Background

Created in 1961, the Peace Corps is mandated by statute to help meet  developing countries’ need for trained manpower while promoting mutual  understanding between Americans and other peoples. Volunteers commit  to 2-year assignments in host communities where they work on projects  such as teaching English, strengthening farmer cooperatives, or building  sanitation systems. By developing relationships with members of the  communities in which they live and work, volunteers contribute to greater  intercultural understanding between Americans and host country  nationals. Volunteers are expected to maintain a standard of living similar  to that of their host community colleagues and coworkers. They are  provided with stipends that are based on local living costs and housing  similar to their hosts. Volunteers are not supplied with vehicles. Although  the Peace Corps accepts older volunteers and has made a conscious effort  to recruit minorities, the current volunteer population has a median age of  25 years and is 85 percent white. More than 60 percent of the volunteers are  women.
The Peace Corps emphasizes community acceptance as the key to  maintaining volunteer safety and security. The agency has found that  volunteer safety is best ensured when volunteers are well–integrated into  their host communities and treated as extended family members and  contributors to development. While emphasizing protection measures such  as locks and window bars, the Peace Corps generally avoids measures such  as housing volunteers in walled compounds, which would reduce volunteer  integration into the community. The agency also typically withdraws from  countries in which breakdowns in civil authority require strong protection  or deterrence measures to protect volunteers. To the extent that they  share the Peace Corps’ commitment to advancing intercultural  understanding, other organizations that face similar security and safety  challenges also tend to emphasize community acceptance as an underlying  principle. Appendix II presents in greater detail the safety and security  practices of some of these organizations.

	Reported Crime Incidents Have Increased, but the Full Extent of Crime Against Volunteers Is Unknown Due to Underreporting

The Peace Corps’ Office of Medical Services created and operates a system  for recording and analyzing crime information that focuses primarily on  assault crimes. Peace Corps reports show that reported rates of assault  nearly doubled from the early 1990s to the latter part of the decade. Agency  officials note that the reason for this may be attributable to a number of  factors, including agency efforts to improve data collection and volunteer  reporting. The Peace Corps has used its data analyses to gain insight into  the characteristics of assaults against volunteers and to shape volunteer  training programs. However, the full extent of crime against volunteers is  unclear because recent volunteer surveys show that volunteers may  significantly underreport crime. Additional analyses would enhance the  agency’s ability to understand trends in crime and apply this understanding  to its crime prevention and intervention strategies.

		Medical Staff Operates Data Collection and Analysis System

Since 1990, the Office of Medical Services has collected information on  assaults from post medical staff around the world and has produced  analyses of incidence rates and characteristics of assaults, such as time and  place of occurrence, weapons employed, and injuries sustained. Medical  staff also collect summary information on the number of nonassault  crimes, such as burglaries and thefts, occurring at posts each month. The  office periodically publishes reports containing its analytical results and  distributes these reports to senior staff, country directors, and post medical  officers. Appendix III provides additional information on the processes  employed to gather information and produce these reports.

		Apparent Increase in Assaults Is Difficult to Interpret

Reported incidence rates for most types of assaults have been higher in  recent years, as shown in figures 1 and 2. For example, the reported  incidence rate for major physical assaults nearly doubled from an average  of about 9 per 1,000 volunteer years in 1991 to 1993 to an average of about  17 per 1,000 volunteer years in 1998 to 2000. Reported incidence rates also  increased for minor physical assaults and, to a lesser extent, for minor  sexual assaults. The reported rate of major sexual assaults decreased from  about 10 incidents per 1,000 female volunteer years at the beginning of the  1990s to an average of slightly more than 8 per 1,000 female employees at  the end of the decade. According to agency officials, the decreasing  incidence of major sexual assaults in the face of increases in minor sexual  assault suggests that the decline in major sexual assaults is a true decline  rather than a reporting artifact. Appendix III provides more information on  crime rates and trends.
According to Peace Corps officials, the general increase in reported  assaults may reflect an actual increase in the number of such incidents  suffered by volunteers, better efforts by the agency to ensure that all  medical officers report all assault events, or an increased willingness  among volunteers to report incidents. Through its volunteer satisfaction  surveys, the agency is aware that the level of underreporting is significant.  For example, according to the 1998 survey, volunteers did not report 60  percent of rapes and 20 percent of nonrape sexual assaults. Underreporting  reduces the Peace Corps’ ability to state crime rates with certainty and to  develop well-informed plans for addressing crime problems. The agency  has taken steps to encourage volunteers to report incidents. For example,  the coordinator for volunteer safety and security stated that he is  developing training materials for medical officers to ensure that they  transmit clear messages to volunteers about incident reporting. The Peace  Corps is also including questions about underreporting in its current  volunteer satisfaction survey. Volunteers may not report criminal incidents  for a variety of reasons, including embarrassment, fear of repercussions,  concern about confidentiality, and the belief that Peace Corps staff could  not help. Volunteers may decline to report minor incidents when, aside  from offering counseling, it is unclear what Peace Corps staff can do for the  volunteer. In addition, volunteers are sometimes unclear about what to  report, and staff observed that definitions for reportable nonassault crimes,  in particular, need clarification.

		Crime Data Analysis System Has Produced Useful Insights but Could Be Enhanced

The Peace Corps’ system for gathering and analyzing data on crime against  volunteers has produced useful insights, but opportunities for additional  analyses may help the agency develop better-informed intervention and  prevention strategies. In addition, the results of agency analyses could be  more broadly shared.
Some post medical officers we interviewed stated that they use  headquarters analyses of crime data during volunteer training to illustrate  the risks volunteers face. These analyses also have influenced the content  of the Peace Corps’ volunteer training programs. For example, agency  analyses of the circumstances surrounding rape incidents have shown that  nearly 60 percent of such crimes from 1993 to 1999 were perpetrated by  volunteers’ friends, coworkers, or acquaintances, and that more than 50  percent occurred in a home environment. The Peace Corps’ coordinator for  volunteer safety and security stated that the agency was revising volunteer  rape awareness training materials to reflect these insights.
In recent years, the Peace Corps has made a number of improvements in its  crime data collection and analysis system. In 1999, the agency revised its  assault reporting form to include information on victim and assailant  alcohol use and on whether victims were alone when incidents occurred.  Additional analyses would enhance the Peace Corps’ ability to identify  other characteristics of crimes and crime risk factors and develop better- informed prevention and intervention strategies. For example, as shown in  figure 3, we found that the number of reported assaults is highest among  volunteers in their first few months of service. Nearly a third of all reported  assaults after 1993 occurred in the volunteer’s 4th to 8th months of service— immediately after the volunteers have completed training and taken up  residence at their assigned sites. This finding could be explored and the  results considered in developing volunteer training materials. Medical staff  and safety and security staff at the Peace Corps agreed that the agency  could benefit from additional research on crime against volunteers but  observed that neither the medical office nor the coordinator for volunteer  safety and security had staff available to perform such research. Among the  new initiatives the Peace Corps has stated that it will implement is the  hiring of a statistician to perform additional analyses on crime data.
The Peace Corps distributes its crime data analyses to agency officials but  does not provide access to this information for potential volunteers. For  example, it does not post the results, or a summary thereof, on the agency’s  Web site. Most volunteers in the field that we interviewed stated that they  had been provided little or no specific information on crime incidents  before their arrival in the country for preservice training. The Peace Corps’  safety and security initiatives include efforts to more fully inform  applicants and recruits of the safety and security challenges they are likely  to face as volunteers.

	Peace Corps Provides Broad Guidance and Support to Posts, Relying on Them to Develop and Implement Effective Practices

Volunteer health, safety, and security is the Peace Corps’ highest priority,  according to the agency. To address this commitment, the agency has  adopted policies for monitoring and disseminating information on the  security environments in which the agency operates, training volunteers,  developing safe and secure volunteer housing and work sites, monitoring  volunteers, and planning for emergencies such as evacuations.  Headquarters is responsible for providing guidance, supervision, and  oversight to ensure that agency policies are implemented effectively. The  Peace Corps relies heavily on country directors—the heads of agency posts  in foreign capitols—to develop and implement practices that are  appropriate for specific countries. Country directors, in turn, rely on  program managers to develop and oversee volunteer programs. Volunteers  are expected to follow agency policies and exercise some responsibility for  their own safety and security.

		Headquarters Establishes Policies and Provides Support for Their Implementation

Peace Corps headquarters is responsible for establishing the agency’s  safety and security policy framework and supports posts in implementing  these policies through (1) guidance and training and (2) supervision and  oversight.

			Headquarters Has Established Agencywide Policies

According to agency officials, the Peace Corps has long regarded volunteer  safety and security as its highest priority. The agency maintains this focus  in its current strategic planning documents, prepared under the provisions  of the Government Performance and Results Act. In 1999, the Peace Corps  established a policy framework that outlines the agency’s principles for  maintaining volunteer safety and security. These agencywide policies are  broadly phrased to give country directors flexibility in developing  procedures that suit conditions in countries as diverse as Belize and  Kazakhstan. Peace Corps policies cover the following:  Monitoring and disseminating information on the security  environment in Peace Corps countries. Volunteers should be  provided with a clear understanding of the risks they face (including an  overall assessment of the risks facing volunteers and information on  country-specific conditions) so that they can make informed decisions  about their own safety.
Training volunteers. Volunteers should be provided with training that  prepares them to “adopt culturally appropriate lifestyles and exercise  judgment that promotes safety and reduces risk in their home, at work,  and while traveling.”
Developing volunteer housing and work sites. Volunteers should be  placed in “appropriate, safe, and secure housing and work sites.”  Criteria for selecting sites include the potential for volunteers’ obtaining  and maintaining “acceptance” in the communities where they will live  and work.
Monitoring sites and volunteers and responding to safety  concerns and criminal incidents. Post staff should make periodic  visits to volunteer sites and respond to volunteer safety and security  concerns and incidents, including crimes against volunteers.
Planning for emergencies. Posts must maintain accurate contact  information on all volunteers and develop and annually test emergency  action plans (EAP) to guide staff and volunteers in the event of a natural  disaster, political unrest, or other emergency. Headquarters is to review  the EAPs and the EAP test results.

			Headquarters Supports Posts in Implementing Safety and Security Policies

Headquarters has developed written guidance and training for  headquarters and field staff to support implementation of safety and  security policies. In collaboration with other agency officials, the  coordinator for volunteer safety and security has developed a variety of  guidance materials for posts, including information on “best practices” in  safety and security operations from posts around the world, crisis  management and rape response handbooks, and training modules that  posts can apply in preparing volunteer safety and security training  programs. These materials are generally nonprescriptive and can be  adapted to country-specific conditions. Peace Corps staff, including  country directors and program managers at posts, are given training in  safety and security procedures as part of their introduction to their  positions. For example, all new program managers attend a 4-week  overseas staff training session in Washington, D.C., that addresses safety  and security issues and other aspects of their work. Agency staff also  attend periodic in-service training events that may include safety and  security matters.
Headquarters also provides supervision and oversight. Three regional  directors, each assisted by a small staff of country desk officers, supervise  Peace Corps posts abroad. Agency policies state that these regional  directors are to ensure that country directors establish effective volunteer  safety and security support systems. The regional directors, with their  country desk officers, monitor post operations in all areas—including  safety and security—by E-mail, telephone, and occasional country visits.  This informal dialogue is supplemented by formal submission and review  of post EAPs and EAP test results. In addition to these regional directors,  Peace Corps’ Office of Volunteer Safety and Overseas Security (headed by a  coordinator for volunteer safety and security) and the Office of the  Inspector General contribute to headquarters’ supervision and oversight of  post practices. A field-based regional safety and security officer works in  each of the three regions. At the request of regional or country directors,  these officers review and provide advisory reports on post safety and  security practices. The Office of the Inspector General, among other things,  reviews safety and security operations at posts and issues formal  recommendations that require an official post response.

		Country Directors at Individual Posts Are Responsible for Implementing Policies

Peace Corps country directors are responsible for developing procedures  to ensure the effective implementation in specific countries of the agency’s  broadly phrased policies, as previously mentioned. For example, country  directors develop safety and security criteria for prospective volunteer  sites and procedures for ensuring that sites meet these criteria before  volunteers arrive. They also develop and provide volunteer safety and  security training programs in accordance with agency policies.

		Volunteers Play a Role in Ensuring Their Own Safety

Volunteers are expected to exercise responsibility for their own safety and  security. They are expected to reduce the level of risk they face at their  sites and while traveling by complying with post policies and exercising  good judgment. They do this in part through the relationships they build  with sponsoring organizations and elements of the local community. Peace  Corps posts employ a number of program managers who work with local  organizations to develop programs in areas such as education and health  and to identify housing and work assignments for volunteers. After 3  months of incountry training, volunteers move to diverse sites, often far  from Peace Corps posts, where they live in a community and work with  local counterpart organizations such as schools and municipal  governments. Program managers are expected to monitor volunteers once  they arrive at their sites and to provide support when needed. Volunteers  do not work directly for or have daily contact with agency staff, however.  They are not considered U.S. government employees for most purposes,  nor do they not have diplomatic immunity.

	Peace Corps’ Safety and Security Framework Is Unevenly Implemented

Peace Corps’ efforts to implement its safety and security policies have  produced varying results. We found mixed performance in key areas, which  may expose some volunteers to risk. Volunteers are generally satisfied with  the safety and security information and training they receive. We identified  a number of instances of uneven performance in developing safe and  secure housing and work sites and responding to volunteers’ safety  concerns. In addition, while all posts have developed an EAP that they test  at least annually, the plans and tests vary in quality and  comprehensiveness, and the Peace Corps does not have information about  how long it would take to reach its volunteers in case of an emergency. A  number of factors, including unclear guidance, inadequate staff training,  uneven application of supervisory and oversight mechanisms, and staff  turnover, hamper Peace Corps efforts to ensure high-quality performance  for the agency as a whole.

		Volunteers Are Generally Satisfied with Post Efforts to Inform Them about the Security Environment

Posts are responsible for monitoring the host country’s safety and security  environment and for keeping volunteers informed about safety and security  issues. Numerous volunteers we met with were generally satisfied with  post efforts in this area. The Peace Corps does not require country  directors to prepare formal assessments of the security environment. In  general, country directors stay informed about the security environment  through regular discussions with local Department of State security  officials, information on crime reported by volunteers, and other means.
Posts use various mechanisms, such as newsletters, E-mail, and  memorandums to disseminate safety information to volunteers. Although  posts vary in how and when they disseminate such information, volunteers  at the posts we visited said they were fairly satisfied with the level of  information they receive about safety and security. According to the 1998  and 1999 volunteer satisfaction surveys, over 80 percent of volunteers  found that the Peace Corps kept them adequately or well-informed  regarding safety and security, while around 14 percent said that they were  not at all informed or poorly informed.

		Volunteers Are Generally Satisfied with Safety Training

Training is central to the Peace Corps’ approach to volunteer safety.  Volunteers are generally satisfied with the safety training that the agency  provides. Posts have considerable latitude in the design of their safety  training programs, but all provide volunteers with 3 months of preservice  training that includes information on safety and security. Posts also provide  periodic in-service training sessions that cover technical issues. Many of  the volunteers we interviewed said that the safety training they received  before they began service was useful and cited testimonials by current  volunteers as one of the more valuable instructional methods. In both the  1998 and 1999 volunteer satisfaction surveys, over 90 percent of volunteers  rated safety and security training as adequate or better; only about 5  percent said that the training was not effective.
Some regional safety and security officer reports have found that  improvements were needed in post training practices. The inspector  general has reported that volunteers at some posts said cross-cultural  training and presentations by the U.S. embassy’s security officer did not  prepare them adequately for safety-related challenges they faced during  service. Some volunteers stated that the Peace Corps did not fully prepare  them for the racial and sexual harassment they experienced during their  service. Some female volunteers at posts we visited stated that they would  like to receive self-protection training.

		Peace Corps Showed Mixed Performance in Developing Safe and Secure Housing and Work Sites for Volunteers

Although many volunteers are provided with housing that meets Peace  Corps standards and well-defined work assignments, some volunteers do  not have this experience. We found that volunteer housing is not always  inspected before the volunteer arrives, some housing does not meet posts’  standards, and some posts have unclear or nonexistent guidance for  selecting volunteer housing. In addition, vaguely defined work assignments  and unsupportive counterparts may also increase volunteers’ risk by  limiting their ability to build a support network in their host communities.  We also found that documentation recording information and problems, by  site location, was not maintained, which affects the ability of Peace Corps  staff to make informed decisions about future placements and could lead to  placing volunteers at sites that have previously experienced safety  problems.
Peace Corps policies call for posts to ensure that housing is inspected and  meets post safety and security criteria before the volunteers arrive to take up residence. Nonetheless, some volunteers arrive at their sites to find  that their housing is not ready, has not been inspected, or does not meet  post standards. At all of the posts we visited, we found instances of  volunteers who began their service in housing that had not been inspected  and had various shortcomings. For example, one volunteer spent her first 3  weeks at her site living in her counterpart’s office. She later found her own  house; however, post staff had not inspected this house even though she  had lived in it for several months. In other cases, volunteers and staff said  that housing was approved despite deficiencies, with the understanding  that the community would rectify the problems before the volunteer  arrived. The community failed to comply, however, and staff did not revisit  the sites to ensure that problems had been resolved.
Several inspector general safety assessments reported instances where the  Peace Corps’ failure to inspect housing resulted in volunteers’ not having  appropriate housing when they arrived at their sites. According to recent  Peace Corps reports, some posts have unclear or nonexistent criteria for  selecting a house, which can result in volunteers living in inappropriate  housing. For example, the Peace Corps’ review of one post found that  unclear housing standards led to multiple instances of volunteers’ living in  inadequate housing. In one case, a volunteer lived in a one-room apartment  with her counterpart and the counterpart’s boyfriend.
Poorly defined assignments and unsupportive counterparts may also  increase volunteers’ risk by limiting their ability to build a support network  in their host communities. Our previous work in this area has shown that  the Peace Corps has had difficulty providing volunteers with well- structured assignments. At the posts we visited, we met volunteers whose  counterparts had no plans for them when they arrived at their sites, and  only after several months and much frustration did the volunteers find  productive activities. Several inspector general reports support this finding.  For example, at one post volunteers reported that their coworkers were  not at all or were poorly prepared for their arrival. Some volunteers had no  real job to do or had not been assigned a counterpart. Senior Peace Corps  officials agreed that poorly defined assignments pose a safety risk because  volunteers who lack the routine a job provides may spend time away from  their sites and have difficulty integrating into their communities. While 76  percent of volunteers in the 1999 volunteer satisfaction survey said that  their assignment responsibilities were moderately or mostly clear, 24  percent said these responsibilities were somewhat or not at all clear.
Peace Corps policy requires posts to maintain site history files  documenting the placement of volunteers at specific sites. Staff thus  should have a record of the safety and security environment at volunteer  placement sites to help ensure that other volunteers are not placed at sites  with significant problems. Four of the five posts we visited did not fully  comply with Peace Corps requirements—most of these kept records of  safety and security problems in the volunteers’ personal files, thereby  making it difficult for program managers to access information about  specific sites. Inadequate or nonexistent site history files can affect staff’s  ability to make informed decisions about future placements and could lead  to placements in areas where volunteers have previously experienced  safety problems. For example, at one post we visited, two female  volunteers who experienced severe sexual harassment at their site were  reassigned to new sites. Records of the incident were kept in their personal  files, but the post had no file organized geographically to track after the  volunteers were moved. A female volunteer from another program area  was later placed in a nearby assignment that required her to travel regularly  through the site where the difficulties had occurred. Reports by Peace  Corps’ inspector general and regional safety and security officers have also  cited problems with posts’ site history files.

		Peace Corps Showed Variation in Monitoring and Responding to Volunteer Concerns

Peace Corps guidance does not specify how its posts should monitor  volunteers. Peace Corps policy allows each post flexibility in establishing  the frequency of required staff visits to volunteer sites. Posts conduct site  visits to assist volunteers and monitor their activities. We found that there  is variation in the frequency of staff contact with volunteers. In addition,  volunteers have mixed views on staff responsiveness to safety and security  concerns and criminal incidents.
We reviewed about 25 percent of all site visit policies established by posts  and found that the required frequency of staff visits to volunteer sites  ranged from once per year to four times during the first year of service.  Volunteers may have more frequent contact with Peace Corps staff if they  wish. At the five posts we visited, we found that staff made regular site  visits to most volunteers, in accordance with each post’s policies. In the  1998 volunteer satisfaction survey, 68 percent of volunteers reported that  the frequency of site visits was adequate or better; 21 percent said that the  frequency of site visits was inadequate. Many volunteers at the posts we  visited were satisfied with the frequency of site visits.
Many Peace Corps staff told us that it is sometimes difficult for them to  stay abreast of volunteers’ whereabouts when volunteers are away from  their sites. Some staff also said that volunteers face safety risks when they  are away from their sites because the volunteers are outside their  supportive network and because public transportation may be unsafe. The  posts we visited have policies to keep track of volunteers who leave their  sites, but we found that volunteers’ compliance with these policies was  uneven. Many volunteers we interviewed said that they do not always  inform the Peace Corps when they leave their sites, but they may inform  other people such as neighbors. One reason volunteers may not report their  whereabouts is that Peace Corps policy states that volunteers are “on duty”  7 days per week. Although posts may not follow this policy in practice,  some volunteers said they are reluctant to inform the post when they plan  to leave their sites because they worry that the post may deduct vacation  days. This practice may make it difficult if the Peace Corps needs to  contact volunteers in an emergency.
Volunteers had mixed views about the Peace Corps’ responsiveness to  safety and security concerns and criminal incidents. (Appendix IV  describes Peace Corps provisions for responding to criminal incidents.)  The few volunteers we spoke with who said that they were victims of  assault expressed satisfaction with staff response when they reported the  incidents. However, at four of the five posts we visited, some volunteers  described instances in which staff were unsupportive when the volunteers  reported non-assault safety concerns. For example, one volunteer we  interviewed informed Peace Corps staff several times that she needed a  new housing arrangement because her doorman repeatedly locked her in  or out of her dormitory. The volunteer said staff were unresponsive, and  she had to find new housing without the Peace Corps’ assistance. In the  1998 and 1999 volunteer satisfaction surveys, 60 percent of volunteers  stated that they were satisfied with safety and security support provided by  Peace Corps staff, and about 35 percent reported that they were unsatisfied  or only somewhat satisfied with this support. According to the 1998 survey,  64 percent of volunteers said that staff response to issues raised during site  visits was adequate or better, but 26 percent of volunteers said staff  response was inadequate. Senior Peace Corps officials recognize the  importance of responding to volunteer safety concerns, and one  acknowledged the need to improve staff responsiveness, particularly to  nonassault incident reports. At two posts we visited, country directors  attributed unsupportive responses to poor communications between  volunteers and staff and to staff attitudes toward volunteers.

		Comprehensiveness and Quality of Emergency Action Plans Are Uneven

Posts must be well prepared in case an evacuation becomes necessary— Peace Corps evacuated more than 1,600 volunteers from 26 posts from  1993 to 2001. Peace Corps policy requires that all posts develop an EAP,  test it annually, and submit it and the test results to headquarters. We found  that posts complied with these requirements. However, we also found that  some posts’ EAPs lacked key information, and none of the EAPs contained  all of the dimensions listed in the EAP guidance for developing effective  emergency plans. Moreover, the Peace Corps has not defined the criteria  for a successful EAP test nor is there a standard format for reporting test  results. Both factors contribute to making the Peace Corps’ assessment of  posts’ emergency drills difficult.
The Peace Corps’ EAP policy requires posts to develop an EAP tailored to  the conditions at that post and to test the EAP annually. We found that all  posts had developed EAPs and had tested them annually. To guide the post  through the development of an EAP, the Peace Corps has created a  suggested format designed to assist the posts in formulating effective  emergency plans. This format, a checklist of about 25 dimensions, includes  items such as providing alternate transportation plans; maps demarcating  assembly points; a description of the embassy warden system; a host  government collaboration agreement that lists other government offices  that could be used as a resource during an emergency; and methods for  emergency communications. In our review of 65 EAPs (over 90 percent of  total EAPs), we found that none of the EAPs we examined contained all of  the dimensions listed in the EAP checklist, and, as illustrated in figure 4,  many lacked key information. Recent Peace Corps reviews and inspector  general evaluations have also identified numerous deficiencies in post  EAPs, including inadequate emergency contact information, undeveloped  emergency communication networks, and insufficient or nonexistent  collaborative arrangements with the host country government—items  called for in the EAP checklist. A Peace Corps official stated that some of  the checklist items were not included in the EAP because they were not  applicable. However, we found that these submitted EAPs did not explain  why this information was not relevant.
The Peace Corps’ policy requires that all posts test their EAPs but does not  establish detailed criteria for evaluating the results of the tests or for  recording the results uniformly. The agency allows country directors  discretion in making decisions in these areas. In the EAP guidelines,  making contact with volunteers is one of the first steps in responding to a  crisis. In some cases, posts set goals on time frames for reaching  volunteers, either through communication technology or by travel to the  volunteer, as benchmarks for measuring the test’s successfulness. For  example, of the five country directors we interviewed, two had set targets  for reaching at least 90 percent of their volunteers within 24 hours or less;  both country directors achieved their goals. Our review of EAP test results  showed that most tests are limited to sending a message to all volunteers  during business hours and requesting that volunteers respond when they  receive the message. According to a senior Peace Corps official, this does  not indicate how the plan would work in a real emergency. As shown in  figure 5, in our analysis of 63 EAP test results (over 90 percent of all  results) submitted to headquarters, we found that 40 percent of posts did  not provide information to headquarters on the length of time it took them  to contact volunteers.

		Underlying Factors Contribute to Uneven Implementation

Several factors contribute to the uneven implementation of Peace Corps’  safety and security policies. These factors include unclear guidance and  weaknesses in safety and security training for staff and volunteer leaders,  uneven application of supervision and oversight mechanisms, and turnover  among U.S. direct hire staff.

			Guidance Is Not Always Clear and Staff Training Is Sometimes Inadequate

The Peace Corps’ safety and security framework outlines general  requirements that posts are expected to comply with but does not often  specify required activities, documentation, or criteria for judging actual  practices. This may make it difficult for staff to understand what is  expected of them. Many posts have not developed clear reporting and  response procedures for incidents such as responding to sexual  harassment. The agency’s coordinator for volunteer safety and security  said that unclear procedures make it difficult for senior staff, including  regional directors, to establish a basis for judging the quality of post  practices. The coordinator also observed that, at some posts, regional  safety and security officers had found that staff members did not  understand what had to be done to ensure compliance with agency  policies.
Although the Peace Corps provides new staff with training on safety and  security procedures, evidence suggests that staff training may not always  be adequate. In addition, volunteer leaders and wardens who are assigned  safety and security responsibilities are not always provided with relevant  training. Program managers with whom we spoke found their initial 4-week  overseas staff training useful. However, some country directors said that  provisions could be strengthened for training lower level staff with  significant safety and security responsibilities and for continuing the  education of long-time program managers. A senior Peace Corps official  agreed with the latter observation, noting that assessment of staff  members’ long-term training experience was warranted.
Peace Corps reports have also found that some volunteer leaders who  assist in site selection and volunteer monitoring and who act as contact  points in the event of an emergency do not receive adequate training and  are not prepared to discharge their safety-related duties. Our interviews  with volunteer leaders and wardens at five posts support this finding. For  example, we visited one post where staff members relied on six volunteer  leaders to play a significant role in developing sites and responding to  volunteer concerns. Four of these volunteer leaders had held the position  for several months, but the Peace Corps had not yet trained them for their  duties. All of them expressed concern that post staff expected them to take  the lead in site development even though they had not been trained to do  this. At another post, we visited a volunteer warden whose site is a  consolidation point in the event of volunteer evacuation to a neighboring  country. She said that the Peace Corps had provided her with no training on  her responsibilities in case of an emergency.

			Uneven Application of Supervision and Oversight Mechanisms

Informal supervisory mechanisms and a limited number of staff hamper  Peace Corps efforts to ensure effective supervision and oversight. The  agency has some formal mechanisms for documenting and assessing post  practices, including the annual evaluation and testing of post EAPs and  regional safety and security officer reports on post practices. Nonetheless,  regional directors and country directors rely primarily on informal  supervisory mechanisms, such as staff meetings, conversations with  volunteers, and E-mail, to ensure that staff is doing an adequate job of  implementing the safety and security framework. Several country directors  and a former regional director stated that overreliance on informal  communications can hinder adequate oversight of staff performance in key  areas. One country director observed, for example, that it is difficult to  oversee program managers’ site development or monitoring activities  because the post does not have a formal system for overseeing.
The Peace Corps’ limited use of written or computerized records  compounds difficulties in supervising staff at posts and in identifying  implementation problems, including noncompliance records that are kept but not always updated. Officials from the Inspector General’s office  noted that their work revealed important disparities among posts in their  ability to maintain computerized records, especially site histories and  volunteer files. For example, one post we visited had created computerized  record–keeping systems that permitted easy access to information on site  visits and volunteer concerns, greatly facilitating effective supervisory  review of the quality of staff support for individual volunteers over time.  Another post was in the initial stages of creating such a system. Other  posts, however, had no such systems and did not require staff to complete  site visit reports to be filed by volunteer or location. Some posts we visited  did not formally document nonassault crimes unless the volunteer reported  the incident to the medical office.
The Peace Corps’ regional safety and security officers and staff from the  Inspector General’s office play an important role in helping posts  implement the agency’s security framework. However, the number of staff  in these offices limits their ability to provide input to posts. Staff at  headquarters and at the posts where the agency’s three regional safety and  security officers have provided assistance view these officers as a resource  for enhancing volunteer safety and security. Officers’ visits to posts can  include activities such as leading workshops with volunteers and post staff  to assess security practices; training post staff and volunteers on safety and  security issues; assisting posts in testing their EAPs and providing  feedback on the results; and helping posts respond to specific safety and  security challenges, such as preparing for national elections or reevaluating  the security situation in light of changing country conditions. However,  according to the Peace Corps, the officers provided input to only about  one–third of the agency’s posts between October 2000 and May 2002.  Oversight by the inspector general’s staff is also limited because of staffing  levels. From December 1999 through December 2001, the inspector general  issued reports containing findings on safety and security practices at 12  posts. In addition, the Peace Corps has no system to track post  compliance with inspector general recommendations to ensure that they  are properly implemented. However, according to agency officials, they are  working to develop such a system.

			Turnover Hinders Implementation of Effective Practices

One factor that may contribute to the Peace Corps’ difficulty in  implementing its safety and security policies is turnover among key  managers. According to a June 2001 Peace Corps workforce analysis,  turnover among U.S. direct hires was extremely high, ranging from 25 to 37  percent in recent years. This report found that the average tenure of these  employees was 2 years, that the agency spent an inordinate amount of time  selecting and orienting new employees, and that frequent turnover  produced a situation in which agency staff are continually “reinventing the  wheel.” The report attributed much of the problem to the 5-year  employment rule, which statutorily restricts the tenure of U.S. direct hires,  including regional directors, country desk officers, country directors and  assistant country directors, and inspector general and safety and security  staff. Several Peace Corps officials said that turnover affects the agency’s  ability to maintain continuity in oversight of post operations. In addition,  the lack of documentation described above, combined with high turnover,  means that the agency is losing opportunities to apply lessons learned from  previous staff tenures.

	Peace Corps Initiatives May Enhance Volunteer Safety and Security

In May 2002, the Peace Corps informed us of a number of initiatives that  the agency had already taken or intended to take to improve its current  safety and security practices. Peace Corps officials noted that these  initiatives were generated through an agencywide safety and security  review that began in fall 2001. The agency’s initiatives are intended to  address many of the issues we identified and may lead to improved safety  and security practices. However, the Peace Corps faces important  challenges in implementing these initiatives, and their impact on agency  practices remains to be seen.

		Peace Corps’ Initiatives Aim to Improve Performance

The Peace Corps’ initiatives are intended to improve the agency’s safety  and security practices and make them more uniform. (See figure 6 for an  overview of the Peace Corps’ initiatives announced in May 2002.) For  example, they are intended to clarify guidance, strengthen supervision and  oversight mechanisms, and provide human resources to help maintain  documentation and perform research into patterns and trends in crime  against volunteers.
To support country director efforts, the agency plans to hire additional  safety and security staff at all levels. At headquarters, the agency has stated  that it will hire an associate director for safety and security who will have  responsibility for overseeing all agency safety and security activities. To  assist the new associate director, the Peace Corps increased its staff of  field-based regional safety and security officers from three to seven in June  2002. The agency plans to add five more officers in 2003. To strengthen the  agency’s ability to analyze and apply information on crime against  volunteers, the Peace Corps has stated that it will provide the new  associate director with a safety and security data manager/analyst who will  research crime trends and related issues, in collaboration with the Office of  Medical Services.
To assist regional directors in supervising country director activities, the  Peace Corps plans to provide each of the regional directorates with a  headquarters-based security officer who will work with the country desk  units to monitor and assist post efforts to ensure that their safety and  security systems meet agency expectations. To provide full-time assistance  at the country level, all posts have been authorized to hire safety and  security administrative associates. The agency expects at least 35 posts to  create such positions within a year. Among other things, these new staff  members will assume responsibility for ensuring that posts maintain  accurate and complete records on site histories, site visits, and criminal  incident reports.
To improve staff understanding of agency safety and security policies and  requirements, a 2-year cycle of safety and security training has been  authorized. This training will be delivered through an ongoing series of  subregional workshops with six attendees from each post and led by field- based regional safety and security officers. A series of training sessions for  country desk officers and other headquarters staff will be led by  headquarters-based regional security officers. In addition, the agency has  provided easier access to its safety and security guidance by placing all  relevant materials in a single location on its agencywide intranet. Posts that  do not have easy access to the Internet were provided with these materials  on a compact disc, produced in February 2002.

		Implementation Process Remains to Be Fully Clarified

As the Peace Corps begins to implement its recently announced initiatives,  it will face a number of important challenges. The agency has yet to fully  clarify the criteria to be applied in evaluating the adequacy of agency  practices or the mechanisms to be used in documenting and sharing  information on its progress in attaining compliance with agency policies.  The agency’s response to these challenges will have a major impact on its  ability to ensure that its initiatives have their desired effect. The key to the  Peace Corps’ developing a safety and security framework that achieves its  desired goals is the effective implementation of the agency’s safety and  security initiatives.
Criteria for assessing whether the revised policies are being adequately  implemented have yet to be fully defined. The Peace Corps has taken steps  to clarify its policies and has improved and provided easier access to its  guidance on implementing these policies. However, greater clarity could be  provided without imposing detailed requirements that may be impractical  or inappropriate in some countries. For example, revised agency guidance  requires posts to include formal risk assessments in their EAPs. The agency  has guidance available on preparing such risk assessments but does not  have models available for posts to use. Similarly, the initiatives include  authorization for posts to hire administrative associates who will be  assigned various safety and security support tasks, including ensuring that  the posts’ filing systems provide ready and complete access to relevant  records. However, the agency has not developed criteria or examples for  judging the adequacy of these filing systems.

	Conclusions

The Peace Corps is embarking on a major expansion of its volunteer  workforce during a time of heightened risk for Americans living abroad.  Providing safety and security for its volunteers is the Peace Corps’ highest  priority. Our review of the agency’s efforts to ensure compliance with its  basic safety and security policies and guidelines shows that there are cases  of uneven implementation of key elements of the safety and security  framework that could pose risks to volunteers. These include uneven  performance in developing safe and secure housing and work sites,  responding to volunteer concerns, and planning for emergencies.
The Peace Corps has recently announced several new initiatives to improve  overall compliance with its safety and security policies. We believe that, if  effectively implemented, the new initiatives can reduce potential risks  facing volunteers. However, it is not yet clear how the Peace Corps will  document its progress in achieving compliance or will share information  about better practices. While the Peace Corps does generate reports on  practices at individual posts, the agency does not currently have a means to  (1) document the overall quality of its safety and security practices or (2)  assess changes in the quality of these practices over time. The initiatives do  not contain provisions for formal assessments or for documenting progress  in implementing them so that this information can be shared with staff.  Moreover, the Peace Corps has not indicated what action, if any, it intends  to take in addressing the issue of staff turnover. We believe that the Peace  Corps will need to address the implications of staff turnover if it is to  effectively implement its new initiatives designed to ensure the safety and  security of its volunteers.

	Recommendations

To help ensure that the Peace Corps’ initiatives have their intended effect,  we recommend that the Director develop indicators to assess the  effectiveness of the initiatives and include the results of these initiatives in  the agency’s annual reports under the Government Performance and  Results Act. We also recommend that the director develop a strategy to  address staff turnover as it implements its initiatives. Among other things,  this strategy could include proposals to Congress to change the law  concerning the 5-year limit on employment of U.S. direct hire staff.

	Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix V, the  Peace Corps concurred with our findings and provided additional  information on the agency’s safety and security initiatives and technical  comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
In response to our first recommendation, the Peace Corps agreed to report  on the results of its safety and security initiatives in its annual reports  under the Government Performance and Results Act. In response to our  second recommendation, the Peace Corps stated that it had developed a  strategy for mitigating the effects of high staff turnover as it implements its  safety and security initiatives, but that unless the law concerning the 5-year  rule is changed the agency cannot effectively address the difficulties  presented by staff turnover. Given the agency’s position on this matter, we  modified our recommendation to suggest that the Peace Corps submit a  proposal to Congress for changes in the 5-year rule that would facilitate  agency efforts to improve its safety and security practices.
We are sending this report to interested congressional committees and the  Director of the Peace Corps. We will also make copies available to other  interested parties on request. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http//www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-4268 if you or your staff have any questions  concerning this report. An additional GAO contact and staff  acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

You requested that we evaluate the Peace Corps’ safety and security  practices. In response, we (1) described rates and trends in crime against  volunteers and reviewed the agency’s system for generating such  information, (2) described the agency’s framework for maintaining  volunteer safety and security, (3) evaluated the Peace Corps’  implementation of this framework and identified factors affecting this  implementation, and (4) evaluated the agency’s initiatives to improve  current practices.
To address our first objective, we (a) examined agency reports on crime  trends and characteristics of assaults from 1991 to 2001; (b) reviewed  agency guidelines and interviewed medical services staff at headquarters  and in the field to clarify the Peace Corps’ processes for gathering,  analyzing, disseminating, and applying information; and (c) performed  independent analyses of Peace Corps data to determine the extent to which  agency findings accurately reflect information from the field and to explore  opportunities for additional useful analyses. To perform our independent  analyses, we obtained computer files containing original crime data for  1990 through 2001 and excerpts from the Peace Corps’ administrative  database on the numbers of volunteers serving during this period and  characteristics such as age, gender, and date of entry into service. We used  these data to replicate the Peace Corps’ analyses of crime rates and  characteristics of assaults, finding that our results were consistent with the  Peace Corps’. We also examined the data for missing elements, mislabeled  data, and related problems. We found a number of technical problems; for  example, inconsistencies in coding sometimes made it difficult to  distinguish between missing values and those that were incorrectly coded.  However, these problems did not materially affect the Peace Corps’  analyses. To obtain information on underreporting, we reviewed relevant  portions of the Peace Corps’ volunteer satisfaction surveys for 1998 and  1999 and interviewed agency staff and volunteers. We interviewed agency  staff on the potential usefulness of additional analyses and explored the  data made available to us to identify trends or relationships that merit  further inquiry. We did not attempt to verify the accuracy or completeness  of data collection among medical officers at individual posts.
To present a clear description of the agency’s framework for maintaining  volunteer safety and security, we reviewed agencywide policies and  guidance materials that are provided to post staff, such as handbooks and  examples of best practices. We also examined materials that the agency  uses in training staff to carry out their safety and security responsibilities.  We interviewed key headquarters staff, including regional managers,  country desk officers, general counsel and medical office officials, and the  agency’s coordinator for volunteer safety and security about their roles and  responsibilities and the manner in which agency policies and guidance  materials are applied in practice. To obtain broader perspectives on safety  and security challenges in developing countries and options for responding  to those challenges, we spoke with security specialists at the Department  of State in Washington, D.C., and with U.S. embassy security officers in the  countries we visited, listed below. We also spoke with headquarters or  field-level staff, or both, from a number of organizations that face security  and safety challenges similar to those faced by the Peace Corps, including  the Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteer Program, the British  Volunteer Service Organization, and the United Nations’ Volunteer  Program. We attended a conference on security practices for  nongovernmental organizations sponsored by the American Red Cross.
To evaluate the Peace Corps’ implementation of its safety and security  framework, we obtained documents from and interviewed headquarters  and field-level staff and volunteers. We visited posts in Bulgaria, El  Salvador, Kenya, Senegal, and Ukraine to examine safety and security  practices. At these posts, we interviewed agency staff with significant  safety and security responsibilities, including country directors, program  managers, and medical officers, and the three regional safety and security  officers employed by the Peace Corps at the time of our work. We  examined post record-keeping procedures and relevant files. We spoke  with more than 150 volunteers, visiting more than 30 at their sites and  speaking with their local counterparts when possible. To broaden our  understanding of Peace Corps practices beyond the countries we were able  to visit, we consulted the results of the Peace Corps’ worldwide volunteer  satisfaction surveys for 1998 and 1999, all 12 reports issued by the agency’s  inspector general between December 1999 and December 2001 that  contained findings on safety and security issues, and reports on relevant  issues at 24 posts generated by the agency’s safety and security staff  between September 2000 and November 2001. We examined nine  assessments of the security environment in individual countries prepared  between 1996 and 2001. In addition, we obtained and analyzed  documentation on specific safety and security functions at multiple posts  when it was available. For example, we examined 65 post emergency  action plans (EAP) and headquarters’ feedback on these plans, and we  reviewed site development criteria and procedures from 18 posts in the  Peace Corps’ Inter-America/Pacific region, in addition to those from the  posts we visited.
To evaluate the Peace Corps’ recently announced safety and security  initiatives, we obtained and reviewed documentation on the initiatives and  the Peace Corps’ efforts to clarify and provide easier access to agency  policies and guidance materials. We met with the Peace Corps’ Director  and other senior staff to discuss the substance and intent of the proposed  measures.
We conducted our work from July 2001 through May 2002 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Other Organizations’ Safety and Security Approaches Vary According to Work and Goals

Organizations that assign personnel to live and work abroad can draw from  three basic strategies to develop safety and security procedures:  acceptance—reducing the risk level by integrating into a host   protection—reducing vulnerability by employing protective devices,  such as walls and locks; and  deterrence—eliminating threats by posing a counterthreat, for example,  by employing armed guards.
Organizations that emphasize person-to-person cultural exchange as a  major goal tend to rely on the acceptance approach to safety and security;  they seek to enhance safety and security primarily by ensuring that  individuals are accepted as members of host communities. Nonetheless,  these organizations may differ substantially in the details of their approach.  As organizations become less concerned with establishing person-to- person ties within a host community and more concerned with achieving  specific technical or development goals, they may place more emphasis on  protection and, sometimes, deterrence measures. The following are  descriptions of strategies employed by organizations that face safety and  security challenges similar to those faced by the Peace Corps—the  Volunteer Service Organization, the Japanese Overseas Cooperation  Volunteers, the United Methodist Volunteers in Mission, the foreign mission  program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United  Nations Volunteers, and Save the Children.
The Volunteer Service Organization is a British nongovernmental  organization whose goals and safety and security approach are similar to  the Peace Corps’, with a few key differences. The organization maintains  2,000 volunteers in 71 countries for average tours of 2 years, mostly in rural  areas or provincial towns. Like the Peace Corps, the agency seeks to fight  poverty and promote international understanding. In contrast to the Peace  Corps, the organization advertises and recruits on a job-by-job basis in  response to specific requests from counterpart organizations in developing  countries. The organization thus faces less of a challenge than the Peace  Corps in finding productive employment and supportive organizations for  volunteers. Volunteers average 38 years of age and are often experienced.  Although its approach to identifying housing and monitoring volunteers is  similar to the Peace Corps, the organization provides less safety and  security training. It provides general risk-awareness training before  volunteers’ departure for their country of service and limited country- and  placement-specific risk awareness and management training upon  volunteers’ arrival in the country. In contrast to the Peace Corps, which has  EAPs in all of the countries where it operates, the organization has EAPs  only in countries where such plans are deemed necessary.
The Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteers also resembles the Peace  Corps in its goals and approach to safety and security, with some  differences. The organization operates in more than 70 countries under the  aegis of the Japan International Cooperation Agency, that country’s  bilateral development agency. Similar to the Peace Corps, this program  sends volunteers to spend 2 years working in agriculture, civil engineering,  health, and other program areas. Unlike Peace Corps volunteers, the  Japanese volunteers are considered government employees. Like the  Volunteer Service Organization, the Japanese program recruits volunteers  for individual jobs and therefore has fewer difficulties with finding suitable  jobs for its volunteers. The program does not have a formal policies and  procedures manual, although it has been consulting with the Peace Corps  on the development of such a manual. The organization uses a five-step  classification system to assess risks in specific countries and develops  actions to take on the basis of risk level. Program officials stated that the  agency provides volunteers with a 3-month training program in Japan,  which includes some safety and security training, but the agency provides  little, if any, in-country training. Volunteers might use cell phones, satellite  phones, radios, or other communication tools; the organization strives to  ensure that each volunteer can be reached within 6 hours. The Peace Corps  has no such minimum standard. Program officials participate in their  parent organization’s EAPs.
The United Methodist Volunteers in Mission, while citing intercultural  exchange and relationship building as a goal, differs significantly from the  Peace Corps in that volunteers generally serve only 1 to 6 months and thus  have less time to integrate into a community. This church-sponsored  organization, part of the United Methodist Committee on Relief, recruits  volunteers to work in areas such as education and construction. Unlike the  Peace Corps, these volunteers pay a fee to the Committee on Relief to  cover costs, including housing and food, while in the country where they  are placed. Most Methodist-sponsored volunteers are middle-aged through  retirement age. A program official indicated that the safety and security  training the organization provides is not as intense as the Peace Corps’  because volunteers are generally in the country for only a short time; the  organization provides some information on cultural sensitivity before  volunteers’ departure and an orientation when they arrive in country.    Although it is not always possible for volunteers to be in daily contact with  office staff, one individual with the volunteers is responsible for them on a  24-hour basis and can contact the office whenever needed.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sends volunteers to do  mission work worldwide. The majority of the volunteers are male and all  are young—the upper age limit is 26. A church official indicated that the  church provides little training in safety and security. The church monitors  volunteers frequently to ensure their safety. Unlike the Peace Corps,  church volunteers always travel and live in pairs and report to the in- country mission on a weekly or daily basis, depending on the risk level of  the country. Volunteers also have support from local church members in  the community in which they serve. Most volunteers have telephone lines  in their apartments, but they are not supposed to have cell phones or radios  because officials think these items could make volunteers targets for theft  and assault.
United Nations Volunteers operate under the auspices of the United  Nations Development Program. Volunteers generally work on a program  project alongside program staff and, much like the program’s regular  employees, are chosen for a specific job. United Nations Volunteers are not  asked to build intercultural relationships. About 5,000 of these volunteers  are currently working in about 150 countries; many are native to the  country in which they work. Volunteers usually serve for 2 years, although  the program uses some short-term volunteers in times of crisis. Unlike  Peace Corps volunteers, these volunteers usually live in the same  communities as other United Nations or government staff, often in capital  cities or urban areas; many bring their families and are given the use of a  vehicle. Program officials stated that they do not perform formal risk  assessments, but they added that they do not place volunteers in countries  or areas that are considered dangerous. Program officials indicated that  they provide little safety and security training, although the United Nations  provides a safety and security handbook to staff members and volunteers  in the United Nations system. There is little formal monitoring of  volunteers. Volunteers typically have telephones in their homes and may  also have cell phones or radios for project-related reasons.
Save the Children is a development-oriented, nongovernmental  organization with offices in about 31 countries, with staff focused on a  specific job, not on intercultural exchange. In contrast to Peace Corps  volunteers, most expatriate staff have had overseas experiences and are  typically in their 30s. Much of the organization’s funding is from the U.S.  Agency for International Development, and staff typically work closely  with agency and U.S. embassy staff. The organization has not made it a  practice to conduct formal risk assessments but instead relies on other  nongovernmental organizations and the U.S. embassy for information.  However, headquarters is beginning to task overseas offices with  responsibility for conducting risk assessments. Although program officials  indicated that the organization provides little training in safety and security,  they have asked the Peace Corps and other U.S. government agencies for  advice on training. Unlike Peace Corps volunteers, Save the Children staff  live in the expatriate community and may have radios, cell phones, or both,  depending on job needs and risk. They have frequent contact with other  nongovernmental organizations and U.S. government employees, who live  and work in the same area. In addition, country directors prepare weekly  reports on staffs’ current and future locations and vacation schedules.

Peace Corps’ Crime Data Analysis System and Crime Trends

The Peace Corps has established two reporting systems for collecting  information on crimes against volunteers. The agency’s medical staff  operates both systems. As described in this report, Peace Corps data show  that, with the exception of major sexual assaults, reported rates of assault  against volunteers have been higher in recent years than in the early 1990s.  Historical data for aggravated assaults and rapes—the most consistent data  available to Peace Corps analysts—support these overall findings.  Reported rates of nonassault crimes, in contrast, have remained essentially  unchanged since 1990.

	Peace Corps Has Two Systems for Collecting Crime Information

Post medical officers are tasked with collecting detailed information on  each assault incident reported by volunteers and submitting this  information to headquarters through the Peace Corps’ assault notification  and surveillance system. In 1997, the medical office refined the reporting  categories employed in this system. Formerly asked to differentiate among  only four types of assaults, field medical staff are now asked to submit  reports on five types of sexual assault and five types of physical assault.  When filling out reporting forms, medical officers are asked to ascertain a  variety of details on victims, assailants, and the circumstances surrounding  each assault, such as time and location of the incident. Medical officers are  also asked to submit monthly counts of four types of nonassault crimes  through the Peace Corps’ epidemiologic surveillance system, which is a  reporting system that focuses primarily on gathering statistics on volunteer  injuries and illnesses. These reports do not provide any details on the  reported events.

	Trends Differ for Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Nonassault Crimes

Aggravated assault and rape are the only two categories of crime for which  reporting definitions remained unchanged when the Peace Corps revised  its system for categorizing and recording crimes in 1997. Therefore, data on  these crimes may be the most consistent available to the Peace Corps. As  shown in figure 7, the reported rate of aggravated assault against  volunteers has been consistently higher since 1996 than in earlier years. As  shown in figure 8, reports of rape have varied from year to year, most  recently declining from a median rate of about 4.6 per 1,000 female  volunteer years in 1996–1998 to a median level of about 3 per 1,000 female  volunteer years in 1999–2001. Table 1 shows the actual numbers of  aggravated assaults and rapes that were reported. Since the numbers of  assaults, especially sexual assaults, are small, there is some question about  the practical significance of these changes.
Rates of nonassault crimes have varied little since 1993, when the agency  began collecting information on incidents of burglary, theft, and robbery.  Figure 9 shows a slight decrease in reported robberies and burglaries since  1993, while figure 10 shows a slight increase in reported thefts.

Peace Corps Provisions for Responding to Criminal Incidents

Peace Corps policy requires posts to develop procedures for responding to  all safety and security incidents reported by volunteers. The agency has not  developed clear guidance for posts to apply in responding to minor  incidents. However, the Peace Corps does have well-defined notification  and response protocols for major sexual assaults, and posts follow similar  procedures when volunteers report major physical assaults. In addition,  when a volunteer decides to prosecute, the Peace Corps’ Office of General  Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General’s investigations unit may  provide assistance.
The Peace Corps’ Rape Response Handbook, developed in 1999, establishes  a protocol to ensure timely notification of appropriate staff at posts and at  headquarters and describes the roles and responsibilities of post and  headquarters staff in responding to a rape or attempted rape. In addition to  giving guidance for reporting the incident to agency headquarters as  previously described in this report, the handbook clearly establishes that  the post’s medical officer is responsible for providing medical care to the  volunteer who has been assaulted and for collecting forensic evidence in  case the volunteer decides to prosecute. The country director is  responsible for ensuring that the victim, as well as other volunteers and  trainees, is safe; preserving the option to prosecute (e.g., by advising the  volunteer of her legal rights, preserving evidence, etc.); and notifying the  security office at the U.S. embassy of the assault while protecting the  volunteer’s identity unless identification is essential. Embassy security staff  are expected to support the Peace Corps in any investigation or  prosecution following the incident.
The Peace Corps follows similar notification and response protocols when  a volunteer reports a major physical assault. The medical officer reports  the assault to the Office of Medical Services at headquarters and provides  medical treatment to the volunteer. As with a rape incident, the medical  officer notifies the country director of the assault, although in the interest  of medical confidentiality the volunteer’s identity and details of the incident  may not be disclosed. The country director is responsible for informing the  U.S. embassy security officer of the assault and may work with the  embassy if the volunteer decides to prosecute.
According to Peace Corps data, 18 percent of volunteers who experienced  a major sexual assault and 26 percent of volunteers who reported a major  physical assault between 1997 and 1999 said that they intended to  prosecute. When a volunteer decides to prosecute, the Peace Corps’ Office  of General Counsel covers the cost of legal counsel in the country where  the assault happened.   The Office of the Inspector General’s investigations  unit, in conjunction with other federal agencies, may also provide support  in investigations of crimes against volunteers. For example, inspector  general staff may conduct interviews with Peace Corps staff and local  authorities, escort volunteers who are asked to identify suspects, or  arrange for examination of forensic evidence.

Comments from the Peace Corps

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to Ms. Anderson, key contributors to this report were Wendy  Ahmed, Kriti Bhandari, Lynn Cothern, Suzanne Dove, Bruce Kutnick,  Michael McAtee, James Strus, and Christina Werth.

	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

	To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

	Public Affairs

Summary:
What GAO Found

About 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers now serve in 70 countries, often living in areas with limited access to reliable communications, police, or medical services. Moreover, as Americans, they may be viewed as relatively wealthy and hence good targets for criminal activity. The Peace Corps has reported rising numbers of assaults against its volunteers since it began collecting data in 1990. However, the Peace Corps' record is mixed when it comes to developing safe and secure housing and worksites for volunteers, monitoring volunteers and responding to security concerns or criminal incidents, and preparing for emergencies. To reduce risks to its volunteers, the Peace Corps has adopted policies that address monitoring and disseminating information on the security environment; volunteer training; development of safe and secure housing and work sites for volunteers; monitoring volunteers and responding to incidents and concerns; and planning for emergencies, such as evacuations. Volunteer surveys and GAO visits to five overseas ports indicate that volunteers are generally satisfied with agency training programs and other efforts designed to emphasize safety and security awareness. The agency is not certain, but officials have stated that efforts to improve its system for collecting crime data may have led to higher reported rates. In May 2002, the Peace Corps told GAO of several initiatives to improve current safety and security practices. Although these initiatives are directed at many of the obstacles to improved performance, they do not address staff turnover.