than 1985. Annual progress reports should be made to the President
and the Congress.
"B. Federal agencies requiring foreign language competency for
designated positions, especially those involved in foreign affairs, should
review the criteria used in setting designations. The aim should be to
strengthen the foreign language capability of these agencies overall and
to designate individual positions with specific language requirements
commensurate with the functions and responsibilities of the positions.
"C. The Commission recommends that the career system of foreign
affairs agencies and the Department of Defense be evaluated with a view
toward increasing the incentives for professional staff members to acquire
and maintain foreign language and international studies expertise, and
toward removing the disincentives now present in the system."
(3) Fulfillment of Needs
The GAO Report on More Ji
6
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
ii
a
z
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
Federal Personnel Working Overseas - April 15, 1980, which did not review or
report on intelligence related programs of DOD and CIA, concluded:
"Foreign language competence among Federal employees has improved
since the early 1970's when GAO first reported on the subject. However,
improvements are still needed in a number of agencies. Agencies have not
adequately defined foreign language requirements, and certain policies
and practices have resulted in persons being assigned to positions for
which they do not have the required language proficiency."
On designation of positions, the GAO Report recommends that:
Language Designated Positions (LDPs) and their proficiency
level be based exclusively on job needs and that requirements not be
compromised by extraneous factors.
-- Artificial prohibitions against designating positions above
a certain level be eliminated.
-- There be a focal point for reviewing needs.
-- There be an independent review mechanism.
While it is difficult to compare agencies with missions and
responsibilities as diverse as those of the Foreign Affairs Agencies, the
NAPA Team felt that even a general comparison of the extent to which stated
needs currently are being met could help in focusing attention on the unique
problems confronting the CIA in meeting its foreign language skills requirements.
For the purpose of establishing reasonable comparability with available data
from other agencies, we have used only CIA/DDO overseas requirements in
Chart 1 on page
7
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
--SECKET
Approved For Riiklifizitk2OECNO7/30 1,01AIROPaS130)32641110161300070001-9
AND COMPLIANCE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES - FY 1979
CHART i
Occupied (Filled) Positions
Agency
Total US
Overseas
Positions
Designated or
Authorized
LDP's/ULR's
Number of
Languages
Designated
Designated
Range Positions
Skill Levels Filled
In Compliance
Fulfillment
Number
State
5,712
1,320 (23%)*
42
S-2/R-2 &
1,216
858
71%
S-3/R-3 or
better
AID
1,515
687 (45%)*
92% of rqmts in
French & Spanish
S-2&S-3
541
394
-73%
USICA
1,051
421 (40%)*
34
S-2/R-2 &
398
276
70%
S-3/R-3 or
better
DEA
292
204 (70%)*
12
Not specified in
194
189
97%
"S"-"R" Terms
Peace Corps
159
72 (45%)*
4
S-2 to S-4
64
56
88%
Staff
IRS
168
Spanish Only
S-5/R-5
168
168
100%
FAS
133
60 (45%)*
10
S-2/R-2 &
59
21
36%
S-3/R-3
APHIS
118
112 (95%)*
Spanish Only
Not specified in
90
73
81%
"S"-"R" Terms
*Percentage of Overseas Positions
Data for agencies other than CIA was taken from the GAO Report - More Competence in Foreign Languages Needed by
Federal Personnel Working Overseas - 15 April 1980
CIA data taken from Report of the Language Development Committee for FY 1979 or provided by DDO.
Approved For Release 2003/0SECREIDP86B00269R001300070001-9
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/07/ibc:R81A-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
c. Language Incentive Systems in the Foreign Affairs Agencies
Several of the Foreign Affairs Agencies have developed foreign language
incentive programs. These range from salary differentials at the time of
employment to incentives for acquisition/achievement, use and maintenance.
State and ICA have uniform regulations and procedures which provide
for monetary incentives for language skills.
Monetary Incentives for Language Skills (#873)
"To assist the Department and ICA in attaining language policy
objectives, monetary incentives have been instituted under Section 704(f)
of the Foreign Service Act as amended, which provide for payments of
within salary increases for language proficiency acquired prior to entry
into the service."
Classification of Languages (#873.1)
"For the purpose of governing incentive payments, as well as
9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1
25X1
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30: CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
certain other purposes, languages have been classified.., according to
difficulty and the needs of the Service. Classification (of languages)
is reviewed from time to time to reflect changing needs."
Salary increases for language proficient entrants provide from 1 to 4
within class increases depending on the category of the language and the tested
proficiency rating. Under certain circumstances this can mean that an officer
can be promoted to the next class and the appropriate within
details, see Uniform State/ICA Regulation #873.3.)
State/ICA also has provisions for "Salary Increases for Study and
Proficiency Achievement in Incentive Language." Languages for which training
incentives will be paid are identified from time to time by State and ICA
according to their needs. There are currently 14 so-called incentive languages.
(For details, see draft revision of the Uniform State/ICA Regulation #873.4.)
State/ICA recently have approved a program (not yet in effect) of
"Monetary Payments for Proficiency in Incentive Languages While Serving in
Incentive Language Posts." These incentive payments will initially be limited
to 14 incentive languages, though the languages may change depending on circum-
stances. These incentives will be paid as a percentage of base salary while
using the language at an Incentive Language Post. Employees who have a qualifying
rating at the S-3, R-3 level will receive 10% of base salary. A qualifying rating
at the S-4, R-4 level or better will receive 15% of base salary. (For details,
see draft revision of State/ICA Regulation #873.5.)
AID's monetary incentive program is limited to what they call the
"esoteric" languages (languages other than French, Spanish, Portuguese and
Italian). Since 92% of their language requirements are in Spanish and French,
class level.
(For
10
- SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2065Frithi0 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
the Program is relatively restricted. Their maintenance program is only for
"speaking" proficiency.
Achievement incentives are provided in the form of in-class step
increases for achieving the S-1, S-1+ and S-2 levels.
Employees assigned to language training will receive a one-step
salary raise upon satisfactory completion of 16 weeks of full-time training
and an additional step increase when and if the employee achieves the S-2
level. Presently AID's Career Interns may not be promoted until they achieve
a tested S-3 in Spanish, French, Portuguese or Italian or an S-2 in another
language useful to AID. They are currently considering changing the promotion
limitation and instead, prohibiting transfer to career status of any AID
employee who does not have a useful foreign language skill.
The USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service has a monetary incentive
program for "attaining" and "maintaining" foreign language skills as follows.
Overseas secretaries may receive $300 for "attaining" an S-2/R-2 for
a Group I language (those languages that are relatively easy for speakers of
English to learn) or for achieving an S-1+/R-1+ in a Group II language (so-called
"hard" language. Half of that amount ($150) may be paid for "maintaining" the
language skill.
Professional employees may receive $500 for attaining an S-3/R-3 for
a Group I language or an S-2/R-2 for a Group II language and half that amount
($250) annually for maintaining that skill level. The sum of $150 may be paid
secretaries and $250 may be paid professional employees based in Washington for
"attaining" or " maintaining" the required language skill--provided they are
certified as available for worldwide assignment.
11
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
An annual additional award of $100 may be paid for "attaining" or
"maintaining" Japanese or Chinese. (See 3 FASR 4890.5b, Foreign Language
Incentive Program dated 22 June 1976.)
d. Incentives Plus
While monetary incentives are an important part of the foreign language
development programs of agencies which have had reasonable success in meeting
their most critical needs, it is also apparent that incentives alone will not
significantly improve the situation. The experience of other agencies would
indicate that a broader comprehensive Agency language policy--which includes
monetary incentives, but which also addresses recruitment policy, training,
personnel and assignment policies, career development policies and Improved
funding will be necessary if CIA is to meet its immediate and long-range
foreign language skills needs.
This is supported by the conclusions of the GAO Report referred to
above. Although these conclusions addressed the problems in the Foreign Affairs
Agencies, they are generally applicable to the CIA.
1. .Improvements are necessary in establishing and adhering to
guidelines and procedures for determining foreign language skills needs.
Needs are frequently understated.
2. Personnel and career development policies do not adequately
recognize foreign language needs and skills.
3. Training and time allotments for training are not sufficiently
related to needs.
4. Legislative changes and additional funding are needed to
improve foreign language capabilities.
12
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
sJR
25X1,
Approved For Release 2001/09ga : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
e. StimmAry - Perspective on Foreign Language Problems
When viewed in perspective, it is clear CIA is not alone in finding
itself with a critical foreign language skills shortage.
At a time when there is a greater perception of the importance of
foreign language skills and government requirements are increasing, the
nation is faced with a decline in enrollments and lower academic requirements.
Those federal agencies with overseas positions and foreign language
requirements are still struggling with the problem of identifying needs and
in meeting their requirements. Some have been more successful than others.
All are facing manpower and budget restrictions.
Other agencies also have monetary and other language incentive
programs. A more comprehensive foreign language policy will be necessary if
CIA is to meet its critical needs--both immediate and long-range. There is
no quick or easy solution.
13
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001300070001-9
2. The Agency's Language Requirements
a. Overview
Agency leadership has indicated that language skills are fundamental
in helping the CIA meet its heavy responsibilities of the 1980's. In looking
at how language skills help meet Agency requirements, two significant factors
become apparent. First, language skills are frequently used to describe broader
competencies required. Second, the variables concerning language skills and
their usage in the Agency are extremely complex.
In many respects, language skills "open the door" to a variety of
things important to national intelligence. These include understanding the
culture of foreign countries and their environments, understanding and being
able to analyze events occurring in foreign countries and their impact or
potential impact upon the United States and its interests. Last, but not least,
language skills lead to communicating with foreign officials, foreign nationals
generally, and agents. Language skills, then, are fundamental to securing
intelligence information and understanding and analyzing its significance.
To accomplish its mission, Agency employees gather intelligence by
using their language skills overseas. Typically, this involves the full range
of skills--reading, speaking and understanding. Other employees overseas who
support those performing that primary mission require a high degree of skill
in reading or transcribing or a lesser degree of skill in reading, speaking
and understanding. In the United States, language skills are used by those
who analyze intelligence information, those who translate or transcribe it and
those who teach such skills. The variables in the requirements, the range of
languages and skills required, and the manner in which languages skills are
14
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
rewarding employees tended to distort the picture.
Lack of agreement on Agency requirements is not confined to NFAC. In
DDO, the issue hinges on the relative importance of language as a prerequisite
to overseas assignment. This is not a new issue. In the 1970's, one DDO
clearly indicated he felt language skills weren't important. Today, some
Divisions in the DDO take the position that language skills are absolutely
essential in an overseas post and insist upon the acquisition of language skills
before assignment; others don't feel that strongly about the matter.
In the absence of specific determinations based upon overall policy
decision on needs, there is no solid data on Agency language requirements now
or for the future. It should be noted that there is general agreement on what
Agency language skills are required. These can be identified and categorized
and used to illustrate the kind of data base the Agency needs.
c. The NAPA Team Perceptions of Agency Needs
The following, then, represents an initial effort to present the needs
which were described to the NAPA Team, to categorize them and to describe the
variables involved.
The needs cover a complex set of variables. These include:
(1) The environment in which the language is used, i.e., in the US
or overseas where the foreign language is the native tongue or the native
tongue of a target.
(2) The stability of requirements for individual employees. The
16
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
STAT
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
careers and in different overseas environments.
(3) Whether language ability was the critical consideration in hiring_
the employee. Language is the critical factor in hiring Language School
Instructors,
and DDO Translators; such persons are hired
because of language skills which are of paramount importance in their
qualifications.
(4) The importance of language ability in performance, i.e., whether
it is essential to successful performance or desirable in that it improves
performance. A third variable here is whether language, although minimally
desirable, is a positive morale factor in getting around and feeling
comfortable in a foreign country.
(5) The extent of language ability required. Language skills are
described in terms of reading, speaking and understanding (R, S, U); some
positions involve reading, e.g., NFAC analysts; others involve the entire
gamut of skills, e.g., case officers overseas.
(6) The level of skills required. Skill levels are defined by a
sequence of 5 levels--1 being "elementary proficiency" and 5 being "native
or bilingual proficiency." Agency requirements encompass all 5 levels.
(7) The difficulty of the language involved. Agency employees use
83 languages. Because some are more difficult to learn than others,
languages are categorized into 3 groupings: the simplest to learn
(Group I) includes the "World Languages"--French, German and Spanish; the
most difficult (Group III) include Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
The chart on the following page illustrates the major language needs
of the Agency as the NAPA Team understands them from its review. Language
17
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/511fIlaA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
difficulty is not shown on the chart since the occupations shown encompass a
variety of occupations cutting across all 3 groupings of difficulty. (Chart
2 on NAPA Team Perceptions on Agency Language Needs is on Pagel8 .)
d. Current Availability of Data on Requirements and Resources
Requirements and Resources
Data on requirements and resources which currently exist are listed
below.
(1) Data on Requirements. Language requirements are described in terms
of Unit Language Requirements (ULRs). The total of 2295 reported by the Language
Development Committee for 30 June 1980 is significant as a basis for paying Language
Use Awards. The present data is inadequate in that there was lack of agreement
on requirements plus great variation in making determination on requirements. It
is also inadequate in that the data is not available in the way that permits looking
at overall Agency requirements rather than by Directorates or Divisions/Offices.
In addition, present data on requirements does not cover the occupations and
situations in which language skills are desirable or would be a positive morale
factor.
(2) Data on Resources.
Records on Agency language capabilities are maintained for the most
part in the following systems:
CENOUAL - a computerized file on personnel qualifications maintained
by the Information and Analysis Branch (IAB) of the
Personnel Office.
OTR - file on language training and testing designed as a basis for
administering the Language Incentive Program, based on
CENOUAL.
19
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
the major one being that many overseas personnel have not been tested recently,
and their files contain outdated information.
A more serious problem in tracking language capability in the Agency
is caused by fragmentation and coordination. The file maintained by OTR for
the purpose of administering the Language Incentive Program is based mainly on
CENQUAL along with other data that has been consolidated from other sources. OTR
feeds data to CENQUAL as a means of updating the records on training and testing.
Despite the heavy dependence of OTR on the Information and Analysis Branch, which
produced CENQUAL, there appears to be very little dialogue between the two offices
on their common problems.
The OTR file on the Language Incentive Program is maintained manually.
A decision on computerizing this record is awaiting the findings of the NAPA study
with respect to the continuation or modification of the Incentive Program. While
an argument could be made to locate the responsibility for administering the LIP
in the Personnel Office, it appears more reasonable to keep the training and
testing file in OTR, the office responsible for this activity.
Data required by the CIA on requirements and resources and how well
they are matched will continue to be inadequate until basic policy decisions are
made on requirements and how they are applied. The ultimate data required must
cover requirements and resources in all their variations for use in forecasting,
recruitment, training, utilization of skills, career development and program
evaluation.
21
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
3. Means Used to Meet Agency Language Needs
There are a variety of ways in which the Agency meets its language needs.
These include recruiting, training and recognizing the importance of language
skills through compensation and through making them important in careers within
the Agency.
a. Recruitment
If foreign language skills are, as the Agency professes, part of the
necessary professional equipment of personnel working in the intelligence field,
it is obvious that the Agency should seek to employ people who have some proficiency
in a foreign language(s), and/or who also have a reasonably high aptitude for
learning foreign languages.
The Career Trainee (CT) Program represents the most specific example
of the consideration given to language skills in hiring, other than in hiring
language specialists.
22
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
1
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 10 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
At one point in time, the Agency had a policy of not promoting a person
to GS-14 or above unless he or she had language skills. This was dropped,
apparently because it was too rigid a requirement.
Today, the Agency may be at the other extreme, as illustrated by the
following:
-- Language skills or aptitude are an important consideration in hiring
Career Trainees (CTs) but language proficiency in one or more languages is
not a requirement for completing probation.
-- Language requirements, whether they are essential or desirable, are
not always included in position descriptions.
-- While foreign language competence "should be commented on as
appropriate" in performance appraisal, indications are that the extent to
which this is done in positions where language is essential or desirable
is spotty and in some cases, language competence as a factor is not covered
at all.
-- Time did not permit the NAPA Team to delve into the importance of
language skills in making decisions on assignments and promotions; however,
there are some indicators in this connection:
First, test data reflecting the language abilities has been
inadequate until recently; the LIP has stimulated people to take tests
and update their scores.
Second, language skills have been a low priority consideration
in assignment to overseas posts in most instances. The inability of
persons to remain in the Language School program long enough to complete
their courses (only 25% are able to do so) is stark proof of this point.
39
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release Mbiff7/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Aggravating this problem is the inadequate time frame used in
forecasting future changes in assignments--sometimes as short as 12
months. A planning cycle of at least two years for forecasting assign-
ments could better assure adequate planning for required training,
including language proficiency.
Third, employees perceive the acquisition of language skills
through training as a deterrent to advancement rather than a help. It
is interesting to note that the IG felt it necessary to conduct a study
on this point in 1979. And despite his conclusion that "there is
evidence that the attainment of hard language proficiency is an asset
in later career prospects," few people had heard of the report and the
finding. Office and Division Chiefs also expressed concern about the
effects of long-term hard language training on prospects for promotion
when persons in those programs were competing against others in opera-
tional activities.
-- Finally, while there is recognition that some languages have limited
use over a career lifetime, e.g., Korean, it is not readily discernible as
to how that difficult issue and its impact on a career is being handled in
the Agency.
In summary, the Agency has gone from a point where language as a factor
in careers was important, perhaps to an extreme, to a point where its importance
is not readily perceived. It is obvious that some point between these two
extremes is the correct one; one which should vary by occupation and extent of
use of a given language in a career.
40
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
4. The Language Incentive Program
a. Background and Purpose
In 1979, international events caused the Agency to reexamine its
requirements for language skills and its resources to meet them. As a result,
a new CIA Language Incentive Program (LIP) was initiated by the Deputy Director
of Central Intelligence, effective 1 October 1979
dated 6 September 1979).
This new program, aimed at encouraging the development and maintenance
of foreign language skills, modified the cash awards schedule for the existing
Language Achievement Award (LAA) and added two new awards, a Language Use Award
(LUA) and a Language Maintenance Award (LMA).
The program was designed "to reward job-related utilization of foreign
languages and encourage achievement and maintenance of proficiency in foreign
languages."
b. Roles and Relationships
The relative roles and relationships under the LIP are as follows:
o The DDCI issued the basic directive and the awards scales.
o Each Directorate is responsible for identifying language units and
the languages required, language skills and proficiency levels required
within each unit, and the incentive languages for the LAA and LMA. Incentive
languages are determined on the basis of present and projected needs.
Directorates also issue guidelines and procedures, subject to OTR review,
authorize LUAs and nominate persons for the LAA and LMA.
o The Language Development Committee, chaired by OTR and on which
representatives from each Directorate serve, is assigned responsibility
for: annually reviewing the Directorate lists of languages for achievement
41
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET_
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : GIA-RDP86B00269R001300070001-9
and maintenance awards; advising Directorates on language policy and
procedures; and assisting in identifying and designating languages for
the LAA and LMA; and annually reviewing the LIP.
? OTR is responsible for reviewing Directorate guidelines and procedures,
establishing proficiency criteria, testing, initiating LAA and LMA payment
authorizations, maintaining records and reports.
c. General Overview
The Language Incentive Program has forced managers to think in terms of
language requirements in their organizations and how they will acquire, develop,
utilize and maintain the skills necessary to meet these requirements. Every
manager the NAPA Team interviewed was very articulate about requirements of and
resources needed in his or her organization.
All managers supported the Language Achievement Award Program; the
Language Use Award Program was uniformly supported for overseas personnel--DDO
in particular--but there are major issues of equity in terms of application of
the LUA stateside; the Language Maintenance Award seemed to be accepted in concept
but since payouts under the LMA do not take place until 1 October 1980, the
general attitude was one of "wait and see."
Managers recognize that the Language Incentive Program is one part of
improving language capability in the Agency. They know that all aspects of
personnel management and training are involved, including recruiting, training,
assignment and promotion. Several stated, in one form or another, "Tell us
what is expected, give us the means and resources, hold us accountable and
we'll get the job done."
The LIP has also caused employees to think about their languages skills
42
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
and proficiency levels and to develop those skills. At the same time, employees
were quick to point out that their interest in languages was not solely based
upon or stimulated by the Language Incentive Program. The use of language in
their work, the ability to operate in an overseas environment, the desire to
learn more about foreign countries and their cultures, and the success they
enjoyed in learning under the guidance of skilled Language School Instructors
were very important factors in their desire to achieve, use and maintain language
capability.
There are problems with communications and employee understanding of
the Program and these can be and are being dealt with.
d. The Language Achievement Award
(1) Description:
Purpose - to reward designated employees for achievement or upgrading of
language proficiency in an incentive language.
Effective Date - 1 October 1979 for the new scale.
Basis for Award - The employee must be designated or sponsored by his or her
organization; must improve language skills in a language determined
by a Deputy Director to represent a current or projected need for
that organization. The employee must pass a test administered by
Amount of Award - The Award is a lump sum payment ranging from $800 to $1500.
An employee may receive a total of $4700 by achieving from Level I
through Level IV in a difficult 'language.
Differential in Awards - based on:
-- Extent of Skills Used (R, S, U) - Yes, one-half the amount can
43
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 206i050 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
earned for reading or speaking or, in some cases, understanding.
-- Difficulty of Language (I, II, III) - Yes
Proficiency Level (1-4) - Yes
Limitations on Award - No Award for skills achieved prior to designation
of a language or of an employee for participation.
(2) Strengths and Weaknesses of the LAA
Strengths Weaknesses
-- The Award stresses achievement -- The criteria for the Award needs
of language skills - it increases clarification, i.e., how will the
both levels of skills and numbers achievement of the skill or higher
of employees having skills in proficiency level help meet the needs
the Agency. of the CIA?
-- The Award is generally well under- -- There are some exceptions to under-
stood and accepted. standing, primarily due to lack of
The Award recognizes differences communication.
in extent of skills used, diffi-
culty of language and proficiency
levels.
-- The Award helps compensate for the -- The amounts of money involved may not
additional demands on an adult, be enough, particularly for the more
including effects upon a career, difficult languages.
in learning a new language.
e. The Language Use Award
(1) Description:
Purpose - to reward job-related use of a foreign language in a Unit Language
44
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Language Requirement (ULR) position.
Effective Date - 1 October 1979
Basis for Award - The employee must be designated or sponsored by his or
her organization, must use language skills in a position where
language capability has been determined to be essential to successful
performance, and must pass a test administered by OTR or FSI.
Amount of Award - The Award is a biweekly award of $50 a pay period or
$1300 p/a. Consideration is being given now to payment of lesser
amounts based on lower qualifications than required by the ULR.
Differential in Award based on:
-- Extent on Skill Used (R, S, U) - No
-- Difficulty of Language (I, II, III) - No
-- Proficiency Level - No, but being proposed now.
Limitations on Award - An employee must have completed a year of his or her
trial period to be eligible. The employee is eligible only during
the tenure in a ULR-designated positions.
(2) Strengths and Weaknesses of the LUA
Strengths Weaknesses
-- The Award relates the incentive -- It doesn't recognize differences on
to the use of language skills basis of:
o whether the employee was hired
primarily on the basis of language
skills;
o the environment in which the skills
are used - overseas or domestic;
45
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30: CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Strengths (cont'd)
-- Signalled top level interest
in language skills and their use;
caused managers and employees
to think about languages.
-- It is forcing a better definition
of requirements, the Award's pur-
pose and criteria for its applica-
tion.
-- It stimulated testing/better
data.
Weaknesses (cont'd)
o the extent of skills used (R, S, U);
o the levels of proficiency required;
(NOTE: Currently under consideration.)
o the difficulty of the language.
Managers and employees are concerned
about continued top-level interest
because the Agency has had "highs" and
"lows" in the past 10 years on the
importance of language skills.
Purpose/criteria were initially applied
in terms of being liberal to employees
in some organizations without due con-
sideration to the needs of the Agency
and to equity, possible adverse effects
on mobility, and costs.
-- The sudden imposition of the program
placed heavy burdens on testing--tests
were not available in some cases, test
content and results are being chal-
lenged in others. Data currently
available is more for granting awards
than for matching resources and skills
and projecting future requirements.
46
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
f. The Language Maintenance Award
(1) Description:
Purpose - to reward designated employees for maintenance of language
proficiency in an incentive language.
Effective Date - 1 October 1979; first payments, 1 October 1980.
Basis for Award - The employee must be designated or sponsored by his
organization to maintain language skills in a language determined by
a Deputy Director to represent a current or projected need for that
organization. The employee must pass a test administered by OTR or FSI.
Amount of Award - The Award is a lump sum payment ranging from $400 to $750
(1/2 of the scale for the Achievement Award).
Differential in Awards based on:
-- Extent of Skills Used (R, S, U) - No
-- Difficulty of Language (I, II, III) - Yes
-- Proficiency Level (1-4) - Yes
Limitations on Award - The Award cannot be paid for eight or more consecutive
years. The employee is not eligible for an LMA and an LUA in the
same language for the same time period.
(2) Strengths and Weaknesses of the LMA
(A preliminary report on the Language Maintenance Award was sent to
the DDCI on 11 August 1980. See Appendix 3.)
Strengths Weaknesses
-- Concept of LMA is generally -- Lack of specific purpose and criteria
accepted. could lead to abuse and/or under-
utilization.
47
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Strengths (cont'd) Weaknesses (cont'd)
-- Addresses the problem of meeting -- It is not clear as to whether the LMA
future needs; has the potential is intended to meet current needs where
for building a reservoir of talent the language requirement is not
for projected needs. "essential" but "desirable." Relation-
ship to LUA is not indicated.
-- Cost data is inadequate; primarily
because extent of possible application
is unknown.
As with the LAA, amounts may be
inadequate, particularly for difficult
languages.
g. Perspectives on the Language Incentive Program
The Language Incentive Program was designed to assist the Agency in
meeting its current and projected needs for language skills. The extent to which
the Program meets its objectives depends upon what the Agency needs are.
The major problem the Agency faces now is that it is not meeting its
requirements for language skills overseas. As indicated in Chart 1 on Page 8,
only 30% of the CIA/DDO requirements overseas are being met as compared to 70%
or better in other Foreign Affairs Agencies. The vast majority of employees
overseas were not hired primarily because of their language skills but were
expected to achieve these skills after initial employment. Further, these
officers are expected to acquire as many as two or three foreign languages in
the course of a career and to use those languages in an overseas environment
where culture and surroundings are different than in the United States and where
48
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
there are varying degree of demands and risk (for both employees and their
families) not found in most occupations and environments in the United States.
In the United States, the requirement for language skills is not quite
as high--i.e., desirable vs. essential--and/or the environment in which-the
skills are used is far less demanding on the employee. In terms of order of
importance, the general situation in the United States presents less of a
problem than the one overseas.
With respect to "Language Specialists," i.e., persons hired primarily
for their language skills, or as a collateral required skill, the Agency has
generally had good success in hiring such persons, e.g.,
and the Language STAT
School. There are some exceptions in the case of hiring persons with skills in
difficult languages or with a combination of language and other special skills.
Clearly, any problems with respect to meeting requirements for these latter
categories are less than those for the overseas requirements.
Yet, the existing program does not provide incentives in relation to
the order of importance of the problems of the Agency. Specifically,
1. The amount of the award for an LUA is the same in the US as it
is overseas.
2. The choice for rewarding language use in the United States is the
same as for overseas personnel, or nothing.
3. Almost half (45.6%) of all LUA's are going to persons hired because
of their language skills.
The issues then are: (1) a different reward for language use in the
United States, and (2) whether or not persons hired because of the language
skills should be given additional recognition for those skills. The first issue
49
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
addressed in Section 7. The second issue is discussed below.
Granting the Language Use Award to persons hired for their language
skills is clearly at odds with the basic objectives of the LIP and is not the
way to meet hard-to-fill positions. In terms of equity, other employees in the
Agency could make a similar case for more recognition for their skills for which
they were hired or special skills such as knowledge of FORTRAN, COBOL, etc.
Finally, granting the LUA to "language specialists" in the United States is not
consistent with practices of other Foreign Affairs Agencies and there is no
substantial rationale for being different.
The choices are: (1) eliminate the LUA for "language specialists"
abruptly; (2) provide a transition from the LUA to some other action for
recognizing the importance of "language specialists" to the Agency; or (3)
continue the LUA for "language specialists" despite the fact that this does
not meet Agency needs and creates inequities that are not fully justified.
The main benefits to the Agency from granting the LUA to language
specialists are:
-- recognition of their value to the Agency;
- some improvement in attracting and retaining personnel,
STAT
Some means needs to be found to retain these benefits other than
using the LUA, one(s) which are consistent with the Agency's overall needs,
that are equitable, and that are not burdened by the disadvantages of the
present practices.
50
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
5. Testing
? As the NAPA Team began examining the Agency's language incentive programs, it
immediately became apparent that all of the programs were in fact dependent on a
reliable testing program. All incentive payments are in fact based on certified
test scores. It also became apparent that testing is necessary in establishing
an inventory of language skills. Even the assignment process, where it attempts
to match a language skill with the requirements of the job, is dependent on test
results. Testing is indispensable in the training process, and, in the evaluation
of training programs, materials, student progress and achievement. While our
terms of reference did not include a review of the Agency's testing program, it
became necessary to at least examine the relationship of testing to the incentive
programs, and tb the general upgrading of language skills in the Agency.
a. Background
The CIA Language School conducts several types of tests to determine
proficiency in speaking, understanding and reading. (See Chart 5.)
b. Oral Structured Interview Testing procedure for speaking (S) and
understanding (U) used by the School was originally developed by the Foreign
Service Institute in the mid-1950's. It was designed to measure performance
in using a foreign language by eliciting responses from the test candidate to
determine the general level of proficiency. Judgments on accent, grammar,
vocabulary, fluency and comprehension are made by trained native speakers of
51
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
the language and in some cases by professional linguists. An overall rating
is assigned on a scale of "0" to
U5 U
Each point on the scale is defined in
general terms which describe the situations the person can handle. Each
numbered level can be modified by a "+" except the "5" level. Essentially it
is a 10-point scale from 0+ to 5--the "5" level being the "near perfect
linguistic 10."
This system has since evolved to become the system by which the Civil
Service Commission defines its standards. The so-called FSI standards have
also become the standards by which other foreign language tests, and even the
so-called objective tests, are calibrated or normed. The system and general
definitions have recently been adopted for use in several foreign countries.
The Modern Language Association currently is encouraging the use of this system
by academic institutions. The system is well established and accepted.
It should be noted that the CIA Language School not only uses this
oral proficiency testing system, it has also made significant contributions
to the development of standards, testing procedures, definitions, weighing of
performance factors and in the training of testers. It has appropriately
adapted the general scale and definitions to the unique conditions of the
Agency. The Language School has also pioneered in the development and use of
Recorded Oral Proficiency Examinations (ROPE Tests) which can significantly
increase the flexibility of oral proficiency testing.
The standard definitions of absolute Language Proficiency Ratings
as adapted by the Civil Service Commission and most general agencies is as
follows:
53
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2oaffho : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
ELEMENTARY PROFICIENCY
S-1 Able to satisfy routine travel needs and minimum courtesy requirements.
Can ask and answer questions on topics very familiar to him; within the
scope of his very limited language experience can understand simple ques-
tions and statements, allowing for slowed speech, repetition or paraphrase;
speaking vocabulary inadequate to express anything but the most elementary
needs; errors in pronunciation and grammar are frequent, but can be under-
stood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to
speak his language; while topics are "very familiar" and elementary needs
vary considerably from individual to individual, any person at the S-1
level should be able to order a simple meal, ask for shelter or lodging,
ask and give simple directions, make purchases and tell time.
R-1 Able to read some personal and place names, street signs, office and shop
designations, numbers and isolated words and phrases. Can recognize all
the letters in the printed version of an alphabetic system and high
frequency elements of a syllabary or a character system.
LIMITED WORKING PROFICIENCY
S-2 Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements. Can
handle with confidence but not with facility most social situations including
introductions and casual conversations about current events, as well as
work, family and autobiographical information; can handle limited work
requirements, needing help in handling any complications or difficulties;
can get the gist of most conversations on non-technical subjects, i.e.,
topics which require no specialized knowledge, and has a speaking vocabulary
sufficient to express himself simply with some circumlocutions; accent,
though often quite faulty, is intelligible; can usually handle elementary
constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident
control of the grammar.
R-2 Able to read simple prose in a form equivalent to typescript or printing
on subjects within a familiar context. With extensive use of a dictionary,
can get the general sense of routine business letters, international news
items, or articles in technical fields within his competence.
MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCY.
S-3 Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabu-
lary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations
on practical, social and professional topics. Can discuss particular
interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease; compre-
hension is quite complete for a normal rate of speech; vocabulary is
broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word; accent may be
obviously foreign; control of grammar good, errors never interfere with
understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.
54
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCY - cont'd
R-3 Able to read standard newspaper items addressed to the general reader,
routine correspondence, reports and technical material in his special
field. Can grasp the essentials of articles of the above types without
using a dictionary; for accurate understanding moderately frequent use
of a dictionary is required. Has occasional difficulty with unusually
complex structures and low-frequency idioms.
FULL PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCY
S-4 Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally
pertinent to professional needs. Can understand and participate in any
conversation within the range of his experience and with a high degree of
fluency and precision of vocabulary; would rarely be taken for a native
speaker, but can respond appropriately even in unfamiliar situations;
errors of pronunciation and grammar quite rare; can handle informal
interpreting from and into the language.
R-4 Able to read all styles and forms of the language pertinent to professional
needs. With occasional use of a dictionary, can read moderately difficult
prose readily in any area directed to the general reader, and all material
in his special field including official and professional documents and
correspondence; can read reasonably legible handwriting without difficulty.
NATIVE OR BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY
S-5 Speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.
Has complete fluency in the language such that his speech on all levels
is fully accepted by educated native speakers in all of its features,
including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms and pertinent
cultural references.
R-5 Reading proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native. Can read
extremely difficult and abstract prose, as well as highly colloquial
writings and the classic literary form of the language. With varying
degrees of difficulty, can read all normal kinds of handwritten documents.
c. The Older Reading Tests administered by the Language School follow more
traditional standardized objective test patterns. As in the case of the oral
interview, the levels of reading proficiency are defined on a "0" to "5" scale.
Several versions of the tests are desirable for test security. Developing such
tests is a time-consuming and expensive proposition. The School, in cooperation
with Psychological Services, is currently undertaking the preparation of new tests,
55
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
written according to a new (much improved) format. Completed are new tests in
a single version in German, Italian and Spanish. Preparation of single versions
of French and Russian reading tests are underway. Because of limited Staff time,
,preparation of these new tests has been done on a part-time basis. It has taken
roughly fourteen months of part-time work to write the items, field test, analyze
statistically and make the final selection of items to produce the above tests.
Reading tests in other languages have been revised over the past eight years,
but vary in quality and reliability. New forms are urgently needed.
Ideally, reading proficiency tests should be updated by 10% of the items
annually, field tested and selected at random by computer for each new candidate.
Neither the Language School nor any other government agency has, as yet,
elaborated the original FSI/Civil Service guidelines for assigning reading
proficiency levels.
d. Testing Performance
Considering the increasing demands placed on testing by the incentive
programs and the limited staff resources, it is the NAPA Team's general impression
that the Language School's Testing Unit has performed well. Though limited in
numbers and spread overly thin between training and testing, the professional
staff has demonstrated its capability and creativity in conducting a highly
professional language testing operation. They are fully up-to-date in their
methodology and are also making professional contributions in the field. We
e. Problems in Testing Performance
This is not to say that there are not some critical problems concerning
56
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
testing that require attention. Many, but not all, of the problems are external
to the Language School, or at least dependent on a better understanding of the
nature and limitations of proficiency testing and on adequate resources and
support.
(1) The demand for testing has increased rapidly because of the
current interest in language skills. As a result of the announced new
incentive programs, it is estimated that the demands for testing could
jump 50% during the next several years and then level off at perhaps 25%
above the present level. The School clearly does not have the staff
resources and the budget to cope with this increase and also conduct the
research and development necessary to operate with the high professional
standards demanded by the Agency.
(2) While the Agency has language requirements, and therefore, potential
testing requirements in 83 different languages (Chart 4), it has a testing
capacity in only 31 languages. Of course, many of these requirements are
in fairly obscure languages. It is obviously difficult to justify on a
cost/benefit basis the development of expensive written tests in several
versions when the demand is low. One estimate we received was that an
original single version, fully field tested and normed, would cost between
$10,000 and $14,000 if developed on an outside contract.
Yet, an incentive system that must include these more esoteric
languages will require some sort of certification of proficiency level.
(3) For many of the languages the demands are clearly so limited that
fully tested and normed tests are not practicable. It will be necessary
to ad hoc tests and testing arrangements both internally and externally to
57
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
meet these demands
in many languages
testing technique
Language School.
. Though not ideal,
will have to suffice
is one possibility.
alternative arrangements for testing
. An extension of the use of the ROPE
Others have been discussed with the
(4) It is obvious from reviewing existing data and from the many inter-
views that were conducted by the NAPA Team that the present inventory of
tested language
skills have not
be meaningless.
skills is seriously incomplete. Many who have language
been tested. A number of test results are so old as to
(Reliability and comparability was not achieved until 1970.)
f. Criticisms of Testing
The NAPA Team has heard the following criticisms of foreign language
testing:
-- Testing is not task oriented; that it does not test the candidate's
specific ability in such specialized fields as economics, agriculture, weapons
systems, energy and various scientific and technical fields.
-- Testing pays more attention to pronunciation, structural grammar and
to the use of socially correct (prestigious) forms of expression and vocabulary,
than to the gross ability to get one's ideas or instructions across by any and
all means, whether linguistically or culturally correct or not. The implication
is that getting your thought across is more important than correct usage. We
heard a number of times that a person known to the interviewee was able to
perform well in a job that was listed as requiring a "3" level of proficiency
or higher, yet the test results on that person showed them as being at the "2"
or "2+" level.
-- A person who can function equally well in two reasonably identical
58
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
situations requiring different languages will, in some cases, test as much as a
full numerical level lower in one language than in the other. The suggestion is
that tests in some languages are easier than in others, i.e., not comparable.
-- Tests administered by the CIA are in some cases easier and in some
cases harder than those administered by the FSI. We also heard the reverse.
-- In some cases, individuals have been given the same version of a
written test in a given language several times--to the point of almost memorizing
the test.
-- It is hard to find out your score on a test and harder to find out
why you were rated at a particular level. (We are expected to accept and not to
question why or how.)
-- Some persons who in fact are native speakers or who have passed in
the country as native speakers have been given test ratings below the "5" level--
the level defined as "native."
g. Comments on Criticisms
The NAPA Team was not surprised to encounter these criticisms. It is
not surprising where a cash incentive, or possibly a promotion, depends on a
test score; .that, if the candidate does not receive a score that he or she thinks
is deserved (or that will provide cash incentive payments), they will frequently
look for problems outside themselves--blame the tests, the testers or the standards.
We were, in fact, surprised that the testing procedures and ratings were so
generally accepted. Still, these criticisms must be examined. There is always
room for improvement.
-- We did encounter some misunderstanding about the tests, the testing
procedures and what can and is being tested. Conversely, a number of interviewees
in the Directorates had strong views on what should be tested and how.
59
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 20155iai0 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
The Language School's view is that it has been charged by the Agency
to test "general foreign language skills," i.e., a skill which may be trans-
ferable to another job or post regardless of the present subject area expertise
of the testee.
Some of the end users of the test results, as well as persons being
tested, feel that these should be task-oriented and should test "specialty" as
well as "general" use.
Others feel that testing, like training, places more emphasis on
accent, grammar, precise vocabulary, fluency in speech and accuracy in compre-
hension than on "communication"--the total activity involved in human interactions
associated with verbal speech.
-- Communication is generally considered to involve much more than
language skills--personality and cultural factors, professional and educational
background, kinesics (body language), thought and articulating processes, acceptance
or respect for what one has to say and, of course, manner and social usage. It. is
obvious that the purpose of learning to speak and understand a foreign language is
to facilitate communication, and that the Agency needs highly skilled communicators.
Also, it is easy to confuse technical proficiency in speaking a language with
facility in using the language in a variety of communicating situations for the
purpose of achieving a desired goal, cooperation, etc.
From a testing point of view, it is one thing for a tester to make
judgments on such factors as accent, structural or grammatical accuracy, extent
and use of vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, and quite a different thing to
make judgments on those more diffuse factors that influence effective communication--
cultural background, personality and professional characteristics, kinesics (body
language) factors, etc.
60
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
The former can be accomplished with a remarkably high degree of
precision and agreement by trained native speakers of the language and linguists.
The latter is really related to the evaluation of job performance and can best
be done by the immediate supervisor.
The trained testing teams can and do give reliable judgments on
general language proficiency which is a critical element in communication.
Assignment officers must look elsewhere for judgments on job suitability and
on whether the candidate can establish credibility and rapport with people of
another culture whether clients or people on the street. As we pointed out
elsewhere in this report, language skills, while useful and frequently critical
in intelligence work, cannot take the place or override other necessary qualifi-
cations and characteristics.
For the present, at least, judgments on communicative facility
should not be expected fromthe general proficiency testing which is performing
with an acceptable degree of reliability.
However, research efforts which are being made to find ways of training
and testing that encompass factors of cross-cultural communication and also better
and more reliable means of determining aptitude and effectiveness of an individual
in cross-cultural communication should be encouraged.
-- Specialty or task-oriented training and testing is of obvious interest
to those who are preparing for a specific job assignment, i.e., the officer who
is going into an economic job wants to acquire a useful economic vocabulary and
would like to be tested on the vocabulary and material with which he is most
familiar. While this does not necessarily conflict with "general proficiency
testing," it is an additional element that complicates testing. Tests would have
61
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Releaseierl5i/b/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
to include special materials covering the dozens of different substantive specialty
fields identified by the Agency--a near unmanageable task.
Experts generally agree that the first and most meaningful task of
proficiency testing is to test the "general language skills," i.e., skills that
would be transferable or would serve as a basis for acquiring the vocabulary
that would be needed in any assignment. In other words, the principle task of
testing is general and should determine the proficiency or ability of the candidate
in handling the different features of the language, i.e., pronunciation, accent,
structure/grammar, general vocabulary commonly needed in living and working in a
foreign culture, fluency or ease in speech and comprehension. If these are matured
to the degree expected by level "3", it is a good indication that the candidate
can adapt to new situations and acquire the needed vocabulary with relative ease
(in the same way those of us who know English can pick up the vocabulary of a new
job).
Conversely, if the person has not internalized the structure, still
has to mentally translate what he wants to say and is uncertain about grammatical
problems, they may still be able to add vocabulary, but will continue to fracture
the language and never be certain how fully or accurately a point is understood.
We support the concept of general proficiency testing as basic, but
suggest that there may be ways in which the structured interview used in the tests
can also involve the candidate's interests or specialties. For certain jobs like
translation of economic material, task referenced testing, i.e., testing the
candidate on the type of material he will be translating, would be desirable.
Some possible ways of doing this have been discussed with the professional staff
of the Language School.
62
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
-- Some differences in rating judgments by different teams of testers
are almost inevitable, particularly between languages. Considering the differences
between such languages as French and Japanese, and also the differences in the
cultural milieu in which each language is used, it is hard to determine whether
a "3" in speaking French equates with a "3" in speaking Japanese.
-- It is reasonable that the Language School establish procedures to
provide prompt feedback to persons being tested and, at the same time, give the
tester a diagnostic analysis of rating and particularly on those factors where
the person is weakest. If done in a helpful manner, this could serve to motivate
the candidate to improve his/her proficiency.
In all fairness to the Language School, this is not currently possible,
simply because of professional staff shortages.
-- While candidates for testing are given a sheet describing the testing
procedures, the candidate also needs to know a little more (in non-technical terms)
about what factors are taken into account in arriving at the composite numerical
score and about what is being tested and what is not being tested. For example,
63
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
they need to be told that their knowledge of a particular substantive field or
situation is not what is being tested; nor are the testers attempting to probe
sensitive or embarrassing situations. The purpose is simply to elicit represen-
tative language patterns, vocabulary, etc., on which judgments of performance
can be made.
-- Some apparently think of "5" level as the "perfect 10" in language
proficiency, attainable only if you are a "native speaker," brought up and
educated in the language. It should be noted that the standard definition
clearly states "proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker."
The more critical problem is that of trying to rate persons who are
native speakers of a language on a scale that was never intended for rating native
speakers. This has caused understandable problems for the testing program--
problems that are probably unnecessary. Some type of a different scale and pro-
cedures for judging suitability of native speakers for different language tasks
is necessary.
The professional staff of the Language School is currently considering
some creative alternatives.
h. Summary and Conclusions on Performance Testing
-- Testing is critical to the success of any monetary incentive program.
-- As the Agency develops a comprehensive plan for tackling its serious
language deficiency problem, testing will inevitably play an important role.
-- The standards and reliability of tests in those languages in which
the Language School has facilities are acceptable and should be supported and
defended by management.
-- While the present professional staff is coping admirably, it is under
64
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 67/3O : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
increasing pressure as more testing is demanded in more languages. An increase
in both staff and budget resources will be necessary to accomplish the task ahead.
i. Aptitude Testing
Testing for aptitude in learning a foreign language has been used by
the Agency for some time, largely in connection with the recruitment of Career
Trainees. Persons assigned to language training are also expected to have a
language aptitude rating.
Psychological Services administer both a battery of tests that includes
a section on language learning aptitude and also the Modern Language Aptitude
Test (MLAT). MLAT is judged to be the most useful of language aptitude tests for
predicting aptitude in learning to speak a foreign language.
As in any test of this sort, it serves more as an indicator than as an
absolute in predicting actual performance. There are many variables which can
affect learning, i.e., motivation, personal problems or distractions, learning
environment, attitude and ability of the teacher, etc. Students also respond
differently to various methods, supplementary support materials and audio-visual
systems.
Still, studies have shown that aptitude testing is useful for certain
purposes. Without going into details of how the test is designed, administered
or scored, it is sufficient to note that persons who score in the "average"
range may or may not do well in the normal learning situation--depending on the
other factors mentioned above.
On the other hand, those who score above average and at the top of the
scale will predictably do well in 60% to 70% of the cases.
At the other end of the scale, it usefully predicts that 60% to 70%
? 65
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
of the below average scorers will do poorly and that they are likely never
to achieve a "3-3" level of proficiency. For all practical purposes, they
will end up as terminal "2's" or lower. The difficulty of the language in
relationship to aptitude may also have some bearing on the level of achievement.
The MLAT is less useful for measuring aptitudes on non-English speakers
and probably should not be used for that purpose.
The Agency is generally aware of the significance of using the MLAT
in recruitment and for making assignments to language training, particularly
long-term training in the so-called "hard" languages, but is somewhat lax in
applying it.
The screening process for Career Trainees (CTs) seems to be fairly good
even though the MLAT is not administered prior to entrance on duty. Among the
last four classes
recruited:
It appears that MLAT scores are not consistently or routinely used in
the selection of persons to undertake long-term language study assignments--
even for the so-called "hard" languages. In some cases tests are administered
66
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
only after the person starts language training. It is used more as a part of
the diagnostic process to explain poor performance or to confirm a decision
to remove a student from training who is doing poorly.
While the aptitude test is not infallible and other evidence should
be used in conjunction with the tests, it is apparent that systematic use is
not being made of aptitude test results in selecting persons for long-term
language training, i.e., in the more difficult languages.
67
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
6. System-wide Issues
There are a number of system-wide issues that relate to the Language
Incentive Program but also have implication that go beyond the Language Incentive
Program. These issues deal with (a) Language Incentive Program goals/criteria,
(b) inequities, (c) language testing, (d) program leadership, (e) tracking
results/program evaluation, (f) relationship of awards to performance appraisal,
(g) program understanding/communications and (h) funding.
They are listed in the order given to indicate a general sense of priorities
as we see them. Comments on each issue follow.
a. Program Goals/Awards Criteria
The goals for the Language Incentive Program are not clear. The present
goals are broadly stated in terms of rewarding job-related utilization and en-
couraging achievement and maintenance of proficiency in selected foreign languages.
This lack of clarify affects all aspects of the Language Incentive Program but is
particularly acute with respect to the Language Use Award.
As a result, there was great diversity in determining Unit Language
Requirements. Specifically,
NFAC initially applied the LUA concept liberally as a broad
incentive and to preclude adverse effects on mobility. Minimal considera-
tion was given to real "hard" requirements in some offices. The result
was that in December 1979, NFAC wiped out its 570 ULRs and suspended LUAs
for 136 employees. It then reinstated 28 ULRs for overseas employees and
has taken no further action on requiremerits in the United States pending
completion of this annual review.
OTR Language School, and DDO applied the LUA to language
STAT
68
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
specialists; on the basis that: (1) the LUA at least was a recognition
by top management of the professional nature of language expertise, (2) the
LUA solved a perceived problem due to classification and current grade
structures and (3) the belief that top management intended a liberal
application of the LUA. The result is that of the 546 LUAs being paid
as of 20 August 1980, 249, or 45.6% are being paid to language specialists
(72 in DDO, 128 in DDS&T and 49 in DDA).
The purpose of the Language Maintenance Award also is not clear. The
NAPA Team has been advised that the concept behind the LMA was that a person
receiving the LMA would eventually be assigned to a Unit Language Requirement
where he or she would use the language and be entitled to a Language Use Award.
This concept does not come through in any directive nor did it come through in
any general discussions the NAPA Team has held with groups or individuals about
the MLA program.
DDO is applying the LMA to cases where it is known or projected that
an employee will be assigned to a ULR position requiring that language for
which the LMA is to be given. NFAC is considering applying the LMA in those
situations where language is or will be desirable to help improve an employee's
performance without regard to whether the employee will ever be assigned to a
ULR position.
b. Inequities
The application of the present criteria and differences in treatment
of the same factors among the three parts of the Language Incentive Program
have resulted in inequities. Although life itself is unfair and all inequities
in a system affecting thousands of people cannot be eliminated, the major ones
69
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
:an. The major equity factors cited to the NAPA Team are these:
-- Applying the LUA to those who were hired primarily on the basis of
their language skills. This was a theme that was heard in every meeting
and while there is great respect for language specialists in the Agency
and recognition of their value, the LUA was almost uniformly cited as an
inappropriate form of recognition for these specialists.
-- Granting the LUA to those stateside as compared to DDO operations
officers overseas. The Award was generally viewed by those outside of DDO,
NFAC in particular, as appropriate for DDO personnel overseas where the use
of language in an overseas environment places atypical demands on the
individual. This, coupled with the fact that DDO personnel may be expected
to have and use several languages in the course of a career, creates a
standard few others meet.
-- Differences in award scales based on the extent of use (R, S, U) are
recognized in the Achievement Award; they are not recognized in the Language
Use or Maintenance Awards. The feelings of line managers and employees
were not as strong on this point as on others; nevertheless, the inequity
exists.
-- Differences in award scales based upon levels of proficiency required
were not initially recognized under the LUA; this is currently being
corrected with the LDC's proposed modification of 8 August 1980.
-- Differences in difficulty of languages are not recognized under the
Language Use Award. The reactions on this apparent inequity were mixed.
Some managers felt that once proficiency in a language was achieved, the
differences in using a Group I and a Group III language were not that
70
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
significant. Others felt that recognition of the most difficult languages,
particularly those of limited use in an employee's career, was warranted.
c. Prosram Leadership
The current directive on the Language Incentive Program (HN 18-30
dated 6 September 1979) is signed by the DDCI and "is current until rescinded."
Implementation of the Language Incentive Program is lodged somewhere between
and among OTR, the Language Development Committee and the Directorates. As
a result:
-- The Language Development Committee is not sure of its charter or
how to get its decisions into regulations.
-- Emphasis is being placed on Directorate needs without sufficient
consideration of Agency needs and equity factors which extend across
Directorate lines.
-- Broader issues dealing with policy concerning the importance of
language to the Agency, how that importance is expressed in terms of needs
and requirements, and how requirements can be met by involving all aspects
of the Agency management systems are not being and cannot be addressed by
OTR, the Language Development Committee or the Directorates individually.
d. Tracking Results/Program Evaluation
Issues with program leadership cited above result in a lack of central
focus in tracking results and program evaluation. A lot of people and organiza-
tions are tracking parts of the language program; no one has it all and no one
is charged with putting all the parts together or with making sure that the
parts are compatible. What the real requirements for language skills are now or
Will be in the future are not currently available. Neither is adequate total
71
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
data available to evaluate the extent to which needs are or can be met and the
most effective means of meeting them. Persons in the Agency have been extremely
cooperative in providing information which starts to portray the picture
necessary to track results and conduct program evaluation. Directions currently
being taken by OTR and the Directorates and development of the kinds of evalua-
tive data suggested in 7.b.(3) of this report need to be aggressively pursued.
e. Relationship of Language Awards to Performance Appraisal
The extent to which language awards are considered in performance
appraisals is not clear although impressions gleaned by the NAPA Team suggest
minimal consideration takes place. It is difficult for most adults to learn
new languages and use them proficiently. Language awards are partial recognition
of this factor. These awards deserve specific consideration in performance
appraisals and in career progression (see 3.d. of this Report).
f. Program Understanding/Communication
Some lack of understanding about the Language Incentive Program exists.
This was indicated in the meeting with the DDO overseas returnees and with others.
While most of the problems dealt with the LUA and the LMA, indications were that
there was some lack of familiarity with the Language Achievement Award Program
in some quarters. This is not a major issue; it is reported here simply to
indicate that publicity and communications on a program such as this are always
difficult and require continuing attention.
g. Funding
Solid data on the cost of the Language Incentive Program, particularly
for years FY 81 and on is not available. Part of this is due to the manner in
which the criteria for the various awards is being applied; and part is due to
72
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-91
lack of adequate data. The impact of cost, which had not been considered
previously, was one factor on NFAC's cutting off the LUA program in December
1979. Several managers the NAPA Team contacted expressed concern about the.
possible cost implications of the Language Maintenance Award, particularly
if it is not carefully controlled and new criteria or guidelines are not
applied. Funding problems should be resolved as new criteria for parts of
the program are developed or revised and applied. One reason for citing the
issue here is to call attention to the importance of building funding considera-
tions into data requirements and reports andto give appropriate weight to cost
implications of changes in the Language Incentive Program.
73
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
7. Improving Language Capability in CIA
a. Introduction
Language capability in CIA can be improved; there are many forces at
work now that will lead to success. But improving language capability is a
long-term proposition; there are no instant solutions. Improvement will depend
upon a broad approach--one that includes but goes far beyond the Language
Incentive Program.
The three most important factors the NAPA Team believes need to be
urgently addressed are:4 (1) clearly establish Agency-wide policy that foreign
language is to be an important factor in career progression within the Agency;
(2) institutionalize leadership for the program to ensure a long-term consistent
approach in carrying out the program; and, (3) applying needed additional
resources to the program. If these factors are given top management attention,
the specifics of identifying language requirements, acquiring or developing
language skills, matching requirements and projecting future requirements and
how they will be met will follow.
b. Establish Agency-wide Policy on the Importance of Language
A basic policy commitment by the DCI is needed which indicates that:
-- A knowledge of foreign languages and foreign cultures on the part
of the Agency personnel is essential in carrying out the mission of the
Agency.
-- Each position in the Agency will be analyzed to determine the
importance of language to the successful performance of the duties of
that position.
-- To the maximum extent practicable, persons will be assigned to
74
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
positions having language requirements only when their language skills
meet or exceed those requirements.
-- Systems will be established and maintained to enable evaluation
of the extent to which (1) the Agency is meeting its requirements for
languages and (2) managers and employees are carrying out their respective
responsibilities in the acquisition, development, utilization and
maintenance of language skills needed by the Agency--both for the
present and the future.
Such a policy would then serve as a framework upon which specific
actions could be developed and against which results could be Measured. The
basic structure for such a policy already exists in
(revised 18 July 1978). That regulation contains much 'of the needed guidance
regarding determination of requirements, testing, proficiency levels, training,
and assignment of responsibilities: It lacks two important elements: (1) it
is buried in the "training" section of Agency regulations when it needs emphasis
as a priority DCI policy: and (2) the general purpose Statement needs to be
made in stronger terms reflecting the Critical role Of adequate language skills
in fulfilling the Agency's mission.
Beyond this basic policy, specific actions need to be taken to ensure
that language capability consideration will, in fact, become an integral part
of personnel assignment, appraisal and.promotions. We recommend that:
(1) Proficiency in a language be 4 requirement for a CT's completion
of probation.
(2) Language requirements and their degree Of importance (essential,
desirable or morale factor) be. included in position descriptions.
75
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(3) Language skills be a factor in performance appraisals in
relationship to their importance to performance.
(4) Language skills be a factor in consideration for promotion and
that evaluation on use of language skills, as well as test results, be
required as part of such consideration.
(5) Where having a difficult language Of limited use, e.g., Korean,
limits an employee's career opportunities; special actions in terms of
assignments and rewards to compensate for the limitations should be
considered: (See also Recommendation (d) under the Language Use Award
Program.)
Since A knowledge Of foreign languages and cultures on the part of
Agency personnel is considered essential to Carrying out the mission of the
CIA, the basic foreign language policy of the Agency should clearly state that:
"It is the expectation of the Agency that every employee Who is potentially
available for overseas assignments or for assignment to a domestic position
requiring a foreign language competence, should have a'tested proficiency at
the comprehension S-,3, R-3 level' (comprehension Minimum Professional Level)
or better unless otherwise specified or exempted in at least one foreign
language before being advanced to the'Midcareet level. Failure to achieve
these-goals.should be taken into account by promotion panels, along with
documented extenuating circumstances, 'where appropriate, beginning in Calendar
Year 1982."
To the maximum practicable extent, persons will be Assigned to positions
having foreign language requirements only when their language skills meet or
exceed those requirements. A first goal would-be to have 60% Of all new assignments,
76
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
after 1 January 1982, filled by persons fully qualified it the required
foreign language. The goal should be advanced to 80% by 1985--which is
probably the maximum practicable achievement.
c. Institutionalize Leadership for the Program
Leadership for promoting language Capability currently is too
dispersed and its importance submerged'. The basic policy is buried in the
training regulations (18 series). But the program goes far beyond training--
it involves recruiting, classification, training, assignment, appraisal and
promotion policies and practices'. It requires DCl/DDCI policy leadership,
surveillance. and commitment.
Under the Agency's present configuration, personnel management is
delegated to the divisions, with the Office of Personnel Policy, Planning and
Management responsible for Agency-wide policy and oversight on behalf of the
DCI--reporting directly to him. A logical argument can be made for assigning
program staff responsibility to OPPPM in support of DCl/DDCI since so many of
the concerns regarding language affect, or are affected by personnel management
and policy.: Data on the status of language Skills, by individual employee, are
part of the OPPPM reporting system.
On the Other hand, training and testing are Vital parts of any attempt
to improve language Skills., and those responsibilities are Vested in the
Office Of Training (OTR) and the Deputy Director for Administration (DDA).
Since no organizational element presently controls all of the elements, an
equally reasonable argument can be made for vesting program responsibility
with the DDA.
However, regardless of whether the decision is made in favor of
77
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
OPPPM or DDA, the responsibility should be placed at the highest organizational
level (Director of OPPPM or the DDA) to assure direct access to the DCl/DDCI
and appropriate involvement of the Executive Committee for major program policy.
For the first two years, reports should be made at least semi-annually to the
DCl/DDCI on the status of progress towardAgency language program goals. The
reporting system should meet the needs of line managers, starting with the
DCl/DDCI and extending to theDirectorates and staff officers supporting the
program.
The Language Development Committee should be continued as the principal
coordinating body advising the DDA or the Director of OPPPM on all aspects of
the Agency-wide Language Program. OPPPM and OTR should be assigned significant
support roles in advising on the Language Program, developing policies and
procedures, implementing actions appropriate to their respective organization,
participating in developing and maintaining the required data base and in
program evaluation.
Each Directorate should identify a specific focal point for Directorate-
wide information and monitoring to assure consistency and equity in the
execution of the program.
Line managers should be held accountable for defining requirements
and for acquiring, developing, utilizing and maintaining skills of their
employees necessary to meet them.
Employees should be informed of the extent to which language skills
are or will be important to their careers and that they will be evaluated and
treated on the basis of their efforts to acquire, use and maintain skills
commensurate with Agency needs.
78
-SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Special attention needs to be given to an adequate monitoring and
information system. Data which we consider essential for systems monitoring
includes the following:
(a) Requirements for languages by organization in terms of ULRs and
the positions in which language is desirable or a morale factor.
(b) The extent, by position and organization, to which requirements
are being met.
(c) The proficiency level, if one exists, of new hires and/or the
Modern Language Aptitude Test Score.
(d) Test scores of current employees who have language proficiency
useful in their positions or potentially useful in the Agency.
(e) Summary data by job and grade level on language requirements by
Directorate and Agency-wide and on skills available (see Chart 4).
(0 Data which can be used to relate training and awards to use.
(g) Data which will permit evaluation of the relationship of language
proficiency to successful performance and career progression.
(h) Comparative data aver a period of time which would show the
extent to which organizations' language requirements are being met.
(i) Projections for the future by occupation, by language and
proficiency levels required.
The data listed and reports developed from it could serve as the
primary basis for monitoring the program and for periodic evaluations of it.
d. Needed Resources
It is clear that if the Agency is to meet its language need,
additional resources will be needed. These include:
79
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
-- Adequate resources to permitemployees to take and complete language
training without undue interruption to the work of their organizations.
A developmental complement, such as the Agency has had in the past and
other agencies use, is recommended: This complement should be assigned
to the Office of Training for administration to assure that persons in
training are "untouchable'during.their training. Such a complement would
enable the Organization to fill in behind the person in training. It. is
recognized that the Comptroller is spearheading action now to obtain
resources for the DDO; more Will be required:
80
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
requirements. If the Agency is to meet its language needs,
have to be on training by the Language School. The present
probably absorb additional students (since most classes are
emphasis will
staff can
not filled),
particularly if schedules are developed in advance. However, it will not
be able to meet the kind of workload anticipated in these recommendations;
additional staff will be necessary.
-- Resources to meet the testing requirements of the Agency. As
indicated, the Language Incentive Program turned the spotlight on testing.
A total Language Program would increase the intensity involved. Much
needs to be done to make tests available, to update tests, to assure
standardization of results. This is a slow, time-consuming, expensive
process. It will take a heavy commitment of resources for the next few
years at least. These resources are not available today.
Action should be started immediately to develop and maintain data on
resources required--a prerequisite to obtaining those resources. While some
resources may be found within the Agency, it is obvious that OMB and the Congress
will have to provide support if the Agency is to fulfill its mission.
e. Language Considerations in Recruitment
Language requirements should be considered in recruitment with respect
to their Importance to job performance.
Language requirements should be clearly identified for recruiters and
prospective employees. The level of importance to performance should be stated
and this can be done in terms of whether language is essential to successful
performance, desirable in that it improves performance, or--for those going
overseas--is a "morale factor." Where language is important and a person has
81
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
no language proficiency, the MLAT should be used as a screening device. Anyone
with a "poor" or "below average" aptitude should be employed only as an exception
approved by an appropriately high official.
Where language is an important consideration in hiring, use should be
made of a rate above the minimum where appropriate. The present practice with
respect to CTs, which has shown excellent results, should be broadly expanded
to other occupations.
Where languages are essential to performance and difficulty is
encountered in recruiting, such as in the case of specialists in certain languages
or language specialists requiring a combination of other skills, consideration
should be given to establishing "special salary rates" as was done in the past
for scientific and engineering positions.
f. Traintag
Training may be the most important and effective means by which the
Agency can improve its language capabilities. The following actions are
recommended to make maximum use of training to meet Agency needs:
(1) Both immediate and long-range efforts to plan and.project assignments
to include training are essential if stated job requirements are to be met.
This will require a considerably larger number of persons being assigned to
serious full-time training.
Realistically, this cannot be accomplished overnight. The immediate
task is to identify priority requirements and concentrate manpower resources
in meeting these needs first. In the long run, the Agency must move toward
an assignment-training policy in which assignment to a ULR position for an
employee without the required level of proficiency in the language needed
82
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
will be done only after training. Assignment without needed language
training should be the exception in the future.
(2). More systematic use of aptitude test results should be used in
selecting persons in whom the Agency is making a heavy training investment--
particularly those Selected to study "hard" languages..
(3) Periods of training should be determined which will more likely
produce the proficiency level required'.
(4) Pulling a person out of training before Completing the prescribed
course, or achieving the proficiendy leverpresdribeC should become the
exception rather than the rule..
(5) Realistically, thafirst-goal the Agency could establish would
be that of having 60% of the students assigned to training complete their
training periods and achieve 4 proficiency matching the requirements of
the new assignment. This may mean extending the Standard periods of training
in some languages and prohibiting pulling of students from training except
in the most urgentsituations.
(6). With its present staff, it is important that the School determine
its priorities for instruction and concentrate on developing supplementary
instruction material aimed at higher proficiency levels and on meeting
specialized requirements.
g. Testing
It is recommended that:
(1) With limited existing resources, priorities should be Set for
developing needed new tests. When development of fully tested and normed
tests is not practical because Of limited resources, ad hoc testing arrangements
83
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(internal to the Agency and external) should be established. Clearly,
the concentration should be on those languages where the test demands are
the heaviest and for languages of strategic importance. With German, Italian,
and Spanish completed, this would suggest completion of French, Russian and
standard Chinese as the most pressing priority. As resources become
available, work should be begun on written tests in such languages as
Arabic, Japanese, Polish and Portuguese. These languages are only suggestive.
The important point is that the Agency should develop a means of setting and
reviewing priorities from time-to-time.
(2) Inasmuch as foreign language proficiency testing is indispensable
to improving the language capability in the Agency--foreign language testing
should be made mandatory. Realistically, a complete rotation cycle of
overseas personnel will be necessary to get an up-to-date tested inventory
of existing language skills. As a goal, we recommend that the first round
of Agency testing of personnel who have a current or particularly upeful
skill be completed by 1 January 1983.
(3) Research and development,on language tests and testing procedures
should be encouraged, especially with respect to: (a) the implications of
measured achievement on teaching methods; (b) length of training required
to achieve certain levels of proficiency; (c) correlation between aptitude
test scores and achievement; and (d) correlation between speaking proficiency
and understanding.
(4) For the present, at least, judgments on communicative facility should
not be expected from the general proficiency testing which is performing
with an acceptable degree of reliability.
84
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
h. The Language Incentive Program
The following recommendations are designed to build upon the existing
Program, to strengthen goals and criteria for the three parts of the Program,
and to remove existing inequities. The total program is graphically illustrated
in Charts 6 and 7 on Pages 8 and 8 and summarized in Paragraph (4) below.
(1) The Language Achievement Awards Program
It is recommended that:
(a) The criteria for the Language Achievement Awards be modified to
indicate that persons will be nominated for the Language Achievement Award
when the proposed achievement will be of immediate or potential benefit to
the Agency. The Award will be given to those with present or projected
assignments to positions where language skills are "essential," "desirable"
or a "morale factor."
(b) Consideration should be given to increasing the amounts of the
awards for the more difficult languages (Group III).
(2) The Language Use Award
It is recommended that:
(a) The Language Use Award be modified to apply only to use in an
overseas environment; that the Language Maintenance Award be substituted
for the LUA in the United States. (See also (3) below.)
(b) Persons hired or appointed to their present positions based
primarily on their language skills should be excluded from the LUA, LAA
and LMA in the language upon which that appointment was based or mutually
intelligible languages.
(c) The proposed modification of the LUA (see Appendix 4) on the
85
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
VI
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
basis of a person having a lower proficiency level than that required is
endorsed, but only for persons overseas. Whether the effective date
should be retroactive depends upon the justification for such action.
Caution should be taken in making this modification not to reduce require-
ments to satisfy employees at the expense of Agency needs.
(d) A modified Language Use Award is recommended for situations
in which a difficult language is involved at a hardship post and the
language has limited use in an employee's career. This follows State's
new system and an award of 10% or 15% of base pay should be considered.
NOTE: No recommendation is made to recognize differentiations
in extent of skill used--R, S, U. It is believed that
employees overseas should be encouraged to use all three
and that this should be an ultimate objective in granting
the Award.
(3) The Language Maintenance Award
It is recommended that:
(a) The criteria for the Language Maintemance Award be clarified
to reward language maintenance where there is immediate or potential
benefit to the Agency from such action. Examples described in terms of
several kinds of needs CIA has for language:
1. Where language is essential to successful performance in
a position, such as a DDO case officer overseas, an LMA is appropriate
to encourage maintenance for known or potential future assignments
using that language.
2. Where language improves performance but is nOt a
86
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
requirement, the LMA could encourage maintenance leading to improved
performance. This could be for present as well as anticipated use
of a language. Examples might include support staff overseas and
NFAC analysts.
3. Where language maintenance enhanced an organization's
ability to meet its known or anticipated standby or reserve needs,
an LMA appears appropriate. This includes, but is not limited to,
assuring that there are adequate language skills in the Agency or
its components to meet predetermined requirements--now or in the
future.
4. Where career patterns indicate probable use of a language,
whether it is essential or desirable in future positions, a Maintenance
Award might be appropriate.
5. Where language is an important "morale factor" in present
or proposed assignments but is not deemed essential or desirable, e.g.,
clerical and support personnel overseas.
(b) The Language Maintenance Award be made applicable where language
skills are essential or desirable in the United States. This would mean a
range of $450 to $750 a year for language use in a domestic situation at the
3 to 4 proficiency levels. For those currently in ULR positions in the US
who are using languages at those proficiency levels, this would mean a
reduction from the present $1300 p/a of $850 to $550 p/a.
(c) In view of the recommendation above, a change of name of the
LMA is recommended to indicate a broader concept than maintenance. Our
preference would be to simply label it as the Language Incentive Award.
87
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(d) Guidelines should be issued to make sure that language
maintenance activities are in keeping with overall Agency needs.
Factors that should be considered are:
o Language maintenance activities normally should not conflict
with a person's ability or time to perform his or her regular duties.
Judgments on amounts of on-the-job time devoted to language maintenance
need to be balanced against the language needs of the Agency and the
demands of the person's regular duties.
o The desirability of maintaining a language over a long period
of time should be looked at in terms of options available. Is it more
desirable and more cost effective to maintain a language through part-
time training on-the-job, off-the-job training, or refresher or "immersion"
training?
o How many awards should a person receive for languages in a
year? It would appear that one LUA and one LMA or two LMAs might be
appropriate. Beyond that, any additional proposed awards deserve very
careful scrutiny.
(e) If the Language Achievement Award is increased for the more
difficult languages, the present relationship should be retained between
the two Awards (the LMA is one-half the LAA) for those languages.
(4) Summary of Recommendations on the Language Incentive Program
A summary of the recommendations on the Language Incentive Program
is graphically shown in terms of "Use Factors" Chart 6, page 8 and "Equity
Factors" Chart 7, page 8 . Changes in the three Awards are discussed in
terms of the headings on the chart.
88
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
(a) Importance. The Language Use Award would be limited to
positions overseas in which language is essential. The Language
Maintenance Award would be clarified to apply to present or projected
assignments in which language use is essential or desirable in the
US, and to apply to present and projected overseas assignments in
which language skills are desirable or a "morale factor."
(b) Environment. The Language Use Award would be restricted to
overseas environments only. In addition to the present scale, a
modified use award is recommended (similar to State's and up to 10-
15% of base pay) to recognize language difficulty, limited use in a
career and hardship of the post of assignment.
(c) Agency Requirements. Language Awards would be based on Agency
requirements (across Directorate lines) rather than by Directorate only.
(See also comments under Section 6.b.(3)).
(d) Extent of Skills Used. No changes are proposed.
(e) Difficulty of Language. The LUA would be modified to establish,
in addition to the present award, a separate scale to recognize language
difficulty, limited use in a career and hardship of post (see b. above).
(f) Level of Proficiency. These modifications proposed by the
Language Development Committee on 8 August 1980 (Appendix 4) are
endorsed applicable to overseas positions only.
(g) Extent of Consideration of Language Skills in Hiring. Persons
hired or appointed to their positions primarily because of their language
skills would be excluded from the LUA. They would also be excluded from
the LAA and LMA except for achievement and maintenance of language(s)
other than the one(s) upon which the hiring or appointment was based or
mutually intelligible ones.
89
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
1/40
0
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86B00269R001300070001:9
PRESENT AND PROPOSED* APPLICABILITY
OF
LANGUAGE AWARDS BASED ON USE FACTORS
CHART 6
USE FACTORS
AWARDS
LAA
LUA
LMA
1. Importance
Essential
Yes
Yes (0/S Only)*
Yes
Desirable
Yes
No
(?) (Yes)*
Morale Factor
Yes
No
No (Yes)**
2. Environment
Domestic
Yes
Yes (No)*
Yes
Overseas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Overseas - Hardship
Yes
Yes (Yes)***
Yes
3. Agency Requirements
DD Only (Yes)*
DD Only (Yes)*
DD Only (Yes)*
NAPA Team Proposals are in Parentheses.
** Does not include spouses.
*** Modified to take into account hardship, limited use and difficulty.
LL..14t
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
PRESENT AND PROPOSED*
DIFFERENTIALS IN AWARDS
BASED ON EQUITY FACTORS
CHART /
EQUITY FACTORS
LAA
AWARDS
LMA
LUA
1. Extent of Skills Used
Yes
No
No
(R, S, U)
2. Difficulty of Language
Yes
No (Yes)**
Yes
(I, II or III)
3. Level of Proficiency
Yes
Yes***
Yes
(1-5)
4. Extent of Consideration of
No (Yes)****
No (Yes)
No (Yes)***
Language Skills in Hiring,
i.e., the Critical Factor
NAPA Team Proposals are in parentheses.
** Modified to take into account hardship, limited use and difficulty.
*** Based on LDC approval on 7 August 1980 of biweekly awards of less than $50 for proficiency levels below 3.
**** Except for achievement and maintenance of language(s) other than one(s) upon which hiring was based or
mutually intelligible ones.
Approved For Release 2003/07/WCRISP861300269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
i. Hiring, Retaining and Rewarding Language Specialists
As indicated in Section 3 of this report, hiring, retaining and
rewarding language specialists present unique problems to the Agency. These
problems are manifested by classification issues, limited career opportunities,
and most recently, the application of the Language Use Award Program.
These issues need to be aired, and to the extent practicable, action
should be taken to deal with them. Therefore, it is recommended that:
(1) A Task Force be established to look at and report upon the
classification and compensation of language specialists. This Task Force
should be comprised of representatives of OPPPM and line managers from
DO and OTR responsible for language specialists. NFAC should also
be represented as a major user of these special skills. The Task Force
should be charged with looking at:
-- The value of language specialists to the Agency and how that
value is reflected in classification standards and their application.
-- Comparative data on classification of language specialists in
other agencies.
-- How mixed positions, those requiring language skills and other
skills, i.e., scientific, technical or analytical, are treated.
-- Career opportunities for language specialists in the Agency.
-- The possible use of other awards for language specialists.
-- Whether and when in-hiring rates above the minimum and special
salary rates would be appropriate.
(2) After the Task Force has reported and specific personnel actions
have been taken on the basis of its report, the LUA for language specialists
should be discontinued.
STAT
92
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-9
(3) The effective date of discontinuing the LUA should be a date
where a pay adjustment or personnel action takes place for the specific
individuals involved. This recommendation is intended to minimize any
possible adverse affects of discontinuing the LUA on individual employees.
The above recommendations are based upon the following factors. First,
the NAPA Team was impressed by the value of language specialists to the Agency
as expressed by line managers. Second, application of the LUA to language
specialists was interpreted as being the long-sought recognition from top
management in the Agency of the professional nature of their activities.
Third, cutting off the LUA for language specialists without taking other
action to recognize their value to the organization would signal an abrupt
reversal of recognition indicated earlier. The result could be extremely
deleterious.
We do not imply or suggest that the results of the Task Force should
or will make up for the discontinuance of the LUA. The main point is that the
Agency must give continuing recognition to the importance of language specialists
and do it in the most equitable way possible. Appropriate action in terms of
classification, career opportunities, other awards and other compensation or
pay practices can be far more important in the long run than the Language Use
Award.
93
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
proved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
8. Goals
If CIA is to improve its language capabilities, as it must, we believe
that it should act now to establish certain attainable goals. We suggest that
the following be included in a total listing of goals that should be developed
and met:
a. Goal 1: Promotion Considerations
Since a knowledge of foreign languages and cultures on the part of
Agency personnel is considered essential to carrying out the mission of the
CIA, the basic foreign language policy of the Agency should clearly state that:
"It is the expectation of the Agency that every employee who is potentially
available for overseas assignments or for assignment to a domestic position
requiring a foreign language competence, should have a tested proficiency at
the comprehensive S-3, R-3 level in at least one foreign language before being
advanced to the mid-career level. Desirably every officer in the above cate-
ories should have 2 forei n lan
a
es as earl in mid-career as ossible, and
before being advanced to the senior levels. This goal should be taken into
account by promotion panels, beginning in Calendar Year 1982.
b. Goal 2: Assignments
To the maximum practicable extent, persons will be assigned to positions
having foreign language requirements only when their language skills meet or
exceed those requirements. After 1 January 1982, 60% of all new assignments
should be filled by persons fully qualified in the required foreign language.
This goal should be advanced to 80% by 1985--which is probably the maximum
practicable achievement.
94
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1
Approved For Release 2006130 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
c. Goal 3: Mandatory Testing
Inasmuch as foreign language proficiency testing is indispensable
to improving the language capability in the Agency--foreign language testing
should be made mandatory. Realistically, a complete rotation cycle of overseas
personnel will be necessary to get an up-to-date tested inventory of existing
language skills. The first round of Agency testing of personnel who have a
current or particularly useful skill should be completed by 1 January 1983.
d. Goal 4: Development Complement
e. Goal 5: Task Force on "Language Specialists"
It is extremely important that the issue of hiring, retaining and
rewarding "language specialists" in the Agency be addressed and settled soon.
95
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
We believe that a realistic goal would be to appoint such a Task Force by
1 January 1981, expect it to submit its report by 1 July 1981 and implement
its recommendations by 1 January 1982. It is recognized that it may be
necessary to effect specific personnel actions over a somewhat longer period
consistent with the implementation plan; however, in no event should this
require more than 1 additional year.
1
96
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
tLKt1
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
APPENDICES
? 1. Listing of Meetings Held by the NAPA Team
2. Bibliography of References and Reports Reviewed
3. Preliminary Report on LMA - 11 August 1980
4. LDC Proposed Modification of LUA - 7 August 1980
5. Headquarters Regulation
Development Program
CIA Language
6. Comments Received on the Final Draft of the Report
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
111
z
Laz
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET APPENDIX 6
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Comments Received on the Final Draft of the Report
The first draft of the report was distributed for comment on 5 September
1980 with a response date of close of business 12 September. Eight copies
were distributed to each Directorate, one to the IG, Comptroller and National
Intelligence Council, and four each to the Language School and to OPPPM.
sTATComments were received from the following: OPPPM, IG, Comptroller, National
Intelligence Council, DDS&T
FAC, DDA and the Language School. Copies
of all comments received are in the files of this project.
Where the comments received raised significant issues, they are repeated
or summarized and addressed below. Where the comments indicated agreement with
the report or were editorial in nature, they are not shown here; however,
every possible effort was made to adopt editorial comments.
STAT DDS&T
ISSUE 1: "We find that Report's definition of the purpose of the
Language Incentive Program too narrow. The new program was instituted
in response, among other things, to the findings of the DCI's Task
Force on the Linguistic Problem, which is nowhere alluded to in the
Team's report. That Task Force correctly identified the shrinking
linguist assets in CIA and called for a program 'to attract and retain
qualified linguists in the Agency.' This, in our view, is a broader
goal than the Report's definition of 'encouraging the development and
maintenance of foreign language skills.'"
25X1 COMMENT: The NAPA Team took its definition of purpose directly from
In the course of our study, it became apparent that the Team had
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
STAT
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 200fic1I56 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
to address the issue of hiring, retaining and rewarding language
specialists. It is our hope that the recommendations contained in
7.h. will help
of the Agency meet their
requirements for specialists. (Also see comment under Issue 3, OPPPM.)
ISSUE 2: "We also regret the inaccurate portrayal in the Report of the
nature of the Intelligence Officer/Foreign Documents positions in
F-IL
umping them in with instructors, transcribers and translators
as 'language specialists' does not accurately reflect the nature of
the IO/FD officer. While these officers must possess a high degree
of foreign language competence in the performance of their duties,
language is only a tool."
COMMENT: There has been a tendency in the Agency to refer to persons in
nd to emphasize that
aspect of their skills. To the extent our report does this it reflects
current practice. We are concerned about how
other mixed positions are classified as well as perceptions in the
Agency of them as purely or primarily "language specialists." It is
our hope that the Task Force will address these issues and come u
with a practical and innovative approach to them.
ISSUE 3: "we are very concerned that the recommended timetable for
discontinuing the LUA is a step backward and we are pessimistic that
yet another task force will come up with a viable program within those
time constraints.. .we strongly recommend that it not be done away with
until a better one has been devised."
COMMENT: We agree in principle. The specific timing of transition
2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
from the LUA to some other program for language specialists will have
to be a management decision. The important point is that the change
should demonstrate top management's continuing recognition of the
importance of language specialists and minimize any possible adverse
effects of discontinuing the LUA.
OPPPM
ISSUE 1: "In order to ascertain the importance of language to successful
performance of the duties of a job (p. 67), each position would have
to be surveyed. Extensive job analysis would be necessary to make a
valid decision regarding language need. This is a costly and time-
consuming effort requiring many resources."
COMMENT: OPPPM envisions a far more sophisticated approach initially to
determine the importance of language to the successful performance of
the duties of positions than does the NAPA Team. While detailed job
analysis will eventually be required for a variety of reasons, our
thought was to have the supervisor indicate the importance initially
by designating the requirement on the position description as "essential,"
"desirable" or "morale factor" and to reflect the specifics in performance
appraisals.
ISSUE 2: "Restricting the granting of Language Use Awards (LUA) only to
employees overseas (p. 75) would have a negative impact upon the morale
of those employees at Headquarters and in domestic assignments who are
required to use language skills."
COMMENT: We believe that restricting the granting of the Language Use
Award only to employees overseas is sound because (1) the situation in
3
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 200S/bW?6 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
which language skills are used is quite different overseas than in the
United States, (2) achievement of the Agency's primary mission depends
upon having employees overseas who have the requisite language skills,
(3) there is a need the Agency is not meeting with respect to its
overseas requirements now and the LUA can help, and (4) such action
is consistent with that taken by other Foreign Affairs Agencies. A
similar case cannot be made for persons whose duties are performed in
the United States.
ISSUE 3: "I am reluctant to support a recommendation denying a LUA to
language specialists (p. 82) until the task force completes its inquiry.
If the thrust in retaining or hiring language specialists is to pay
them more salary dollars for the use of their skills, the task force
may want
COMMENT: We
prior to
STAT
to consider continuing the LUA if it meets the same purposes."
agree about discontinuing the LUA from language specialists
the completion of the Task Force report. (See comment on Issue
Our concern is that there must be a solid and accepted
principle or rationale for rewarding language specialists. We believe
a case can be made for some action but that case does not exist today.
Further, as indicated in our report, we do not believe the LUA is the
appropriate kind of recognition for persons who were hired because of
and whose basic compensation is based in part or en toto on language
skills. We urge that the Agency take the general personnel and compen-
sation practices applicable and apply them specifically to positions in
the Agency requiring language skills. The requirements of the Agency
for language specialists are different from any other Federal agency and
4
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
are not reflected in the general personnel practices of the Federal
Government for such persons. Therefore, present practices in other
agencies should not control; they can provide useful comparative data.
LANGUAGE SCHOOL
ISSUE 1: "The NAPA report does not address the issue of Achievement and
Maintenance Awards for persons who test at the 5 level...we believe
that NAPA should consider this issue in its report."
COMMENT: We believe the Agency's decision to exclude the "5" level to be
correct. This is the so-called "equivalent to an educated native
speaker" level that is rarely attained as a second language through
adult education or training. Most people who are truly at the "5" level
have achieved that level of proficiency because they grew up and received
their education in that language or grew up and were educated in a
bilingual situation. Those few who learn a second language to that
level as an adult deserve special recognition.
In order to avoid the confusion between the native speaker 5 and
those who have achieved the equivalent as an adult by virtue of extra-
ordinary effort, we suggest that a meritorious award, including a cash
payment or additional in-class step increases be given those few
extraordinary achievers. This should be done on a case-by-case basis
on the recommendation of the Language School, and reviewed by the
appropriate Directorate in terms of usefulness to the Agency and
enhanced effectiveness of the officer.
Maintenance at the "5" level is not a problem. Once achieved, it
can be considered permanent for all practical purposes.
5
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Rd144aZ 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
The NAPA Team certainly recommends the continuation of part-
time programs at Headquarters and some expansion, if justified, by
actual enrollments.
A stronger commitment to complete a prescribed course, and to
regular attendance, should be required of students. If a student
cannot attend 80% of the scheduled class hours (except in emergency
circumstances), they probably should not be enrolled.
9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP86600269R001300070001-9
Secret
Secret
Approved For Release 2003/07/30 : CIA-RDP861300269R001300070001-e