Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Western 

Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics 

Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, 

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 PEACE CORPS

Observations on Volunteer 

Safety and Security 

Statement of Jess T. Ford 

Director, International Affairs and Trade 

GAO-04-903T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-903T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at 

(202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-903T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Western 

Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics 

Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations, 

U.S. Senate 

June 22, 2004

PEACE CORPS

Observations on Volunteer Safety and 

Security 

The full extent of crime against Peace Corps volunteers is unclear due to 

significant under-reporting. However, Peace Corps’ reported rates for most 

types of assaults have increased since the agency began collecting data in 

1990. The agency’s data analysis has produced useful insights, but additional 

analyses could help improve anti-crime strategies. Peace Corps has hired an 

analyst to enhance data collection and analysis to help the agency develop 

better-informed intervention and prevention strategies. 

In 2002, we reported that Peace Corps had developed safety and security 

policies but that efforts to implement these policies in the field had 

produced varying results. Some posts complied, but others fell short. 

Volunteers were generally satisfied with training. However, some housing 

did not meet standards and, while all posts had prepared and tested 

emergency action plans, many plans had shortcomings. Evidence suggests 

that agency initiatives have not yet eliminated this unevenness. The 

inspector general continues to find shortcomings at some posts. However, 

recent emergency action plan tests show an improved ability to contact 

volunteers in a timely manner (see figure). 

In 2002, we found that uneven supervision and oversight, staff turnover, and 

unclear guidance hindered efforts to ensure quality practices. The agency 

has taken action to address these problems. To strengthen supervision and 

oversight, it established an office of safety and security, supported by three 

senior staff at headquarters, nine field-based safety and security officers, and 

a compliance officer. In response to our recommendations, Peace Corps was 

granted authority to exempt 23 safety and security positions from the “5-year 

rule”—a statutory restriction on tenure. It also adopted a framework for 

monitoring post compliance and quantifiable performance indicators. 

However, the agency is still clarifying guidance, revising indicators, and 

establishing a performance baseline. 

Post Reports of Volunteer Contact Time in EAP Tests in 2001 and 2003 

About 7,500 Peace Corps 

volunteers currently serve in 70 

countries. The administration 

intends to increase this number to 

about 14,000. Volunteers often live 

in areas with limited access to 

reliable communications, police, or 

medical services. As Americans, 

they may be viewed as relatively 

wealthy and, hence, good targets 

for crime. In this testimony, GAO 

summarizes findings from its 2002 

report Peace Corps: Initiatives for 

Addressing Safety and Security 

Challenges Hold Promise, but 

Progress Should be Assessed, GAO02-818, on (1) trends in crime 

against volunteers and Peace 

Corps’ system for generating 

information, (2) the agency’s field 

implementation of its safety and 

security framework, and (3) the 

underlying factors contributing to 

the quality of these practices. 

In 2002, to ensure that Peace Corps 

initiatives to improve safety and 

security performance would have 

their intended effect, GAO 

recommended that the agency (1) 

develop indictors to assess the 

effectiveness of these initiatives 

and (2) develop a strategy to 

address staff turnover. 
Page 1 GAO-04-903T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here to discuss Peace Corps’ efforts to ensure the safety 

and security of its volunteers. My testimony is based on our July 2002 

report, information we obtained from the Peace Corps to update our 

analysis, and recent testimony before the House of Representatives.1

About 7,500 Peace Corps volunteers currently serve in 70 “posts” (country 

missions) around the world. The administration intends to increase this 

number to about 14,000 over the next few years, and Congress has 

increased appropriations for the Peace Corps to support this expansion. 

Volunteers often live in areas with limited access to reliable 

communications, police, or medical services. As Americans, they may be 

viewed as relatively wealthy and, hence, good targets for criminal activity. 

In many countries, female volunteers face special challenges; more than a 

third of female volunteers report experiencing sexual harassment on at 

least a monthly basis.2

My testimony today will summarize and update, where possible, key 

findings from our 2002 report related to (1) trends in crime against 

volunteers and the agency’s system for generating such information, (2) 

the agency’s field implementation of its safety and security framework, 

and (3) the underlying factors that contributed to Peace Corps’ 

performance in the field. I will also discuss actions that Peace Corps has 

taken to improve the safety and security of its volunteers since we issued 

our report. 

We conducted fieldwork at Peace Corps’ headquarters and visited five 

countries with Peace Corps programs to prepare our report. To develop 

our analysis, we 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-02-818, Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing 

Safety and Security Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should be Assessed 

(Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002); and GAO-04-600T, Peace Corps: Status of Initiatives to 

Improve Volunteer Safety and Security (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004). We reported 

separately on events surrounding one specific security incident—the disappearance of a 

volunteer in Bolivia in early 2001. See The Peace Corps Failed to Properly Supervise 

Missing Volunteer and Lost Track of Him, GAO-O1-970R (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 

2001). 

2

Most recent available data, from Peace Corps Volunteer Survey Global Report 2002, Peace 

Corps (August 2003). 
Page 2 GAO-04-903T 

• analyzed Peace Corps’ crime data; 

• reviewed agencywide safety and security policies, guidelines, training 

materials, volunteer satisfaction surveys, and Inspector General reports; 

• interviewed key staff and more than 150 volunteers; and 

• examined practices for selecting volunteer sites, developing emergency 

action plans, and performing other tasks. 

We conducted our work from July 2001 through May 2002 and from 

February 2004 through March 2004, in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

In summary, we found the following: 

Peace Corps’ reported incidence rates of crimes committed against 

volunteers have remained essentially unchanged since we last reported.3

Reported rates for most types of assaults have increased since Peace 

Corps began collecting data in 1990, but reported rates have stabilized in 

recent years. For example, the reported incidence rate for major physical 

assaults nearly doubled from an average of about 9 per 1,000 volunteer 

years in 1991-1993 to an average of about 17 per 1,000 volunteer years4

 in 

1998-2000. Data for 2001 and 2002 show that this rate has not changed. The 

full extent of crime against Peace Corps volunteers is unknown because 

there is significant underreporting of crime by volunteers. We reported 

that Peace Corps had initiated efforts to encourage reporting and collect 

additional data but that there were also other unrealized opportunities for 

additional examination of data. For example, our analysis showed that 

newer volunteers may be more likely to become victims of crime than 

their more experienced colleagues. In response to our findings, in April 

2003, Peace Corps hired an analyst to enhance its capacity for gathering 

and analyzing crime data. The analyst has focused on upgrading the crime 

data system and shifting the responsibility for data collection and analysis 

from the medical office to the newly created safety and security office, to 

place the responsibility for crime data in an office dedicated to safety and 

 3

The Peace Corps crime data system records and tracks data by criminal “event” rather 

than by volunteer; those charged with filing reports are instructed to count events involving 

more than one volunteer only once. 

4

One volunteer year is equivalent to 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee. 
Page 3 GAO-04-903T 

security. According to the analyst, additional crime analyses have not yet 

been conducted, as the focus has been on upgrading the process for 

collecting and reporting data. 

We reported that Peace Corps’ headquarters had developed a safety and 

security framework but that the field’s implementation of the framework 

had produced varying results. While volunteers were generally satisfied 

with the agency’s training programs, there was mixed performance in key 

elements of the framework such as in developing safe and secure housing 

sites, monitoring volunteers, and planning for emergencies. For example, 

at each of the five posts we visited, we found instances of volunteers who 

began their service in housing that had not been inspected and had not 

met Peace Corps’ guidelines. We also found that the frequency of staff 

contact with volunteers and the quality and comprehensiveness of 

emergency action plans varied. Recent tests of the emergency action plans 

indicate that the agency has made improvements in the length of time 

needed to contact volunteers. To improve safety and security practices in 

the field, in 2002, the agency increased the number of field-based safety 

and security officers charged with reviewing post practices and assisting 

them in making improvements, and created a safety and security position 

at each post. Peace Corps hired a compliance officer charged with 

independently assessing each post’s compliance with the framework. 

However, recent Inspector General reports indicate that safety and 

security shortcomings in the field are still occurring. 

We reported that a number of factors, including staff turnover, informal 

supervision and oversight mechanisms, and unclear guidance hampered 

Peace Corps’ efforts to ensure high-quality performance for the agency as 

a whole. For example, Peace Corps reported that high staff turnover, 

caused in part by the agency’s statutorily imposed 5-year limit on 

employment for U.S. direct hire staff, had resulted in a lack of institutional 

memory, producing a situation in which agency staff are continually 

“reinventing the wheel.” We made a recommendation that Peace Corps 

develop a strategy to address staff turnover, including an assessment of 

the “5-year rule”—a statutory restriction on the tenure of U.S. direct hire 

employees.5

 In response to our recommendation on staff turnover and the 

difficulties it created, Peace Corps was granted authority to exempt safety 

 5

See U.S.C. 2506(a)(5), (6) and Public Law 108-7, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003, as well as Public Law 108-199, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004. This and other issues are addressed in H.R. 4060, passed June 1, 2004. 

The bill has not been passed by the Senate as of June 22, 2004. 
Page 4 GAO-04-903T 

and security staff from the 5-year rule. The agency has exempted 23 staff 

positions from the 5-year rule and plans to conduct a study to determine 

whether there are additional positions that should be exempted. To 

strengthen supervision and oversight, Peace Corps created an office of 

safety and security that centralizes safety and security functions under an 

associate directorship. The office is supported by a staff member in each 

of the three regional bureaus, a compliance officer, an analyst, and nine 

field-based security officers. We also recommended that Peace Corps 

develop performance indicators and report on its safety and security 

initiatives. The agency is still clarifying its guidance on how to apply its 

revised framework, revising its indicators of progress, and establishing a 

base line for judging performance in all areas of safety and security. 

In conclusion, since we issued our report in July 2002, it is clear that the 

agency has taken a number of steps designed to improve the safety and 

security of its volunteers. However, Peace Corps is still in the process of 

implementing many of these actions and their full effect has yet to be 

demonstrated. 

Created in 1961, Peace Corps is mandated by statute to help meet 

developing countries’ needs 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 co-workers. 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. 

Volunteer health, safety, and security is Peace Corps’ highest priority, 

according to the agency. To address this commitment, the agency has 

 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-903T 

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. 

Peace Corps relies heavily on country directors—the heads of agency 

posts in foreign capitals—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. 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 and contributors to development. 

Reported incidence rates of crime against volunteers have remained 

essentially unchanged since we completed our report in 2002.6

 Reported 

incidence rates for most types of assaults have increased since Peace 

Corps began collecting data in 1990, but have stabilized in recent years. 

The reported incidence rate for major physical assaults has nearly 

doubled, averaging about 9 assaults per 1,000 volunteer years in 1991-1993 

and averaging about 17 assaults in 1998-2000. Reported incidence rates for 

major assaults remained unchanged over the next 2 years. Reported 

incidence rates of major sexual assaults have decreased slightly, averaging 

about 10 per 1,000 female volunteer years in 1991-1993 and about 8 per 

1,000 female volunteer years in 1998-2000. Reported incidence rates for 

major sexual assaults averaged about 9 per 1,000 female volunteer years in 

2001-2002. 

Peace Corps’ system for gathering and analyzing data on crime against 

volunteers has produced useful insights, but we reported in 2002 that steps 

could be taken to enhance the system. Peace Corps officials agreed that 

reported increases are difficult to interpret; the data could reflect actual 

increases in assaults, better efforts to ensure that agency staff report all 

 6

Crime data are available through 2002. Based on our assessment of crime data that we 

performed in preparing our 2002 report and subsequent discussions with agency officials, 

we concluded that the data we obtained to update the rates and trends in crime against 

volunteers were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this statement. 

Reported Crime 

Incidents Have 

Increased, but Full 

Extent of Crime 

against Volunteers 

Remains Unknown 
Page 6 GAO-04-903T 

assaults, and/or an increased willingness among volunteers to report 

incidents. The full extent of crime against volunteers, however, is 

unknown because of significant underreporting. Through its volunteer 

satisfaction surveys, Peace Corps is aware that a significant number of 

volunteers do not report incidents, thus reducing the agency’s ability to 

state crime rates with certainty. For example, according to the agency’s 

1998 survey, volunteers did not report 60 percent of rapes and 20 percent 

of nonrape sexual assaults. Reasons cited for not reporting include 

embarrassment, fear of repercussions, confidentiality concerns, and a 

belief that Peace Corps could not help. 

In 2002, we observed that opportunities for additional analyses existed 

that could help Peace Corps develop better-informed intervention and 

prevention strategies. For example, our analysis showed that about a third 

of reported assaults after 1993 occurred from the fourth to the eighth 

month of service—shortly after volunteers completed training, arrived at 

sites, and began their jobs. We observed that this finding could be 

explored further and used to develop additional training. 

Since we issued our report, Peace Corps has taken steps to strengthen its 

efforts for gathering and analyzing crime data. The agency has hired an 

analyst responsible for maintaining the agency’s crime data collection 

system, analyzing the information collected, and publishing the results for 

the purpose of influencing volunteer safety and security policies. Since 

joining the agency a year ago, the analyst has focused on redesigning the 

agency’s incident reporting form to provide better information on victims, 

assailants, and incidents and preparing a new data management system 

that will ease access to and analysis of crime information. However, these 

new systems have not yet been put into operation. The analyst stated that 

the reporting protocol and data management system are to be introduced 

this summer, and responsibility for crime data collection and analysis will 

be transferred from the medical office to the safety and security office. 

According to the analyst, she has not yet performed any new data analyses 

because her focus to date has been on upgrading the system. 

Efforts to Improve Data 

Collection and Analysis 

Are in Process 
Page 7 GAO-04-903T 

We reported that Peace Corps’ headquarters had developed a safety and 

security framework but that the field’s implementation of this framework 

was uneven. The agency has taken steps to improve the field’s compliance 

with the framework, but recent Inspector General reports indicate that 

this has not been uniformly achieved. We previously reported that 

volunteers were generally satisfied with the agency’s training programs. 

However, some volunteers had housing that did not meet the agency’s 

standards, there was great variation in the frequency of staff contact with 

volunteers, and posts had emergency action plans with shortcomings. To 

increase the field’s compliance with the framework, in 2002, the agency 

hired a compliance officer at headquarters, increased the number of fieldbased safety and security officer positions, and created a safety and 

security position at each post. However, recent Inspector General reports 

continued to find significant shortcomings at some posts, including 

difficulties in developing safe and secure sites and preparing adequate 

emergency action plans. 

In 2002, we found that volunteers were generally satisfied with the safety 

training that the agency provided, but we found a number of instances of 

uneven performance in developing safe and secure housing. 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 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. 

Safety and Security 

Framework Unevenly 

Implemented in the 

Field 

Volunteers Are Generally 

Satisfied with Training 
Page 8 GAO-04-903T 

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, at each of the five 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. Poorly defined 

work assignments and unsupportive counterparts may also increase 

volunteers’ risk by limiting their ability to build a support network in their 

host communities. At the posts we visited, we met volunteers whose 

counterparts had no plans for the volunteers when they arrived at their 

sites, and only after several months and much frustration did the 

volunteers find productive activities. 

We found variations in the frequency of staff contact with volunteers, 

although many of the volunteers at the posts we visited said they were 

satisfied with the frequency of staff visits to their sites, and a 1998 

volunteer satisfaction survey reported that about two-thirds of volunteers 

said the frequency of visits was adequate or better. However, volunteers 

had mixed views about Peace Corps’ responsiveness to safety and security 

concerns and criminal incidents. The few volunteers we spoke with who 

said 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 safety concerns. For example, 

one volunteer said she informed Peace Corps 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 2002, we reported that, while all posts had tested their emergency 

action plan, many of the plans had shortcomings, and tests of the plans 

varied in quality and comprehensiveness. Posts must be well prepared in 

case an evacuation becomes necessary. In fact, evacuating volunteers 

from posts is not an uncommon event. In the last two years Peace Corps 

has conducted six country evacuations involving nearly 600 volunteers. 

We also reported that many posts did not include all expected elements of 

a plan, such as maps demarcating volunteer assembly points and alternate 

transportation plans. In fact, none of the plans contained all of the 

dimensions listed in the agency’s Emergency Action Plan checklist, and 

Mixed Performance in 

Housing, Monitoring 

Volunteers, and 

Emergency Action Plans 
Page 9 GAO-04-903T 

many lacked key information. In addition, we found that in 2002 Peace 

Corps had not defined the criteria for a successful test of a post plan. 

Peace Corps has initiated a number of efforts to improve the field’s 

implementation of its safety and security framework, but Inspector 

General reports continued to find significant shortcomings at some posts. 

However, there has been improvement in post communications with 

volunteers during emergency action plan tests. We reviewed 10 Inspector 

General reports conducted during 2002 and 2003. Some of these reports 

were generally positive—one congratulated a post for operating an 

“excellent” program and maintaining high volunteer morale. However, a 

variety of weaknesses were also identified. For example, the Inspector 

General found multiple safety and security weaknesses at one post, 

including incoherent project plans and a failure to regularly monitor 

volunteer housing. The Inspector General also reported that several posts 

employed inadequate site development procedures; some volunteers did 

not have meaningful work assignments, and their counterparts were not 

prepared for their arrival at site. In response to a recommendation from a 

prior Inspector General report, one post had prepared a plan to provide 

staff with rape response training and identify a local lawyer to advise the 

post of legal procedures in case a volunteer was raped. However, the post 

had not implemented these plans and was unprepared when a rape 

actually occurred. 

Our review of recent Inspector General reports identified emergency 

action planning weaknesses at some posts. For example, the Inspector 

General found that at one post over half of first year volunteers did not 

know the location of their emergency assembly points. However, we 

analyzed the results of the most recent tests of post emergency action 

plans and found improvement since our last report. About 40 percent of 

posts reported contacting almost all volunteers within 24 hours, compared 

with 33 percent in 2001. Also, our analysis showed improvement in the 

quality of information forwarded to headquarters. Less than 10 percent of 

the emergency action plans did not contain information on the time it took 

to contact volunteers, compared with 40 percent in 2001. 

Actions Taken to Improve 

Field Compliance, but 

Implementation Still 

Uneven 
Page 10 GAO-04-903T 

In our 2002 report, we identified a number of factors that hampered Peace 

Corps efforts to ensure that this framework produced high-quality 

performance for the agency as a whole. These included high staff turnover, 

uneven application of supervision and oversight mechanisms, and unclear 

guidance. We also noted that Peace Corps had identified a number of 

initiatives that could, if effectively implemented, help to address these 

factors. The agency has made some progress but has not completed 

implementation of these initiatives. 

High staff turnover hindered high quality performance for the agency. 

According to a June 2001 Peace Corps workforce analysis, turnover among 

U.S. direct hires was extremely high, ranging from 25 percent 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.” Much of the problem was attributed 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 stated that turnover affected the agency’s 

ability to maintain continuity in oversight of post operations. 

In 2002, we also found that informal supervisory mechanisms and a limited 

number of staff hampered Peace Corps efforts to ensure even application 

of supervision and oversight. The agency had some formal mechanisms for 

documenting and assessing post practices, including the annual evaluation 

and testing of post emergency action plans and regional safety and 

security officer reports on post practices. Nonetheless, regional directors 

and country directors relied primarily on informal supervisory 

mechanisms, such as staff meetings, conversations with volunteers, and 

e-mail to ensure that staff were doing an adequate job of implementing the 

safety and security framework. One country director observed that it was 

difficult to oversee program managers’ site development or monitoring 

activities because the post did not have a formal system for performing 

these tasks. We also reported that Peace Corps’ capacity to monitor and 

provide feedback to posts on their safety and security performance was 

limited by the small number of staff available to perform relevant tasks. 

We noted that the agency had hired three field-based safety and security 

specialists to examine and help improve post practices, and that the 

Inspector General also played an important role in helping posts 

implement the agency’s safety and security framework. However, we 

reported that between October 2000 and May 2002 the safety and security 

Underlying Factors 

Contributed to 

Uneven Field 

Implementation, but 

Agency Has Taken 

Steps to Improve 

Performance 
Page 11 GAO-04-903T 

specialists had been able to provide input to only about one-third of Peace 

Corps’ posts while the Inspector General had issued findings on safety and 

security practices at only 12 posts over 2 years. In addition, we noted that 

Peace Corps had no system for tracking post compliance with Inspector 

General recommendations. 

We reported that the agency’s guidance was not always clear. The agency’s 

safety and security framework outlines requirements that posts are 

expected to comply with but did not often specify required activities, 

documentation, or criteria for judging actual practices—making it difficult 

for staff to understand what was expected of them. Many posts had not 

developed clear reporting and response procedures for incidents, such as 

responding to sexual harassment. The agency’s coordinator for volunteer 

safety and security stated that unclear procedures made 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, field-based safety and security officers had found that staff 

members did not understand what had to be done to ensure compliance 

with agency policies. 

The agency has taken steps to reduce staff turnover, improve supervision 

and oversight mechanisms, and clarify its guidance. In February 2003, 

Congress passed a law to allow U.S. direct hires whose assignments 

involve the safety of Peace Corps volunteers to serve for more than 5 

years. The Peace Corps Director has employed his authority under this law 

to designate 23 positions as exempt from the 5-year rule. These positions 

include nine field-based safety and security officers, the three regional 

safety and security desk officers working at agency headquarters, as well 

as the crime data analyst and other staff in the headquarters office of 

safety and security. They do not include the associate director for safety 

and security, the compliance officer, or staff from the office of the 

Inspector General. Peace Corps officials stated that they are about to hire 

a consultant who will conduct a study to provide recommendations about 

adding additional positions to the current list. 

To strengthen supervision and oversight, Peace Corps has increased the 

number of staff tasked with safety and security responsibilities and 

created the office of safety and security that centralizes all securityrelated activities under the direction of a newly created associate 

directorate for safety and security. The agency’s new crime data analyst is 

a part of this directorate. In addition, Peace Corps has 

Peace Corps Taking Steps 

to Address These Factors 
Page 12 GAO-04-903T 

• appointed six additional field-based safety and security officers, bringing 

the number of such individuals on duty to nine (with three more positions 

to be added by the end of 2004); 

• authorized each post to appoint a safety and security coordinator to 

provide a point of contact for the field-based safety and security officers 

and to assist country directors in ensuring their post’s compliance with 

agency policies, including policies pertaining to monitoring volunteers and 

responding to their safety and security concerns (all but one post have 

filled this position); 

• appointed safety and security desk officers in each of Peace Corps’ three 

regional directorates in Washington, D.C., to monitor post compliance in 

conjunction with each region’s country desk officers; and 

• appointed a compliance officer, reporting to the Peace Corps Director, to 

independently examine post practices and to follow up on Inspector 

General recommendations on safety and security. 

In response to our recommendation that the Peace Corps Director develop 

indicators to assess the effectiveness of the new initiatives and include 

these in the agency’s annual Government Performance and Results Act 

reports, Peace Corps has expanded its reports to include 10 quantifiable 

indicators of safety and security performance. 

To clarify agency guidance, Peace Corps has 

• created a “compliance tool” or checklist that provides a fairly detailed and 

explicit framework for headquarters staff to employ in monitoring post 

efforts to put Peace Corps’ safety and security guidance into practice in 

their countries, 

• strengthened guidance on volunteer site selection and development, 

• developed standard operating procedures for post emergency action plans, 

and 

• concluded a protocol clarifying that the Inspector General’s staff has 

responsibility for coordinating the agency’s response to crimes against 

volunteers. 

These efforts have enhanced Peace Corps’ ability to improve safety and 

security practices in the field. The threefold expansion in the field-based 

safety and security officer staff has increased the agency’s capacity to 
Page 13 GAO-04-903T 

support posts in developing and applying effective safety and security 

policies. Regional safety and security officers at headquarters and the 

agency’s compliance officer monitor the quality of post practices. All posts 

were required to certify that they were in compliance with agency 

expectations by the end of June 2003. Since that time, a quarterly reporting 

system has gone into effect wherein posts communicate with regional 

headquarters regarding the status of their safety and security systems and 

practices. 

The country desks and the regional safety and security officers, along with 

the compliance officer, have been reviewing the emergency action plans of 

the posts and providing them with feedback and suggestions for 

improvement. The compliance officer has created and is applying a matrix 

to track post performance in addressing issues deriving from a variety of 

sources, including application of the agency’s safety and security 

compliance tool and Inspector General reports. The compliance officer 

and staff from one regional office described their efforts, along with fieldbased safety and security staff and program experts from headquarters, to 

ensure an adequate response from one post where the Inspector General 

had found multiple safety and security weaknesses. 

However, efforts to put the new system in place are incomplete. As already 

noted, the agency has developed, but not yet introduced, an improved 

system for collecting and analyzing crime data. The new associate director 

of safety and security observes that the agency’s field-based safety and 

security officers come from diverse backgrounds and that some have been 

in their positions for only a few months. All have received training via the 

State Department’s bureau of diplomatic security. However, they are still 

employing different approaches to their work. Peace Corps is preparing 

guidance for these officers that would provide them with a uniform 

approach to conducting their work and reporting the results of their 

analyses, but the guidance is still in draft form. The Compliance Officer 

has completed detailed guidance for crafting emergency action plans, but 

this guidance was distributed to the field only at the beginning of this 

month. Moreover, following up on our 2002 recommendation, the agency’s 

Deputy Director is heading up an initiative to revise and strengthen the 

indicators that the agency uses to judge the quality of all aspects of its 

operations, including ensuring volunteer safety and security, under the 

Government Performance and Results Act. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have at this time. 
Page 14 GAO-04-903T 

For further information regarding this statement, please contact Phyllis 

Anderson, Assistant Director, International Affairs and Trade, at 

(202) 512-7364 or andersonp@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this statement were Michael McAtee, Suzanne Dove, 

Christina Werth, Richard Riskie, Bruce Kutnick, Lynn Cothern, and Martin 

de Alteriis. 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320294) 
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. However, 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. 
The General Accounting 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. 

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 fulltext 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 e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs