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. 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.