GovernmentExecutive.com

Members of a House subcommittee on Tuesday probed whether non-Defense agencies are providing adequate incentives and benefits to encourage civilian employees to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a hearing before the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, witnesses from the Agriculture, Justice, State and Treasury departments and the U.S. Agency for International Development testified that they are providing attractive compensation and benefits packages to employees serving in war zones.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., extended sympathy to the family, friends and colleagues of Agriculture employee Tom Stefani, who was killed on Oct. 4 by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. "We thank all federal civilian employees who have volunteered to serve in combat zones for their sacrifices and their service to our nation," Snyder said.

Civilian employees generally are not required to serve in war zones, so agencies frequently rely on volunteers. Given the critical need, agencies must provide incentives and benefits to encourage those with the right skills and experience to volunteer, Snyder said.

Agency witnesses testified that employees in Iraq and Afghanistan receive their basic salary plus 70 percent in differentials for danger and hardship service. Additionally, the fiscal 2007 Defense authorization bill allowed an increase to the annual ceiling on basic and premium pay, pushing the limit to $212,100 for calendar year 2007, said Bruce Schwartz, a deputy assistant attorney general at Justice. The ceiling normally would have been $136,200.

Based on the length of service in war zones, employees also are entitled to rest and recuperation breaks and regional rest breaks, witnesses said. For a 12-month deployment, for example, employees can return to the United States three times for rest and relaxation and consultation in Washington. Employees also can opt to take such leave in the region.

Despite the attractiveness of benefits and other incentives for deployed civilians, pending retirements at USAID may pose future staffing challenges in war zones, said Mark Ward, senior deputy assistant administrator for USAID's bureau for Asia and the Near East. In USAID alone, he said, more than 30 percent of Foreign Service officers will be eligible to retire this year, and 46 percent will be eligible by 2011.

"It is important that we consider taking specific steps now -- for example, by increasing the number of junior Foreign Service officers and making sure that they sign on with a clear expectation of serving in dangerous assignments throughout the world," Ward said.

Meanwhile, given that civilian employees stand beside their military counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan, subcommittee members also asked witnesses whether federal employees receive adequate medical care or help navigating the workers' compensation process.

Harry K. Thomas Jr., director general of the Foreign Service and head of personnel at the State Department, pointed to a recent survey by the department that found "widespread indications of stress-related symptoms among employees serving at unaccompanied posts."

Two percent of the 877 Foreign Service employees who responded to the survey "probably" suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, State found, and another 15 percent "might possibly" have PTSD.

Thomas said the department is working with an outside firm to conduct a more detailed analysis of the survey results. In the meantime, he said, State is working with the Office of Medical Services to see if changes should be made to pre-assignment briefings and mandatory debriefing sessions for employees. Such changes could involve directing more time to discussion of mental health counseling resources, insomnia and social withdrawal, he said.

The subcommittee's hearing is the third this fall on incentives, benefits and medical care for deployed civilian employees. The committee has heard testimony from Defense and Labor department officials, the Government Accountability Office, and wounded civilian veterans of Iraq.

"The success of the transition from conflict to stability in regions of national interest will depend heavily on the efforts of civilians," Snyder said. "If our nation asks them to volunteer for these hazardous missions, then we are responsible for their well-being."

COMMENTS

• Deployed 7 times to OIF (volunteered) It is not about the money, I know I helped solders make it home in one piece. You can not top that for compensation. I would go back in a second if I was needed. Calvin Hirsch Posted August 13, 2008 12:23 AM
• My husband is deploy this is his second time and I can say that they make him work like and slave they only pay him the seem as he was getting here and they put "danger pay" 150.00 every paycheck. We pay taxes out of his pay and I think that he should have better pay since he is working for dod and he is on the line of danger, no to mention the separation from us, specially my daughter, he is going to miss her junior high school graduation and those are things that no one can reemplaze. I wish they consider the great sacrifice that we are making as well as the soldiers. Civilians are often forgotten. Ana Toledo Posted March 23, 2008 3:55 PM
• My husband and son were both deployed to Iraq as DOD employees. My husband was there almost 2 months when he sustained an injury in an explosion.We thought that was a nightmare but it only got worse after he returned home to recuperate and began dealing with the governments compensation department. My son was in a helicopter that was shot down. Fortunately , everyone survived. So it is truly a slap in their faces to be treated the way they are when it comes to the unfairness of being taxed while others are exempt, yet they are subjected to the same dangers and perils as the military and contractors. My husband was actually training the military when he was injured. Rose White Posted January 29, 2008 6:42 PM