This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-818 
entitled 'Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security 
Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should Be Assessed' which was 
released on July 25, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



July 2002:



Peace Corps:



Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security Challenges Hold Promise, 

but Progress Should Be Assessed:



GAO-02-818:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Reported Crime Incidents Have Increased, but the Full Extent of Crime 

Against Volunteers Is Unknown Due to Underreporting:



Peace Corps Provides Broad Guidance and Support to Posts, Relying on 

Them to Develop and Implement Effective 

Practices:



Peace Corps’ Safety and Security Framework Is Unevenly Implemented:



Peace Corps Initiatives May Enhance Volunteer Safety

and Security:



Conclusions:



Recommendations:



Agency Comments:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Other Organizations’ Safety and Security Approaches 

Vary According to Work and Goal:



Appendix III: Peace Corps’ Crime Data Analysis System and Crime 

Trends:



Peace Corps Has Two Systems for Collecting Crime Information:



Trends Differ for Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Nonassault

Crimes:



Appendix IV: Peace Corps Provisions for Responding to Criminal 

Incidents:



Appendix V: Comments from the Peace Corps:



Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:



GAO Contact:



Staff Acknowledgments:



Table:



Table 1: Number of Aggravated Assaults and Rapes Reported by 
Volunteers, 

1990-2001:



Figures:



Figure 1: Incidence of Reported Physical Assaults against Volunteers,  

1991-2000:



Figure 2: Incidence of Reported Sexual Assaults against Female 

Volunteers, 1991-2000:



Figure 3: Reported Assaults against Volunteers in Relation to Length of 

Volunteer Service, 1993-2001:



Figure 4: Percentage of Post EAPs Missing Selected Elements from Agency 

Checklist:



Figure 5: Post Reports of Volunteer Contact Time in 2001 EAP Tests:



Figure 6: Summary of Peace Corps Safety and Security Initiatives of May 

2002:



Figure 7: Incidence Rates of Reported Aggravated Assaults, 1990-2001:



Figure 8: Incidence Rates of Reported Rape, 1990-2001:



Figure 9: Incidence Rates of Reported Robberies and Burglaries, 1993-

2000:



Figure 10: Incidence Rates of Reported Thefts, 1993-2000:



Abbreviations:



EAP: emergency action plan:



Letter July 25, 2002:



The Honorable Cynthia A. McKinney

The Honorable Martin T. Meehan

House of Representatives:



Approximately 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers currently serve in about 70 

countries, where they face a variety of safety and security risks. 

Volunteers often live in areas with limited access to reliable 

communications, police, or medical services and, as Americans, may be 

viewed as relatively wealthy and hence good targets for criminal 

activity. Incidents such as the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in 

Kenya and Tanzania and the events of September 11, 2001, have 

heightened awareness about the risks facing all Americans, especially 

those living abroad. In his State of the Union address, President Bush 

proposed doubling the number of volunteers worldwide and increasing the 

number of Peace Corps posts.



You asked us to evaluate Peace Corps safety and security policies and 

practices. In this report, we (1) describe rates and trends in crime 

against volunteers and review the agency’s system for generating such 

information, (2) describe the agency’s framework for maintaining 

volunteer safety and security, (3) evaluate the Peace Corps’ 

implementation of this framework, and (4) review agency initiatives to 

improve current practices. We also describe practices employed by other 

organizations, such as the Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteers, 

that face safety and security challenges similar to the Peace Corps.



To meet our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed Peace Corps documents 

and data, including safety and security guidance; data on crime against 

volunteers since 1990; the results of worldwide volunteer satisfaction 

surveys in 1998 and 1999; and reports on agency safety and security 

practices prepared by the Peace Corps’ Office of the Inspector General 

and by the agency’s safety and security staff. We conducted fieldwork 

in five countries (Bulgaria, El Salvador, Kenya, Senegal, and Ukraine) 

and met with Peace Corps staff, volunteers, and representatives of 

local organizations that host volunteers. Finally, we interviewed 

agency officials and representatives of other organizations that face 

similar safety challenges. Appendix I provides a more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology.



Results in Brief:



The Peace Corps has reported increased numbers of assaults against its 

volunteers since it established a data collection system in 1990. The 

reported incidence rate for major physical assaults nearly doubled from 

about an average of 9 per 1,000 volunteer years[Footnote 1] in 1991-93 

to an average of about 17 per 1,000 volunteer years in 1998-2000. The 

agency is not certain of the reasons for the higher occurrence rate, 

but officials have stated that its efforts to improve its system for 

collecting crime data may be a factor that has led to higher reported 

crimes. Yet it is unclear what the full extent of incidents may be 

because volunteer surveys have indicated that there is significant 

underreporting of crime. The Peace Corps has initiated efforts to 

encourage reporting and collect additional data, but there are also 

other unrealized opportunities for additional examination of data. For 

example, our analysis suggests that newer volunteers may be more likely 

to become victims of crime than their more experienced colleagues. 

Additional data analysis by the Peace Corps could enhance the agency’s 

ability to refine its intervention and prevention strategies.



The Peace Corps designates maintenance of volunteers’ health, safety, 

and security as the agency’s highest priority. To reduce the risks 

facing its volunteers, the Peace Corps has adopted policies that 

address, in broad terms, monitoring and disseminating information on 

the security environment; volunteer training; development of safe and 

secure housing and work sites for volunteers; monitoring volunteers and 

responding to incidents and concerns; and planning for emergencies such 

as evacuations. In addition to establishing agency policies, Peace 

Corps headquarters is responsible for providing guidance and training 

on how to implement these policies and supervision and oversight. The 

agency relies on its country directors--the heads of agency posts in 

foreign capitols--to develop and implement procedures that suit 

conditions in individual countries. Volunteers also play a role in 

ensuring their own safety by complying with agency policies and 

exercising good judgment and common sense.



The Peace Corps’ efforts to ensure effective implementation of its 

safety and security policies have produced varying results. Volunteer 

surveys and our visits to five overseas posts indicate that volunteers 

appear to be generally satisfied with agency training programs and 

other efforts designed to emphasize safety and security awareness. 

However, there is mixed performance in key areas, such as developing 

safe and secure housing and work sites for volunteers, monitoring 

volunteers and responding when they express security concerns or 

experience criminal incidents, and preparing for emergencies. For 

example, while many volunteers are provided with adequate housing and 

clearly defined assignments, some experience safety problems resulting 

from housing that has not been inspected or does not meet post 

standards. A number of factors, including unclear guidance, staff 

training that is sometimes inadequate, uneven application of 

supervision and oversight mechanisms, and staff turnover, hamper Peace 

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

whole. For example, the Peace Corps has 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, has resulted in a lack 

of institutional memory, producing a situation in which agency staff 

are continually “reinventing the wheel.”:



In May 2002, the Peace Corps informed us of a number of initiatives the 

agency intended to pursue to improve current safety and security 

practices. These initiatives are directed at many of the obstacles to 

improved performance that we identified, though they do not address 

turnover in agency staff. The Peace Corps has implemented some of these 

initiatives but many have yet to be integrated into agency operations.



We recommend that the Director of the Peace Corps develop indicators to 

assess the effectiveness of the agency’s new initiatives and include 

the results of these initiatives in its annual reports under the 

Government Performance and Results Act. We also recommend that the 

Peace Corps develop a strategy to address staff turnover as it 

implements its initiatives.



In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix V, 

the Peace Corps concurred with our findings and provided additional 

information on the agency’s safety and security initiatives and 

technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. The Peace Corps 

agreed to report on the results of its initiatives in its annual 

reports under the Government Performance and Results Act, as we 

recommended. However, the agency stated it could not effectively 

address the issue of staff turnover as we recommended because of its 

statutorily imposed 5-year limit on employment for U.S. direct hires. 

We modified our recommendation to suggest that the Peace Corps submit a 

proposal to Congress for changes in the law that would facilitate 

agency efforts to improve its safety and security practices.



Background:



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

developing countries’ need for trained manpower while promoting mutual 

understanding between Americans and other peoples.[Footnote 2] 

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 coworkers. 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.



The 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 members and 

contributors to development. While emphasizing protection measures such 

as locks and window bars, the Peace Corps generally avoids measures 

such as housing volunteers in walled compounds, which would reduce 

volunteer integration into the community. The agency also typically 

withdraws from countries in which breakdowns in civil authority require 

strong protection or deterrence measures to protect 

volunteers.[Footnote 3] To the extent that they share the Peace Corps’ 

commitment to advancing intercultural understanding, other 

organizations that face similar security and safety challenges also 

tend to emphasize community acceptance as an underlying principle. 

Appendix II presents in greater detail the safety and security 

practices of some of these organizations.



Reported Crime Incidents Have Increased, but the Full Extent of Crime 

Against Volunteers Is Unknown Due to Underreporting:



The Peace Corps’ Office of Medical Services created and operates a 

system for recording and analyzing crime information that focuses 

primarily on assault crimes. Peace Corps reports show that reported 

rates of assault nearly doubled from the early 1990s to the latter part 

of the decade. Agency officials note that the reason for this may be 

attributable to a number of factors, including agency efforts to 

improve data collection and volunteer reporting. The Peace Corps has 

used its data analyses to gain insight into the characteristics of 

assaults against volunteers and to shape volunteer training programs. 

However, the full extent of crime against volunteers is unclear because 

recent volunteer surveys show that volunteers may significantly 

underreport crime. Additional analyses would enhance the agency’s 

ability to understand trends in crime and apply this understanding to 

its crime prevention and intervention strategies.



Medical Staff Operates Data Collection and Analysis System:



Since 1990, the Office of Medical Services has collected information on 

assaults from post medical staff around the world and has produced 

analyses of incidence rates and characteristics of assaults, such as 

time and place of occurrence, weapons employed, and injuries sustained. 

Medical staff also collect summary information on the number of 

nonassault crimes, such as burglaries and thefts, occurring at posts 

each month. The office periodically publishes reports containing its 

analytical results and distributes these reports to senior staff, 

country directors, and post medical officers.[Footnote 4] Appendix III 

provides additional information on the processes employed to gather 

information and produce these reports.



Apparent Increase in Assaults Is Difficult to Interpret:



Reported incidence rates for most types of assaults have been higher in 

recent years, as shown in figures 1 and 2. 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 to 1993 to an 

average of about 17 per 1,000 volunteer years in 1998 to 2000. Reported 

incidence rates also increased for minor physical assaults and, to a 

lesser extent, for minor sexual assaults. The reported rate of major 

sexual assaults decreased from about 10 incidents per 1,000 female 

volunteer years at the beginning of the 1990s to an average of slightly 

more than 8 per 1,000 female employees at the end of the decade. 

According to agency officials, the decreasing incidence of major sexual 

assaults in the face of increases in minor sexual assault suggests that 

the decline in major sexual assaults is a true decline rather than a 

reporting artifact. Appendix III provides more information on crime 

rates and trends.



Figure 1: Incidence of Reported Physical Assaults against Volunteers, 

1991-2000:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Note: Major physical assaults include those in which a weapon was used, 

substantial injuries were sustained, or the victim had to use 

significant force to disengage the assailant. Minor physical assaults 

include those committed without a weapon or those in which minor 

injuries were sustained.



Source: Peace Corps analysis.



[End of figure]



Figure 2: Incidence of Reported Sexual Assaults against Female 

Volunteers, 1991-2000:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Note: Major sexual assaults include rape, attempted rape, assaults in 

which a weapon was used, physical injury resulted, or substantial force 

was necessary to disengage the assailant. Minor sexual assaults are all 

other assaults of a sexual nature.



Source: Peace Corps analysis.



[End of figure]



According to Peace Corps officials, the general increase in reported 

assaults may reflect an actual increase in the number of such incidents 

suffered by volunteers, better efforts by the agency to ensure that all 

medical officers report all assault events, or an increased willingness 

among volunteers to report incidents. Through its volunteer 

satisfaction surveys, the agency is aware that the level of 

underreporting is significant. For example, according to the 1998 

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

nonrape sexual assaults. Underreporting reduces the Peace Corps’ 

ability to state crime rates with certainty and to develop well-

informed plans for addressing crime problems.[Footnote 5] The agency 

has taken steps to encourage volunteers to report incidents. For 
example, 

the coordinator for volunteer safety and security stated that he is 

developing training materials for medical officers to ensure that they 

transmit clear messages to volunteers about incident reporting. The 
Peace 

Corps is also including questions about underreporting in its current 

volunteer satisfaction survey.[Footnote 6] Volunteers may not report 

criminal incidents for a variety of reasons, including embarrassment, 

fear of repercussions, concern about confidentiality, and the belief 

that Peace Corps staff could not help. Volunteers may decline to report 

minor incidents when, aside from offering counseling, it is unclear 
what 

Peace Corps staff can do for the volunteer. In addition, volunteers are 

sometimes unclear about what to report, and staff observed that 

definitions for reportable nonassault crimes, in particular, need 

clarification.



Crime Data Analysis System Has Produced Useful Insights but Could Be 

Enhanced:



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

against volunteers has produced useful insights, but opportunities for 

additional analyses may help the agency develop better-informed 

intervention and prevention strategies. In addition, the results of 

agency analyses could be more broadly shared.



Some post medical officers we interviewed stated that they use 

headquarters analyses of crime data during volunteer training to 

illustrate the risks volunteers face. These analyses also have 

influenced the content of the Peace Corps’ volunteer training programs. 

For example, agency analyses of the circumstances surrounding rape 

incidents have shown that nearly 60 percent of such crimes from 1993 to 

1999 were perpetrated by volunteers’ friends, coworkers, or 

acquaintances, and that more than 50 percent occurred in a home 

environment. The Peace Corps’ coordinator for volunteer safety and 

security stated that the agency was revising volunteer rape awareness 

training materials to reflect these insights.



In recent years, the Peace Corps has made a number of improvements in 

its crime data collection and analysis system. In 1999, the agency 

revised its assault reporting form to include information on victim and 

assailant alcohol use and on whether victims were alone when incidents 

occurred. Additional analyses would enhance the Peace Corps’ ability to 

identify other characteristics of crimes and crime risk factors and 

develop better-informed prevention and intervention strategies. For 

example, as shown in figure 3, we found that the number of reported 

assaults is highest among volunteers in their first few months of 

service. Nearly a third of all reported assaults after 1993 occurred in 

the volunteer’s 4TH to 8TH months of service--immediately after the 

volunteers have completed training and taken up residence at their 

assigned sites. This finding could be explored and the results 

considered in developing volunteer training materials. Medical staff 

and safety and security staff at the Peace Corps agreed that the agency 

could benefit from additional research on crime against volunteers but 

observed that neither the medical office nor the coordinator for 

volunteer safety and security had staff available to perform such 

research. Among the new initiatives the Peace Corps has stated that it 

will implement is the hiring of a statistician to perform additional 

analyses on crime data.



Figure 3: Reported Assaults against Volunteers in Relation to Length of 

Volunteer Service, 1993-2001:



[See PDF for image]



Note: The Peace Corps did not provide information on months in service 

prior to 1993.



Source: GAO analysis of Peace Corps assault and administrative data.



[End of figure]



The Peace Corps distributes its crime data analyses to agency officials 

but does not provide access to this information for potential 

volunteers. For example, it does not post the results, or a summary 

thereof, on the agency’s Web site. Most volunteers in the field that we 

interviewed stated that they had been provided little or no specific 

information on crime incidents before their arrival in the country for 

preservice training. The Peace Corps’ safety and security initiatives 

include efforts to more fully inform applicants and recruits of the 

safety and security challenges they are likely to face as volunteers.



Peace Corps Provides Broad Guidance and Support to Posts, Relying on 

Them to Develop and Implement Effective Practices:



Volunteer health, safety, and security is the 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. The Peace Corps relies heavily on country 

directors--the heads of agency posts in foreign capitols--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.[Footnote 7] Volunteers are expected to 

follow agency policies and exercise some responsibility for their own 

safety and security.



Headquarters Establishes Policies and Provides Support for Their 

Implementation:



Peace Corps headquarters is responsible for establishing the agency’s 

safety and security policy framework and supports posts in implementing 

these policies through (1) guidance and training and (2) supervision 

and oversight.



Headquarters Has Established Agencywide Policies:



According to agency officials, the Peace Corps has long regarded 

volunteer safety and security as its highest priority. The agency 

maintains this focus in its current strategic planning documents, 

prepared under the provisions:



of the Government Performance and Results Act.[Footnote 8] In 1999, the 

Peace Corps established a policy framework that outlines the agency’s 

principles for maintaining volunteer safety and security.[Footnote 9] 

These agencywide policies are broadly phrased to give country directors 

flexibility in developing procedures that suit conditions in countries 

as diverse as Belize and Kazakhstan. Peace Corps policies cover the 

following:



* Monitoring and disseminating information on the security environment 

in Peace Corps countries. Volunteers should be provided with a clear 

understanding of the risks they face (including an overall assessment 

of the risks facing volunteers and information on country-specific 

conditions) so that they can make informed decisions about their own 

safety.



* Training volunteers. Volunteers should be provided with training that 

prepares them to “adopt culturally appropriate lifestyles and exercise 

judgment that promotes safety and reduces risk in their home, at work, 

and while traveling.”:



* Developing volunteer housing and work sites. Volunteers should be 

placed in “appropriate, safe, and secure housing and work sites.” 

Criteria for selecting sites include the potential for volunteers’ 

obtaining and maintaining “acceptance” in the communities where they 

will live and work.



* Monitoring sites and volunteers and responding to safety concerns and 

criminal incidents. Post staff should make periodic visits to volunteer 

sites and respond to volunteer safety and security concerns and 

incidents, including crimes against volunteers.



* Planning for emergencies. Posts must maintain accurate contact 

information on all volunteers and develop and annually test emergency 

action plans (EAP) to guide staff and volunteers in the event of a 

natural disaster, political unrest, or other emergency. Headquarters is 

to review the EAPs and the EAP test results.



Headquarters Supports Posts in Implementing Safety and Security 

Policies:



Headquarters has developed written guidance and training for 

headquarters and field staff to support implementation of safety and 

security policies. In collaboration with other agency officials, the 

coordinator for volunteer safety and security has developed a variety 

of guidance materials for posts, including information on “best 

practices” in safety and security operations from posts around the 

world, crisis management and rape response handbooks, and training 

modules that posts can apply in preparing volunteer safety and security 

training programs. These materials are generally nonprescriptive and 

can be adapted to country-specific conditions. Peace Corps staff, 

including country directors and program managers at posts, are given 

training in safety and security procedures as part of their 

introduction to their positions. For example, all new program managers 

attend a 4-week overseas staff training session in Washington, D.C., 

that addresses safety and security issues and other aspects of their 

work. Agency staff also attend periodic in-service training events that 

may include safety and security matters.



Headquarters also provides supervision and oversight. Three regional 

directors,[Footnote 10] each assisted by a small staff of country desk 

officers, supervise Peace Corps posts abroad. Agency policies state 

that these regional directors are to ensure that country directors 

establish effective volunteer safety and security support systems. The 

regional directors, with their country desk officers, monitor post 

operations in all areas--including safety and security--by E-mail, 

telephone, and occasional country visits. This informal dialogue is 

supplemented by formal submission and review of post EAPs and EAP test 

results. In addition to these regional directors, Peace Corps’ Office 

of Volunteer Safety and Overseas Security (headed by a coordinator for 

volunteer safety and security) and the Office of the Inspector General 

contribute to headquarters’ supervision and oversight of post 

practices. A field-based regional safety and security officer works in 

each of the three regions. At the request of regional or country 

directors, these officers review and provide advisory reports on post 

safety and security practices. The Office of the Inspector General, 

among other things, reviews safety and security operations at posts and 

issues formal recommendations that require an official post response.



Country Directors at Individual Posts Are Responsible for Implementing 

Policies:



Peace Corps country directors are responsible for developing procedures 

to ensure the effective implementation in specific countries of the 

agency’s broadly phrased policies, as previously mentioned. For 

example, country directors develop safety and security criteria for 

prospective volunteer sites and procedures for ensuring that sites meet 

these criteria before volunteers arrive. They also develop and provide 

volunteer safety and security training programs in accordance with 

agency policies.



Volunteers Play a Role in Ensuring Their Own Safety:



Volunteers are expected to exercise responsibility for their own safety 

and security. They are expected to reduce the level of risk they face 

at their sites and while traveling by complying with post policies and 

exercising good judgment. They do this in part through the 

relationships they build with sponsoring organizations and elements of 

the local community. Peace Corps posts employ a number of program 

managers who work with local organizations to develop programs in areas 

such as education and health and to identify housing and work 

assignments for volunteers. After 3 months of incountry training, 

volunteers move to diverse sites, often far from Peace Corps posts, 

where they live in a community and work with local counterpart 

organizations such as schools and municipal governments. Program 

managers are expected to monitor volunteers once they arrive at their 

sites and to provide support when needed. Volunteers do not work 

directly for or have daily contact with agency staff, however. They are 

not considered U.S. government employees for most purposes,[Footnote 

11] nor do they not have diplomatic immunity.



Peace Corps’ Safety and Security Framework Is Unevenly Implemented:



Peace Corps’ efforts to implement its safety and security policies have 

produced varying results. We found mixed performance in key areas, 

which may expose some volunteers to risk. Volunteers are generally 

satisfied with the safety and security information and training they 

receive. We identified a number of instances of uneven performance in 

developing safe and secure housing and work sites and responding to 

volunteers’ safety concerns. In addition, while all posts have 

developed an EAP that they test at least annually, the plans and tests 

vary in quality and comprehensiveness, and the Peace Corps does not 

have information about how long it would take to reach its volunteers 

in case of an emergency. A number of factors, including unclear 

guidance, inadequate staff training, uneven application of supervisory 

and oversight mechanisms, and staff turnover, hamper Peace Corps 

efforts to ensure high-quality performance for the agency as a whole.



Volunteers Are Generally Satisfied with Post Efforts to Inform Them 

about the Security Environment:



Posts are responsible for monitoring the host country’s safety and 

security environment and for keeping volunteers informed about safety 

and security issues. Numerous volunteers we met with were generally 

satisfied with post efforts in this area. The Peace Corps does not 

require country directors to prepare formal assessments of the security 

environment. In general, country directors stay informed about the 

security environment through regular discussions with local Department 

of State security officials, information on crime reported by 

volunteers, and other means.[Footnote 12]



Posts use various mechanisms, such as newsletters, E-mail, and 

memorandums to disseminate safety information to volunteers. Although 

posts vary in how and when they disseminate such information, 

volunteers at the posts we visited said they were fairly satisfied with 

the level of information they receive about safety and security. 

According to the 1998 and 1999 volunteer satisfaction surveys, over 80 

percent of volunteers found that the Peace Corps kept them adequately 

or well-informed regarding safety and security, while around 14 percent 

said that they were not at all informed or poorly informed.



Volunteers Are Generally Satisfied with Safety Training:



Training is central to the Peace Corps’ approach to volunteer safety. 

Volunteers are generally satisfied with the safety training that the 

agency provides. 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.[Footnote 13] 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 the 

Peace Corps did not fully prepare them for the racial and sexual 

harassment[Footnote 14] they experienced during their service. Some 

female volunteers at posts we visited stated that they would like to 

receive self-protection training.



Peace Corps Showed Mixed Performance in Developing Safe and Secure 

Housing and Work Sites for Volunteers:



Although many volunteers are provided with housing that meets Peace 

Corps standards and well-defined work assignments, some volunteers do 

not have this experience. We found that volunteer housing is not always 

inspected before the volunteer arrives, some housing does not meet 

posts’ standards, and some posts have unclear or nonexistent guidance 

for selecting volunteer housing. In addition, vaguely defined work 

assignments and unsupportive counterparts may also increase volunteers’ 

risk by limiting their ability to build a support network in their host 

communities. We also found that documentation recording information and 

problems, by site location, was not maintained, which affects the 

ability of Peace Corps staff to make informed decisions about future 

placements and could lead to placing volunteers at sites that have 

previously experienced safety problems.



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.[Footnote 15] Nonetheless, some volunteers 

arrive at their sites to find that their housing is not ready, has not 

been inspected, or does not meet post standards. At all of the 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. In other cases, volunteers and staff said that housing 

was approved despite deficiencies, with the understanding that the 

community would rectify the problems before the volunteer arrived. The 

community failed to comply, however, and staff did not revisit the 

sites to ensure that problems had been resolved.



Several inspector general safety assessments reported instances where 

the Peace Corps’ failure to inspect housing resulted in volunteers’ not 

having appropriate housing when they arrived at their sites. According 

to recent Peace Corps reports, some posts have unclear or nonexistent 

criteria for selecting a house, which can result in volunteers living 

in inappropriate housing. For example, the Peace Corps’ review of one 

post found that unclear housing standards led to multiple instances of 

volunteers’ living in inadequate housing. In one case, a volunteer 

lived in a one-room apartment with her counterpart and the 

counterpart’s boyfriend.



Poorly defined assignments and unsupportive counterparts may also 

increase volunteers’ risk by limiting their ability to build a support 

network in their host communities. Our previous work in this area has 

shown that the Peace Corps has had difficulty providing volunteers with 

well-structured assignments.[Footnote 16] At the posts we visited, we 

met volunteers whose counterparts had no plans for them when they 

arrived at their sites, and only after several months and much 

frustration did the volunteers find productive activities. Several 

inspector general reports support this finding. For example, at one 

post volunteers reported that their coworkers were not at all or were 

poorly prepared for their arrival. Some volunteers had no real job to 

do or had not been assigned a counterpart. Senior Peace Corps officials 

agreed that poorly defined assignments pose a safety risk because 

volunteers who lack the routine a job provides may spend time away from 

their sites and have difficulty integrating into their communities. 

While 76 percent of volunteers in the 1999 volunteer satisfaction 

survey said that their assignment responsibilities were moderately or 

mostly clear, 24 percent said these responsibilities were somewhat or 

not at all clear.



Peace Corps policy requires posts to maintain site history files 

documenting the placement of volunteers at specific sites. Staff thus 

should have a record of the safety and security environment at 

volunteer placement sites to help ensure that other volunteers are not 

placed at sites with significant problems. Four of the five posts we 

visited did not fully comply with Peace Corps requirements--most of 

these kept records of safety and security problems in the volunteers’ 

personal files, thereby making it difficult for program managers to 

access information about specific sites. Inadequate or nonexistent site 

history files can affect staff’s ability to make informed decisions 

about future placements and could lead to placements in areas where 

volunteers have previously experienced safety problems. For example, at 

one post we visited, two female volunteers who experienced severe 

sexual harassment at their site were reassigned to new sites. Records 

of the incident were kept in their personal files, but the post had no 

file organized geographically to track after the volunteers were moved. 

A female volunteer from another program area was later placed in a 

nearby assignment that required her to travel regularly through the 

site where the difficulties had occurred. Reports by Peace Corps’ 

inspector general and regional safety and security officers have also 

cited problems with posts’ site history files.



Peace Corps Showed Variation in Monitoring and Responding to Volunteer 

Concerns:



Peace Corps guidance does not specify how its posts should monitor 

volunteers. Peace Corps policy allows each post flexibility in 

establishing the frequency of required staff visits to volunteer sites. 

Posts conduct site visits to assist volunteers and monitor their 

activities. We found that there is variation in the frequency of staff 

contact with volunteers. In addition, volunteers have mixed views on 

staff responsiveness to safety and security concerns and criminal 

incidents.



We reviewed about 25 percent of all site visit policies established by 

posts and found that the required frequency of staff visits to 

volunteer sites ranged from once per year to four times during the 

first year of service. Volunteers may have more frequent contact with 

Peace Corps staff if they wish. At the five posts we visited, we found 

that staff made regular site visits to most volunteers, in accordance 

with each post’s policies. In the 1998 volunteer satisfaction survey, 

68 percent of volunteers reported that the frequency of site visits was 

adequate or better; 21 percent said that the frequency of site visits 

was inadequate. Many volunteers at the posts we visited were satisfied 

with the frequency of site visits.



Many Peace Corps staff told us that it is sometimes difficult for them 

to stay abreast of volunteers’ whereabouts when volunteers are away 

from their sites. Some staff also said that volunteers face safety 

risks when they are away from their sites because the volunteers are 

outside their supportive network and because public transportation may 

be unsafe. The posts we visited have policies to keep track of 

volunteers who leave their sites, but we found that volunteers’ 

compliance with these policies was uneven. Many volunteers we 

interviewed said that they do not always inform the Peace Corps when 

they leave their sites, but they may inform other people such as 

neighbors. One reason volunteers may not report their whereabouts is 

that Peace Corps policy states that volunteers are “on duty” 7 days per 

week. Although posts may not follow this policy in practice, some 

volunteers said they are reluctant to inform the post when they plan to 

leave their sites because they worry that the post may deduct vacation 

days. This practice may make it difficult if the Peace Corps needs to 

contact volunteers in an emergency.



Volunteers had mixed views about the Peace Corps’ responsiveness to 

safety and security concerns and criminal incidents. (Appendix IV 

describes Peace Corps provisions for responding to criminal incidents.) 

The few volunteers we spoke with who said that 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 non-assault safety concerns. For example, one 

volunteer we interviewed informed Peace Corps staff 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 the 1998 and 1999 volunteer satisfaction surveys, 60 

percent of volunteers stated that they were satisfied with safety and 

security support provided by Peace Corps staff, and about 35 percent 

reported that they were unsatisfied or only somewhat satisfied with 

this support. According to the 1998 survey, 64 percent of volunteers 

said that staff response to issues raised during site visits was 

adequate or better, but 26 percent of volunteers said staff response 

was inadequate. Senior Peace Corps officials recognize the importance 

of responding to volunteer safety concerns, and one acknowledged the 

need to improve staff responsiveness, particularly to nonassault 

incident reports. At two posts we visited, country directors attributed 

unsupportive responses to poor communications between volunteers and 

staff and to staff attitudes toward volunteers.



Comprehensiveness and Quality of Emergency Action Plans Are Uneven:



Posts must be well prepared in case an evacuation becomes necessary--

Peace Corps evacuated more than 1,600 volunteers from 26 posts from 

1993 to 2001. Peace Corps policy requires that all posts develop an 

EAP, test it annually, and submit it and the test results to 

headquarters. We found that posts complied with these requirements. 

However, we also found that some posts’ EAPs lacked key information, 

and none of the EAPs contained all of the dimensions listed in the EAP 

guidance for developing effective emergency plans. Moreover, the Peace 

Corps has not defined the criteria for a successful EAP test nor is 

there a standard format for reporting test results. Both factors 

contribute to making the Peace Corps’ assessment of posts’ emergency 

drills difficult.



The Peace Corps’ EAP policy requires posts to develop an EAP tailored 

to the conditions at that post and to test the EAP annually. We found 

that all posts had developed EAPs and had tested them annually. To 

guide the post through the development of an EAP, the Peace Corps has 

created a suggested format designed to assist the posts in formulating 

effective emergency plans. This format, a checklist of about 25 

dimensions, includes items such as providing alternate transportation 

plans; maps demarcating assembly points; a description of the embassy 

warden system; a host government collaboration agreement that lists 

other government offices that could be used as a resource during an 

emergency; and methods for emergency communications. In our review of 

65 EAPs (over 90 percent of total EAPs), we found that none of the EAPs 

we examined contained all of the dimensions listed in the EAP 

checklist, and, as illustrated in figure 4, many lacked key 

information. Recent Peace Corps reviews and inspector general 

evaluations have also identified numerous deficiencies in post EAPs, 

including inadequate emergency contact information, undeveloped 

emergency communication networks, and insufficient or nonexistent 

collaborative arrangements with the host country government--items 

called for in the EAP checklist. A Peace Corps official stated that 

some of the checklist items were not included in the EAP because they 

were not applicable. However, we found that these submitted EAPs did 

not explain why this information was not relevant.



Figure 4: Percentage of Post EAPs Missing Selected Elements from Agency 

Checklist:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO analysis of post EAPs.



[End of figure]



The Peace Corps’ policy requires that all posts test their EAPs but 

does not establish detailed criteria for evaluating the results of the 

tests or for recording the results uniformly. The agency allows country 

directors discretion in making decisions in these areas. In the EAP 

guidelines, making contact with volunteers is one of the first steps in 

responding to a crisis. In some cases, posts set goals on time frames 

for reaching volunteers, either through communication technology or by 

travel to the volunteer, as benchmarks for measuring the test’s 

successfulness. For example, of the five country directors we 

interviewed, two had set targets for reaching at least 90 percent of 

their volunteers within 24 hours or less; both country directors 

achieved their goals. Our review of EAP test results showed that most 

tests are limited to sending a message to all volunteers during 

business hours and requesting that volunteers respond when they receive 

the message. According to a senior Peace Corps official, this does not 

indicate how the plan would work in a real emergency. As shown in 

figure 5, in our analysis of 63 EAP test results (over 90 percent of 

all results) submitted to headquarters, we found that 40 percent of 

posts did not provide information to headquarters on the length of time 

it took them to contact volunteers.



Figure 5: Post Reports of Volunteer Contact Time in 2001 EAP Tests:



[See PDF for image]



Note: Of the EAP test results we received from the Peace Corps, 60 were 

conducted in 2001 and 3 were conducted in 2000.



Source: GAO analysis of Peace Corps data.



[End of figure]



Underlying Factors Contribute to Uneven Implementation:



Several factors contribute to the uneven implementation of Peace Corps’ 

safety and security policies. These factors include unclear guidance 

and weaknesses in safety and security training for staff and volunteer 

leaders, uneven application of supervision and oversight mechanisms, 

and turnover among U.S. direct hire staff.



Guidance Is Not Always Clear and Staff Training Is Sometimes 

Inadequate:



The Peace Corps’ safety and security framework outlines general 

requirements that posts are expected to comply with but does not often 

specify required activities, documentation, or criteria for judging 

actual practices. This may make it difficult for staff to understand 

what is expected of them. Many posts have not developed clear reporting 

and response procedures for incidents such as responding to sexual 

harassment. The agency’s coordinator for volunteer safety and security 

said that unclear procedures make 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, regional safety and security officers had found that staff 

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

with agency policies.



Although the Peace Corps provides new staff with training on safety and 

security procedures, evidence suggests that staff training may not 

always be adequate. In addition, volunteer leaders and wardens who are 

assigned safety and security responsibilities are not always provided 

with relevant training. Program managers with whom we spoke found their 

initial 4-week overseas staff training useful. However, some country 

directors said that provisions could be strengthened for training lower 

level staff with significant safety and security responsibilities and 

for continuing the education of long-time program managers.[Footnote 

17] A senior Peace Corps official agreed with the latter observation, 

noting that assessment of staff members’ long-term training experience 

was warranted.



Peace Corps reports have also found that some volunteer 

leaders[Footnote 18] who assist in site selection and volunteer 

monitoring and who act as contact points in the event of an emergency 

do not receive adequate training and are not prepared to discharge 

their safety-related duties. Our interviews with volunteer leaders and 

wardens at five posts support this finding. For example, we visited one 

post where staff members relied on six volunteer leaders to play a 

significant role in developing sites and responding to volunteer 

concerns. Four of these volunteer leaders had held the position for 

several months, but the Peace Corps had not yet trained them for their 

duties. All of them expressed concern that post staff expected them to 

take the lead in site development even though they had not been trained 

to do this. At another post, we visited a volunteer warden whose site 

is a consolidation point in the event of volunteer evacuation to a 

neighboring country. She said that the Peace Corps had provided her 

with no training on her responsibilities in case of an emergency.



Uneven Application of Supervision and Oversight Mechanisms:



Informal supervisory mechanisms and a limited number of staff hamper 

Peace Corps efforts to ensure effective supervision and oversight. The 

agency has some formal mechanisms for documenting and assessing post 

practices, including the annual evaluation and testing of post EAPs and 

regional safety and security officer reports on post practices. 

Nonetheless, regional directors and country directors rely primarily on 

informal supervisory mechanisms, such as staff meetings, conversations 

with volunteers, and E-mail, to ensure that staff is doing an adequate 

job of implementing the safety and security framework. Several country 

directors and a former regional director stated that overreliance on 

informal communications can hinder adequate oversight of staff 

performance in key areas. One country director observed, for example, 

that it is difficult to oversee program managers’ site development or 

monitoring activities because the post does not have a formal system 

for overseeing.



The Peace Corps’ limited use of written or computerized records 

compounds difficulties in supervising staff at posts and in identifying 

implementation problems, including noncompliance records that are kept 

but not always updated.[Footnote 19] Officials from the Inspector 

General’s office noted that their work revealed important disparities 

among posts in their ability to maintain computerized records, 

especially site histories and volunteer files. For example, one post we 

visited had created computerized record-keeping systems that permitted 

easy access to information on site visits and volunteer concerns, 

greatly facilitating effective supervisory review of the quality of 

staff support for individual volunteers over time. Another post was in 

the initial stages of creating such a system. Other posts, however, had 

no such systems and did not require staff to complete site visit 

reports to be filed by volunteer or location. Some posts we visited did 

not formally document nonassault crimes unless the volunteer reported 

the incident to the medical office.



The Peace Corps’ regional safety and security officers and staff from 

the Inspector General’s office play an important role in helping posts 

implement the agency’s security framework. However, the number of staff 

in these offices limits their ability to provide input to posts. Staff 

at headquarters and at the posts where the agency’s three regional 

safety and security officers have provided assistance view these 

officers as a resource for enhancing volunteer safety and security. 

Officers’ visits to posts can include activities such as leading 

workshops with volunteers and post staff to assess security practices; 

training post staff and volunteers on safety and security issues; 

assisting posts in testing their EAPs and providing feedback on the 

results; and helping posts respond to specific safety and security 

challenges, such as preparing for national elections or reevaluating 

the security situation in light of changing country conditions. 

However, according to the Peace Corps, the officers provided input to 

only about one-third of the agency’s posts between October 2000 and May 

2002.[Footnote 20] Oversight by the inspector general’s staff is also 

limited because of staffing levels. From December 1999 through December 

2001, the inspector general issued reports containing findings on 

safety and security practices at 12 posts.[Footnote 21] In addition, 

the Peace Corps has no system to track post compliance with inspector 

general recommendations to ensure that they are properly implemented. 

However, according to agency officials, they are working to develop 

such a system.



Turnover Hinders Implementation of Effective Practices:



One factor that may contribute to the Peace Corps’ difficulty in 

implementing its safety and security policies is turnover among key 

managers. According to a June 2001 Peace Corps workforce analysis, 

turnover among U.S. direct hires was extremely high, ranging from 25 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.” The report attributed much of the problem 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 

said that turnover affects the agency’s ability to maintain continuity 

in oversight of post operations. In addition, the lack of documentation 

described above, combined with high turnover, means that the agency is 

losing opportunities to apply lessons learned from previous staff 

tenures.



Peace Corps Initiatives May Enhance Volunteer Safety and Security:



In May 2002, the Peace Corps informed us of a number of initiatives 

that the agency had already taken or intended to take to improve its 

current safety and security practices. Peace Corps officials noted that 

these initiatives were generated through an agencywide safety and 

security review that began in fall 2001. The agency’s initiatives are 

intended to address many of the issues we identified and may lead to 

improved safety and security practices. However, the Peace Corps faces 

important challenges in implementing these initiatives, and their 

impact on agency practices remains to be seen.



Peace Corps’ Initiatives Aim to Improve Performance:



The Peace Corps’ initiatives are intended to improve the agency’s 

safety and security practices and make them more uniform. (See figure 6 

for an overview of the Peace Corps’ initiatives announced in May 2002.) 

For example, they are intended to clarify guidance, strengthen 

supervision and oversight mechanisms, and provide human resources to 

help maintain documentation and perform research into patterns and 

trends in crime against volunteers.



Figure 6: Summary of Peace Corps Safety and Security Initiatives of May 

2002:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Volunteer staging occurs before volunteers leave the United States 

for their assigned countries.



Source: GAO analysis of Peace Corps information.



[End of figure]



To support country director efforts, the agency plans to hire 

additional safety and security staff at all levels. At headquarters, 

the agency has stated that it will hire an associate director for 

safety and security who will have responsibility for overseeing all 

agency safety and security activities. To assist the new associate 

director, the Peace Corps increased its staff of field-based regional 

safety and security officers from three to seven in June 2002. The 

agency plans to add five more officers in 2003. To strengthen the 

agency’s ability to analyze and apply information on crime against 

volunteers, the Peace Corps has stated that it will provide the new 

associate director with a safety and security data manager/analyst who 

will research crime trends and related issues, in collaboration with 

the Office of Medical Services.



To assist regional directors in supervising country director 

activities, the Peace Corps plans to provide each of the regional 

directorates with a headquarters-based security officer who will work 

with the country desk units to monitor and assist post efforts to 

ensure that their safety and security systems meet agency expectations. 

To provide full-time assistance at the country level, all posts have 

been authorized to hire safety and security administrative associates. 

The agency expects at least 35 posts to create such positions within a 

year. Among other things, these new staff members will assume 

responsibility for ensuring that posts maintain accurate and complete 

records on site histories, site visits, and criminal incident 

reports.[Footnote 22]



To improve staff understanding of agency safety and security policies 

and requirements, a 2-year cycle of safety and security training has 

been authorized. This training will be delivered through an ongoing 

series of subregional workshops with six attendees from each post and 

led by field-based regional safety and security officers. A series of 

training sessions for country desk officers and other headquarters 

staff will be led by headquarters-based regional security officers. In 

addition, the agency has provided easier access to its safety and 

security guidance by placing all relevant materials in a single 

location on its agencywide intranet. Posts that do not have easy access 

to the Internet were provided with these materials on a compact disc, 

produced in February 2002.



Implementation Process Remains to Be Fully Clarified:



As the Peace Corps begins to implement its recently announced 

initiatives, it will face a number of important challenges. The agency 

has yet to fully clarify the criteria to be applied in evaluating the 

adequacy of agency practices or the mechanisms to be used in 

documenting and sharing information on its progress in attaining 

compliance with agency policies. The agency’s response to these 

challenges will have a major impact on its ability to ensure that its 

initiatives have their desired effect. The key to the Peace Corps’ 

developing a safety and security framework that achieves its desired 

goals is the effective implementation of the agency’s safety and 

security initiatives.



Criteria for assessing whether the revised policies are being 

adequately implemented have yet to be fully defined. The Peace Corps 

has taken steps to clarify its policies and has improved and provided 

easier access to its guidance on implementing these policies. However, 

greater clarity could be provided without imposing detailed 

requirements that may be impractical or inappropriate in some 

countries. For example, revised agency guidance requires posts to 

include formal risk assessments in their EAPs. The agency has guidance 

available on preparing such risk assessments but does not have models 

available for posts to use. Similarly, the initiatives include 

authorization for posts to hire administrative associates who will be 

assigned various safety and security support tasks, including ensuring 

that the posts’ filing systems provide ready and complete access to 

relevant records. However, the agency has not developed criteria or 

examples for judging the adequacy of these filing systems.



Conclusions:



The Peace Corps is embarking on a major expansion of its volunteer 

workforce during a time of heightened risk for Americans living abroad. 

Providing safety and security for its volunteers is the Peace Corps’ 

highest priority. Our review of the agency’s efforts to ensure 

compliance with its basic safety and security policies and guidelines 

shows that there are cases of uneven implementation of key elements of 

the safety and security framework that could pose risks to volunteers. 

These include uneven performance in developing safe and secure housing 

and work sites, responding to volunteer concerns, and planning for 

emergencies.



The Peace Corps has recently announced several new initiatives to 

improve overall compliance with its safety and security policies. We 

believe that, if effectively implemented, the new initiatives can 

reduce potential risks facing volunteers. However, it is not yet clear 

how the Peace Corps will document its progress in achieving compliance 

or will share information about better practices. While the Peace Corps 

does generate reports on practices at individual posts, the agency does 

not currently have a means to (1) document the overall quality of its 

safety and security practices or (2) assess changes in the quality of 

these practices over time. The initiatives do not contain provisions 

for formal assessments or for documenting progress in implementing them 

so that this information can be shared with staff. Moreover, the Peace 

Corps has not indicated what action, if any, it intends to take in 

addressing the issue of staff turnover. We believe that the Peace Corps 

will need to address the implications of staff turnover if it is to 

effectively implement its new initiatives designed to ensure the safety 

and security of its volunteers.



Recommendations:



To help ensure that the Peace Corps’ initiatives have their intended 

effect, we recommend that the Director develop indicators to assess the 

effectiveness of the initiatives and include the results of these 

initiatives in the agency’s annual reports under the Government 

Performance and Results Act. We also recommend that the director 

develop a strategy to address staff turnover as it implements its 

initiatives. Among other things, this strategy could include proposals 

to Congress to change the law concerning the 5-year limit on employment 

of U.S. direct hire staff.



Agency Comments:



In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix V, 

the Peace Corps concurred with our findings and provided additional 

information on the agency’s safety and security initiatives and 

technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.



In response to our first recommendation, the Peace Corps agreed to 

report on the results of its safety and security initiatives in its 

annual reports under the Government Performance and Results Act. In 

response to our second recommendation, the Peace Corps stated that it 

had developed a strategy for mitigating the effects of high staff 

turnover as it implements its safety and security initiatives, but that 

unless the law concerning the 5-year rule is changed the agency cannot 

effectively address the difficulties presented by staff turnover. Given 

the agency’s position on this matter, we modified our recommendation to 

suggest that the Peace Corps submit a proposal to Congress for changes 

in the 5-year rule that would facilitate agency efforts to improve its 

safety and security practices.



We are sending this report to interested congressional committees and 

the Director of the Peace Corps. We will also make copies available to 

other interested parties on request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http//www.gao.gov.



Please contact me on (202) 512-4268 if you or your staff have any 

questions concerning this report. An additional GAO contact and staff 

acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.



Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade:



Signed by Jess T. Ford:



[End of section]



Appendixes :



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



You requested that we evaluate the Peace Corps’ safety and security 

practices. In response, we (1) described rates and trends in crime 

against volunteers and reviewed the agency’s system for generating such 

information, (2) described the agency’s framework for maintaining 

volunteer safety and security, (3) evaluated the Peace Corps’ 

implementation of this framework and identified factors affecting this 

implementation, and (4) evaluated the agency’s initiatives to improve 

current practices.



To address our first objective, we (a) examined agency reports on crime 

trends and characteristics of assaults from 1991 to 2001; (b) reviewed 

agency guidelines and interviewed medical services staff at 

headquarters and in the field to clarify the Peace Corps’ processes for 

gathering, analyzing, disseminating, and applying information; and (c) 

performed independent analyses of Peace Corps data to determine the 

extent to which agency findings accurately reflect information from the 

field and to explore opportunities for additional useful analyses. To 

perform our independent analyses, we obtained computer files containing 

original crime data for 1990 through 2001 and excerpts from the Peace 

Corps’ administrative database on the numbers of volunteers serving 

during this period and characteristics such as age, gender, and date of 

entry into service. We used these data to replicate the Peace Corps’ 

analyses of crime rates and characteristics of assaults, finding that 

our results were consistent with the Peace Corps’. We also examined the 

data for missing elements, mislabeled data, and related problems. We 

found a number of technical problems; for example, inconsistencies in 

coding sometimes made it difficult to distinguish between missing 

values and those that were incorrectly coded. However, these problems 

did not materially affect the Peace Corps’ analyses. To obtain 

information on underreporting, we reviewed relevant portions of the 

Peace Corps’ volunteer satisfaction surveys for 1998 and 1999 and 

interviewed agency staff and volunteers. We interviewed agency staff on 

the potential usefulness of additional analyses and explored the data 

made available to us to identify trends or relationships that merit 

further inquiry. We did not attempt to verify the accuracy or 

completeness of data collection among medical officers at individual 

posts.



To present a clear description of the agency’s framework for 

maintaining volunteer safety and security, we reviewed agencywide 

policies and guidance materials that are provided to post staff, such 

as handbooks and examples of best practices. We also examined materials 

that the agency uses in training staff to carry out their safety and 

security responsibilities. We interviewed key headquarters staff, 

including regional managers, country desk officers, general counsel and 

medical office officials, and the agency’s coordinator for volunteer 

safety and security about their roles and responsibilities and the 

manner in which agency policies and guidance materials are applied in 

practice. To obtain broader perspectives on safety and security 

challenges in developing countries and options for responding to those 

challenges, we spoke with security specialists at the Department of 

State in Washington, D.C., and with U.S. embassy security officers in 

the countries we visited, listed below. We also spoke with headquarters 

or field-level staff, or both, from a number of organizations that face 

security and safety challenges similar to those faced by the Peace 

Corps, including the Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteer Program, 

the British Volunteer Service Organization, and the United Nations’ 

Volunteer Program. We attended a conference on security practices for 

nongovernmental organizations sponsored by the American Red Cross.



To evaluate the Peace Corps’ implementation of its safety and security 

framework, we obtained documents from and interviewed headquarters and 

field-level staff and volunteers. We visited posts in Bulgaria, El 

Salvador, Kenya, Senegal, and Ukraine to examine safety and security 

practices. At these posts, we interviewed agency staff with significant 

safety and security responsibilities, including country directors, 

program managers, and medical officers, and the three regional safety 

and security officers employed by the Peace Corps at the time of our 

work. We examined post record-keeping procedures and relevant files. We 

spoke with more than 150 volunteers, visiting more than 30 at their 

sites and speaking with their local counterparts when possible. To 

broaden our understanding of Peace Corps practices beyond the countries 

we were able to visit, we consulted the results of the Peace Corps’ 

worldwide volunteer satisfaction surveys for 1998 and 1999, all 12 

reports issued by the agency’s inspector general between December 1999 

and December 2001 that contained findings on safety and security 

issues, and reports on relevant issues at 24 posts generated by the 

agency’s safety and security staff between September 2000 and November 

2001. We examined nine assessments of the security environment in 

individual countries prepared between 1996 and 2001. In addition, we 

obtained and analyzed documentation on specific safety and security 

functions at multiple posts when it was available. For example, we 

examined 65 post emergency action plans (EAP) and headquarters’ 

feedback on these plans, and we reviewed site development criteria and 

procedures from 18 posts in the Peace Corps’ Inter-America/Pacific 

region, in addition to those from the posts we visited.



To evaluate the Peace Corps’ recently announced safety and security 

initiatives, we obtained and reviewed documentation on the initiatives 

and the Peace Corps’ efforts to clarify and provide easier access to 

agency policies and guidance materials. We met with the Peace Corps’ 

Director and other senior staff to discuss the substance and intent of 

the proposed measures.



We conducted our work from July 2001 through May 2002 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Other Organizations’ Safety and Security Approaches Vary 

According to Work and Goals:



Organizations that assign personnel to live and work abroad can draw 

from three basic strategies to develop safety and security procedures:



* acceptance--reducing the risk level by integrating into a host 

community;



* protection--reducing vulnerability by employing protective devices, 

such as walls and locks; and:



* deterrence--eliminating threats by posing a counterthreat, for 

example, by employing armed guards.



Organizations that emphasize person-to-person cultural exchange as a 

major goal tend to rely on the acceptance approach to safety and 

security; they seek to enhance safety and security primarily by 

ensuring that individuals are accepted as members of host communities. 

Nonetheless, these organizations may differ substantially in the 

details of their approach. As organizations become less concerned with 

establishing person-to-person ties within a host community and more 

concerned with achieving specific technical or development goals, they 

may place more emphasis on protection and, sometimes, deterrence 

measures.[Footnote 23] The following are descriptions of strategies 

employed by organizations that face safety and security challenges 

similar to those faced by the Peace Corps--the Volunteer Service 

Organization, the Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteers, the United 

Methodist Volunteers in Mission, the foreign mission program of the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United Nations 

Volunteers, and Save the Children.



The Volunteer Service Organization is a British nongovernmental 

organization whose goals and safety and security approach are similar 

to the Peace Corps’, with a few key differences. The organization 

maintains 2,000 volunteers in 71 countries for average tours of 2 

years, mostly in rural areas or provincial towns. Like the Peace Corps, 

the agency seeks to fight poverty and promote international 

understanding. In contrast to the Peace Corps, the organization 

advertises and recruits on a job-by-job basis in response to specific 

requests from counterpart organizations in developing countries. The 

organization thus faces less of a challenge than the Peace Corps in 

finding productive employment and supportive organizations for 

volunteers. Volunteers average 38 years of age and are often 

experienced. Although its approach to identifying housing and 

monitoring volunteers is similar to the Peace Corps, the organization 

provides less safety and security training. It provides general risk-

awareness training before volunteers’ departure for their country of 

service and limited country-and placement-specific risk awareness and 

management training upon volunteers’ arrival in the country. In 

contrast to the Peace Corps, which has EAPs in all of the countries 

where it operates, the organization has EAPs only in countries where 

such plans are deemed necessary.



The Japanese Overseas Cooperation Volunteers also resembles the Peace 

Corps in its goals and approach to safety and security, with some 

differences. The organization operates in more than 70 countries under 

the aegis of the Japan International Cooperation Agency, that country’s 

bilateral development agency. Similar to the Peace Corps, this program 

sends volunteers to spend 2 years working in agriculture, civil 

engineering, health, and other program areas. Unlike Peace Corps 

volunteers, the Japanese volunteers are considered government 

employees. Like the Volunteer Service Organization, the Japanese 

program recruits volunteers for individual jobs and therefore has fewer 

difficulties with finding suitable jobs for its volunteers. The program 

does not have a formal policies and procedures manual, although it has 

been consulting with the Peace Corps on the development of such a 

manual. The organization uses a five-step classification system to 

assess risks in specific countries and develops actions to take on the 

basis of risk level. Program officials stated that the agency provides 

volunteers with a 3-month training program in Japan, which includes 

some safety and security training, but the agency provides little, if 

any, in-country training. Volunteers might use cell phones, satellite 

phones, radios, or other communication tools; the organization strives 

to ensure that each volunteer can be reached within 6 hours. The Peace 

Corps has no such minimum standard. Program officials participate in 

their parent organization’s EAPs.



The United Methodist Volunteers in Mission, while citing intercultural 

exchange and relationship building as a goal, differs significantly 

from the Peace Corps in that volunteers generally serve only 1 to 6 

months and thus have less time to integrate into a community. This 

church-sponsored organization, part of the United Methodist Committee 

on Relief, recruits volunteers to work in areas such as education and 

construction. Unlike the Peace Corps, these volunteers pay a fee to the 

Committee on Relief to cover costs, including housing and food, while 

in the country where they are placed. Most Methodist-sponsored 

volunteers are middle-aged through retirement age. A program official 

indicated that the safety and security training the organization 

provides is not as intense as the Peace Corps’ because volunteers are 

generally in the country for only a short time; the organization 

provides some information on cultural sensitivity before volunteers’ 

departure and an orientation when they arrive in country. Although it 

is not always possible for volunteers to be in daily contact with 

office staff, one individual with the volunteers is responsible for 

them on a 24-hour basis and can contact the office whenever needed.



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sends volunteers to do 

mission work worldwide. The majority of the volunteers are male and all 

are young--the upper age limit is 26. A church official indicated that 

the church provides little training in safety and security. The church 

monitors volunteers frequently to ensure their safety. Unlike the Peace 

Corps, church volunteers always travel and live in pairs and report to 

the in-country mission on a weekly or daily basis, depending on the 

risk level of the country. Volunteers also have support from local 

church members in the community in which they serve. Most volunteers 

have telephone lines in their apartments, but they are not supposed to 

have cell phones or radios because officials think these items could 

make volunteers targets for theft and assault.



United Nations Volunteers operate under the auspices of the United 

Nations Development Program. Volunteers generally work on a program 

project alongside program staff and, much like the program’s regular 

employees, are chosen for a specific job. United Nations Volunteers are 

not asked to build intercultural relationships. About 5,000 of these 

volunteers are currently working in about 150 countries; many are 

native to the country in which they work. Volunteers usually serve for 

2 years, although the program uses some short-term volunteers in times 

of crisis. Unlike Peace Corps volunteers, these volunteers usually live 

in the same communities as other United Nations or government staff, 

often in capital cities or urban areas; many bring their families and 

are given the use of a vehicle. Program officials stated that they do 

not perform formal risk assessments, but they added that they do not 

place volunteers in countries or areas that are considered dangerous. 

Program officials indicated that they provide little safety and 

security training, although the United Nations provides a safety and 

security handbook to staff members and volunteers in the United Nations 

system. There is little formal monitoring of volunteers. Volunteers 

typically have telephones in their homes and may also have cell phones 

or radios for project-related reasons.



Save the Children is a development-oriented, nongovernmental 

organization with offices in about 31 countries, with staff focused on 

a specific job, not on intercultural exchange. In contrast to Peace 

Corps volunteers, most expatriate staff have had overseas experiences 

and are typically in their 30s. Much of the organization’s funding is 

from the U.S. Agency for International Development, and staff typically 

work closely with agency and U.S. embassy staff. The organization has 

not made it a practice to conduct formal risk assessments but instead 

relies on other nongovernmental organizations and the U.S. embassy for 

information. However, headquarters is beginning to task overseas 

offices with responsibility for conducting risk assessments. Although 

program officials indicated that the organization provides little 

training in safety and security, they have asked the Peace Corps and 

other U.S. government agencies for advice on training. Unlike Peace 

Corps volunteers, Save the Children staff live in the expatriate 

community and may have radios, cell phones, or both, depending on job 

needs and risk. They have frequent contact with other nongovernmental 

organizations and U.S. government employees, who live and work in the 

same area. In addition, country directors prepare weekly reports on 

staffs’ current and future locations and vacation schedules.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Peace Corps’ Crime Data Analysis System and Crime Trends:



The Peace Corps has established two reporting systems for collecting 

information on crimes against volunteers. The agency’s medical staff 

operates both systems. As described in this report, Peace Corps data 

show that, with the exception of major sexual assaults, reported rates 

of assault against volunteers have been higher in recent years than in 

the early 1990s. Historical data for aggravated assaults and rapes--the 

most consistent data available to Peace Corps analysts--support these 

overall findings. Reported rates of nonassault crimes, in contrast, 

have remained essentially unchanged since 1990.



Peace Corps Has Two Systems for Collecting Crime Information:



Post medical officers are tasked with collecting detailed information 

on each assault incident reported by volunteers and submitting this 

information to headquarters through the Peace Corps’ assault 

notification and surveillance system. In 1997, the medical office 

refined the reporting categories employed in this system. Formerly 

asked to differentiate among only four types of assaults, field medical 

staff are now asked to submit reports on five types of sexual assault 

and five types of physical assault. When filling out reporting forms, 

medical officers are asked to ascertain a variety of details on 

victims, assailants, and the circumstances surrounding each assault, 

such as time and location of the incident. Medical officers are also 

asked to submit monthly counts of four types of nonassault crimes 

through the Peace Corps’ epidemiologic surveillance system, which is a 

reporting system that focuses primarily on gathering statistics on 

volunteer injuries and illnesses.[Footnote 24] These reports do not 

provide any details on the reported events.



Trends Differ for Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Nonassault Crimes:



Aggravated assault and rape are the only two categories of crime for 

which reporting definitions remained unchanged when the Peace Corps 

revised its system for categorizing and recording crimes in 1997. 

Therefore, data on these crimes may be the most consistent available to 

the Peace Corps. As shown in figure 7, the reported rate of aggravated 

assault against volunteers has been consistently higher since 1996 than 

in earlier years. As shown in figure 8, reports of rape have varied 

from year to year, most recently declining from a median rate of about 

4.6 per 1,000 female volunteer years in 1996-1998 to a median level of 

about 3 per 1,000 female volunteer years in 1999-2001.[Footnote 25] 

Table 1 shows the actual numbers of aggravated assaults and rapes that 

were reported. Since the numbers of assaults, especially sexual 

assaults, are small, there is some question about the practical 

significance of these changes.



Figure 7: Incidence Rates of Reported Aggravated Assaults, 1990-2001:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Source: Peace Corps analysis (except for 2001, which represents a GAO 

estimate of Peace Corps data).



[End of figure]



Figure 8: Incidence Rates of Reported Rape, 1990-2001:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Source: Peace Corps analysis (except for 2001, which represents a GAO 

estimate of Peace Corps data).



[End of figure]



Table 1: Number of Aggravated Assaults and Rapes Reported by 

Volunteers, 1990-2001:



Year: 1990; Aggravated assaults: 20; Rapes: 11.



Year: 1991; Aggravated assaults: 41; Rapes: 13.



Year: 1992; Aggravated assaults: 43; Rapes: 9.



Year: 1993; Aggravated assaults: 57; Rapes: 10.



Year: 1994; Aggravated assaults: 45; Rapes: 6.



Year: 1995; Aggravated assaults: 62; Rapes: 9.



Year: 1996; Aggravated assaults: 78; Rapes: 13.



Year: 1997; Aggravated assaults: 88; Rapes: 20.



Year: 1998; Aggravated assaults: 87; Rapes: 19.



Year: 1999; Aggravated assaults: 102; Rapes: 11.



Year: 2000; Aggravated assaults: 88; Rapes: 19.



Year: 2001; Aggravated assaults: 86; Rapes: 14.



Source: Peace Corps.



[End of table]



Rates of nonassault crimes have varied little since 1993, when the 

agency began collecting information on incidents of burglary, theft, 

and robbery. Figure 9 shows a slight decrease in reported robberies and 

burglaries since 1993, while figure 10 shows a slight increase in 

reported thefts.



Figure 9: Incidence Rates of Reported Robberies and Burglaries, 1993-

2000:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Note: A robbery is an event that does not involve violence or threat of 

violence, in which property or cash is taken directly from a volunteer. 

A burglary is an unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of a 

volunteer’s residence.



Source: GAO analysis of Peace Corps data.



[End of figure]



Figure 10: Incidence Rates of Reported Thefts, 1993-2000:



[See PDF for image]



Legend: V/T year = 1 full year of service by a volunteer or trainee.



Note: A theft is the taking away of, or attempting to take away, 

property or cash without force or illegal entry.



Source: GAO analysis of Peace Corps data.



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Peace Corps Provisions for Responding to Criminal 

Incidents:



Peace Corps policy requires posts to develop procedures for responding 

to all safety and security incidents reported by volunteers. The agency 

has not developed clear guidance for posts to apply in responding to 

minor incidents. However, the Peace Corps does have well-defined 

notification and response protocols for major sexual assaults, and 

posts follow similar procedures when volunteers report major physical 

assaults. In addition, when a volunteer decides to prosecute, the Peace 

Corps’ Office of General Counsel and the Office of the Inspector 

General’s investigations unit may provide assistance.



The Peace Corps’ Rape Response Handbook, developed in 1999, establishes 

a protocol to ensure timely notification of appropriate staff at posts 

and at headquarters and describes the roles and responsibilities of 

post and headquarters staff in responding to a rape or attempted rape. 

In addition to giving guidance for reporting the incident to agency 

headquarters as previously described in this report, the handbook 

clearly establishes that the post’s medical officer is responsible for 

providing medical care to the volunteer who has been assaulted and for 

collecting forensic evidence in case the volunteer decides to 

prosecute. The country director is responsible for ensuring that the 

victim, as well as other volunteers and trainees, is safe; preserving 

the option to prosecute (e.g., by advising the volunteer of her legal 

rights, preserving evidence, etc.); and notifying the security office 

at the U.S. embassy of the assault while protecting the volunteer’s 

identity unless identification is essential. Embassy security staff are 

expected to support the Peace Corps in any investigation or prosecution 

following the incident.



The Peace Corps follows similar notification and response protocols 

when a volunteer reports a major physical assault. The medical officer 

reports the assault to the Office of Medical Services at headquarters 

and provides medical treatment to the volunteer. As with a rape 

incident, the medical officer notifies the country director of the 

assault, although in the interest of medical confidentiality the 

volunteer’s identity and details of the incident may not be disclosed. 

The country director is responsible for informing the U.S. embassy 

security officer of the assault and may work with the embassy if the 

volunteer decides to prosecute.



According to Peace Corps data, 18 percent of volunteers who experienced 

a major sexual assault and 26 percent of volunteers who reported a 

major physical assault between 1997 and 1999 said that they intended to 

prosecute. When a volunteer decides to prosecute, the Peace Corps’ 

Office of General Counsel covers the cost of legal counsel in the 

country where the assault happened. The Office of the Inspector 

General’s investigations unit, in conjunction with other federal 

agencies, may also provide support in investigations of crimes against 

volunteers. For example, inspector general staff may conduct interviews 

with Peace Corps staff and local authorities, escort volunteers who are 

asked to identify suspects, or arrange for examination of forensic 

evidence.



[End of section]



Appendix V: Comments from the Peace Corps:



THE DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS WASHINGTON, D.C.



July 16, 2002:



Mr. Jess T. Ford Director International Affairs and Trade General 

Accounting Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:



Re: Agency Response to GAO Report on Peace Corps Safety and Security:



Dear Mr. Ford:



On behalf of all of our Volunteers and staff, I thank you for your 

thorough Report on Peace Corps’ safety and security program. We agree 

with many of the Report’s findings, and we would like to take this 

opportunity to provide certain additional information to make the 

Report more complete and accurate. For ease of review, this letter sets 

out our comments according to the Report’s overall organizational 

structure. (We have provided technical comments under separate cover.):



Background:



Any report on Peace Corps’ safety and security system should begin by 

describing the reality of the Peace Corps Volunteer experience, as this 

explains why the Peace Corps has based its entire safety and security 

approach on the community acceptance and integration model. Peace Corps 

Volunteers are individuals who volunteer to work directly with local 

schools, health clinics, community centers, or other host-country 

sponsoring organizations. They live in the same local communities where 

they volunteer, at the same socio-economic level as the people with 

whom they work, sometimes in remote locations. Peace Corps is committed 

to maintaining their safety and security by providing them with a 

safety and security framework and an infrastructure of support-

including pre-service training in language, safety and security, and 

cross-cultural issues; direct medical care in the field (and medical 

evacuation to the United States if needed); assistance with housing; a 

living stipend; and other institutional support.



Reported Crime Incidents:



We are gratified the Report acknowledges that the Peace Corps 

systematically gathers and analyzes a range of information about 

criminal incidents against Volunteers; that it “has used its data 

analyses to gain insight into the characteristics of assaults against:



Volunteers and to shape Volunteer training programs;” and that “in 

recent years, Peace Corps has made a number of improvements to its 

crime data collection and analysis system.” (Report pages 5, 8.):



We agree with the Report’s later assertions that further analysis into 

this issue could yield useful information.



Peace Corps Safety and Security Guidance and Support to Posts:



We are pleased the Report recognizes that “Volunteer health, safety, 

and security is the agency’s highest priority,” and that, to advance 

these goals, 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.” (Report page 10.) We also 

appreciate the Report’s finding that Peace Corps headquarters supports 

posts in implementing these policies through written guidance, 

training, supervision and oversight. (Report page 12.):



Peace Corps Posts’ Implementation of Safety and Security Framework:



We agree with one of the Report’s conclusion that several aspects of 

our safety and security policies are being applied well across our 

numerous posts. Thus, for example, we appreciate that the Report found 

that numerous Volunteers are generally satisfied by the degree to which 

posts keep them informed about safety and security issues in their 

country of service and with the level of safety and security training 

Peace Corps provides to them. (Report page 14.):



Our own safety and security review confirms the Report’s finding that, 

for certain other areas of the agency’s safety and security framework, 

full implementation is uneven across our many posts. It is for this 

very reason that the agency has undertaken several major new 

initiatives to ensure more uniformity of compliance with these 

policies, including the issuance of Peace Corps Manual Section 270 

Implementation Procedures, which sets out standards and criteria for 

compliance with each element of the MS 270 framework in a manner that 

is verifiable for Peace Corps headquarters.



We note each area of concern cited by the Report and what steps the 

agency has already taken to address that issue:



The Report found that not all posts had properly developed housing and 

work sites for Volunteers. The new MS 270 Implementation Procedures 

require that each Country Director certify in writing, among other 

things, that site selection criteria, site selection procedures, and 

Volunteer site visits standards and procedures have all been 

established and applied.



The Report found that some Volunteers had unsupportive counterparts, 

which may limit their ability to build supportive networks in their 

host communities. The new MS 270:



Implementation Procedures require the Country Director to certify in 

writing that appropriate communities and counterparts are identified 

and provided with orientation to the Peace Corps program and to the 

particular Volunteer assigned to that community.



The Report found that not all posts maintained proper site history 

files. The new MS 270 Implementation Procedures require the Country 

Director to certify in writing that post has established and is 

maintaining appropriate site history files, which contain all relevant 

safety and security information on a site-by-site basis.



The Report points out a number of concerns relating to three additional 

issues: (1) frequency of site visits; (2) Volunteer absences from 

sites; (3) Peace Corps’ responses to safety and security concerns and 

criminal incidences. Regarding site visits, we were pleased that, at 

each of the five posts you visited, “staff made regular visits to most 

Volunteers, in accordance with each post’s policies,” and that many 

Volunteers were satisfied with the frequency of site visits. (Report 

page 18.) In addition, the new MS 270 Implementation Procedures require 

the Country Director to certify in writing that Volunteer site visit 

standards are established and applied.



We also agree that there are safety and security challenges posed by a 

range of Volunteer behaviors, including the specific issue of 

unauthorized absence from site. In response to these challenges, Peace 

Corps has in place the following policies and procedures: the new MS 

270 Implementation Procedures require the Country Director to certify 

in writing that (i) each Volunteer has demonstrated an understanding of 

host country cultural norms and an ability to adapt his or her daily 

conduct accordingly; (ii) each Volunteer has demonstrated an 

understanding of personal safety risk factors and a commitment to adopt 

a safe lifestyle and minimize risk; (iii) each Volunteer has met 

training competencies relating to safety and security (including leave 

from site, transportation, drinking and other personal behavior); and 

(iv) each Volunteer has completed and submitted a site locator form. In 

addition, all posts have clear written policies stating that 

unauthorized absence from site is grounds for administrative separation 

from Peace Corps and, pursuant to the MS 270 Implementation Procedures, 

counterparts are made aware of the importance of these policies.



Regarding Peace Corps’ responsiveness to safety and security concerns 

and criminal incidents, the Report acknowledges that the Volunteers you 

spoke with who were victims of sexual assault “expressed satisfaction 

with staff response when they reported the incident.” (Report page 18.) 

Additionally, the new MS 270 Implementation Procedures require the 

Country Director to certify in writing that uniform incident reporting 

and incident response protocols are established and applied; that 

incident report data are analyzed and appropriate recommendations 

applied; and that procedures for sharing incident report data with the 

Embassy Regional Security Officer and Peace Corps/Washington are 

established and applied.



Regarding post Emergency Action Plans (“EAPs”), the Report found that 

all posts complied with the MS 270 requirements that they “develop an 

EAP, test it annually, and submit it and the test results to 

headquarters.” (Page 19.) The Report also acknowledges that Peace Corps 

headquarters has made available to posts a suggested format designed to 

assist the posts in formulating their EAPs. Additionally, though the 
Report 

notes that Peace Corps has evacuated more than 1600 Volunteers from 26 
posts 

during the years from 1993 to 2001, the Report should also note that, 
in all 

of these evacuations, Peace Corps successfully evacuated every 
Volunteer 

without a single injury or death.



Peace Corps has already taken several steps to ensure greater 

uniformity of compliance with the recommended elements of a strong EAP: 

(1) the Peace Corps is adding three new full-time positions of Safety 

and Security Desk Officer to provide specific training to the desks on 

improving their posts’ EAPs and to provide additional support for the 

review and revision process for each post’s EAP; (2) additional 

materials for developing and evaluating complete EAPs have been made 

available to posts; and (3) pursuant to the new MS 270 Implementation 

Procedures, Country Directors must certify in writing that their EAPs 

have been submitted to and made part of the Embassy’s Emergency Action 

Plan, and that staff and Volunteers have received appropriate training 

to fulfill their respective responsibilities under the EAP.



Underlying Factors Contributing to Uneven Implementation:



Guidance and Staff Training. According to the Report, Peace Corps staff 

in the field sometimes found it difficult to understand exactly what 

“activities [or] documentation” was required to comply with the broad 

policies set out by MS 270, and the criteria by which such compliance 

would be determined. They also thought that training in this area could 

be improved. (Report page 22.) As part of the agency’s own safety and 

security review, headquarters and field personnel together crafted the 

new MS 270 Implementation Procedures, which detail precisely the 

“activities, documentation, or criteria” for judging posts’ compliance 

with the MS 270 requirements. These implementation standards and 

procedures are now part of all Overseas Staff Training, Country Desk 

Unit Training, RSSO training, and built into the compliance 

responsibilities of the Safety and Security Desk Officers, and the 

Chief Compliance Officer within the Office of Safety and Security.



We also agree that the issue of training for Peace Corps Volunteer 

Leaders and wardens is still uneven and greater uniformity of training 

should be implemented. We have recently distributed to all posts a new 

training module for Volunteer wardens covering their emergency action 

plan responsibilities.



Supervision and Oversight Mechanisms. We appreciate the Report’s 

acknowledgment that the agency has undertaken several new initiatives 

to improve formal supervision and oversight of posts’ compliance with 

our safety and security framework. Specifically, we are greatly 

increasing the number of safety and security-related staff and re-

aligning the agency’s structure to better monitor compliance. As 

spelled out in more detail below, we are authorizing, and providing 

funding for, every one of our 70 overseas posts to employ a full-or 

part-time staff assistant for safety and security (classified as a 

“Staff Support Specialist - Security”); as noted previously, we are 

adding three new full-time Safety and Security Desk Officer positions, 

one for each region; and we are creating a new division within 

Headquarters called the Office of Safety and Security, to be led by a 

new full-time position of Associate Director for Safety and Security 

that reports directly to the Peace Corps Director. This division 

encompasses the current office of Volunteer Safety and Overseas 
Security, 

and has new full-time positions of Chief Compliance Officer, Data 

Management/Analyst, as well as four additional Regional Safety and 

Security Officers (to bring the total from three to seven).



Each post’s safety and security assistant will facilitate Peace Corps/

Washington’s ability to effectively supervise and oversee posts’ 

compliance with MS 270 by, among other things: maintaining 

documentation of compliance with the MS 270 Implementation Procedures, 

including formal tracking systems for items such as the site locater 

forms, site visits, site history forms, Volunteer training completion 

records and Volunteer signed competency forms; and following up with 

the relevant Associate Peace Corps Director or Country Director to 

ensure timely submission of required documentation. It is important to 

note that, although these individuals will greatly facilitate the 

post’s record keeping responsibilities, Country Directors will continue 

to carry ultimate responsibility for compliance with MS 270.



The three new full-time Safety and Security Desk Officers will 

facilitate headquarters’ ability to effectively supervise and oversee 

each post’s compliance with MS 270 by, among other things: (i) working 

with each desk unit to directly monitor MS 270 compliance, including 

review and revisions to posts’ EAPs, and providing reports to Regional 

Directors and other senior officials as needed; (ii) developing 

tracking systems of each post’s MS 270 compliance on a regional level; 

(iii) providing training to desk units and other regional staff on 

continually improving MS 270 compliance; and (iv) assisting in tracking 

and implementing safety and security recommendations from RSSO 

evaluations.



The new headquarters Office of Safety and Security will facilitate 

headquarters’ ability to effectively supervise and oversee posts’ 

compliance with MS 270 by, among other things: (i) centralizing and 

improving accountability of functions related to safety and security; 

(ii) bringing the authority of a senior executive service level 

manager, who reports directly to the Peace Corps Director, on the issue 

of Volunteer safety; (iii) directly supervising the work of the Office 

of Volunteer Safety and Oversees Security; and (iv) adding the new 

positions of Chief Compliance Officer, Data Management/Analyst, and 

four new Regional Safety and Security Officers.



Among other responsibilities, the Chief Compliance Officer will track 

safety and security recommendations generated from Inspector General 

reports, Regional Safety and Security Officer evaluations, and other 

sources, as well as the status of post implementation of 

recommendations, and prepare monthly compliance reports for the 

Director’s review. The Data Management/Analyst will, among other 

things, design, implement and revise surveillance and monitoring 

systems; conduct trend analyses for selected safety conditions or 

events; and provide safety-related data gathering and analysis 

training. And the four new Regional Safety and Security Officers will 

continue and expand the work of the three Regional Safety and Security 

Officers already in place they will conduct individualized safety and 

security assessments of each post, provide recommendations for 

improving safety and security practices, including guidance to the 

new safety and security staff assistants on maintaining appropriate 

documentation of compliance, and generally be a resource to posts in 

fulfilling their MS 270 obligations.



The Problem of Staff Turnover. We agree with the Report’s finding that 

staff turnover presents a challenge to the effective functioning of all 

agency operations, including providing for the safety and security of 

our Volunteers. By law, the Peace Corps is barred from employing any 

U.S. direct hire (other than the Director and Deputy Director of the 

agency) for more than five years. See 22 U.S.C § 2506(a)(5), (6).1The 

Report correctly notes that this “five-year rule” has created very high 

rates of staff turnover. Unless and until this law is changed, the 

agency cannot effectively “address the issue of staff turnover,” as the 

Report recommends. (Report page 29.):



Instead, the agency has developed a strategy for mitigating the effects 

of high staff turnover, to as great a degree as possible, through 

measures such as increased training and better tracking systems. For 

example, we have recently instituted a regular two-year in-service 

safety and security training cycle for all desk units and other 

regional staff, U.S. recruiting offices, and in-country staff and 

Volunteer Leaders. In addition, we have expanded safety and security 

training as part of the one-month Overseas Staff Training given to all 

new overseas staff members, and developed safety and security modules 

to be presented at annual in-service trainings for programming and 

training staff, Administrative Officers, and Country Directors. We also 

believe that our compliance tracking systems will more deeply 

institutionalize our safety and security program, which should help 

mitigate the problems caused by frequent staff turnover.



Peace Corps Initiatives May Enhance Volunteer Safety and Security:



We agree with the Report’s comment that the agency’s initiatives “are 

intended to address many of the issues we identified and may lead to 

improved safety and security practices.” The Report recognizes that 

these initiatives are intended “to clarify guidance, strengthen 

supervision and oversight mechanisms, and provide human resources to 

help maintain documentation and perform research into patterns and 

trends in crime against Volunteers.” (Report page 25.) We have already 

identified many of these initiatives in our responses.



Additionally, we think that, in many respects, the initiatives 

described above do have criteria and standards for measuring 

compliance. For example, MS 270 requires that each post establish and 

apply site selection criteria; the MS 270 Implementation Procedures 

require that, before a Volunteer is placed at a site, post must 

complete a site assessment checklist and housing checklist, which will 

confirm that the established criteria have been satisfied. Likewise, MS 

270 requires that each post establish and apply site selection 

procedures; the MS 270 Implementation Procedures require that, before a 

Volunteer is placed at a site, there is a site assessment report, which 

details whether the:



[1] Under extraordinary circumstances, extensions of employment, for up 

to three and one-half additional years of service, may be given to a 

limited number of employees.



site complies with established written criteria. Each “Activity” 

described in the MS 270 Implementation Procedures has a similar “Means 

of Verification” section, which spells out precisely what is required 

to demonstrate compliance with the relevant policy.



Of course, as these initiatives become more fully implemented, 

additional criteria may become useful.



We plan internal quarterly reports on our progress towards full 

compliance, including documentation of compliance with specific 

requirements, and we will include results in our regular communications 

with Congress and the annual reports under the Government Performance 

and Results Act.



Finally, with the benefit of increased analytical resources, we will 

continue to monitor our safety and security program both through the 

prism of compliance with various processes as well as the ultimate 

yardstick of outcome-based performance.



In closing, let me again thank you for the time and energy GAO has 

devoted to the issue of Volunteer safety and security. Throughout my 

tenure as Director, it will remain my highest priority.



Sincerely:



Gaddi H. Vasquez:



Signed by Gaddi H. Vasquez:



[End of section]



Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contact:



Phyllis Anderson (202) 512-7364:



Staff Acknowledgments:



In addition to Ms. Anderson, key contributors to this report were Wendy 

Ahmed, Kriti Bhandari, Lynn Cothern, Suzanne Dove, Bruce Kutnick, 

Michael McAtee, James Strus, and Christina Werth.



FOOTNOTES



[1] One volunteer year is equivalent to 1 full year of service by a 

volunteer or trainee.



[2] The Peace Corps Act, as amended (codified at 22 U.S.C. 2501 et 

seq.), directs the agency to “help the peoples of interested countries 

in meeting their needs for trained manpower, particularly in meeting 

the basic needs of those living in the poorest areas of such countries, 

and to help promote a better understanding of the American people on 

the part of the peoples served and a better understanding of other 

peoples on the part of the American people.”



[3] From 1993 through 2001, the Peace Corps closed or suspended 

operations at 24 posts because of civil unrest or warfare. The agency 

occasionally sends former volunteers to provide short-term “Crisis 

Corps” assistance during humanitarian crises or natural disasters. In 

recent years, such volunteers have been sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina, 

Guinea, and hurricane-devastated areas of Central America.



[4] See, for example, Peace Corps, Safety of the Volunteer 2000 

(Washington, D.C.: 2001) Assaults Against Peace Corps Volunteers 1990-

1999 (Washington, D.C.: 2001).



[5] Since relatively small numbers of criminal incidents take place in 

relation to the size of the volunteer population, and annual changes in 

the number of reported crimes are also small, annual changes in 

underreporting can significantly affect apparent trends.



[6] Peace Corps officials stated that after completing the most recent 

survey, the agency will conduct surveys every other year.



[7] Peace Corps program managers are often known as associate Peace 

Corps directors.



[8] The Peace Corps’ Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2000 to 2005 

states that ensuring the health, safety, and security of volunteers and 

staff is the agency’s highest priority.



[9] Section 270 of the Peace Corps Manual contains the agency’s basic 

policies on volunteer safety and security.



[10] The three regional directorates are responsible for agency posts 

in Africa; Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; and Inter-America and the 

Pacific.



[11] Volunteers are considered U.S. government employees only for 

certain purposes, including federal tort claims. See 22 U.S.C. 2504(h).



[12] In addition to keeping volunteers informed, country directors may 

apply such information in making management decisions. For example, 

posts sometimes restrict volunteer travel to specific areas because of 

criminal or political violence.



[13] For example, security officers recommended developing written 

course outlines or lesson plans and taking steps to comply with Peace 

Corps policy on integrating safety and security issues into the 

language and cross-cultural components of training.



[14] According to the 1999 survey, 51 percent of volunteers reported 

sexual harassment, 41 percent reported racial harassment, 23 percent 

reported religious harassment, and 21 percent reported political 

harassment.



[15] Some posts require host communities to provide housing for the 

volunteer as a sign of commitment to the volunteer’s work in the 

community. In interviews, many program managers said that in practice 

the communities often do not select and prepare a house until just 

before or even after the volunteer’s arrival. This practice makes it 

impossible for Peace Corps staff to comply with the agency’s 

requirement that they inspect all housing before the volunteer’s 

arrival.



[16] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Peace Corps: New Programs in 

Former Eastern Bloc Countries Should Be Strengthened, GAO/NSIAD-95-6 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1994); Peace Corps: Meeting the Challenges 

of the 1990s, GAO/NSIAD-90-122 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 1990); and 

Changes Needed for a Better Peace Corps, GAO/ID-78-26, (Washington, 

D.C.: February 1979).



[17] Country directors and medical officers attend regularly scheduled 

conferences, while program managers are provided with opportunities to 

attend training events every 12 to 18 months. These sessions may or may 

not address safety and security concerns. The Peace Corps’ coordinator 

for volunteer safety and security conducted a series of safety and 

security workshops for staff and volunteers in 1999 and 2000, but these 

workshops have not been repeated.



[18] Volunteer leaders conduct administrative and volunteer support 

tasks for Peace Corps staff. These leaders are usually volunteers in 

their third year of service, although at one post we met volunteer 

leaders who were in their second year of service, and one who had not 

yet completed his first year.



[19] According to our internal control standards, a well-designed 

internal control system should include “written documentation…for all 

significant transactions and events.” U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2001).



[20] During the same period, the officers also provided input on the 

security environment in 18 countries where the Peace Corps was 

considering opening (or re-opening) a post.



[21] Half of these reports focused specifically on safety and security 

issues.



[22] As part of a larger effort to revamp the agency’s computer 

systems, Peace Corps information technology officials told us that they 

are developing an information management application that would provide 

all posts with a framework for maintaining easily accessible records on 

sites and volunteers. This effort--to be completed by June 2003--should 

facilitate post efforts to create effective safety and security 

information management systems.



[23] Deterrence measures are likely to be used by military-type 

organizations or those working in areas of significant armed conflict.



[24] The Peace Corps’ epidemiologic surveillance system also requests 

information on the four categories of assault originally listed in the 

assault notification surveillance system. Since a more elaborate system 

has been created to gather detailed information on such crimes, assault 

information provided through the epidemiologic system is used primarily 

as a check on the accuracy of reporting through the assault 

notification system.



[25] As previously noted, Peace Corps staff observed that since many 

factors affect the incidence of crime against volunteers, it is 

difficult to attribute such declines to particular causes.



GAO’s Mission:



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to   

HYPERLINK http://www.gao.gov \* MERGEFORMAT  www.gao.gov and select 

“Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the 

GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:



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

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:

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

Washington, D.C. 20548.