	While Policies on Compensation Are Generally Comparable, Some Policy and Implementation Issues Affect the Amount, Accuracy, and Completeness of Compensation

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. 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. But at the time of our 2009 review, OPM had not  developed such a package or provided legislative recommendations. 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. 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. In comments on our final report, OPM officials  stated that an interagency group was in the process of developing  proposals for needed legislation. While Policies on Medical Benefits Are Generally Comparable, Some Issues Exist in Both Policies and Implementation

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. 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. 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. Executive Agencies’ Ability to Track Deployed Civilians Is Limited

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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.