Human Capital
Improved Tracking and Additional Actions Needed to Ensure the Timely and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Civilians Gao ID: GAO-09-1019T September 16, 2009The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in policies on compensation and medical benefits. When these civilians are deployed and serve side by side, differences in compensation or medical benefits may become more apparent and could adversely impact morale. This statement is based on GAO's June 2009 congressionally requested report, which compared agency policies and identified any issues in policy or implementation regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical benefits, and (3) identification and tracking of deployed civilians. GAO reviewed laws, agency policies and guidance; interviewed responsible officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the six selected agencies, including DOD and State; reviewed workers' compensation claims filed by deployed civilians with the Department of Labor from January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2008; and conducted a survey of deployed civilians. GAO made ten recommendations for agencies to take actions such as reviewing compensation laws and policies, establishing medical screening requirements, and creating mechanisms to assist and track deployed civilians. At the time of this testimony, the agencies were in various stages of taking action.
While policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are generally comparable, GAO found some issues that affect the amount of compensation--depending on such things as the pay system--and the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. For example, two comparable civilian supervisors who deploy under different pay systems may receive different rates of overtime pay because this rate is set by the employee's pay system and grade/band. While a congressional subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for all civilians deployed to war zones and recommend enabling legislation, at the time of GAO's review, OPM had not yet done so. Also, implementation of some policies may not always be accurate or timely. For example, GAO estimates that about 40 percent of the deployed civilians in its survey reported experiencing problems with compensation, including danger pay. GAO recommended, among other things, that OPM oversee an agency working group on compensation to address differences and, if necessary, make legislative recommendations. OPM generally concurred with this recommendation. Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found some issues with medical care following deployment, workers' compensation, and post deployment medical screenings that affect the benefits of deployed civilians. Specifically, while DOD allows its treatment facilities to care for non-DOD civilians following deployment in some cases, the circumstances are not clearly defined and some agencies were unaware of DOD's policy. Civilians who deploy also may be eligible for benefits through workers' compensation. GAO's analysis of 188 such claims revealed some significant delays resulting in part from a lack of clarity about the documentation required. Without clear information on what documents to submit, applicants may continue to experience delays. Further, while DOD requires medical screening of civilians before and following deployment, State requires screenings only before deployment. Prior GAO work found that documenting the medical condition of deployed personnel before and following deployment was critical to identifying conditions that may have resulted from deployment. In June 2009, GAO recommended, among other things, that State establish post-deployment screening requirements and that DOD establish procedures to ensure its post-deployment screenings requirements are completed. Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians. DOD, for example, had procedures to identify and track civilians but concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented. While the other agencies had some ability to identify and track civilians, some had to manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical information on the location and movement of personnel, which may hamper their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging health issues. GAO recommended that DOD enforce its tracking requirements and the other five agencies establish tracking procedures. DOD and four agencies concurred with the recommendations; one agency did not.
GAO-09-1019T, Human Capital: Improved Tracking and Additional Actions Needed to Ensure the Timely and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Civilians
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1019T
entitled 'Human Capital: Improved Tracking and Additional Actions
Needed to Ensure the Timely and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and
Medical Benefits to Deployed Civilians' which was released on September
17, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and
the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009:
Human Capital:
Improved Tracking and Additional Actions Needed to Ensure the Timely
and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed
Civilians:
Statement of Brenda S. Farrell, Director: Defense Capabilities and
Management:
GAO-09-1019T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-1019T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on the
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies
increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed
civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in
policies on compensation and medical benefits. When these civilians are
deployed and serve side by side, differences in compensation or medical
benefits may become more apparent and could adversely impact morale.
This statement is based on GAO‘s June 2009 congressionally requested
report, which compared agency policies and identified any issues in
policy or implementation regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical
benefits, and (3) identification and tracking of deployed civilians.
GAO reviewed laws, agency policies and guidance; interviewed
responsible officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and
the six selected agencies, including DOD and State; reviewed workers‘
compensation claims filed by deployed civilians with the Department of
Labor from January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2008; and conducted a
survey of deployed civilians. GAO made ten recommendations for agencies
to take actions such as reviewing compensation laws and policies,
establishing medical screening requirements, and creating mechanisms to
assist and track deployed civilians. At the time of this testimony, the
agencies were in various stages of taking action.
What GAO Found:
While policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are
generally comparable, GAO found some issues that affect the amount of
compensation”depending on such things as the pay system”and the
accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. For
example, two comparable civilian supervisors who deploy under different
pay systems may receive different rates of overtime pay because this
rate is set by the employee‘s pay system and grade/band. While a
congressional subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for
all civilians deployed to war zones and recommend enabling legislation,
at the time of GAO‘s review, OPM had not yet done so. Also,
implementation of some policies may not always be accurate or timely.
For example, GAO estimates that about 40 percent of the deployed
civilians in its survey reported experiencing problems with
compensation, including danger pay. GAO recommended, among other
things, that OPM oversee an agency working group on compensation to
address differences and, if necessary, make legislative
recommendations. OPM generally concurred with this recommendation.
Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found
some issues with medical care following deployment, workers‘
compensation, and post deployment medical screenings that affect the
benefits of deployed civilians. Specifically, while DOD allows its
treatment facilities to care for non-DOD civilians following deployment
in some cases, the circumstances are not clearly defined and some
agencies were unaware of DOD‘s policy. Civilians who deploy also may be
eligible for benefits through workers‘ compensation. GAO‘s analysis of
188 such claims revealed some significant delays resulting in part from
a lack of clarity about the documentation required. Without clear
information on what documents to submit, applicants may continue to
experience delays. Further, while DOD requires medical screening of
civilians before and following deployment, State requires screenings
only before deployment. Prior GAO work found that documenting the
medical condition of deployed personnel before and following deployment
was critical to identifying conditions that may have resulted from
deployment. In June 2009, GAO recommended, among other things, that
State establish post-deployment screening requirements and that DOD
establish procedures to ensure its post-deployment screenings
requirements are completed.
Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none
had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians.
DOD, for example, had procedures to identify and track civilians but
concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented. While the
other agencies had some ability to identify and track civilians, some
had to manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical
information on the location and movement of personnel, which may hamper
their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging health issues.
GAO recommended that DOD enforce its tracking requirements and the
other five agencies establish tracking procedures. DOD and four
agencies concurred with the recommendations; one agency did not.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1019T] or key
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202)
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our recent report on the
actions needed to better track and provide timely and accurate
compensation and medical benefits to deployed federal civilians.
[Footnote 1] As the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded its
involvement in overseas military operations, it has grown increasingly
reliant on its federal civilian workforce to provide support. The
civilian workforce performs, among other things, combat support
functions that traditionally have been performed by the uniformed
military, such as logistics support and maintenance. DOD acknowledged
its growing reliance on civilian personnel in its 2006 Quadrennial
Defense Review, and since fiscal year 2004 the department has converted
thousands of military positions to civilian positions and is planning
to convert more. In addition, in April 2009, the Secretary of Defense
announced plans to convert 33,600 contractor positions to federal
civilian positions. The Department of State (State) and other federal
agencies also play an important role in the stabilization and
reconstruction of at-risk countries and regions, consistent with a
collaborative, "whole of government"[Footnote 2] approach.
According to DOD and State estimates, the federal government has
deployed, since 2001, over 10,000 civilians in support of the
stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[Footnote 3] These deployed civilians work in close proximity to one
another and represent a cross section of employees from a number of
different agencies, including the six covered in our review: DOD, the
Departments of State, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Justice, and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).[Footnote 4]
While in theater, deployed civilians--regardless of which executive
agency employs them--fall under the purview of either DOD or State, but
remain subject to the administrative processes of their employing
agencies for compensation.[Footnote 5] This civilian workforce consists
of employees who are compensated under several different pay systems in
use at the time of our review, including the General Schedule (GS),
Foreign Service (FS), and the recently implemented National Security
Personnel System (NSPS)[Footnote 6] for DOD civilian employees. Each of
these pay systems is governed by unique authorizing statutes, most of
which existed prior to the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The statutes, as implemented in accordance with Office of Personnel
Management (OPM)[Footnote 7] and agency regulations and policies,
outline the monetary and nonmonetary compensation to which employees
under each system are entitled, certain elements of which are set
without regard to the location in which they are working. Monetary
compensation includes payments such as salary and danger pay and
nonmonetary compensation includes benefits such as leave and retirement
contributions.[Footnote 8] In addition, these deployed civilians are
entitled to certain medical benefits.
As we previously reported, DOD's use of civilian personnel to support
military operations has long raised questions about its policies on
compensation and medical benefits for such civilians.[Footnote 9] For
example, in 2006 DOD did not have quality assurance procedures in place
to ensure that deployed civilians completed (1) pre-deployment health
assessments to make certain they were medically fit to deploy and (2)
post-deployment health assessments to document their health status
following deployment, environmental exposures, and health concerns
related to their work while deployed. Consequently, DOD had no
assurance that civilians were medically fit to deploy and could not
identify any follow-up medical treatment these civilians required
following deployment. In addition, we reported that procedures were not
in place during the Gulf War to provide for overtime or danger pay that
deployed civilians were entitled to receive.[Footnote 10] Now that
other executive agencies in addition to DOD and State are deploying
civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan,[Footnote 11] Congress has noted that
although these civilians are working under similar conditions and being
exposed to the same risks, they may be receiving different levels of
compensation and medical benefits. The unique working conditions
employees may encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan can create an
environment that increases the visibility of issues associated with pay
systems and compensation that employees working under normal
circumstances would not encounter. When these civilians are deployed
and serve side by side, the differences in pay systems may become more
apparent and may adversely impact morale. As a result, Congress has
enacted a number of laws aimed at leveling compensation for deployed
civilians across agencies and pay systems. For example, beginning in
2006, Congress granted agency heads the discretion to provide their
deployed civilians certain compensation and benefits comparable to
those of the Foreign Service, such as death gratuities and leave
benefits. Congress has also enacted laws that allow agency heads to
waive premium pay caps for deployed civilians.[Footnote 12]
In addition, in April 2008, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, House Armed Services Committee issued a report on
incentives, benefits, and medical care for deployed civilians.[Footnote
13] In this report, the Subcommittee recommended, among other things,
that OPM develop an incentive and benefits package that would apply to
all federal civilians deployed to a war zone and submit legislative
recommendations, if necessary, to Congress. In June 2008, OPM issued a
memorandum urging the executive agencies that deploy civilians to make
every effort to eliminate any disparities or inconsistencies in these
deployed civilians' compensation by applying any available and
appropriate compensation authorities.[Footnote 14]
My statement today focuses on our review of executive agencies'
policies and practices regarding the compensation and medical benefits
they provide to civilian employees who deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
[Footnote 15] Specifically, we examined the extent to which the six
agencies we reviewed have (1) comparable policies concerning
compensation and any issues that may affect the compensation to which
deployed civilians are entitled; (2) comparable policies and practices
concerning medical benefits for deployed civilians and any issues that
may affect the medical benefits to which deployed civilians are
entitled; and (3) policies and procedures to identify and track
deployed civilians to address any future medical issues that may emerge
as a result of their deployment. It is based on work we conducted for
our June 2009 report.[Footnote 16]
To determine whether the six selected executive branch agencies have
comparable policies on compensation and medical benefits for their
deployed civilians, we reviewed applicable federal statutes, guidance,
memoranda, and other policy documents, and we conducted a comparative
analysis of these documents. We also interviewed agency officials,
including officials at OPM, to identify their perspectives on the
compensation and medical benefits to which civilians are entitled both
during and following their deployments. To determine the extent to
which these agencies have any implementation issues that may affect the
compensation and medical benefits to which deployed civilians are
entitled, we reviewed pre-deployment information and instructional
documents pertaining to the compensation and medical benefits to which
deployed civilians are entitled, as well as agency practices for
medically screening civilians both before and following their
deployments. We also conducted a Web survey of a probability sample of
civilians who were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan between January 1,
2006, and April 30, 2008, to gather information on their experiences.
[Footnote 17] Specifically, this survey gathered, among other things,
information from deployed civilians about instructional documents
received, medical screening, and receipt of compensation and medical
care during and following their deployments. To further explore issues
that were identified by survey respondents, we conducted small group
discussions with deployed DOD and State civilians serving in Iraq at
the time of our review. We also conducted interviews with DOD and State
officials, including medical personnel, and reviewed the universe of
workers' compensation claims filed with the Department of Labor
[Footnote 18] between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by civilians
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we interviewed Labor officials
concerning the workers' compensation claims process. To determine the
extent to which agencies identify and track deployed civilians for
medical purposes, we reviewed applicable agency guidance and
interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. In addition, we obtained
and reviewed lists of deployed civilians from each of the agencies. To
assess the reliability of the data in these lists and workers'
compensation claims, we (1) reviewed existing information about the
systems that generated these lists and claims information and (2)
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the systems and
information. We determined that the information was sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of our review.
We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy
and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and Completeness
of Compensation:
Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are
generally comparable across agencies, we found some issues that affect
the amount of compensation they receive--depending on such things as
the agency's pay system or the civilian's grade/band level--and the
accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation.
Specifically, the six agencies included in our review provided similar
types of deployment related compensation to civilians deployed to Iraq
or Afghanistan. Agency policies regarding compensation for federal
employees--including deployed civilians--are subject to regulations and
guidance issued either by OPM or other executive agencies, in
accordance with underlying statutory personnel authorities. In some
cases, the statutes and implementing regulations provided agency heads
with flexibility in how they administer their compensation policies.
For example, agency heads are currently authorized by statute to
provide their civilians deployed to combat zones with certain benefits--
such as death gratuities and leave benefits--comparable to those
provided the Foreign Service, regardless of the underlying pay system
of the employee.
However, some variations in compensation available to deployed
civilians result directly from the employing agency's pay system and
the employee's pay grade/band level. For example, deployed civilians,
who are often subject to extended work hours, may expect to work 10-
hour days, 5 days a week, resulting in 20 hours of overtime per pay
period over the course of a year-long deployment. A nonsupervisory GS-
12 step 1 employee receives a different amount of compensation for
overtime hours than a nonsupervisory NSPS employee who earns an
equivalent salary. Specifically, the NSPS nonsupervisory employee is
compensated at a rate equivalent to 1.5 times the normal hourly rate
for overtime while the GS nonsupervisory employee is compensated at a
rate equivalent to 1.14 times the normal hourly rate for overtime
hours.[Footnote 19]
Additionally, deployed civilians may receive different compensation
based on their deployment status. Agencies have some discretion to
determine the travel status of their deployed civilians based on a
variety of factors--DOD, for example, looks at factors including length
of deployment, employee and agency preference, and cost. Generally
though, deployments scheduled for 180 days or less are classified as
"temporary duty" assignments, whereas deployments lasting more than a
year generally result in an official "change of station" assignment.
Nonetheless, when civilians are to be deployed long term, agencies have
some discretion to place them in either temporary duty or change of
station status, subject to certain criteria.[Footnote 20] The status
under which civilians deploy affects the type and amount of
compensation they receive. For example, approximately 73 percent of the
civilians who were deployed between January 1, 2006, and April 30,
2008, by the six agencies we reviewed were deployed in temporary duty
status[Footnote 21] and retained their base salaries, including the
locality pay associated with their home duty stations. Civilians
deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan as a change of station do not receive
locality pay, but do receive base salary and may be eligible for a
separate maintenance allowance which varies in amount based on the
number of dependents the civilian has. The civilian's base salary also
impacts the computation of certain deployment-related pays, such as
danger pay and post hardship differential, as well as the computation
of premium pay such as overtime. Consequently, whether a civilian's
base salary includes locality pay or not can significantly affect the
total compensation to which that civilian is entitled--resulting in
differences of several thousand dollars.
As a result of these variations, deployed civilians at equivalent pay
grades who work under the same conditions and face the same risks may
receive different compensation. As mentioned previously, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Armed Services
Committee, recommended in April 2008 that OPM develop a benefits
package for all federal civilians deployed to war zones, to ensure that
they receive equitable benefits. But, at the time of our review, OPM
had not developed such a package or provided legislative
recommendations. OPM officials stated that DOD had initiated an
interagency working group to discuss compensation issues and that this
group had developed some proposals for legislative changes. However,
they noted that these proposals had not yet been submitted to Congress,
and they do not, according to DOD officials, represent a comprehensive
package for all civilians deployed to war zones, as recommended by the
Subcommittee.
Furthermore, compensation policies were not always implemented
accurately or in a timely manner. For example, we project that
approximately 40 percent of the estimated 2,100 civilians deployed from
January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2008, experienced problems with
compensation--including not receiving danger pay or receiving it late,
for instance--in part because they were unaware of their eligibility or
did not know where to go for assistance to start and stop these
deployment-related pays. In fact, officials at four agencies
acknowledged that they have experienced difficulties in effectively
administering deployment-related pays, in part because there is no
single source delineating the various pays associated with deployment.
As we previously reported, concerning their military
counterparts,[Footnote 22] unless deployed personnel are adequately
supported in this area, they may not be receiving all of the
compensation to which they are entitled.
Additionally, in January 2008, Congress authorized an expanded death
gratuity--under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)--of up
to $100,000 to be paid to the survivor of a deployed civilian whose
death resulted from injuries incurred in connection with service with
an armed force in support of a contingency operation.[Footnote 23]
Congress also gave agency heads discretion to apply this death gratuity
provision retroactively for any such deaths occurring on or after
October 7, 2001, as a result of injuries incurred in connection with
the civilian's service with an armed force in Iraq or Afghanistan.
[Footnote 24] At the time of our review, Labor--the agency responsible
for the implementing regulations under FECA--had not yet issued its
formal policy. Labor officials told us that, because of the recent
change in administration, they could not provide us with an anticipated
issue date for the final policy. Officials from the six agencies
included in our review stated that they were delaying the development
of policies and procedures to implement the death gratuity until after
Labor issues its policy. As a result, some of these agencies had not
moved forward on these provisions.
We therefore recommended that (1) OPM oversee an executive agency
working group on compensation for deployed civilians to address any
differences and if necessary make legislative recommendations; (2) the
agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or, for
agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to help
ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation to which they
are entitled; and (3) Labor set a time frame for issuing implementing
guidance for the death gratuity. We provided a copy of the draft report
to the agencies in our review. With the exception of USAID, which
stated that it already had an ombudsman to assist its civilians, all of
the agencies generally concurred with these recommendations. USAID
officials, however, did not provide any documentation to support the
establishment of the ombudsman position. In the absence of such
documentation, we continue to believe our recommendation has merit.
Finally, the Department of Labor has subsequently published an interim
final rule implementing the $100,000 death gratuity under FECA.
[Footnote 25]
While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some
Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation:
Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, we found some
issues with policies related to medical treatment following deployment
and with the implementation of workers' compensation and post-
deployment medical screening that affect the medical benefits of these
civilians. DOD and State guidance provides for medical care of all
civilians during their deployments--regardless of the employing agency.
For example, DOD policies entitle all deployed civilians to the same
level of medical treatment while they are in theater as military
personnel. State policies entitle civilians serving under the authority
of the Chief of Mission to treatment for routine medical needs at State
facilities while they are in theater.
While DOD guidance provides for care at military treatment facilities
for all DOD civilians--under workers' compensation--following their
deployments, the guidance does not clearly define the "compelling
circumstances" under which non-DOD civilians would be eligible for such
care. Because DOD's policy is unclear, confusion exists within DOD and
other agencies regarding civilians' eligibility for care at military
treatment facilities following deployment. Furthermore, officials at
several agencies were unaware that civilians from their agencies were
potentially eligible for care at DOD facilities following deployment,
in part because these agencies had not received the guidance from DOD
about this eligibility. Because some agencies are not aware of their
civilians' eligibility for care at military treatment facilities
following deployment, these civilians cannot benefit from the efforts
DOD has undertaken in areas such as post traumatic stress disorder.
Moreover, civilians who deploy may also be eligible for medical
benefits through workers' compensation if Labor determines that their
medical condition resulted from personal injury sustained in the
performance of duty during deployment.[Footnote 26] Our review of all
188 workers' compensation claims[Footnote 27] related to deployments to
Iraq or Afghanistan that were filed with the Labor between January 1,
2006, and April 30, 2008, found that Labor requested additional
information in support of these claims in 125 cases, resulting in
increased processing times that in some instances exceeded the
department's standard goals for processing claims.[Footnote 28] Twenty-
two percent of the respondents to our survey who had filed workers'
compensation claims stated that their agencies provided them with
little or no support in completing the paperwork for their claims.
Labor officials stated that applicants failed to provide adequate
documentation, in part because they were unaware of the type of
information they needed to provide. Furthermore, our review of Labor's
claims process indicated that Labor's form for a traumatic injury did
not specify what supporting documents applicants had to submit to
substantiate a claim.[Footnote 29] Specifically, while this form states
that the claimant must "provide medical evidence in support of a
disability," the type of evidence required is not specifically
identified. Without clear information on what documentation to submit
in support of their claims, applicants may continue to experience
delays in the process.
Additionally, DOD requires deploying civilians to be medically screened
both before and following their deployments. However, post-deployment
screenings are not always conducted, because DOD lacks standardized
procedures for processing returning civilians. Approximately 21 percent
of DOD civilians who responded to our survey stated that they did not
complete a post-deployment health assessment. In contrast, State
generally requires a medical clearance as a precondition to deployment
but has no formal requirement for post-deployment screenings of
civilians who deploy under its purview. Our prior work has found that
documenting the medical condition of deployed civilians both before and
following deployment is critical to identifying conditions that may
have resulted from deployment, such as traumatic brain injury.[Footnote
30]
To address these matters, we recommended that (1) DOD clarify its
guidance concerning the circumstances under which civilians are
entitled to treatment at military treatment facilities following
deployment and formally advise other agencies that deploy civilians of
its policy governing treatment at these facilities; (2) Labor revise
the application materials for workers' compensation claims to make
clear what documentation applicants must submit with their claims; (3)
the agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or,
for agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to help
ensure that deployed civilians get timely responses to their
applications and receive the medical benefits to which they are
entitled; (4) DOD establish standard procedures to ensure that
returning civilians complete required post-deployment medical
screenings; and (5) State develop post-deployment medical screening
requirements for civilians deployed under its purview. The agencies
generally concurred with these recommendations, with the exception of
USAID, which stated that it already had an ombudsman to assist its
civilians. USAID officials, however, did not provide any documentation
to support the establishment of the ombudsman position. In the absence
of such documentation, we continue to believe our recommendation has
merit.
Executive Agencies' Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited:
While each of the agencies we reviewed was able to provide a list of
deployed civilians, none of these agencies has fully implemented
policies and procedures to identify and track its civilians who have
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD, for example, issued guidance and
established procedures for identifying and tracking deployed civilians
in 2006 but concluded in 2008 that its guidance and associated
procedures were not being consistently implemented across the agency.
In 2008 and 2009, DOD reiterated its policy requirements and again
called for DOD components to comply.[Footnote 31] The other agencies we
reviewed have some ability to identify deployed civilians, but they did
not have any specific mechanisms designed to identify or track location-
specific information on these civilians. As we have previously
reported, the ability of agencies to report location-specific
information on employees is necessary to enable them to identify
potential exposures or other incidents related to deployment.[Footnote
32] Lack of such information may hamper these agencies' ability to
intervene quickly to address any future health issues that may result
from deployments in support of contingency operations. We therefore
recommended that (1) DOD establish mechanisms to ensure that its
policies to identify and track deployed civilians are implemented and
(2) the five other executive agencies included in our review develop
policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized
information on deployed civilians. The agencies generally concurred
with these recommendations, with the exception of USAID, which stated
that it already had an appropriate mechanism to track its civilians. We
disagree with USAID's position since it does not have an agencywide
system for tracking civilians and continue to believe that our
recommendation is appropriate.
Concluding Observations:
Deployed civilians are a crucial resource for success in the ongoing
military, stabilization, and reconstruction operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Most of the civilians--68 percent of those in our review--
who deploy to these assignments volunteered to do so, are motivated by
a strong sense of patriotism, and are often exposed to the same risks
as military personnel. Because these civilians are deployed from a
number of executive agencies and work under a variety of pay systems,
any inconsistencies in the benefits and compensation they receive could
affect that volunteerism. Moreover, ongoing efforts within DOD and
State to establish a cadre of deployable civilians further emphasizes
that the federal government realizes the important role these federal
civilians play in supporting ongoing and future contingency operations
and stabilization and reconstruction efforts throughout the world.
Given the importance of the missions these civilians support and the
potential dangers in the environments in which they work, agencies
should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the compensation and
benefits packages associated with such service overseas are appropriate
and comparable for civilians who take on these assignments. It is
equally important that federal executive agencies that deploy civilians
make every reasonable effort to ensure that these civilians receive all
of the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled.
These efforts include maintaining sufficient data to enable agencies to
inform deployed civilians about any emerging health issues that might
affect them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Federal
Civilians, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562]
(Washington D.C.: June 26, 2009).
[2] According to the Project on National Security Reform, Case Studies
Volume I, (Washington, D.C.), "whole of government" refers to an
approach that fosters governmentwide collaboration on purpose, actions,
and results in coherent combined application of available resources to
achieve the desired objective or end state. This approach addresses the
military and civilian coordination discussed in National Security
Presidential Directive/NSPD-44, Management of Interagency Efforts
Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization (Dec. 7, 2005).
[3] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562].
[4] We selected the Department of Defense because it deploys the
greatest number of civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan. We also included
the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Justice,
and the U.S. Agency for International Development because these
agencies deployed most of the civilians assigned to the embassies and
provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[5] Under 22 U.S.C. § 3927, the Chief of Mission "shall have full
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all
Government executive branch employees in that country (except for Voice
of America correspondents on official assignment and employees under
the command of a United States area military commander)."
[6] DOD began converting civilian employees into NSPS in 2005. As we
recently testified, as of February 2009, over 205,000 DOD civilians had
been converted into NSPS. GAO, Human Capital: Improved Implementation
of Safeguards and an Action Plan to Address Employee Concerns Could
Increase Employee Acceptance of the National Security Personnel System,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-464T] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 1, 2009).
[7] Specifically, OPM issues regulations and provides policy guidance
to executive branch agencies on matters involving personnel management.
[8] In this report, we use the term "monetary compensation" to refer to
payments made to the employee for work performed such as salary, danger
pay, post hardship differential, and overtime. "Nonmonetary
compensation" refers to benefits such as leave, retirement
contributions, and insurance premiums paid on behalf of the employee.
[9] GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD
Federal Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007); and DOD Civilian Personnel: Greater Oversight
and Quality Assurance Needed to Ensure Force Health Protection and
Surveillance for Those Deployed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29,
2006).
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1235T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[11] In addition to DOD, State, and the other agencies involved in this
review, we have identified several other executive agencies that have
deployed civilians to Iraq or Afghanistan. These include the
Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Treasury,
Transportation, and Energy.
[12] The premium pay cap places a ceiling on the amount of basic pay
(salary plus locality pay) plus premium pay (overtime pay, Sunday pay,
holiday pay, and night differential) that an employee can earn during a
calendar year.
[13] U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Deploying Federal
Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care
(April 2008).
[14] Memorandum from Linda M. Springer, Director, OPM, to Chief Human
Capital Officers, Consistent Compensation for Federal Civilians in
Combat Zones (June 10, 2008). This memorandum listed various legal
authorities, such as § 1603 of Public Law No. 109-234 (granting federal
agencies discretion to apply certain Foreign Service benefits to their
employees), § 1101 of Public Law No. 110-181 (raising annual maximum
limitations on premium pay), and § 1105 of Public Law No. 110-181
(authorizing payment of up to $100,000 as a "death gratuity" in certain
instances).
[15] We use the term "medical benefits" to refer to any medical or
dental treatment associated with travel to Iraq or Afghanistan,
including medical screenings before and after deployment, as well as
any benefits received under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5
U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-562].
[17] We selected a sample of 297 from an initial population of 2,493
civilians whom the six executive agencies in our review identified as
having been deployed during the period from January 1, 2006, to April
30, 2008. Some observations in the sample were deemed to be beyond the
scope of our review, in part because the employee did not deploy to
Iraq or Afghanistan during the prescribed timeframe; consequently, we
are 95 percent confident that the actual population size is between
1,930 and 2,254. The results of the survey can be projected to the
population from which the survey sample was selected.
[18] These claims are filed under the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
[19] Under this example, these employees are exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Overtime rates are authorized by law for GS employees by
5 U.S.C. section 5542 and for NSPS employees by NSPS regulations at 5
CFR section 9901.362. The NSPS overtime factor is based on DOD's
Civilian Personnel Manual, DOD 1400.25-M, subchapter 1930. The overtime
factor for GS-12 step 1 is calculated by dividing the overtime hourly
rate by the hourly rate found in OPM's hourly rate table for GS salary.
Within the GS system, the overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a
rate greater than the rate for GS-10 step 1, but less than the rate for
GS-12 step 6, is equal to the hourly rate of basic pay for GS-10 step 1
multiplied by 1.5. The overtime hourly rate for employees paid at a
rate equivalent to the GS-10 step 1 level or lower is 1.5 times their
hourly rate, and for employees paid at the GS-12 step 6 level or
higher, the overtime hourly rate is 1.0.
[20] GAO has stated that "Whether an assignment to a particular station
is temporary or permanent is a question of fact to be determined from
the orders under which the assignment is made, the character of the
assignment, its duration, and the nature of the duties." In DOD's
Civilian Personnel Joint Travel Regulations Vol. II, DOD states that
the following criteria must be met for an assignment to be temporary
duty (68 Comp. Gen. 465 (1989)): "(a) The duties to be performed are
temporary in nature, (b) the assignment is for a reasonable time
duration, and (c) temporary duty costs are lower than round-trip
temporary change of station or permanent change of station expenses."
Joint Travel Regulations, vol. 2, ch. 4, para. C4430 (current as of
Feb. 1, 2009).
[21] The approximately 73 percent includes both DOD civilians deployed
for 180 days or less as well as employees deployed for more than 180
days. For civilians deployed more than 180 days, about 42 percent were
deployed in temporary duty status and retained locality pay.
[22] GAO, Military Pay: Army Reserve Soldiers Mobilized to Active Duty
Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-911] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20,
2004); Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to Active
Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-413T] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28,
2004); and Military Pay: Army National Guard Personnel Mobilized to
Active Duty Experienced Significant Pay Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-89] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13,
2003).
[23] Pub. L. No. 110-181 § 1105 (2008).
[24] 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a) states that the head of an agency may
retroactively apply this provision in the case of an employee who died
on or after October 7, 2001, and before the date of enactment of this
section as a result of injuries incurred in connection with the
employee's service with an armed force in the theater of operations of
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[25] Claims for Compensation; Death Gratuity Under the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 41617 (Aug. 18, 2009).
[26] Under FECA, any disability resulting from a war-risk hazard is
generally deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while
in the performance of duty. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b).
[27] FECA claims by agency: DOD - 116; State - 32; Justice - 19; DHS -
5; USDA - 2; USAID - 1; other agencies not included in this review and
claims where the agency is not identified - 13.
[28] Of these 125 cases, 74 were approved, 42 were denied, and 9 cases
were still being processed at the time of our review.
[29] Labor defines "traumatic injury" as any wound or other condition
of the body caused by external force, including stress or strain,
caused by a specific event or incident within a single workday or shift.
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1085].
[31] Memorandum from Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary for
Civilian Personnel Policy, Documentation of Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Officially Assigned to Military Contingency
Operations Overseas, (Jun. 6, 2006); Memorandum from Brad Bunn,
Director, Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service,
Documentation of Department of Defense Civilian Employees Officially
Assigned to Military Contingency Operations Overseas, (Feb. 8, 2008);
and DOD Directive 1404.10, DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (Jan.
23, 2009).
[32] GAO, Defense Health Care: Improvements Needed in Occupational and
Environmental Health Surveillance during Deployments to Address
Immediate and Long-term Health Issues, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-632] (Washington D.C.: Jul. 14,
2005).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
