Peace Corps: Observations on Volunteer Safety and Security
Published: 2004-06-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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, GAO-02-818 , 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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    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.  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 years 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  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. In response to our recommendation on staff turnover and the  difficulties it created, Peace Corps was granted authority to exempt safety  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Reported Crime Incidents Have Increased, but Full Extent of Crime against Volunteers Remains Unknown
paragraphs: Reported incidence rates of crime against volunteers have remained  essentially unchanged since we completed our report in 2002. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Efforts to Improve Data Collection and Analysis Are in Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Safety and Security Framework Unevenly Implemented in the Field
paragraphs: 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 field- based 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.
subsections: section_title: Volunteers Are Generally Satisfied with Training
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Mixed Performance in Housing, Monitoring Volunteers, and Emergency Action Plans
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Actions Taken to Improve Field Compliance, but Implementation Still Uneven
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Underlying Factors Contributed to Uneven Field Implementation, but Agency Has Taken Steps to Improve Performance
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Peace Corps Taking Steps to Address These Factors
paragraphs: 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 security-  related 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    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,    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  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 field- based 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.
section_title: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
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.