Human Capital: Status of Actions Needed to Improve the Timely and Accurate Delivery of Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Civilians
Published: 2010-04-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in policies on compensation and medical benefits. When these civilians are deployed and serve side by side, differences in compensation or medical benefits may become more apparent and could adversely impact morale. This statement is based on GAO's 2009 congressionally requested report, which compared agency policies and identified any issues in policy or implementation regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical benefits, and (3) identification and tracking of deployed civilians. GAO reviewed laws, policies, and guidance; interviewed responsible officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); and conducted a survey of civilians deployed from the six agencies between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2008. GAO made ten recommendations for agencies to take actions such as reviewing compensation laws and policies, establishing medical screening requirements, and creating mechanisms to assist and track deployed civilians. Seven of the agencies--including DOD-- generally agreed with these recommendations; U.S. Agency for International Development did not. This testimony also updates the actions the agencies have taken to address GAO's recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are generally comparable, GAO found some issues that can lead to differences in the amount of compensation and the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. For example, two comparable supervisors who deploy under different pay systems may receive different rates of overtime pay because this rate is set by the employee's pay system and grade/band. While a congressional subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for civilians deployed to war zones and recommend enabling legislation, at the time of GAO's 2009 review, OPM had not yet done so. Also, implementation of some policies may not always be accurate or timely. For example, GAO estimates that about 40 percent of the deployed civilians in its survey reported experiencing problems with compensation, including danger pay. In June 2009, GAO recommended, among other things, that OPM oversee an executive agency working group on compensation to address differences and, if necessary, make legislative recommendations. OPM generally concurred with this recommendation and recently informed GAO that an interagency group is in the process of developing proposals for needed legislation. Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found some issues with medical care following deployment and post deployment medical screenings. Specifically, while DOD allows its treatment facilities to care for non-DOD civilians after deployment in some cases, the circumstances are not clearly defined and some agencies were unaware of DOD's policy. Further, while DOD requires medical screening of civilians before and following deployment, State requires screenings only before deployment. Prior GAO work found that documenting the medical condition of deployed personnel before and following deployment was critical to identifying conditions that may have resulted from deployment. GAO recommended, among other things, that State establish post-deployment screening requirements and that DOD establish procedures to ensure its post-deployment screening requirements are completed. While DOD and State agreed, DOD has developed guidance establishing procedures for post-deployment screenings; but, as of April 2010, State had not provided documentation that it established such requirements. Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians. DOD had procedures to identify and track civilians but concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented. Some agencies had to manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical information on the location and movement of personnel, which may hamper their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging health issues. GAO recommended that DOD enforce its tracking requirements and the other five agencies establish tracking procedures. While DOD and four agencies concurred with the recommendations and are now in various stages of implementation, U.S. Agency for International Development disagreed stating that its current system is adequate. GAO continues to disagree with this agency's position.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 2009 report on the actions  needed to better track and provide timely and accurate compensation and  medical benefits to deployed federal civilians. As the Department of  Defense (DOD) has expanded its involvement in overseas military  operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its federal civilian  workforce to provide support. The civilian workforce performs, among  other things, combat support functions that traditionally have been  performed by the uniformed military, such as logistics support and  maintenance. DOD acknowledged its growing reliance on civilian  personnel in its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, and since fiscal year  2004, the department has converted thousands of military positions to  civilian positions and is planning to convert more. In addition, in April  2009, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to convert 33,600 contract  positions to federal civilian positions. The Department of State (State) and  other federal agencies also play an important role in the stabilization and  reconstruction of at-risk countries and regions, consistent with a  collaborative, “whole of government” approach.
According to a recent DOD report, the federal government has deployed  over 44,000 civilians since 2001 in support of contingency operations  around the world, including the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in  Iraq and Afghanistan. These deployed civilians work in close proximity to  one another and represent a cross section of employees from a number of  different agencies. While in theater, deployed civilians—regardless of  which executive agency employs them—fall under the purview of either  DOD or State, but remain subject to the administrative processes of  their employing agencies for compensation. This civilian workforce  consists of employees who are compensated under several different pay  systems in use at the time of our review, including the General Schedule  (GS), Foreign Service (FS), and National Security Personnel System  (NSPS). Each of these pay systems is governed by unique authorizing  statutes, most of which existed prior to the current operations in Iraq and  Afghanistan. The statutes, as implemented in accordance with Office of  Personnel Management (OPM) and agency regulations and policies,  outline the monetary and nonmonetary compensation to which employees  under each system are entitled, certain elements of which are set without  regard to the location in which they are working. Monetary compensation  includes payments such as salary and danger pay and nonmonetary  compensation includes benefits such as leave and retirement  contributions. In addition, these deployed civilians are entitled to certain  medical benefits.
As we previously reported, DOD’s use of civilian personnel to support  military operations has long raised questions about its policies on  compensation and medical benefits for such civilians. For example, in  2006, DOD did not have quality assurance procedures in place to ensure  that deployed civilians completed (1) pre-deployment health assessments  to make certain they were medically fit to deploy and (2) post-deployment  health assessments to document their health status following deployment,  environmental exposures, and health concerns related to their work while  deployed. Consequently, DOD had no assurance that civilians were  medically fit to deploy and could not identify any follow-up medical  treatment these civilians required following deployment. In addition, we  reported that procedures were not in place during the Gulf War to provide  for overtime or danger pay that deployed civilians were entitled to  receive. Now that other executive agencies in addition to DOD and State  are deploying civilians to Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has noted that  although these civilians are working under similar conditions and being  exposed to the same risks, they may be receiving different levels of  compensation and medical benefits. The unique working conditions  employees may encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan can create an  environment that increases the visibility of issues associated with pay  systems and compensation that employees working under normal  circumstances would not encounter. When these civilians are deployed  and serve side by side, the differences in pay systems may become more  apparent and may adversely impact morale. As a result, Congress has  enacted a number of laws aimed at leveling compensation for deployed  civilians across agencies and pay systems. For example, beginning in 2006,  Congress granted agency heads the discretion to provide their deployed  civilians certain compensation and benefits comparable to those of the  Foreign Service, such as death gratuities and leave benefits. Congress has  also enacted laws that allow agency heads to waive premium pay caps for  deployed civilians.
In addition, in April 2008, the Subcommittee on Oversight and  Investigations, House Armed Services Committee, issued a report on  incentives, benefits, and medical care for deployed civilians. In this  report, the Subcommittee recommended, among other things, that OPM  develop an incentive and benefits package that would apply to all federal  civilians deployed to a war zone and submit legislative recommendations,  if necessary, to Congress. In June 2008, OPM issued a memorandum urging  the executive agencies that deploy civilians to make every effort to  eliminate any disparities or inconsistencies in these deployed civilians’  compensation by applying any available and appropriate compensation  authorities.
My statement today focuses on our 2009 review of executive agencies’  policies and practices regarding the compensation and medical benefits  they provide to civilian employees who deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Specifically, we examined the extent to which the six agencies we  reviewed have (1) comparable policies concerning compensation and any  issues that may affect the compensation to which deployed civilians are  entitled (2) comparable policies and practices concerning medical benefits  for deployed civilians and any issues that may affect the medical benefits  to which deployed civilians are entitled and (3) policies and procedures to  identify and track deployed civilians to address any future medical issues  that may emerge as a result of their deployment.
To determine whether the six selected executive branch agencies have  comparable policies on compensation and medical benefits for their  deployed civilians, we reviewed applicable federal statutes, guidance,  memoranda, and other policy documents, and we conducted a  comparative analysis of these documents. We also interviewed agency  officials, including officials at OPM, to identify their perspectives on the  compensation and medical benefits to which their civilians are entitled  both during and following their deployments. To determine the extent to  which these agencies have any implementation issues that may affect the  compensation and medical benefits to which deployed civilians are  entitled, we reviewed pre-deployment information and instructional  documents pertaining to the compensation and medical benefits to which  deployed civilians are entitled, as well as agency practices for medically  screening civilians both before and following their deployments. We also  conducted a Web survey of a probability sample of civilians from lists we  obtained from our selected agencies who were deployed to Iraq or  Afghanistan between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, to gather  information on their experiences. Specifically, this survey gathered,  among other things, information from deployed civilians about  instructional documents received, medical screening, and receipt of  compensation and medical care during and following their deployments.  To further explore issues that were identified by survey respondents, we  conducted small group discussions with deployed DOD and State civilians  serving in Iraq at the time of our review. We also conducted interviews  with DOD and State officials, including medical personnel, reviewed the  universe of workers’ compensation claims filed with the Department of  Labor between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, by civilians deployed  to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we interviewed Labor officials concerning the  workers’ compensation claims process. To determine the extent to which  agencies identify and track deployed civilians for medical purposes, we  reviewed applicable agency guidance and interviewed knowledgeable  agency officials. To assess the reliability of the data in these lists and  workers’ compensation claims, we (1) reviewed existing information  about the systems that generated these lists and claims information and  (2) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the systems and  information. We determined that the information was sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of our review.
We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we  plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
subsections: section_title: While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and Completeness of Compensation
paragraphs: Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are  generally comparable across agencies, we found some issues that affect  the amount of compensation these civilians receive—depending on such  things as the agency’s pay system or the civilian’s grade/band level—and  the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation.  Specifically, the six agencies included in our 2009 review provided similar  types of deployment-related compensation to civilians deployed to Iraq or  Afghanistan. Agency policies regarding compensation for federal  employees—including deployed civilians—are subject to regulations and  guidance issued by either OPM or other executive agencies, in accordance  with underlying statutory personnel authorities. In some cases, the  statutes and implementing regulations provide agency heads with  flexibility in how they administer their compensation policies. For  example, agency heads are currently authorized by statute to provide their  civilians deployed to combat zones with certain benefits—such as death  gratuities and leave benefits—comparable to those provided the Foreign  Service, regardless of the underlying pay system of the employee’s agency.
However, some variations in compensation available to deployed civilians  result directly from the employing agency’s pay system and the employee’s  pay grade/band level. For example, deployed civilians, who are often  subject to extended work hours, may expect to work 10-hour days, 5 days  a week, resulting in 20 hours of overtime per pay period. A nonsupervisory  GS-12 step 1 employee receives a different amount of compensation for  overtime hours than a nonsupervisory employee who earns an equivalent  salary under NSPS. Specifically, the NSPS nonsupervisory employee is  compensated for overtime at a rate equivalent to 1.5 times the normal  hourly rate while the GS nonsupervisory employee is compensated for  overtime at a rate equivalent to 1.14 times the normal hourly rate. Further,  we noted that a GS-12 step 1 employee receives a different rate of  compensation for overtime hours than a GS-12 step 6 employee.  Specifically, the GS-12 step 1 employee is compensated for overtime at a  rate equivalent to 1.14 times the normal hourly rate, while the GS-12 step 6  employee is compensated for overtime at the normal hourly rate.
Additionally, deployed civilians may receive different compensation based  on their deployment status. Agencies have some discretion to determine  the travel status of their deployed civilians based on a variety of factors— DOD, for example, looks at factors including length of deployment,  employee and agency preference, and cost. Generally though, deployments  scheduled for 180 days or less are classified as “temporary duty”  assignments, whereas deployments lasting more than a year generally  result in an official “change of station” assignment. Nonetheless, when  civilians are to be deployed long term, agencies have some discretion to  place them in either temporary duty or change of station status, subject to  certain criteria. The status under which civilians deploy affects the type  and amount of compensation they receive. For example, approximately 73  percent of the civilians who were deployed between January 1, 2006, and  April 30, 2008, by the six agencies we reviewed were deployed in  temporary duty status and retained their base salaries, including the  locality pay associated with their home duty stations. Civilians deployed to  Iraq or Afghanistan as a change of station do not receive locality pay, but  they do receive base salary and may be eligible for a separate maintenance  allowance, which varies in amount based on the number of dependents the  civilian has. The civilian’s base salary also impacts the computation of  certain deployment-related pays, such as danger pay and post hardship  differential, as well as the computation of premium pay such as overtime.  Consequently, whether a civilian’s base salary includes locality pay or not  can significantly affect the total compensation to which that civilian is  entitled—resulting in differences of several thousand dollars.
As a result of these variations, deployed civilians at equivalent pay grades  who work under the same conditions and face the same risks may receive  different compensation. As mentioned previously, the Subcommittee on  Oversight and Investigations, House Armed Services Committee,  recommended in April 2008 that OPM develop a benefits package for all  federal civilians deployed to war zones, to ensure that they receive  equitable benefits. But at the time of our 2009 review, OPM had not  developed such a package or provided legislative recommendations. In  September 2009, OPM officials stated that DOD had initiated an  interagency working group to discuss compensation issues and that this  group had developed some proposals for legislative changes. However,  they noted, at that time, that these proposals had not yet been submitted  to Congress, and they did not, according to DOD officials, represent a  comprehensive package for all civilians deployed to war zones, as  recommended by the Subcommittee.
Furthermore, compensation policies were not always implemented  accurately or in a timely manner. For example, based on our survey  results, we project that approximately 40 percent of the estimated 2,100  civilians deployed from January 1, 2006, to April 30, 2008, experienced  problems with compensation—including not receiving danger pay or  receiving it late, for instance—in part because they were unaware of their  eligibility or did not know where to go for assistance to start and stop  these deployment-related pays. In fact, officials at four agencies  acknowledged that they have experienced difficulties in effectively  administering deployment-related pays, in part because there is no single  source of guidance delineating the various pays associated with  deployment of civilians. As we previously reported concerning their  military counterparts, unless deployed personnel are adequately  supported in this area, they may not be receiving all of the compensation  to which they are entitled.
Additionally, in January 2008, Congress authorized an expanded death  gratuity—under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA)—of up  to $100,000 to be paid to the survivor of a deployed civilian whose death  resulted from injuries incurred in connection with service with an armed  force in support of a contingency operation. Congress also gave agency  heads discretion to apply this death gratuity provision retroactively for any  such deaths occurring on or after October 7, 2001, as a result of injuries  incurred in connection with the civilian’s service with an armed force in  Iraq or Afghanistan. At the time of our 2009 review, Labor—the agency  responsible for the implementing regulations under FECA—had not yet  issued its formal policy on administering this provision. Labor officials  told us in May 2009 that, because of the recent change in administration,  they could not provide us with an anticipated issue date for the final  policy. Officials from the six agencies included in our review stated at that  time that they were delaying the development of policies and procedures  to implement the death gratuity until after Labor issued its policy. As a  result, some of these agencies had not moved forward on these provisions  when we issued our report.
We therefore recommended that (1) OPM oversee an executive agency  working group on compensation for deployed civilians to address any  differences and if necessary make legislative recommendations; (2) the  agencies included in our review establish ombudsman programs or, for  agencies deploying small numbers of civilians, focal points to help ensure  that deployed civilians receive the compensation to which they are  entitled; and (3) Labor set a time frame for issuing implementing guidance  for the death gratuity. We provided a copy of the draft report to the  agencies in our review. With the exception of USAID, which stated that it  already had an ombudsman to assist its civilians, all of the agencies  generally concurred with these recommendations. USAID officials,  however, at the time of our testimony, had not provided any  documentation to support the existence of the ombudsman position. In the  absence of such documentation, we continue to believe our  recommendation has merit. In comments on our final report, OPM officials  stated that an interagency group was in the process of developing  proposals for needed legislation. However, at the time of this testimony,  these officials stated that no formal legislative proposals have been  submitted. In addition, some of the agencies have taken action to create  ombudsman programs. Specifically, DOD and USDA officials stated that  their ombudsman programs have been implemented. Additionally, Justice  and State officials stated that they would take action such as developing  policy and procedures for their ombudsman programs; however, at the  time of this testimony, USDA, Justice, and State had not provided  documentation to support their statements. Finally, the Department of  Labor published an interim final rule implementing the $100,000 death  gratuity under FECA in August 2009, and finalized the rule in February  2010.
section_title: While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation
paragraphs: Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, our 2009 review  found some issues with policies related to medical treatment following  deployment and with the implementation of workers’ compensation and  post-deployment medical screening that affect the medical benefits of  these civilians. DOD and State guidance provides for medical care of all  civilians during their deployments—regardless of the employing agency.  For example, DOD policies entitle all deployed civilians to the same level  of medical treatment while they are in theater as military personnel. State  policies entitle civilians serving under the authority of the Chief of Mission  to treatment for routine medical needs at State facilities while they are in  theater.
While DOD guidance provides for care at military treatment facilities for  all DOD civilians—under workers’ compensation—following their  deployments, we reported that the guidance does not clearly define the  “compelling circumstances” under which non-DOD civilians would be  eligible for such care. Because DOD’s policy was unclear, we found that  confusion existed within DOD and other agencies regarding civilians’  eligibility for care at military treatment facilities following deployment.  Furthermore, officials at several agencies were unaware that civilians from  their agencies were potentially eligible for care at DOD facilities following  deployment, in part because these agencies had not received the guidance  from DOD about this eligibility. Because some agencies were not aware of  their civilians’ eligibility for care at military treatment facilities following  deployment, these civilians could not benefit from the efforts DOD has  undertaken in areas such as post traumatic stress disorder.
Moreover, civilians who deploy may also be eligible for medical benefits  through workers’ compensation if Labor determines that their medical  condition resulted from personal injury sustained in the performance of  duty during deployment. Our review of all 188 workers’ compensation  claims related to deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan that were filed with  the Labor Department between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008, found  that Labor requested additional information in support of these claims in  125 cases, resulting in increased processing times that in some instances  exceeded the department’s standard goals for processing claims. Twenty- two percent of the respondents to our survey who had filed workers’  compensation claims stated that their agencies provided them with little or  no support in completing the paperwork for their claims. Labor officials  stated that applicants failed to provide adequate documentation, in part  because they were unaware of the type of information they needed to  provide. Furthermore, our review of Labor’s claims process indicated that  Labor’s form for a traumatic injury did not specify what supporting  documents applicants had to submit to substantiate a claim. Specifically,  while this form states that the claimant must “provide medical evidence in  support of disability,” the type of evidence required is not specifically  identified. Without clear information on what documentation to submit in  support of their claims, applicants may continue to experience delays in  the process.
Additionally, DOD requires deploying civilians to be medically screened  both before and following their deployments. However, we found that  post-deployment screenings are not always conducted, because DOD lacks  standardized procedures for processing returning civilians. Approximately  21 percent of DOD civilians who responded to our survey stated that they  did not complete a post-deployment health assessment. In contrast, we  determined that State generally requires a medical clearance as a  precondition to deployment but has no formal requirement for post- deployment screenings of civilians who deploy under its purview. Our  prior work has found that documenting the medical condition of deployed  civilians both before and following deployment is critical to identifying  conditions that may have resulted from deployment, such as traumatic  brain injury.
To address these matters, we recommended that (1) DOD clarify its  guidance concerning the circumstances under which civilians are entitled  to treatment at military treatment facilities following deployment and  formally advise other agencies that deploy civilians of its policy governing  treatment at these facilities; (2) Labor revise the application materials for  workers’ compensation claims to make clear what documentation  applicants must submit with their claims; (3) the agencies included in our  review establish ombudsman programs or, for agencies deploying small  numbers of civilians, focal points to help ensure that deployed civilians get  timely responses to their applications and receive the medical benefits to  which they are entitled; (4) DOD establish standard procedures to ensure  that returning civilians complete required post-deployment medical  screenings; and (5) State develop post-deployment medical screening  requirements for civilians deployed under its purview. The agencies  generally concurred with these recommendations, with the exception of  USAID, which stated that it already had an ombudsman to assist its  civilians. USAID officials, however, at the time of this testimony had not  provided any documentation to support the existence of the ombudsman  position. In the absence of such documentation, we continue to believe  our recommendation has merit. To clarify DOD’s guidance concerning the  availability of medical care at military treatment facilities following  deployment for non-DOD civilians and to formally advise other agencies  that deploy civilians of the circumstances under which care will be  provided, DOD notified these agencies about its policies in an April 1, 2010  letter. Specifically, the letter identified information the department posted  on its Civilian Expeditionary Workforce Web site. This information  included (1) a training aid explaining the procedures for requesting access  to a military treatment facility following deployment, (2) a standard form  to request approval to receive treatment at a military treatment facility  following deployment, and (3) frequently asked questions that DOD states  provides further clarity on its policies. In addition, DOD has taken some  steps to standardize procedures for ensuring civilians returning from  deployment complete required post-deployment medical screenings. For  example, guidance on DOD’s Civilian Expeditionary Workforce Web site  states that deployment out-processing will include completion of the post- deployment health assessment. On the other hand, State officials noted  that they would implement post-deployment screenings in 2010; however,  as of April 2010, State had not provided documentation supporting that it  established such requirements. Finally, officials from some of the agencies  told us that they have taken action to create ombudsman programs.  Specifically, officials from DOD and USDA said that their programs have  been implemented. In addition, officials from Justice and State stated that  they would take action such as developing policy and procedures for their  ombudsman programs; however, at the time of this testimony, USDA,  Justice, and State had not provided documentation to support their  statements.
section_title: Executive Agencies’ Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited
paragraphs: While each of the agencies we reviewed was able to provide a list of  deployed civilians, none of these agencies had fully implemented policies  and procedures to identify and track its civilians who have deployed to  Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD, for example, issued guidance and established  procedures for identifying and tracking deployed civilians in 2006 but  concluded in 2008 that its guidance and associated procedures were not  being consistently implemented across the agency. In 2008 and 2009, DOD  reiterated its policy requirements and again called for DOD components to  comply. The other agencies we reviewed had some ability to identify  deployed civilians, but they did not have any specific mechanisms  designed to identify or track location-specific information on these  civilians. As we have previously reported, the ability of agencies to report  location-specific information on employees is necessary to enable them to  identify potential exposures or other incidents related to deployment.  Lack of such information may hamper these agencies’ ability to intervene  quickly to address any future health issues that may result from  deployments in support of contingency operations. We therefore  recommended that (1) DOD establish mechanisms to ensure that its  policies to identify and track deployed civilians are implemented and   (2) the five other executive agencies included in our review develop  policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized  information on deployed civilians. The agencies generally concurred with  these recommendations, with the exception of USAID, which stated that it  already had an appropriate mechanism to track its civilians who had  deployed but was consolidating its currently available documentation. We  continue to disagree with USAID’s position since it does not have an  agencywide system for tracking civilians and believe that our  recommendation is appropriate. Additionally, the other agencies are now  in various stages of implementation. For example, DOD officials stated, at  the time of this testimony, that they were in the process of developing a  new DOD instruction that would include procedures for the department’s  components to track its civilians. Justice officials stated that they will  establish policies and procedures while USDA officials said they would  rely on State Department led offices in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with  internal measures such as spreadsheets and travel authorizations, for  tracking of its personnel. State Department officials noted, after talking  with executive agencies including DOD, they planned to establish their  own tracking mechanisms.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Deployed civilians are a crucial resource for success in the ongoing  military, stabilization, and reconstruction operations in Iraq and  Afghanistan. Most of the civilians—68 percent of those in our review— who deploy to these assignments volunteered to do so, are motivated by a  strong sense of patriotism, and are often exposed to the same risks as  military personnel. Because these civilians are deployed from a number of  executive agencies and work under a variety of pay systems, any  inconsistencies in the benefits and compensation they receive could affect  that volunteerism. Moreover, DOD’s and State’s continued efforts to  develop cadres of deployable civilians demonstrates that these agencies  recognize the critical role that federal civilians play in supporting ongoing  and future contingency operations and stabilization and reconstruction  efforts throughout the world. Given the importance of the missions these  civilians support and the potential dangers in the environments in which  they work, agencies should make every reasonable effort to ensure that  the compensation and benefits packages associated with such service  overseas are appropriate and comparable for civilians who take on these  assignments. It is equally important that federal executive agencies that  deploy civilians make every reasonable effort to ensure that these civilians  receive all of the medical benefits and compensation to which they are  entitled. These efforts include maintaining sufficient data to enable  agencies to inform deployed civilians about any emerging health issues  that might affect them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may  have at this time.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product 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.