DOD Overseas Schools
Compensation Adequate for Recruiting and Retaining Well-Qualified Teachers Gao ID: GAO-03-19 December 12, 2002The Department of Defense (DOD) overseas schools educate more than 70,000 children of military service members and DOD civilian employees throughout the world. In order to ensure the continued success of this school system, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed GAO to assess whether the DOD overseas teachers' compensation package is adequate to recruit and retain qualified teachers. The act also required GAO to determine whether any revisions to the law governing DOD overseas teachers' salaries were advisable.
DOD overseas teachers' compensation compares favorably to that of U.S. teachers. In general, DOD overseas teachers receive a standard federal benefit package, including health and life insurance and coverage under the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Many DOD overseas teachers also receive allowances, such as a living quarters allowance, that U.S. teachers do not receive. On average, salaries for DOD overseas teachers are higher than U.S. teachers' salaries. Despite the generous compensation package, there is some dissatisfaction among overseas teachers regarding health care. DOD has little difficulty recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers for overseas schools. In school year 2001-02, DOD recruiters filled over 99 percent of vacant teacher positions. Based on certification, experience, and education, the quality of DOD overseas teachers is high. Virtually all teachers in DOD schools are certified in the subjects or grades they teach. DOD may have some difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers in a few subject areas and geographic locations, but any such difficulties do not appear to threaten the quality of the overseas teachers workforce. DOD has developed a process for determining and paying teachers' salaries that meets statutory requirements. Although this system is time-consuming and burdensome, techniques that could address these difficulties do not meet legal requirements. Given DOD's success recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers, it is not advisable at this time to revise the law.
GAO-03-19, DOD Overseas Schools: Compensation Adequate for Recruiting and Retaining Well-Qualified Teachers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-19
entitled 'DOD Overseas Schools: Compensation Adequate for Recruiting
and Retaining Well-Qualified Teachers' which was released on December
12, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
December 2002:
DOD Overseas Schools:
Compensation Adequate for Recruiting and Retaining Well-Qualified
Teachers:
GAO-03-19:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-19, a report to the Senate and House Armed
Services
Committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) overseas schools educate more than
70,000
children of military service members and DOD civilian employees
throughout
the world. In order to ensure the continued success of this school
system,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
directed GAO to
assess whether the DOD overseas teachers‘ compensation package is
adequate
to recruit and retain qualified teachers. The act also required
GAO to
determine whether any revisions to the law governing DOD overseas
teachers‘
salaries were advisable.
What GAO Found:
DOD overseas teachers‘ compensation compares favorably to that
of U.S.
teachers. In general, DOD overseas teachers receive a standard
federal
benefit package, including health and life insurance and
coverage under the
Federal Employees‘ Retirement System. Many DOD overseas teachers
also
receive allowances, such as a living quarters allowance, that
U.S. teachers
do not receive. On average, salaries for DOD overseas teachers
are higher
than U.S. teachers‘ salaries. Despite the generous
compensation package,
there is some dissatisfaction among overseas teachers regarding
health care.
DOD has little difficulty recruiting and retaining well-
qualified teachers
for overseas schools. In school year 2001-02, DOD recruiters
filled over
99 percent of vacant teacher positions. Based on
certification,
experience, and education, the quality of DOD overseas
teachers is high.
Virtually all teachers in DOD schools are certified in
the subjects or
grades they teach. DOD may have some difficulties
recruiting and
retaining teachers in a few subject areas and geographic
locations, but any
such difficulties do not appear to threaten the quality
of the overseas
teachers workforce.
DOD has developed a process for determining and paying
teachers‘ salaries
that meets statutory requirements. Although this system
is time-consuming
and burdensome, techniques that could address these
difficulties do not meet
legal requirements. Given DOD‘s success recruiting
and retaining well-
qualified teachers, it is not advisable at this time
to revise the law.
GAO Highlights Figure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-19.
To view the full report, including the scope and
methodology, click on the
link above.For more information, contact Marnie
Shaul, (202) 512-7215.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Compensation Package Is Set by Law and
Regulations and Generally Compares Favorably with That of U.S.
Teachers:
DOD Appears to Have Little Difficulty Recruiting and Retaining Well-
Qualified Teachers for the Overseas School System:
The Current Process for Determining and Paying Teacher Salaries Is
Time-Consuming, but DOD Has Little Flexibility to Modify This Process
Because of Statutory Requirements:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Alternative Techniques for Determining and Paying Teacher Salaries:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Overseas Educators School Year 2001-02 Salary Schedule for
Schedule C Employees: Comprehensive Schedule for Educators and
Specialists:
Table 2: Allowances Available to DOD Civilian Employees Stationed
Overseas:
Table 3: DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Average Salary Compared to Average
Salaries of U.S. Teachers by State, School Year 2000-01:
Table 4: DOD Overseas Bachelor of Arts Teachers‘ Starting Salary
Compared to Average Starting Salaries of U.S. Teachers with BAs by
State, School Year 2000-01:
Table 5: Number of Districts Sampled by Sample Size and Strata:
Table 6: Estimated Margins of Error for Selected Sample Sizes, at 95%
Confidence:
Table 7: Stability Results Across 3 Years:
Table 8: Projections of Mean Salary for School Year 2001-2002:
Abbreviations:
AFT: American Federation of Teachers:
DFAS: Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DODDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools:
DODEA: Department of Defense Education Activity:
FEA: Federal Education Association:
FEHB: Federal Employees Health Benefits:
FEGLI: Federal Employees Group Life Insurance:
FERS: Federal Employees Retirement System:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
NEA: National Education Association:
OEA: Overseas Education Association:
OFT: Overseas Federation of Teachers:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
TSP: Thrift Savings Plan:
December 12, 2002:
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John W. Warner
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate:
The Honorable Bob Stump
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
Policymakers are interested in maintaining the high quality of the
Department of Defense (DOD) overseas schools in the future. These
schools educate over 70,000 children of military service members and
DOD civilian employees in 14 foreign countries. In school year
2001-02, DOD operated 155 schools overseas and employed roughly
6,200 instructional staff. Due to congressional interest in maintaining
the high-quality of education in these schools, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed us to assess whether
the DOD overseas teachers‘ compensation package is adequate to recruit
and retain qualified teachers and to recommend any necessary revisions
to the law governing DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries.
To address the issues raised in the mandate, we answered three key
questions:
1. What is the compensation package for teachers in DOD overseas
schools, and how does it compare with compensation for teachers in the
United States?
2. To what extent do DOD overseas schools experience difficulties
recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers?
3. What is the process for determining teacher salaries and paying
teachers, and which aspects of the process, if any, could be improved?
To answer these questions, we reviewed laws, regulations, and policies
on salary, benefits, and allowances for DOD overseas teachers, as well
as for other federal civilian employees overseas. We also examined DOD
promotional materials, planning documents, and information provided to
DOD overseas teachers. We conducted a literature review on teacher
quality, compensation, and demographics in the United States. We
analyzed salary data on U.S. teachers and DOD overseas teachers, as
well as demographic data on DOD overseas teachers. Finally, we
interviewed officials in several DOD offices and representatives of
teachers‘ unions. We performed our work between January and November
2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. For additional information on our scope and methodology,
please see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The DOD overseas teachers‘ compensation package is composed of
salaries, benefits, and allowances that are set by law and regulations
and, in general, compares favorably with U.S. teachers‘ compensation.
DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries are governed by a 1966 law, which
requires that they be equal to teacher salaries in urban school
jurisdictions with populations of 100,000 or more. As federal civilian
employees, DOD overseas teachers are eligible for a standard federal
benefit package, including benefits such as health and life insurance.
Many DOD overseas teachers are also eligible for allowances that are
set by the U.S. Department of State. For example, they may receive a
living quarters allowance for the cost of rent and utilities, among
other expenses. On average, salaries for teachers in DOD overseas
schools are higher than those for U.S. teachers, and starting salaries
for DOD overseas teachers are nearly 6 percent higher than the average
starting salary for teachers in the United States. U.S. teachers also
do not receive the allowances that many DOD overseas teachers receive.
Despite the competitive compensation package, dissatisfaction exists
among DOD overseas teachers regarding health care access and costs.
DOD appears to have little difficulty recruiting and retaining well-
qualified teachers for overseas schools. In school year 2001-02, DOD
recruiters filled over 99 percent of vacant teaching positions in the
overseas school system. Statistics on common measures of teacher
quality, such as certification and educational attainment, show that
the DOD overseas school teacher workforce is highly qualified. For
example, virtually all newly hired teachers in DOD overseas schools are
certified in the subjects or grades they teach, and roughly two-thirds
of DOD overseas teachers hold advanced degrees, compared to 46 percent
of public school teachers in the United States. The quality of the DOD
overseas teachers may contribute to the high student-achievement level
in these schools. Studies show that teacher quality is a strong
predictor of student achievement. In general, DOD appears to have
little difficulty retaining teachers. While the agency does not have
sufficient empirical data to confirm the absence of retention
difficulties, agency officials we spoke with said that any retention
difficulties the agency has are limited to specific geographic
locations, such as Japan, Korea, and Bahrain. Because DOD is
consistently able to fill vacant positions with well-qualified
teachers, any retention difficulties that do exist do not appear to
threaten the quality of the teacher workforce.
Though the current process for determining and paying teacher salaries
is time-consuming, DOD has little flexibility to modify it because of
statutory requirements. The law requires that salaries be equal to the
average salary for teachers in urban school jurisdictions with
populations of 100,000 or more. On the basis of this requirement, DOD
collects salary data from more than 230 school jurisdictions in
incorporated places of 100,000 or more. The agency collects these data
through at least January 10 of each school year in order to meet the
requirements of an arbitration agreement with one of the teachers‘
unions. Because the courts have interpreted the law to mean that DOD
must pay overseas teachers the same amount for the same year as the
U.S. urban teachers, DOD pays teachers their salary and benefit
increases retroactively. Teachers typically receive these increases at
or near the end of the school year. The salary determination and
payment process creates some administrative burden for the agency. We
identified alternative techniques, such as projecting salaries, that
could make this process less time-consuming and less burdensome.
However, DOD cannot use these techniques because they do not meet legal
requirements. Despite any administrative inefficiencies, DOD‘s success
maintaining a high-quality teacher workforce suggests that there is no
immediate need to change the law.
Background:
The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) oversees all DOD
schools in the United States and abroad. The Department of Defense
Dependents School System (DODDS) is the entity within DODEA that
manages DOD‘s overseas schools. In school year 2001-02, DODDS operated
155 schools in 14 countries[Footnote 1] (see figs. 1 and 2) and
employed roughly 6,200 educators, including both traditional classroom
teachers and instructional staff, such as school psychologists, nurses,
and counselors. Classroom teachers comprise over 90 percent of all DOD
overseas educators. They are represented by two different teachers‘
unions: the Federal Education Association (FEA) and the Overseas
Federation of Teachers (OFT).[Footnote 2] Although classroom teachers
and instructional staff are paid on different salary schedules, both
groups are subject to the same salary determination and payment
process.
Figure 1: DOD European Area Schools:
[See PDF for image]
Note: DOD also operates an overseas school in Cuba.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: DOD Pacific Area Schools:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Legal requirements and union arbitration agreements form the basis for
the DOD overseas teachers‘ salary determination process. Prior to
1959, teachers in DOD overseas schools were paid according to the
General Schedule, the standard pay schedule for many federal government
employees. These salaries did not reflect teachers‘ academic
backgrounds or qualifications. As a result, DOD overseas teachers‘
salaries were significantly lower than those paid to public school
teachers in the United States. Congress attempted to remedy these
inequities in 1959 by passing the Defense Department Overseas Teachers
Pay and Personnel Practices Act (Pay and Personnel Practices
Act).[Footnote 3] This law directed the heads of each military
department in DOD[Footnote 4] to fix rates of basic compensation ’in
relation to the rates of basic compensation for similar positions in
the United States.“ However, these rates of compensation could not
exceed the highest rate of basic compensation for similar positions of
a comparable level of duties and responsibilities under the municipal
government of the District of Columbia.
Upon passage of the Pay and Personnel Practices Act, DOD officials met
with representatives of the Overseas Education Association
(OEA)[Footnote 5] and the National Education Association (NEA) to
develop procedures governing its implementation. In 1960, these parties
agreed to establish an annual review of compensation schedules as
compared to the rates of compensation in urban school jurisdictions
with populations of 100,000 or more.[Footnote 6] Although all parties
agreed to this process, annual per-pupil spending limitations enacted
by Congress effectively lowered the compensation paid to DOD overseas
teachers below the salary schedule devised through the annual
review.[Footnote 7] To correct this problem, Congress amended the Pay
and Personnel Practices Act in 1966 and set into law the procedures
that DOD and the teachers‘ associations had agreed to in
1960.[Footnote 8] The amendment provides that DOD fix the basic
compensation for overseas teachers at rates equal to the average of the
range of rates of basic compensation for urban school jurisdictions
with populations of 100,000 or more.[Footnote 9]
Since 1966, the DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries have been the subject
of numerous legal actions. Among the most significant for their impact
on DOD‘s salary determination and payment process are a class action
law suit in 1973 and an arbitration decision in the early 1980s. In
1973, seven DOD overseas teachers sued the U.S. government, claiming
that DOD‘s methods for determining teacher salaries were inconsistent
with the Pay and Personnel Practices Act. Specifically, the teachers
argued that DOD‘s process of determining teacher salaries based on the
previous year‘s salaries in U.S. school jurisdictions resulted in
salaries unequal to those paid to teachers in the United States. The
court ruled that timing was an essential component of compensation and
that, therefore, salaries used for comparison purposes should be from
the same school year.[Footnote 10] The result of this court case was
the establishment of the payment system that DOD currently uses to
determine and distribute salary payments to DOD overseas teachers.
In 1982, an arbitration decision was issued, which resolved a grievance
the OEA filed relating to the salary schedule that had been set for
school year 1979-80. In part, the OEA contested DOD‘s use of an August
1, 1979, cut-off date for salary data because it excluded the salary
increases that many U.S. school teachers received in the second half of
the school year. The arbitrator held that by using the August 1 date,
DOD did not meet the statutory requirement that it set salaries ’equal
to the average of the range of rates“ of the group of teachers
identified in the statute. Subsequently, DOD and OEA reached an
arbitration agreement, which requires DOD to collect salary information
for its annual survey through at least January
10 of each school year. The Department of Defense Civilian Personnel
Management Service, Wage and Salary Division conducts this survey and
generates the DOD overseas teachers salary schedule each year.[Footnote
11]
DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Compensation Package Is Set by Law and
Regulations and Generally Compares Favorably with That of U.S.
Teachers:
The DOD overseas teachers‘ compensation package, which includes salary,
benefits, and allowances, is set by law and regulations and generally
compares favorably with U.S. teachers‘ compensation. Since 1966, DOD
overseas teachers‘ salary schedules have been set equal to average
teacher salaries in school districts in incorporated places with
100,000 or more people. Their benefits are set by regulations published
by the U.S. Office of Personnel and Management (OPM). DOD overseas
teachers also may receive allowances determined by the U.S. Department
of State and additional services, such as access to on-base gyms and
social clubs. The compensation package generally compares favorably
with compensation for U.S. teachers. Starting and average salaries for
DOD overseas teachers are higher than those of teachers in the United
States. U.S. teachers typically do not receive the allowances and
services that many DOD overseas teachers receive. While the
compensation package generally compares favorably with that of U.S.
teachers, it appears that many teachers are dissatisfied with access to
health care in many overseas locations.
DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Salaries Set by Law, and Benefits and Allowances
Set by Regulations:
The Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices
Act, as amended in 1966, requires that DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries
be equal to average salaries in U.S. urban school districts. DOD
overseas teachers are paid on a salary schedule, which reflects both
their level of education and years of experience. (See table 1 for the
school year 2001-02 salary schedule.):
Table 1: Overseas Educators School Year 2001-02 Salary Schedule for
Schedule C Employees: Comprehensive Schedule for Educators and
Specialists:
Step: 1; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 31,775; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 32,840; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 33,905;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 34,970; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 36,035; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 37,100; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 38,165.
Step: 2; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 32,920; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 34,070; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 35,225;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 36,375; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 37,525; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 38,680; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 39,830.
Step: 3; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 34,065; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 35,300; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 36,545;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 37,780; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 39,015; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 40,260; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 41,495.
Step: 4; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 35,210; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 36,530; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 37,865;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 39,185; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 40,505; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 41,840; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 43,160.
Step: 5; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 36,355; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 37,760; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 39,185;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 40,590; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 41,995; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 43,420; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 44,825.
Step: 6; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 37,500; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 38,990; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 40,505;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 41,995; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 43,485; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 45,000; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 46,490.
Step: 7; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 38,645; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 40,220; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 41,825;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 43,400; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 44,975; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 46,580; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 48,155.
Step: 8; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 39,790; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 41,450; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 43,145;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 44,805; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 46,465; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 48,160; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 49,820.
Step: 9; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 40,935; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 42,680; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 44,465;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 46,210; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 47,955; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 49,740; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 51,485.
Step: 10; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 42,080; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 43,910; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 45,785;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 47,615; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 49,445; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 51,320; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 53,150.
Step: 11; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 43,225; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 45,140; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 47,105;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 49,020; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 50,935; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 52,900; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 54,815.
Step: 12; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 44,370; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 46,370; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 48,425;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 50,425; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 52,425; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 54,480; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 56,480.
Step: 13; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 45,515; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 47,600; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 49,745;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 51,830; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 53,915; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 56,060; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 58,145.
Step: 14; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 46,660; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 48,830; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 51,065;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 53,235; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 55,405; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 57,640; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 59,810.
Step: 15; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 47,830; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 50,045; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 52,325;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 54,540; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 56,755; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 59,035; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 61,250.
Step: 16; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 49,000; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 51,260; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 53,585;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 55,845; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 58,105; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 60,430; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 62,690.
Step: 17; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 50,170; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 52,475; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 54,845;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 57,150; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 59,455; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 61,825; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 64,130.
Step: 18; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA: 51,340; Teachers‘ Level of
Education: BA+15: 53,690; Teachers‘ Level of Education: BA+30: 56,105;
Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA: 58,455; Teachers‘ Level of Education:
MA+15: 60,805; Teachers‘ Level of Education: MA+30: 63,220; Teachers‘
Level of Education: Doctorate: 65,570.
Notes: ’15+“ means 15 graduate credit hours; ’30+“ means 30 graduate
credit hours.
Steps 15, 16, 17, and 18 are not annual steps. Rather, they are
longevity steps payable upon completion of 4 years service in steps 14,
15, 16, and 17, respectively.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
As federal civilian employees, many DOD overseas teachers are eligible
for a variety of other benefits in addition to basic compensation
(salary). In general, federal civilian employees are eligible to
participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program and
the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) program and are
covered by the Federal Employees‘ Retirement System (FERS), which
includes the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).[Footnote 12] However, not all
DOD overseas educators are eligible for these benefits. The type of
appointment a teacher holds can alter the benefit package he or she
receives. For example, federal employees hired as temporary employees
with appointments not to exceed 1 year are not eligible for health
insurance.[Footnote 13] Although DOD overseas teachers hired in the
United States are mostly permanent employees and therefore eligible for
all benefits, local hires[Footnote 14] (teachers residing and hired
abroad) are often employed under time-limited appointments. However,
local hires who are on time-limited appointments can be converted to
permanent appointments once they meet all requirements, which allows
them to receive full benefits. In addition, almost all local hires are
spouses of military and DOD civilian personnel and thus receive these
benefits indirectly through their spouses.
In addition to salary and benefits, some teachers are also eligible to
receive allowances such as a living quarters allowance, a post (cost-
of-living) allowance, and the cost of shipment of household goods and
an automobile. These additional allowances are the same as those
available to other DOD civilian employees stationed overseas and
similar to those available to other federal employees stationed
overseas. These allowances are primarily governed by regulations set by
the Department of State.[Footnote 15] DOD has some flexibility to limit
these allowances, but may not exceed the scope of the regulations set
by State.[Footnote 16] For instance, although State allows civilian
employees overseas to receive an education allowance, the wardrobe
portion of Home Service Transfer Allowance, and the wardrobe portion of
the Foreign Transfer Allowance, DOD overseas teachers do not receive
them.[Footnote 17] See table 2 for an explanation of each allowance
available to DOD civilian employees stationed overseas.
Table 2: Allowances Available to DOD Civilian Employees Stationed
Overseas:
Allowance: Advance of pay; Description: Up to 3 months salary may be
advanced when assigned to a foreign post.
Allowance: Danger pay; Description: Percentage of basic compensation
(15, 20, or 25%) paid for imminently dangerous conditions when the
official U.S. community is the target of political violence..
Allowance: Difficult-to-staff incentive differential; Description:
Percentage of basic compensation (15%) for serving at an agency-
determined difficult-to-staff post, which has a 20% or 25% post
differential.
Allowance: Educational travel allowance; Description: Allows for one
round trip annually between schools attended in the United States and
the foreign post of assignment, which is primarily intended to reunite
a full-time undergraduate college, technical, or vocational school
child with the employee/parent serving the U.S. government in the
foreign area.
Allowance: Evacuation payments; Description: Paid when an employee/
family member(s) are authorized or ordered to evacuate a foreign post.
Allowance: Extraordinary quarters allowance; Description: Provided
when employee and family members must partially or completely vacate
permanent quarters during foreign tour due to circumstances that make
the kitchen or entire home uninhabitable.
Allowance: Foreign transfer allowance; Description: Available when
transferring from the United States to a foreign area or between
foreign areas to help defray the cost of moving, such as temporary
lodging, meals, vehicle registration, and a driver‘s license.
Allowance: Foreign travel per diem allowance; Description: Consists of
lodging, meals, and incidental expenses.
Allowance: Home service transfer allowance; Description: Available when
transferring from a foreign area back to the U.S. as long as the
employee agrees to work 12 more months for the U.S. government. This is
also available to family members who relocate to the United States
following the death of the employee assigned overseas.
Allowance: Living quarters allowance; Description: Provided for private
leased quarters in lieu of government-provided housing intended to
cover most if not all expenses for rent, utilities, and other allowable
expenses.
Allowance: Permanent change of station (PCS) travel; Description: Paid
when an employee is transferred or reassigned to another geographical
locality through a permanent change-of-station move requiring a
residence relocation.
Allowance: Post (’cost of living“) allowance; Description: Paid when
the overall cost of goods and services at the foreign post are at least
3% above the cost of the same goods and services in the Washington,
D.C., area.
Allowance: Post (’hardship“) differential; Description: Percentage of
basic compensation (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25%) for environmental
conditions significantly worse than the United States.
Allowance: Renewal agreement travel (RAT); Description: Government
furnished round trip transportation for the purpose of returning home
to take leave between overseas tours upon completion of prescribed tour
of duty and after entering into a new transportation agreement at an
overseas post.
Allowance: Separation travel allowance; Description: Government
furnished return travel to the employee‘s place of actual residence
when separating from Federal service; employee must meet certain
requirements to receive this allowance.
Allowance: Separate maintenance allowance; Description: Paid to help
maintain family member(s) at other than the foreign post of
assignment.
Allowance: Temporary quarters subsistence allowance; Description:
Assists with ’temporary“ lodging, meals, laundry, and dry cleaning in
the foreign area prior to occupying permanent quarters (for up to 150
days) or upon final departure from the foreign post after vacating
permanent quarters..
Sources: Department of State, Summary of Allowances and Benefits, 2001,
and Department of Defense, Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), volume 2.
[End of table]
Generally, these allowances are available only to teachers who are
recruited in the United States. These allowances (except post allowance
and danger pay, which all teachers are eligible for, regardless of
where they are hired) are not considered salary supplements or
entitlements. Rather, they are intended to be recruitment incentives
for U.S. citizen employees living in the United States to accept
employment in foreign areas. In each of the last 2 years, over 90
percent of locally hired teachers were spouses of active duty military
or DOD civilian employees. Thus, though these teachers may not be
eligible for these allowances in their own right, they do receive them
through their spouses. Furthermore, locally hired teachers may become
eligible for these allowances if transferred to a new post.
DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Compensation Package Generally Competitive with
U.S. Teachers‘, but Health Care an Issue:
DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries compare favorably to U.S. teachers‘
salaries. On average, salaries for teachers in DOD overseas schools are
higher than the U.S. national average teacher salary.[Footnote 18] The
average salary in DOD overseas schools for school year 2000-01 was
$47,460, while the national average for the same year was $43,250. On a
comparative basis, the average DOD overseas teacher‘s salary ranked the
twelfth highest among average teacher salaries in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia for school year 2000-01. (See table 3.):
Table 3: DOD Overseas Teachers‘ Average Salary Compared to Average
Salaries of U.S. Teachers by State, School Year 2000-01:
Rank: 1; State: Connecticut; Average Salary: 53,507.
Rank: 2; State: California; Average Salary: 52,480[A].
Rank: 3; State: New Jersey; Average Salary: 51,955.
Rank: 4; State: New York; Average Salary: 51,020[A,G].
Rank: 5; State: Michigan; Average Salary: 50,515[A].
Rank: 6; State: Rhode Island; Average Salary: 50,400[A].
Rank: 7; State: Pennsylvania; Average Salary: 49,528.
Rank: 8; State: District of Columbia; Average Salary: 48,488[A].
Rank: 9; State: Alaska; Average Salary: 48,123.
Rank: 10; State: Illinois; Average Salary: 47,865[E].
Rank: 11; State: Massachusetts; Average Salary: 47,789[C].
Rank: 12; State: DODDS; Average Salary: 47,460.
Rank: 13; State: Delaware; Average Salary: 47,047.
Rank: 14; State: Maryland; Average Salary: 45,963.
Rank: 15; State: Oregon; Average Salary: 44,988[B].
Rank: 16; State: Nevada; Average Salary: 44,234[B].
Rank: 17; State: Indiana; Average Salary: 43,000.
Rank: 18; State: Ohio; Average Salary: 42,892.
Rank: 19; State: Minnesota; Average Salary: 42,212[C].
Rank: 20; State: Washington; Average Salary: 42,143.
Rank: 21; State: Georgia; Average Salary: 42,141.
Rank: 22; State: North Carolina; Average Salary: 41,496.
Rank: 23; State: Wisconsin; Average Salary: 40,939[C].
Rank: 24; State: Hawaii; Average Salary: 40,536.
Rank: 25; State: Virginia; Average Salary: 40,247[C].
Rank: 26; State: Colorado; Average Salary: 39,184.
Rank: 27; State: Texas; Average Salary: 38,359.
Rank: 28; State: New Hampshire; Average Salary: 38,301.
Rank: 29; State: Vermont; Average Salary: 38,254.
Rank: 30; State: Florida; Average Salary: 38,230.
Rank: 31; State: South Carolina; Average Salary: 37,938.
Rank: 32; State: Alabama; Average Salary: 37,606[A].
Rank: 33; State: Tennessee; Average Salary: 37,413.
Rank: 34; State: Idaho; Average Salary: 37,109.
Rank: 35; State: Kentucky; Average Salary: 36,688[C].
Rank: 36; State: Arizona; Average Salary: 36,502.
Rank: 37; State: Iowa; Average Salary: 36,479[C].
Rank: 38; State: Utah; Average Salary: 36,441.
Rank: 39; State: Maine; Average Salary: 36,373.
Rank: 40; State: West Virginia; Average Salary: 35,888.
Rank: 41; State: Kansas; Average Salary: 35,766[C].
Rank: 42; State: Missouri; Average Salary: 35,091.
Rank: 43; State: Arkansas; Average Salary: 34,729[D].
Rank: 44; State: Wyoming; Average Salary: 34,678[A].
Rank: 45; State: Nebraska; Average Salary: 34,258.
Rank: 46; State: Louisiana; Average Salary: 33,615[C].
Rank: 47; State: New Mexico; Average Salary: 33,531[A].
Rank: 48; State: Montana; Average Salary: 33,249.
Rank: 49; State: Oklahoma; Average Salary: 32,545[F].
Rank: 50; State: Mississippi; Average Salary: 31,954[E].
Rank: 51; State: North Dakota; Average Salary: 30,891.
Rank: 52; State: South Dakota; Average Salary: 30,265.
[A] American Federation of Teachers estimate.
[B] Includes employer portion of employee pension contribution where
applicable.
[C] Includes extra-duty pay.
[D] Includes health care contributions where applicable.
[E] Includes employer pension contribution and extra-duty pay where
applicable.
[F] Estimated to exclude fringe benefits at 6 percent in Oklahoma.
[G] Median salary includes extra-duty pay.
Sources: American Federation of Teachers and Department of Defense.
[End of table]
In the same year, the starting salary for a DOD overseas teacher with a
Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree ($30,700) was 6 percent higher than the
average starting salary in the United States ($28,986) for a teacher
with a BA. Furthermore, if starting salaries for DOD‘s overseas
teachers with a BA in school year 2000-01 are included in the ranking
of average, starting salaries in each state and the District of
Columbia, the DOD overseas school system ranked twelfth highest. (See
table 4.):
Table 4: DOD Overseas Bachelor of Arts Teachers‘ Starting Salary
Compared to Average Starting Salaries of U.S. Teachers with BAs by
State, School Year 2000-01:
Rank: 1; State: Alaska; Average Salary: 36,293.
Rank: 2; State: California; Average Salary: 33,121.
Rank: 3; State: New York; Average Salary: 32,772[A].
Rank: 4; State: Delaware; Average Salary: 32,281.
Rank: 5; State: Connecticut; Average Salary: 32,203[A].
Rank: 6; State: District of Columbia; Average Salary: 31,889.
Rank: 7; State: Georgia; Average Salary: 31,314[A].
Rank: 8; State: Illinois; Average Salary: 31,222[E].
Rank: 9; State: Pennsylvania; Average Salary: 31,127.
Rank: 10; State: Massachusetts; Average Salary: 31,115[A].
Rank: 11; State: New Jersey; Average Salary: 30,937[A].
Rank: 12; State: DODDS; Average Salary: 30,700.
Rank: 13; State: Maryland; Average Salary: 30,321.
Rank: 14; State: Texas; Average Salary: 29,823.
Rank: 15; State: North Carolina; Average Salary: 29,786.
Rank: 16; State: Nevada; Average Salary: 29,413[B].
Rank: 17; State: Michigan; Average Salary: 29,401[A].
Rank: 18; State: Rhode Island; Average Salary: 29,265.
Rank: 19; State: Hawaii; Average Salary: 29,204.
Rank: 20; State: Alabama; Average Salary: 28,649[A].
Rank: 21; State: Virginia; Average Salary: 28,139.
Rank: 22; State: Tennessee; Average Salary: 28,074.
Rank: 23; State: Oregon; Average Salary: 27,903[B].
Rank: 24; State: Indiana; Average Salary: 27,311.
Rank: 25; State: Washington; Average Salary: 27,284.
Rank: 26; State: Missouri; Average Salary: 27,173.
Rank: 27; State: Oklahoma; Average Salary: 27,016[F].
Rank: 28; State: Minnesota; Average Salary: 27,003.
Rank: 29; State: Arizona; Average Salary: 26,801[A].
Rank: 30; State: Colorado; Average Salary: 26,479[A].
Rank: 31; State: South Carolina; Average Salary: 26,314.
Rank: 32; State: Wisconsin; Average Salary: 26,232.
Rank: 33; State: Vermont; Average Salary: 26,152[A].
Rank: 34; State: Louisiana; Average Salary: 26,124[A].
Rank: 35; State: Iowa; Average Salary: 26,058.
Rank: 36; State: Kansas; Average Salary: 26,010[A].
Rank: 37; State: New Mexico; Average Salary: 25,999[A].
Rank: 38; State: Florida; Average Salary: 25,786.
Rank: 39; State: Kentucky; Average Salary: 25,027.
Rank: 40; State: New Hampshire; Average Salary: 25,020[A].
Rank: 41; State: Ohio; Average Salary: 24,894.
Rank: 42; State: West Virginia; Average Salary: 24,889.
Rank: 43; State: Wyoming; Average Salary: 24,651[A].
Rank: 44; State: Utah; Average Salary: 24,553.
Rank: 45; State: Arkansas; Average Salary: 24,469[D].
Rank: 46; State: Nebraska; Average Salary: 24,356.
Rank: 47; State: Maine; Average Salary: 23,689.
Rank: 48; State: Idaho; Average Salary: 23,386.
Rank: 49; State: Mississippi; Average Salary: 23,292.
Rank: 50; State: South Dakota; Average Salary: 22,457.
Rank: 51; State: Montana; Average Salary: 21,728.
Rank: 52; State: North Dakota; Average Salary: 20,675.
[A] American Federation of Teachers estimate.
[B] Includes employer portion of employee pension contribution where
applicable.
[C] Includes extra-duty pay.
[D] Includes health care contributions where applicable.
[E] Includes employer pension contribution and extra-duty pay where
applicable.
[F] Estimated to exclude fringe benefits at 8 percent.
Sources: American Federation of Teachers and Department of Defense.
[End of table]
While U.S. teachers generally receive similar benefits to those of DOD
overseas teachers, they do not receive the allowances that overseas
educators generally receive, such as the living quarters allowance. In
addition to these allowances, DOD overseas teachers often have access
to military base stores, which sell discounted and duty-free goods, and
to recreational facilities on base, such as gyms and social clubs.
Although DOD overseas teachers receive the standard health care benefit
for U.S. civilian government employees,[Footnote 19] employees
stationed overseas face challenges with regard to health care access.
Representatives of teachers‘ unions told us that there is
dissatisfaction among teachers with access to health care in many
overseas locations. In addition, in July
2001, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy
reported that ’the availability and cost of medical care for DOD
educators employed overseas is a significant problem.“[Footnote 20]
While civilian employees are often allowed to use military treatment
facilities, access to these facilities for civilian employees is on a
space-available basis.
Civilian employees stationed overseas, like the DOD teachers, are
limited to fee-for-service insurance plans because no health
maintenance organizations are available in foreign posts. Whether care
is provided at military or host nation facilities, civilian employees
must pay when services are rendered and request reimbursement by their
medical insurance. This can often mean large out-of-pocket expenses for
doctor‘s visits and treatments.[Footnote 21] In addition, health care
providers at military medical treatment facilities are not recognized
as authorized preferred providers by the health plans available to
overseas employees, so reimbursement rates are often lower than for
preferred providers in the United States. Furthermore, when civilian
employees must use host nation medical facilities, they often face
challenges, such as differences in language, culture, and health
practices. For example, a teacher may have difficulty explaining his or
her medical history to a doctor who does not speak English. DOD is
unable to change the health insurance available to civilian DOD
employees, including the DOD overseas teachers, because their health
insurance package is set by a governmentwide policy for civil servants.
DOD Appears to Have Little Difficulty Recruiting and Retaining Well-
Qualified Teachers for the Overseas School System:
In general, DOD has been successful in recruiting and retaining well-
qualified teachers. In school year 2001-02, DOD recruiters filled
almost all vacant teaching positions in overseas schools. The DOD
overseas teacher workforce is highly qualified, with virtually all DOD
overseas teachers certified in the subjects or grades they teach. DOD
also does not appear to have difficulty retaining teachers, although
some agency officials and a representative of a teachers‘ union
suggested retention difficulties exist in a few specific geographic
areas.
DOD Generally Successful Recruiting Well-Qualified Teachers:
In school year 2001-02, DOD recruiters filled over 99 percent of vacant
classroom teaching positions. More than one agency official we spoke
with confirmed that DOD has little difficulty recruiting teachers for
overseas schools. This year, DOD has received approximately
8,500 teaching applications, far more than the approximately 900
teaching positions available. DOD‘s success in filling vacancies
appears consistent across the 10 districts in which its overseas
schools are located. The lowest success rate for filling classroom
teaching vacancies in school year 2001-02 was 99.77 percent (for
vacancies in the Heidelberg, Germany district), while 7 of the 10
districts filled all their vacancies for that school year.
The availability of teachers and the attractiveness of the DOD overseas
schools to potential hires may be factors that aid recruitment. DOD has
a ready supply of potential teachers living abroad. Roughly one-third
of DOD overseas teachers are hired locally. In school year 2001-02,
spouses of military or DOD civilian employees made up 47 percent of new
hires. It is DOD policy to give them preference over teaching
candidates living in the United States when applying to the system,
provided that they are qualified. DOD overseas schools also have
qualities that make them attractive to teachers. Representatives of
teachers‘ unions indicated in interviews that the excitement of living
abroad combined with the familiarity of working in an American school
attracts many teachers to the DOD overseas school system. In addition,
DOD‘s recruitment video cites the system‘s competitive pay and benefits
as a reason for joining the system.
DOD‘s vigorous recruitment program may also contribute to DOD‘s success
attracting applicants. Recruitment activities include job fairs; a
student teaching program; advertisements in professional, military, and
on-line publications; participation in the Troops to Teachers
program;[Footnote 22] and on-site recruitment at college campuses. In
recent years, DOD recruitment personnel have focused on enhancing the
diversity of their teacher workforce. To that end, they have
established student teaching agreements with Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities to attract minority applicants. As part of its recruitment
efforts, DOD has also developed an on-line application system for
teaching candidates in order to facilitate the application process.
Since this system was made available, the number of applicants to the
system has more than doubled. Another important recruitment tool is the
use of advance job offers, offers made to applicants before actual
vacancies have been identified and that do not specify a job location.
The advance offers program is used to help DOD overseas schools compete
with U.S. school districts for exceptional educators because U.S.
schools tend to make job offers well in advance of the DOD overseas
schools. Advance offers are also used to recruit minority teachers and
increase the diversity of the DOD overseas teacher workforce.
While recruitment is generally successful, agency officials and
representatives of teachers‘ unions have indicated that DOD experiences
some difficulties recruiting teachers for certain subjects, such as
special education, math, and science. It is not surprising that DOD has
some difficulty recruiting teachers for these subjects. According to a
1996 report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 20-
29 percent of U.S. public schools with vacancies in the subject areas
of bilingual and special education, math, science, and English-as-a-
Second-Language report difficulty filling them.
DOD officials also report challenges filling vacancies in some
locations. According to DOD officials and representatives of the
teachers‘ unions, areas like Japan, Korea, and Bahrain are not as
attractive to teachers because the culture and language are
significantly different from their own. Of the 20 substitute teachers
hired to fill full-time positions by DOD in school year 2001-02, 19
were located in schools in Japan.[Footnote 23] This figure suggests
that while DOD may be able to fill virtually all of the vacancies in
that country, it must use some nonpermanent teachers to do so. DOD can
fill positions in less desired locations by sending teachers there from
other schools in the system. All teachers sign mobility agreements upon
accepting permanent employment with DOD, which allows the agency to
send them wherever they are needed, though administrators seek to avoid
compulsory reassignment. At the same time, DOD can pay teachers
recruitment bonuses, a tool that could help the agency address any
recruitment difficulties. DODEA recently received authority to pay
these bonuses and has not yet offered any. While it may be more
difficult to recruit teachers for some subject areas and locations,
DOD‘s success filling vacant positions with well-qualified teachers
suggests that any recruitment difficulties are relatively minor.
Based on Certification, Experience, and Education, the Quality of DOD
Overseas Teachers Is High:
DOD overseas teachers are well-qualified, with virtually all teachers
in DOD schools certified in the subjects or grades they teach.[Footnote
24] Almost two-thirds of DOD overseas teachers hold advanced degrees,
compared to 46 percent of public school teachers in the United States.
Further, 73 percent of DOD teachers have at least 10 years of teaching
experience.
These well-trained teachers could be a major factor behind the schools‘
high student-achievement level, an indication of the strength and
success of the DOD overseas school system. Research has linked teacher
quality to student performance. Data show that students in DOD overseas
schools perform above the national average on the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Terra Nova Achievement Test. For
example, in 1998, only two states had a higher percentage than the DOD
overseas schools of eighth graders who performed at a proficient or
higher level on the writing portion of the NAEP. Notably, DOD overseas
schools have made significant progress in closing the performance gap
between minority and white students. Compared to state-by-state
rankings of minority eighth graders in 2000, DOD minority eighth
graders ranked second on NAEP math scores.
DOD Generally Appears to Have Little Difficulty Retaining Teachers:
Agency officials and representatives of teachers‘ unions told us that,
in general, DOD overseas schools do not have a problem retaining
teachers. While the agency does not have sufficient data to calculate
retention rates by location, agency officials we spoke with said that
any retention difficulties the agency has are limited to a few
geographic areas, such as Korea, Japan, and Bahrain. In addition, union
representatives told us that teachers who join DOD‘s overseas school
system generally tend to stay in the system for many years. Because DOD
is consistently able to fill vacant positions with well-qualified
teachers, any retention difficulties that exist do not appear to
threaten the quality of the teacher workforce. DODEA recently obtained
authorization to offer retention bonuses to teachers, a tool that could
be used to address these difficulties. The agency has not yet offered
any such bonuses.
The Current Process for Determining and Paying Teacher Salaries Is
Time-Consuming, but DOD Has Little Flexibility to Modify This Process
Because of Statutory Requirements:
DOD has developed a process for determining and paying overseas
teachers‘ salaries to meet the requirements of the law and subsequent
court cases and arbitrations. DOD‘s process for collecting salary
information and issuing a new salary schedule for DOD overseas teachers
takes roughly 8 months. Once the new salary schedule is set, DOD must
pay teachers their annual salary increases, and some allowance
increases, retroactively. Teachers typically receive these retroactive
payments near the end of the school year. The process for recalculating
the teachers‘ salaries and paying them retroactively causes some
administrative burden for the agency, in terms of both workload and
cost.
DOD‘s Process for Determining the Annual Salary Schedule Results in
Retroactive Payments and Some Administrative Burden to the Agency:
Each year, in order to meet legal requirements, the DOD Wage and Salary
Division surveys urban school districts for salary data through at
least January 10. It identifies these urban school districts by using
the Census Bureau‘s list of incorporated places with populations of
100,000 or more. For school year 2001-02, the division surveyed 230
school districts. It began planning in August, mailed out surveys in
October, and continued data collection--including follow-up calls--
through March. The data collection includes information on the minimum
and maximum salary paid to a teacher with a BA degree, the minimum and
maximum salary paid to a teacher with a Ph.D. degree, the number of pay
lanes, the number of regular and longevity steps, and the number of
days in the school year. With these data, the Wage and Salary Division
calculates a schedule of earnings for DOD overseas teachers.[Footnote
25] As part of the calculation for this schedule, the Wage and Salary
Division reviews the number of steps and salary lanes in U.S. urban
school jurisdictions to ensure comparability. The survey process takes
12 people a total of 1,680 hours (or 42 workweeks) to complete. The
salary schedules for the current school year are usually completed in
April or May. (See fig. 3.):
Figure 3: DOD Overseas Teachers Salary Calculation Process Timeline:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Once the salary schedules are complete, Wage and Salary Division
personnel meet with representatives from the FEA and agency officials
to discuss the results of the survey. Once all parties agree on the
results, the new salary schedule is issued.
The courts have interpreted the Pay and Personnel Practices Act as
requiring that DOD overseas teachers be paid the same salary that the
U.S. teachers in DOD‘s comparison group receive for the same year.
Because the salary schedule is typically issued near the end of the
school year, overseas teachers receive their pay increases
retroactively. Usually, the overseas teachers receive these increases
just prior to the end of the school year. In addition, since some
allowances, such as the post allowance, are based on salary, teachers
may also receive retroactive payments for allowance increases.
This retroactive pay process results in some administrative burden for
the agency in terms of workload and cost. First, the process increases
the agency‘s workload. DOD spends additional time each year processing,
reviewing and entering the pay and allowance increases. The Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) calculates the amount of each
teacher‘s new salary and retroactive payments, while the DODEA
personnel office must correct the official personnel forms[Footnote 26]
for all affected employees. In addition, field staff help recalculate
adjustments to any extra duty pay teachers may have received during the
year.[Footnote 27] Once this work is completed, the DODEA payroll
office receives the data for record keeping purposes, reviews them, and
corrects any coding errors. Second, the process can complicate DODEA‘s
management of its budget. Each year, DOD officials predict how large
the retroactive pay increase will be in order to plan the budget. If
this prediction is too low, DODEA personnel must find the necessary
funds to pay for the difference. Because payroll comprises over 70
percent of DODEA‘s budget, this task can be a difficult one. A large
enough difference in the predicted and actual amounts of the pay
increase can have an impact on DODEA‘s budget. For instance, in school
year 2001-02, DODEA officials expected the salary increase to be about
3.6 percent, but it was actually 5.2 percent. As a result, they had to
ask the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the necessary funds to
address this problem. Finally, the process results in some costs to the
agency. DFAS charges DODEA an annual fee for determining and processing
the retroactive pay increases. Last year, this fee totaled roughly
$78,000.
Techniques That Could Make the System Less Time-Consuming and Less
Burdensome Cannot Meet Legal Requirements:
Alternative techniques exist, such as sampling and projection, that
could make the salary determination and payment process less time-
consuming and less burdensome; however, they cannot meet legal
requirements. Given the moderately burdensome nature of the current
system, we reviewed the current salary determination method and
explored whether alternatives could take less time. While these
alternatives might be more efficient, they would not be in compliance
with the law. For instance, DOD could project overseas teachers‘
salaries each year based on the degree to which salaries for U.S. urban
teachers increased in past years. By projecting teacher salaries the
salary schedule could be completed prior to the beginning of the school
year, rather than near the end. This would eliminate the need to pay
teachers retroactively, thus saving time and money. However, because
projections would not guarantee the same result as the survey, this
method would not meet the law‘s requirement that DOD overseas teachers‘
salaries be ’equal to“ the salaries of U.S. urban teachers. Therefore,
DOD would still have to survey the U.S. schools, and pay any difference
between the projections and the survey results to the teachers
retroactively. While alternative methods of salary determination exist,
such as sampling, they would not reduce the workload or administrative
burden. For more information on alternative salary determination
techniques, see appendix I.
Conclusions:
DOD overseas schools play a critical role, educating more than
70,000 children of parents in the armed services and the federal
civilian workforce. To date, agency officials have successfully
recruited and maintained a well-qualified teacher workforce for these
schools. These well-trained teachers could be a major factor behind the
schools‘ high student-achievement level. While the salary determination
and payment process is time consuming and involves some administrative
burden, DOD‘s success recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers
indicates that there is no immediate need to change the law.
Agency Comments:
The Department of Defense provided oral comments on a draft of this
report. DOD concurred with the content of the report. DOD also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-7215. Other contacts and contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II.
Signed by Marnie S. Shaul:
Marnie S. Shaul
Director, Education, Workforce and
Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 directed
GAO to assess whether the Department of Defense (DOD) overseas
teachers‘ compensation package is adequate to recruit and retain
qualified teachers and to recommend any necessary revisions to the law
governing DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries.
To address the issues raised in the mandate, we developed three key
questions:
1. What is the compensation package for teachers in DOD overseas
schools, and how does it compare to compensation for teachers in the
United States?
2. To what extent do DOD overseas schools experience difficulties
recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers?
3. What is the process for determining teacher salaries and paying
teachers, and which aspects of the process, if any, could be improved?
To answer question one, we reviewed laws, regulations, and policies on
salary, benefits, and allowances for DOD overseas teachers[Footnote 28]
and other federal civilian employees overseas. We also analyzed salary
data on DOD overseas teachers and U.S. teachers and conducted a
literature review on teacher compensation in the United States.
Finally, we interviewed DOD officials to confirm our understanding of
the total compensation package and eligibility rules related to
benefits and allowances.
To answer question two, we analyzed data on DOD overseas teachers (such
as the number of newly hired teachers in each of the past three years;
the number of teachers in each school; the number of teachers hired
from the United States; the number hired from overseas; and the number
who are spouses of DOD military or civilian employees) and reviewed DOD
promotional materials, planning documents, and information provided to
teachers in the DOD overseas school system. We also interviewed DOD
officials and representatives of the two teachers‘ unions that
represent DOD overseas teachers. Finally, we conducted a literature
review on teacher quality and its relation to student performance.
To answer question three, we reviewed laws, court cases, arbitration
documents, regulations, and policies on the DOD overseas teacher salary
determination and payment process. We also interviewed DOD officials
about implementation of this process and its impact on the agency.
Finally, we explored alternative ways to determine and pay teacher
salaries that could potentially improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Specifically, we considered the use of sampling and salary projection.
Alternative Techniques for Determining and Paying Teacher Salaries:
Sampling:
We explored stratified sampling as one possible way to determine DOD
overseas teachers‘ salaries. Using a sample would allow DOD to contact
fewer schools to obtain salary data, thus potentially saving time and
money. Estimates derived from stratified random samples are typically
more precise than estimates derived from simple random samples of the
same size.[Footnote 29]
Currently, DOD surveys 231 urban school districts. DOD provided us with
data on four salary/education categories, the BA minimum salary (BA
min), the BA maximum salary (BA max), the Ph.D. minimum salary (Ph.D.
min), and the Ph.D. maximum salary (Ph.D. max), for each of the
231 urban school districts it surveyed for school year 2001-02. We
defined strata by dividing the population, all 231 districts, into
three groups, based on salary data. We defined the low stratum as those
school districts with a BA min value of $28,533 or lower, the high
stratum as those school districts with a Ph.D. max of $62,413 or
greater, and the medium stratum as any district that did not fall into
either of the other strata. This stratification resulted in 60 school
districts for the low stratum and
70 districts for the high stratum; the remaining 101 districts were
placed into the medium stratum.
We examined four different sample sizes: a 20 percent sample, a
30 percent sample, a 40 percent sample, and a 50 percent sample. For
instance, for the 20 percent sample we selected 20 percent of the
districts in the low stratum, 20 percent of the districts in the medium
stratum, and 20 percent of the districts in the high stratum. Table 5
shows the total number of sample districts and the number in each
stratum for the four different sample sizes before any adjustment for
nonresponse.[Footnote 30]
Table 5: Number of Districts Sampled by Sample Size and Strata:
Sample strata: Low stratum; 20% sample: 12; 30% sample: 18; 40% sample:
24; 50% sample: 30.
Sample strata: Medium stratum; 20% sample: 21; 30% sample: 31; 40%
sample: 41; 50% sample: 51.
Sample strata: High stratum; 20% sample: 14; 30% sample: 21; 40%
sample: 28; 50% sample: 35.
Sample strata: Total; 20% sample: 47; 30% sample: 70; 40% sample: 93;
50% sample: 116.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
For the four sample size options, we determined margins of error for
the average salaries in each of the four education/salary categories.
The margin of error is a measure of how precise the estimates of the
average salary are and refers to the fact that these estimates will
differ from the average salary calculated using the overall
population.[Footnote 31] These margins of error are presented in table
6.
Table 6: Estimated Margins of Error for Selected Sample Sizes, at 95%
Confidence:
Salary variable of interest: BA minimum; 20% Sample: +/-$793; 30%
sample: +/-$605; 40% sample: +/-$486; 50% sample: +/-$397.
Salary variable of interest: BA maximum; 20% Sample: +/-$1831; 30%
sample: +/-$1399; 40% sample: +/-$1122; 50% sample: +/-$916.
Salary variable of interest: Ph.D. minimum; 20% Sample: +/-$924; 30%
sample: +/-$706; 40% sample: +/-$566; 50% sample: +/-$462.
Salary variable of interest: Ph.D. maximum; 20% Sample: +/-$1266; 30%
sample: +/-$967; 40% sample: +/-$776; 50% sample: +/-$633.
Note: The original sample sizes were increased to account for potential
nonresponse. The nonresponse adjustment takes into account that some of
the values for the four salary variables are missing.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
For both the 20 percent sample and the 30 percent sample, at a
confidence level of 95 percent, the margins of error in each of the
four education/salary categories were all within +/-$1,900 for the
average salary.[Footnote 32] For both the 40 percent sample and the 50
percent sample the margins of error were all within +/-$1,200, at a
confidence level of 95 percent. This means that DOD could reduce the
size of the annual survey from roughly 230 districts to 141[Footnote
33]--in the case of the 50 percent sample--with estimated margins of
error ranging from +/-$397 to +/-$916, depending on the salary
variable. In other words, we would expect with a 95 percent level of
confidence that the average BA min salary calculated from the sample
would be within +/-$397 of the average salary calculated from the
entire survey population.
Initially, DOD would have to survey all districts to define the strata
but in subsequent years it would rely on this stratification to draw
its sample. However, DOD‘s efforts to sample would be affected by the
stability of the salary strata used. If the school districts in the
sample frequently changed strata, then over the course of several years
of using the original stratification definitions, there would be
increased variability in the estimation. We tested for stability by
using DOD‘s actual data for 3 years, and found that there was a
substantial shift of schools across strata over time.
To examine the stability of our strata, we used the salary data DOD
provided us for each of the urban school districts it surveyed in
school years 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02. Taking the data from the
first year, we grouped the school districts into three strata: low,
medium and high. We defined the low stratum as those school districts
with a BA min value of $27,000 or lower,[Footnote 34] the high stratum
as those with a Ph.D. max of $57,000 or greater, and the medium stratum
as those that did not fall into either of the other strata. This same
stratification scheme was used for 2 additional years of school
district salary data. Thus, the strata definitions were based on the
salary data from the first year. In subsequent years, some districts
moved from one stratum into another. As they did so, the original
stratification no longer reflected the most recent ranking of the
school districts‘ salaries. As a result, the margins of error for the
average salary in each education/salary category increased. For
example, the margin of error for the BA min average salary increased
from +/-$440.60 in the base year to +/-$697.80 in the third year. In
other words, there was a 26 percent deterioration over one year and a
60 percent deterioration over 2 years for the BA min category.
Considering the four education/salary categories, the larger the
percent deterioration, the greater the movement of districts across
strata and the less stable the strata. Table 7 shows the increased
margin of error over time, the percent deterioration over time and the
salary ranges for each of the four education/salary categories.
Table 7: Stability Results Across 3 Years:
[See PDF for image]
Note:
The percent deterioration was calculated as follows:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Thus, the percent deterioration--increase in the margin of error--can
be gauged from the base year, Year I (1999-2000), to Year III (2001-
2002).
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
[End of table]
As noted above, the estimated margin of error and the percent
deterioration over time indicate that there was considerable shifting
over time of districts across strata for all salary/education
categories except the BA max. Consequently, if sampling were used, the
strata would need to be redefined and new samples selected frequently
in order to minimize the variability in the salary estimates. To do
this, the entire population of urban school districts would need to be
surveyed.
Projection:
We explored projection as a way for DOD to pay overseas teachers their
current-year salaries from the beginning of the school year, rather
than retroactively. Our projections and the associated margins of error
are shown in table 8.
Table 8: Projections of Mean Salary for School Year 2001-2002:
Variable of interest: BA min; Projection equation: Y = 1.0557 * X;
Actual mean salary 2000-2001: $ 30,701; Actual mean salary 2001-2002: $
31,776; Projected mean salary 2001-2002: $32,411; Projected mean 95%
margins of error: +/-$2,893.
Variable of interest: BA max; Projection equation: Y = 1.0504 * X;
Actual mean salary 2000-2001: $ 45,778; Actual mean salary 2001-2002: $
46,644; Projected mean salary 2001-2002: $48,085; Projected mean 95%
margins of error: +/-$4,155.
Variable of interest: PhD min; Projection equation: Y = 1.0472 * X;
Actual mean salary 2000-2001: $ 36,927; Actual mean salary 2001-2002: $
38,169; Projected mean salary 2001-2002: $38,670; Projected mean 95%
margins of error: +/-$3,851.
Variable of interest: PhD max; Projection equation: Y = 1.0525 * X;
Actual mean salary 2000-2001: $ 58,106; Actual mean salary 2001-2002: $
59,800; Projected mean salary 2001-2002: $61,157; Projected mean 95%
margins of error: +/-$5,127.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
We made our projections for 2001-02 based on DOD salary data from
school years 1999-00 and 2000-01. We applied a rate-of-change model to
the first two years of data to calculate estimates of the annual rate
of change for each of our four education/salary categories. Our model
took the form:
Y = aX:
where:
a is the estimated rate of change:
X is the salary from school year 1999-00, and:
Y is the salary from school year 2000-01.
Having calculated values for a, we then substituted in values for
school year 2000-01 for X in order to calculate projected average
salaries for school year 2001-02.
As an example, to calculate the projected mean salary in school year
2001-02 for the BA min category, we used the equation in column two
(Y=1.0557*X). For X we substituted 30,701, the value in column three,
the actual mean salary for school year 2000-01. Multiplying this value
times 1.0557 (the mean increase for BA min from school year 1999-00 to
school year 2000-01) gave us the projected mean salary for school year
2001-02 displayed in column five. This projected mean salary will not
be the same as the actual mean salary, because salary projections
include an assumption about the annual rate of growth in earnings, and
this assumed growth rate is likely to differ from the actual growth
rate. In the particular examples shown, the mean salaries we projected
were similar to the actual mean salaries.[Footnote 35] However, the
projections could fall anywhere between the confidence limits,
indicating the variability attached to these projections. Table 7 shows
that the 95 percent confidence interval for the BA min salary would
range from $29,518 to $35,304.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Harriet Ganson (202) 512-7042, gansonh@gao.gov
Melinda Bowman (202) 512-3542, bowmanm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Elizabeth Field, Barbara Smith,
Kris Braaten, Emily Williamson, Jon Barker, Barbara Alsip, and
Patrick DiBattista made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] DODDS operates schools in Bahrain, Belgium, Cuba, England, Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,
and Turkey. DOD schools in Guam and Puerto Rico are part of the
Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary
Schools (DDESS).
[2] The Federal Education Association is a unit of the National
Education Association; the Overseas Federation of Teachers is an
affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.
[3] Pub.L. 86-91 (1959).
[4] In 1959, the secretary of each branch of the military was
responsible for the overseas schools in that branch.
[5] The OEA was later renamed the Federal Education Association (FEA).
[6] This benchmark was used for comparison ’because most of the
teachers were recruited from urban areas with a population of 100,000
or more.“ See Crawford v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 128 (1967).
[7] Each year between 1961 and 1965, DOD asked for an increase in the
per-pupil limitation in order to raise teacher salaries. Congress
granted an increase in full only twice during those years. According to
the historical background included in Crawford v. United States,
Congress was apparently reluctant to increase the per-pupil limit
because it considered the additional benefits that overseas teachers
received as part of their compensation.
[8] In responding to the committee‘s request for comment, the Bureau of
the Budget argued that the amendment would result in rates above the
national average for similar positions in the United States and should
include data from cities with smaller populations, which ’would provide
a broader and more realistic comparison with non-Federal salaries and
would be more consistent with practices for other Federal white-collar
positions.“
[9] Although the amendment states that DOD overseas teachers‘ salaries
be based on salaries in U.S. urban school jurisdictions with
populations of 100,000 or more, DOD has interpreted this to mean school
districts in urban or ’incorporated“ places with populations of 100,000
or more. Pub.L. 89-391 (1966).
[10] March v. United States, 506 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
[11] DOD overseas teachers are schedule C federal employees. Pay
schedule C applies to elementary, middle, and high school classroom
teachers and teachers of English as a Second Language, Special
Education, Reading Improvement Specialists, Vocational/Technical
Instructors, and Nurses. In addition to the schedule C pay plan, using
the same survey process, the Wage and Salary Division creates salary
schedules for substitute teachers, social workers, guidance counselors,
psychologists, management and education specialists, principals, and
assistant principals.
[12] Some employees may be covered under the Civil Service Retirement
System, the Federal retirement program prior to FERS. In general, these
employees were hired by the Federal government before FERS became
effective on December 31, 1983.
[13] If these employees continue in their temporary positions beyond 1
year, they become eligible for health insurance. In this instance, the
employee must pay both the employee‘s and employer‘s share of the
premiums.
[14] A local hire is an employee who was offered and appointed to a
position in the same foreign area where he or she was already residing.
[15] These regulations are outlined in the Department of State
Standardized Regulations (DSSR).
[16] DOD rules concerning these allowances can be found in the
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Manual 1400.25-M, Subchapter
1250, ’Overseas Allowances and Differentials.“
[17] The wardrobe portion of these allowances is intended to offset the
cost of clothes for those employees relocating to significantly
different climates.
[18] The difference in average salaries may, in part, reflect the
higher level of experience and educational attainment among DOD
overseas teachers, compared to the average U.S. teacher.
[19] Employees who are spouses of active duty military personnel can
receive health care benefits through their spouses.
[20] Assistant Secretary of Defense, Report on Compensation, Allowance
Structure, and Access to Medical Services for DOD School Teachers in
Overseas Areas (Washington, D.C. 2001).
[21] Military treatment facilities do bill other insurance companies
for inpatient services, but they do not have the capability to bill for
outpatient services.
[22] Troops to Teachers is a federal program that helps discharged and
retired military personnel become certified and employed as teachers in
public schools.
[23] This figure applies to classroom teachers for school year 2001-02
only, not to all instructional staff.
[24] U.S. General Accounting Office, BIA and DOD Schools: Student
Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public
Schools‘, GAO-01-934 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).
[25] As part of this process, the Wage and Salary Division also
collects salary data and computes salaries for social workers, school
psychologists, guidance counselors, and school administrators.
[26] The Notification of Personnel Action (Standard Form 50), published
by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is used to notify employees
and payroll offices of personnel actions and to record the action in
the employee‘s Official Personnel Folder.
[27] Extra duty pay may be due to teachers who serve as coaches for
athletic teams, or advisors for student newspapers, yearbooks, drama
clubs, or other extracurricular activities.
[28] The Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
Practices Act fixes the compensation for traditional classroom
teachers, as well as other teaching positions. It defines teaching
positions as ’duties and responsibilities which involve—(i) classroom
or other instruction or the supervision or direction of classroom or
other instruction; or (ii) any activity (other than teaching) which
requires academic credits in educational theory and practice equal to
the academic credits in education theory and practice required for a
bachelor‘s degree in education from an accredited institution of higher
education; or (iii) any activity in or related to the field of
education—“ In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Pub.L. 104-201) amended the act by adding to the
definition of teaching position ’[duties and responsibilities] are
performed by an individual who carried out certain teaching activities
identified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.“
[29] In a stratified random sample, the population is divided into a
number of subpopulations, called strata. An independent probability
sample is drawn from each stratum. In a simple random sample, the
independent probability sample is drawn from the entire population.
Stratification improves the precision of the estimates because the
variance within each stratum is often lower than the variance in the
overall population.
[30] There may be some nonresponse with the data because some school
districts may not report data for each salary/education category.
[31] The margin of error reflects sampling error; it is the error that
results from taking one sample instead of examining the whole
population. The smaller the margin of error, the more precise is the
estimate of the average salary.
[32] Confidence intervals are used to indicate the precision of an
estimate. If we could take repeated samples from our population and
construct a confidence interval for each sample mean, we can expect 95
percent of the resulting intervals to include the true value of the
population mean.
[33] See note on table 6.
[34] These strata definitions differ somewhat from those used for
sample size determination. For this stability analysis, we developed
strata definitions based on salaries in school year 1999-00, and
determined the extent of the deterioration of the stratification over
time by using three years of salary data, including 1999-00. However,
for sample size calculations, we used the most recent data available,
school year 2001-02 salaries, to determine strata definitions.
[35] Statistical testing showed that the actual and projected mean
salaries were not significantly different.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
