AFSA Member Survey 2007 Comments Question # 9

9. Beyond the issues mentioned above, what additional problems/concerns do you believe AFSA should be addressing?


--Priority for tandem assignments.

--The discrimination against singles- who are often routed to more undesirable posts, and especially the fact that (post name deleted) has become a two year post despite the fact that we must live on a restricted comoound and are rarely allowed to leave. They justify the two years by allowing us to bring our spouses - but if you don't have one you must suffer two years of this hardship alone.

--AFSA should be concerned about the unanticipated consequences of current assignment policies. For example, while the policy of giving CPC veterans assignment preference and extra credit for promotion may have forestalled forced placements, it is creating a permanent underclass of officers (many of whom are parents or single parents) who do not serve at these posts. If this continues, USAID will soon be led by a cohort of single officers or childless couples. I would favor a system whereby everyone had to list a CPC or a $25% hardship post and HR made exceptions for compassionate reasons only.

--1. Hiring and ranking practices. HR changed the rules in 2005 when it converted folks to limited term appointments AND allowed them to count PSC years of service for leave accrual. This was unfair to other LTAs who were hired earlier, as it was to NEPs who both came in with lower ranks and who took lower grades. I fear that we are around the corner from senior management and HR making the case that LTAs be converted to career direct hires. Yet, as a NEP, my years of PSC experience neither got me a high grade or my service counted for leave and other purposes. What it has gotten me is the likelihood that an LTA with less experience, will supervise me in my next assignment. 2. Assignment process. It is very much delayed this year. I applaud the phasing HR has done - it is the right thing to do, but they need to have assignments done sooner. I expect musical chairs as SMG assignments won't be made before the general notice comes out for remaining employees. I expect that further movement will occur as folks bid to take assignments vacated by SMG folks. It appears this will go on until late spring. 3. Promotions. HR and panels do not follow the ADS. If one is succeeding at a position ranked above his/her current grade, he or she should be given an A, and ranked alongside other As. Whether or not the promotion happens is up to the line drawing exercise. However, this is not what happens in practice. If NEPs are assigned to FS 1 or 2 slots, and are performing all the functions of that job in a "satisfactory" manner, why aren't they getting "A"s on their report cards? Either change the ADS or ask the panels and HR to follow the guidelines. It is discouraging to staff and disingenuous not to follow or change the ADS.4. F. No. Department of International Development - yes.

--Reforming USAID/HR.Improving relations with our GS colleagues.

--Spouses who compete for internationally advertised US PSC jobs do not get the same benefits as other members of household (e.g., spouse will not get post differential whereas a significant other would). This policy discriminates against spouses.

--By "family friendly", I mean fairness and benefits for domestic partners.

--The continuing failure of the majority of core HR staff to provide any reasonable level of service or support to USAID employees. Massive FS hiring, employee retooling and all other dramatic personnel measures do not take into account this fundamental problem. However, they cannot succeed without its being addressed head-on.

--Number of technical positions--seems that bid lists are full of program officer positions but fewer technical positions, which presumably are being contracted out. Is this a reflection of the much-discussed loss of technical expertise, or does it perpetuate it?

--Lack of recruitment of FS in USAID despite continually falling numbers. Also the new policy of hiring new professionals at the FS-06 grade.

--Allowing equal visa assistance and airfare allowances for unmarried partners who do not yet have the legal right to marry (i.e. same-sex couples)

--Equality with State Department staff

--Members of Household! Unmarried partners are still treated as second-class citizens, with no access to health insurance, coverage of travel expenses, etc. Why will USAID pay to move my cat halfway around the world and not spend a penny on my partner of twelve years?

--1. We need to be able hire mid- and higher-level professionals. We need to hire a good number of PhD economists and we need the flexibility to recruit at that level.2. We need to insist that AA and DAA positions be fill with tested and competent professionals who are particularly capable of putting USAID in a leadersip position vis a vis other USG entitites.

--The lack of legitimate and credible leadership at the highest levels of the Agency as reflected by the fact that neither the Acting Administrator or Deputy Administrator can get confirmed by the Senate.

--The stealth merger with State and all of its ramifications

--Pursuing the idea of a Dept. of International Development with cabinet level representation.

--Lack of adequate OE resources.

--Kill F and protect USAID from the regime

--Several fine officers have spent the last 10 to 12 years in the field working their way up. Now that they are ready and the best candidates for senior leadership overseas, they are being blocked from applying and told they must return to Washington. The demographics and lack of staffing at USAID does not support this rule and will unfairly provide faster upward mobility of officers that have spent less time with the Agency, such as NEPs over seasoned officers.

--*F and the agency reforms were a veiled attempt to dismantle USAID. USAID needs champions in the Congress to help it rebuild.*Our OE situation is criminal. I just received a nice glossy on Federal training opportunities and all I can do is wish. There is no way that I can go for training because my Agency is broke. How pathetic is that? If I want training, I have to piggyback it with home leave. How is it that we can work for the same government; for the same taxpayers, and yet get such a lousy deal compared to our other federal employee brethren?

--Better spousal employment within and outside the Embassy overseas is crucial, and SNAP programs are not sufficient at this time.

--Comparable benefits with FSO from other agencies, particularly DOS

--Combat zone pay

--In regards to family friendliness, I think the agency goes too far in being too family friendly. As an untenured junior officer who was sent in a directed assignment to USAID/(blank), I was not given any opportunity to leverage the skills acquired in years of working in (blank), along with academic and language study. I got a 3+/3+ on the (blank) test at FSI, I have an MA in (BLANK)studies from a prestigious graduate program in the DC area, (the 3+/3+ was obtained without any coursework at FSI, just a walk-in test) but my department would not consider sending me to (blank). However, the other two people in my backstop were both catered to. ...More appreciation should be afforded officers who have worked hard to hone their technical skills in language and development in a specific region. If the agency does not give me the opportunity to spend some of my career in (blank), I will have to consider other options where I can use those langauge and development skills.

--I think that some of the very high costs of USG operations overseas these days are a direct result of AFSA lobbying for things like 100% EFM employment at posts, and other high cost "family friendly" initiatives, blanket premier class travel approvals, and other things that to many old-timers, are sheer luxury items.

--Keep USAID an independent agency.

--hiring of new FSOs, conversion of FSLs, deficit of managers for MD positions, role of USAID vs State in the field and in Washington, advocacy for the future structure of USAID reporting relationships...

--I have noticed that shipping of uab and consumables have been taking longer and longer to get to post. It's very common it seems for consumables to take at least 3 months. This is unsatisfactory and hurts families. If it keeps getting worse, I foresee people using the benefit less and less. Maybe that's what the Govt wants? The travel office in AID/W is in shambles. State is not much better. This is an important quality of life issue, particularly for folks with kids.

--The fact that USAID is just becoming an implementation agency for State.

--Treatment of new FSOs (FS 6, 5, 4) when they arrive at their assignments. Many are treated as having no experience and not able to contribute to the organization.

--USAID budget

--In order to keep our foreign service hides out of jail, I think we need to more effectively and quickly update ADS guidance to reflect new Agency "reforms" or else discontinue the reforms!

--1. FSLs--what is the future plan, why so many conversions in "nice" Missions, FSLs outnumbering FSOs etc2. Unresponsive HR services3. Need for "employee-friendly" policies

C--onsolidation of services with State for which we will pay a higher price and received lesser services (and find our FSNs out of jobs)

--Tax issue when both spouses work overseas (change in tax law)

--conversion of FSLs to FSOs at FS 02 and FS 01 level. why bother coming in as an IDI... we're better off as a GS and waiting for the right opportunity.

--Providing language cultural training to all before going to any country. Equality of benefits between all FS agenciesTurning USAID into a militarized organization

--Tax free status for those serving in Iraq

The dysfunctional "surge roster". It took three months to bring me on board for three months.

--Individual rights of an employee overseas and the need for support from Washington to support them. Arbitrary power of Mission Directors to eliminate incumbents in specific positions to accommodate CPC candidates seeking assignments.Working under a difficult supervisor.

--The OE crisis and dangerous demographics of the USAID workforce

--We've still got a ways to go on race ethnicity and gender issues. I'm surprised not to see it more prominently presented in this survey. (And I say this as a white male - my guess is that women and minorities might use a word other than "surprised."

--Senior career management, either at the Mission Director or DAA level, needs to better position the Agency and protect it from the onslaught of "reforms" that have negative development impact, little or no added value to our efficieny and effectiveness, and demoralize a capable and skilled workforce. Setting aside the F reforms, there is tremendous pressure to be in harmony with State and other USG colleagues that we increasingly put our and the host-government's development priorities hostage or secondary to shorter-term political and foreign policy objectives.

--taxes incentives in a combat zone

--I believe that AFSA should be devoting much more time and energy in advocating for opening more assignment slots for USDH employees. Many plum positions are currently filled by FSL personnel, thereby making it extremely difficult for USDH personnel to get postings. This is completely unfair and unacceptable and AFSA needs to speak up very clearly to stop it. What's the point of AFSA's advocating for the pay disparity overseas, if some of us can't even get overseas to begin with - because so many slots are being taken up for 5 years or more by FSLs and US PSCs?

--The NEP Program is the worst on the job experience I have ever had in my entire life.... For this I am serving as a FSO??? There is no way USAID can ever make up for this.

--Pushing to level out the workforce to avoid "humps" due to illogical hiring.

--Benefit parity with State. For instance, colleagues from State serving in Bangladesh for at least three years qualify for student loan repayment and a service needs differential. USAID officers do not.

--Member of household inclusion. Not enough OE to staff our missions

--There has been a drop in allowing FSO to come together by backstop to discuss the many issue we are all faced with. I am in the 02 backshop - Program Officer. the last time the Program Officers came together was to hear about the new reform process and the operational plan. We need a forum that allows us to discuss issues, concerns, etc. However with the decreasing amount of OE funds we have not been able to do so.

--Families do great work in meeting and knowing 1st country people if they have studied the cultures and have a desire to represent our country in an open and friendly way to others.

--USAID leadership (internal and external)

--It seems like policy decisions are made in DC with no consultation from Missions overseas. This top-down management approach is a problem.

--The move towards regional platforms means less support for Missions and more stress in the form of travel on dangerous and unreliable regional carriers and time away from family for "support" staff, ie. RLAs, Controllers and Contracts Officers. Adequate staffing levels would mitigate this problem.

--Thanks for your good work!

--State med services--malarone is expensive but has the fewest side effects and officers should be able to have their supply of the best drug for their personal health provided on assigment regardless of cost--not only when it is cheap. [They can fund this out of the waste GAO identified with State's business class travel.] Also, I'd like to underscore equity in benefits between State and AID officers--student loan repayment being at the top of the list but even localized mission benefits such as use of the motorpool for leisure trips without charge.

--Proper screening of SMG candidates - It has started and needs to be continued to avoid having bad Mission Directors and Deputies.

--Under the category of family friendliness: paid maternity/paternity leave. This is a serious problem in posts where an employee must leave 6 weeks prior to a due date and cannot return to post for at least 4 weeks after delivery. Annual, sick, and unpaid leave are not adequate, especially for younger employees who do not have years of accrued leave and cannot afford to take weeks of unpaid leave. Also, it is unreasonable that the Federal Government will not pay travel expenses for the spouse to be present for the birth.

--DS and its approach to security background checks and investigations.

--Improved training programs in all areas.

--Building upon clear support for USAID in Congress, defending the mission of USAID as distinct from diplomacy and defense but equally important.

--staff development/training;

--There is absolutley no (zero) leadership at USAID. The least qualified people are put into management psoitions, both in Washington and overseas. You ask about morale?

--I think the issues listed above are pretty substantial and there is a lot of overlap (family friendly - lack there of!, CPC assignments and benefits, FSLs, fairness in the assignment process) that come together in a way that as a mid-career professional - I am uncertain that I can stay with the Agency. The career options at the moment are limited for someone with young children, unwilling/able to go to a CPC country. PSCs convert to FSL at higher rank. And the decisions about staffing in both cases have no basis in merit or the skills/quality of the person. I understand the need to do what we can to encourage volunteers to go to CPC posts, but when we accept anyone who goes regardless of whether or not they are qualified and then they get first choice next time round (again regardless of whether or not they are qualified) - that combined with lots of other issues, it sometimes feels like the bureaucracy and our HR policies are stacked against some of us. Maintaining our small cadre of mid-careers should be a priority to AFSA and to Agency Senior Management.

--Support Administrator's development readiness initiative to double size of foreign service

--This is associated with "Agency reforms" and "creation of F Bureau" but specifically I am very concerned about USAID's ability to pursue development goals relatively independently of political decisions (which is not to say independent of US Foreign Policy).

--Family friendly is fine, as long as singles don't pay for the allowances made for those with families. I think that singles should be allowed an additional benefit which would - at the very least - provide for either an R&R ticket home or a ticket for a friend/family member to come to post, as we are at post without support systems while FSOs with families have that luxury and receive exponentially larger benefits packages than singles.

--Training - especially for new systems being implemented and leadership for senior officers. Leadership and tack and diplomacy. EEO training for ALL!

--Equal benefits/opportunities for all FSOs (i.e. language)

--Promotions favoring younger workers,at the expense of older more experienced foreign service officer who are not in a position to complain without being threatened with retaliation.

--I think the worst problem at this point is OE and the number of positions. I used to really enjoy working in USAID, but I am increasingly worried about how impossible our jobs have become because there are too few people to manage programs and no one to adequately train and mentor the new people. I think just about every FSO I work with either feels the stress is too great or that we no longer have time to do justice to our responsibilities.

--Member of Household (MOH) issues need to be standardized and enforced. Dialogue on tandem assignments between USAID and State need improvement.

--It appears that AFSA fights for families, SMA and other benefits that directly affect the traditional "family". Singles get screwed. There is no one to help pack us out or in, yet we get the same days off as a family. We don't get post differential when we leave post. We don't have the luxury of working with household help, ie time off, to train them, but if married the spouse can do that. Yet we don't take days off to take our kids to school, or to the doctor as families do. I think FS is now "single" unfriendly. Maybe some "singles" benefits would be in order - like more time off to pack out or pack in, admin days for household training etc....

--CDOs have too much control of entry level officers to the point that they are hurting entry level officer careers before they even start.

--Doing more to help Iraqi FSNs being targeted, threatened, and/or killed in Iraq for their association with USAID or other USG agencies. Not enough is being done at all. It's shameful our government is not being more responsive.

--Diversity at all levels of the Agency--more ethnic minorities

--Lack of OE resources means we are overworked. No training opportunities for USDH. House is a dump because no OE, while PEPFAR-funded PSCs get new furniture and upgrades. Why do USAID USDHs get such a raw deal compared with other federal agencies?

--prospect of directed assignments (a la State); downsides of State/USAID consolidation (increased costs for lower quality of service in many missions, and overstatement of cost savings to USG)

--The impact that insufficient OE is having finding appropriate positions in the Field because of increased reliance on FSLs and PSCs by Missions.

--Consolidation: USAID is on a gigantic fools errand. We will regret loosing our facility of movement overseas one day.

--AFSA should be able to make sure that all types of personnel are fairly treated. FSN, civil service, FS (and not treat limited term appointments differently), TCNs, and PSC (who are often treated truly like shit).The agency did a very poor job in hireing for a number of years...we should all work together to have the highest quality workforce, not as hierarchal as State - who is worse than the military...even if they don't salute...

--Quality of life overseas for single FSOs.

--Excessive use of USPSCs in good, higher level jobs thereby interfering with USDH career progression/opportunities.

--Disparity of benefits between foreign service agencies.

--Rebuilding USAID -- how to turn the steady decline around; what each of us can do to help.

--Morale is low and USAID is being batted around like a baseball.

--Discontinuation of post differential when a person leaves post for R&R or home leave

--What relationship USAID will have with State. Do we report to them? Will we be absorbed by them?

--benefits for Married gays and lesbians (difference in status for married employees vs MOH - GLBT married in Canada or states that recognize marriage.) I believe AFSA should take a pro position on this issue, and while leaving the lobbying to GLIFAA (that's what we do), AFSA should support the efforts of GLIFAA at least on paper.

--Directed assignments

--FSLs should not be allowed to convert to career candidates without having to work their way through the system, as the rest of us have had to do.

--Equal benefits for foreign service officers with same-sex partners, currently unrecognised by the Agency (except as MOHs which does nothing to provide equal benefits, i.e. SMA, TQSA, work visas, etc).

--Staffing levels - the Agency is at real risk because there are too few people to manage our current mandate.Fairness in deliniating duties: Due to staff shortages, Junior Officers are being thrown into positions that are well above their rank and are working 7 days a week to keep things in order. We are not being properly compensated for this... in fact, we are being punished because our performance suffers as we are just trying to keep up with a very heavy work load and learn the Agencies systems at the same time. I am very concerned that AFSA does not appreciate the issues that matter most to Junior Officers and I don't believe that I am the only one. We are a growing proportion of the work force and our Union should pay more attention to the issues we care about.

--Training for Junior Officers/new hires

--I believe AFSA should address the ever increasing number of PSCs verse DH foriegn service personnel

--Individual Employee Grievance assistance

--The Agency is bringing on officers at FS 6 positions but Missions lack the OE to have deputy and junior level positions. Even though Missions would like to offer positions that junior officers can bid on, due to OE constraints, these positions are in short supply.

--The incompetence of HR in almost everything.

--The need to increase training opportunities in the field for new FS employees.

--lack of language/cultural training before assignments

--The role of Mission Directors vis-a-vis Ambassadors and "F". Updating all the ADS guidances to reflect the reforms.

--FSL positions -- are there good ways to bring these people into the service full time.

--Equity/Fairness for FS who have Members of Household.

--Integration with State versus becoming a stand-alone Department.

--Disappearance of lower level positions FS3 and below, conversions of positions to FSL and/or PSC status. Moving beyond family friendly to seriously look at spousal employment opportunities.

--benefit parity with the Department of State; as we become ever more integrated and consolidated, it would be nice to get the same benefits as they do for service; State colleagues here receive several important benefits that USAID officers do not receive

--Consolidation issues between AID and State and the associated personnel issues.

--Mid career program for the missing middle level.

--It's not additional, but AFSA needs to look at how t obetter serve "trailing" spouses. More and more women are entering the FS and their husbands are not interested in becoming the CLO! This effects families and can force some FSOs to return to the states or not go overseas at all. Spouses with professional qualifications need help finding REAL jobs.

--Those are more than enough for the moment!

--I am not so much concerned about the number of issues as I am about the focus. Once the most pressing issues are identified, it is important to focus on those and define the goals to be achieved in the specific topic, decide what's reasonably attainable and move forward to accomplish them.

--Student loan forgivness.

--Forced assignment to war zones and incentives for people who do take assignments completely derail the assignment process...

--Unbalanced benefits for serving at war zone posts; taxation of salaries and benefits

--You are addressing the main ones on my list.

--EFM employment overseas. That is the reason I came back to DC

--Equity of benefits between State and USAID foreign service officers. Why are the benefits not identical? (i.e. per diem, UAB and shipment of POV are not provided for new officers at AID but they are for State, automatic business class over 14 hours, level of training priority and opportunity (area studies, etc))

--Lobbying on the Hill

--USAID being sucked into the Department of State, tragically for our country.

--Image of Foreign Service Officers and professionalism among the members

--Hiring of new staff, USDH and other. Many more senior officers (up to age 59) came in at reduced pay and grade through NEP or IDI and continue to witness great inequities in hiring less-experienced staff (USPSC, FSL, etc.) at much higher pay and grade.

--Compensation for FERS employees unused sick leave upon retirement.

--Tandem bidding more transparent and accessible for dual-agency/dept. employees.Spousal employment at post.

--Forced use of contract city-pair fares when airlines or airports have unacceptably high delayed flights and other US carriers and/or code share partners offer better service between the city pairs. Quality should count for something.

--USAID's role overseas at posts as part of the Country Team. I've seen everyone in the Embassy Econ, Pol, Consul sections and even the CLO sit at the Country Team table before USAID - and USAID only gets one seat although it plays a major role in the country and in the image of the USG overseas. USAID, and all of its major programs, should have equal standing with all sections of the Embassy and have greater representation at Country Team.

--What is the F Bureau?

--Keeping the pressure on HR not to hire more FSOs in backstops where there are already not sufficient positions overseas for the numbers of officers already on board.

--Security concerns at high threat post where we may have a large pullout of military troops (ie. Iraq/Afganistan)

--Within the category of "family friendliness" I would like to see support to mother's who choose to continue breastfeeding their children after returning to work. It is ironic to me that in most countries that USAID works, our health programs promote breastfeeding of babies up to 2 years old, yet USAID employees receive virtually no support, and a lot of guilt and expense, in order to keep breastfeeding our own children. Support could include things like: ensuring a private and hygenic place to pump milk, giving additional time at mid-day or end of day for mother to actually go home to nurse their baby (which is often the law for local staff in the places I have worked). Also, when I must travel for work while I am nursing, it is now up to me to pay to take someone to take care of my child (who of course, must come with me given the nursing relationship), as well as for the child, so that I can make the trip. This means I pay for plane tickets, hotel and food expenses, etc.. for the nanny and child, just so that I can do my job while I am nursing. I should not have to shoulder these expenses and believe that the USG should pay for them if they expect me to travel while nursing. Another family friendly thing that I think should be addressed is that now, when an female employee or spouse of an employee is medevacced to the States in order to give birth, her spouse / partner is not paid for by the USG to make the same trip. It seems absurd to me that the spouse / partner, should not be paid for as, of course, he will return to be at the birth. As of now, that expense comes out of pocket to the family, even though we are either strongly encourageed, or required to not have the baby at post. This is a relatively small matter that would have a huge positive impact on the moral and pocketbook of those USAID employees who leave post to give birth.

--This is an excellent list, but I would consider "mental and physical well-being of employees" to be extremely important at this time. We are losing dozens of employees who are departing for saner or more family-friendly work environments, who become alcoholics or drug addicts, who get pulled into destructive family problems such as affairs or divorce or domestic violence, or who are simply losing their sanity after having no tools to maintain a healthy balanced life. State and USAID actively discourage us from seeking counseling (see medical and security clearance forms, which require follow-up letters if employee admits seeking counseling). We are losing good people which costs the Agency tremendous amount of money in replacement, psych-evac, curtailment costs...and better leadership could head off this problem at reasonably low cost.

--Improving Congress/State Department relations, image of State Department

--The role, importance and seemingly forgotten place of the FSN in the overall FS system.

--Fighting the direct conversion of FSLs or PSCs to USDH at grades above FS4. Many of us at the mid-career stage of our lives took significant pay cuts to become a USDH. I do agree however with the position of the agency to allow conversion after 2 years in Iraq or Afghanistan (if this information is correct.)

--The Agency's general lack of direction and feeling of being under siege.

--Day-to-day personnel and labor management issues = number 1 priority for us.

--Lack of OE for missions means no training for FSOs. Huge inequity compared to domestic agencies.

--Family-friendliness should include singles. Single members of the foreign service have essentially no support at post. Additionally, many of us support our families in the US (particularly older and/or sick parents). Although we may not have family at post, we should be entitled to the same types of support to help us lead a normal life while overseas.

--We need to do a much better job of selling ourselves and getting our message to people. That will help when we have issues such a directed assignments and budgets.

--How it is becoming increasingly difficult to serve in the Foreign Service. Post management really makes our not so easy situations even worse than they need be in certain posts. The difference in benefits between agencies just makes the problems worse.

--Loss of development objective for the agency/US.

--Generally responding/preempting the negative press relating to the Foreign Service, particularly due to the directed assignments scenario.

--At the US Mission in Kabul, State is violating the FAM by assigning housing based on agency affiliation rather than rank even though we are under ICASS. State FS7s have apartments while USAID FS4s, FS3s, and even some FS2s and FS1s do not. We work in shipping containers--the USAID Mission--and live in shipping containers (hooches). In contrast, State FSOs work in buildings (they occupy both the old and new embassies) and live in apartments. This reinforces our second class status and exposes us to far greater risk from rocket attack 24 hours a day. Even, the FSNs and TCNs that work for me have commented on how they can see that USAID FSOs are considered as second class citizens--while they mean well, it isn't good as a supervisor to hear your reportees saying such things. Nothing is being done about this. Most first tour USAID officers at this post plan on leaving USAID after their tour, largely because they see this as a portent of life under State. Having managed people overseas in the private sector and military, I am utterly astounded at this lapse in leadership. The current situation is clearly deleterious to US Mission cohesion and morale. Yet it continues and those who are responsible for changing it take no action and will suffer no adverse career consequences for their inaciton.

--Extremely concerned w/OM and OMS positions being given or taken over by EFMs; extreme lack of Dept's fairness toward FS OM/OMS in the bidding/assignment/promotion system and not posting ALL OM/OMS positions; Post/Dept allowing the creation of an EFM OMS-type position for an specific EFM w/no Farsi skills by using a designated FSN Farsi language designated position slot and then taking ALL but one "substantial/ substantive" job duties from the FS OMS to create the EFM position, which would have profoundly affected the FS OMS' promotability. FS OMS had excellent EERs and great counseling feedback. With no recourse without prejudice, the FS OMS curtailed. Where's the fairness and justice in our system?

--Promoting known non-performers simply because they served in Iraq. Addressing the detrimental effects of the "F Process" on both State and AID; if we are stuck with it, we need to fix it.

--Too many acronyms. I have no idea what the AEF form or F Bureau are.

Tax on war zone pay

AFSA Member Survey 2007 Comments Question #23

#23 At the present time, do you believe that the overall conditions of work for the professional Foreign Service are improving, worsening, or remaining the same?

--more work, fewer resources, fewer FSOs, lack of respect for development as a profession from other agencies
--Less opportunities to serve with family. More assignments in countries where spousal employment is more challenging. People are being promoted based on their willingness to serve in 4 countries rather than their overall performance. Increasing security issues force "fortress" mentality of NECs that make doing our jobs and reaching our counterparts harder. t's just not fun anymore.
--There is no focus on our needs, it is all about the "needs of the service." I think there should be a happy mediam - where entry-level FSOs are given more say in their first assignments.
USAID is aligning with DOS and DOD. USAID workis devalued; both USG and foreign work environments are less rational, less friendly, less admirable
--The micromanagement from F and the ill-informed budget decisionmaking process is putting the least qualified people in the decisionmaking positions re. development.
--I'm theoretically a tech officer, but pretty much am dealing with bureaucratic morass rather than making technical decisions... due to increasing bureaucratic requirements and decreasing staff.
--Control from Washington is increasing; ability to make decisions at post is decreasing; inordinate amounts of time are spent on seemingly meaningless or duplicative reporting; workload grows, but staffing hasn't. There appears to be lack of respect at the highest levels for non-senior staff - evidenced by lack of input requested or sought in decision-making, planning etc. Senior W staff do not seem to understand how much work goes into preparing for their visits - can be construed as lack of respect for our work, efforts etc. Senior staff don't appear to visit the field to learn, but to campaign for support. The chasm between W and the field seems to be growing. [Respect is a two way street.]
--Until the CPPC issue is resolved and the OE levels are increased, we will continue to face worsening morale and implementation issues.
--I see morale as decreasing primarily to the political environment related to Iraq and F Bureau reform processes.
--Too much emphasis is being put on the CPC countries, and the Agency is not being creative enough in staffing the positions.
--Inequity of benefits and approaches between State and USAID Foreign Service personnel. 1) If we are truly to operate as Foreign Service professionals, training (language and culture) for USAID staff is equally critical as for State Dept staff. 2) What is the logic of having USAID consolidate posts, when the State department is provided the resources to expand its presence. 3) We are losing the true nature (and benfits) of development if we are going to use USAID as a purely foreign policy tool.
--This is hard to answer definitively. I do believe things are not worsening; however, there are so many issues that still require improvement that I had to answer the question as remaining the same. ThoughI must say there have been some improvements.
--Increased uncertainty about USAID's development role and status as a semi-independent agency has encouraged State and other agency employees to pressure for expedient rather than strategic uses of development funds. We now spend a great deal of time fending off $2,000 ideas from non-traditional civil-society organizations instead of making field trips and interacting with partners who really can make a difference in poverty reduction.
--More challenging environments.
--Attempt to pull control away from missions to Washington/F, unclear where this is going.
But always exciting work.
--Within USAID, the number of direct-hire personnel continues to decline, yet the workload is increasing (especially as a result of the F process). Most people are over-worked, stressed and not recognized for their efforts.
--New to the Agency and I don't have a perspective as to what it was like before.
--decreased benefits, increase cost of living worldwide, especially in Washington
--More political interference in day-to-day decisions.
--Limited resources to implement programs
--By and large, USAID provides opportunity for people to grow in their careers. Assignments are generally made fairly. Training opportunities are finally available again and should be expanded. In particular, the Agency should pay more attention to management training, as the military does.
--Mr. Tobias with Ms Rice supporting him was a disaster. The Agency's general acquiesence to him was a disaster. Ms Fore's leadership reflects her appreciation of USAID, of our objectives, of our technical competence, and of our, dedication.
--Rigid security regulations, lack of locality pay for FO 1 and below, deteriorating accommodations (compound living), lack of approval of business travel for long trips, excessive and arcane bureaucratic requirements for AID documents, political imperatives dictating assistance efforts (i.e., substantial increase in ESF), multiple U.S. voices/contacts/representatives overseas regardng assistance planning and implementation,
--State Department bureaucracy and lethargy
--The F reforms and related orgnanizational changes affecting how budget decisions are made and programs are managed have systematically devaluating the expertize of development professionals at all levels. This is negatively impacting the quality of programs that we are asked to administer.
--Lack of decision making ability; lack of respect for the US from other countries; widely varying budgets form year to year; constant reorganization of foreign assistance system.
--I speak specifically for USAID FS. I say this for two reasons.
1. The number of non-direct hires doing USAID work. USAID Vietnam has a staff of over 25 yet there is only 1 direct hire in the office. USAID isn't an agency anymore, it is a contracting agencies dream. Contractors don't operate under the same rules we do, there work is evaluated as ours is and their allegience lies else where, not with the US government.
2. USAID is treated like a bad step-child by State. As more things get combined, we get worse service. The State Department doesn't have a service orientated mentality, much like I feel USAID does.
--Comparability pay has not been enacted!
--The F process has stripped the Agency of any policy making and resource allocation authority. --The quagmire in Iraq, and related emphasis on Afghanistan and Pakistan, have sucked all resources and attention away from development priorities elsewhere. The Acting Administrator has no credibility with Congress or clout in the Administration, and as a result the Agency is in limbo.
--The merger with State is making us miserable. I never wanted to do what State FSOs do, but now I have to, more and more.
--Fewer staff at Missions, much more work, much fewer opportunities for training and career development. The F process has dis-empowered the field, weakened USAID's reputation in the world and demoralized its staff.
--My mission has inadequate OE resources therefore has outdated equipment, not enough training, not enough budget for oversight travel.
--Too few staff to adequately handle the money being given. the new systems seem to take an very large part of a mission's time to "feed." Given the number of staff and the requirements to "feed the beast" it is very hard for staff to really get to the field to see, on a regular basis, what is going on. I think it leaves the morale low and the agency very vulnerable.
QOL overseas is going downhill with the dollar tanking against the Euro - yet at my post no serious effort is made to at least improve the COLA. It seems that the posts that have the political appointees get excellent COLA, yet those without are taking a beating in the checkbook. --The disparity seems to be driven from the DC side. An average of low and high COLAs should be applied to all Euro zone posts. If I can help it, this will be the first and last time I will serve in EUR.

--Security concerns are greater, pay is not comparable, constraints on field work and/or total lack of flexibility in programming is hurting our ability to achieve objectives under the new reforms, many decisions that affect the daily lives of FSOs are penny wise and pound foolish.
No money. No services. Housing on the cheap. No training. OP/COP/MOP. The dread of RIFs for FSNs. Trust Fund liabilities that can't be met.
--The threat of directed assignments hanging over our heads is a morale-killer.
--There are less and less options for assigmments particularly form first and second tour officers.
--Reputation of USAID worsening. Pay comparability worsening vis-a-vis Washington, DC. Plus pay gap between USAID and other similar institutions high.
With constrained resources, every year seems to get more and more busy with fewer and fewer people to get the work done -- therefore more and more evening hours and weekends are spent in the office.
--Higher visibility in the media (because of Iraq/Sudan/Afghanistan/Pakistan and through the efforts of AFSA. We are expecting a higher cost of living raise this year. More efforts being made to take care of families while staff are assigned to unaccomanpanied posts.
--People are uncertain about the future and this creates a lot of stress. Also, with the skillbase JO's must have when coming in, many are encumbered with high student loan debt; the fact that State continues to have a student loan relief program and AID does not hurts morale and when dealing with a higher debt load, work conditions get worse.
--The 100% EFM employment policies of some posts have improved life for those with families, at the expense of the taxpayer. State has a blanket business class approval policy, also a costly and wasteful "work condition improvement" for the typical FSO. Housing is good and the agencies bend over backwards serving the employee, rather than the other way around.
--I see USAID morale on a decline due to tightening of resources, increased micro-management via the F process and stealth takeover by State.
--funding cuts, lack of overseas positions, lack of transparency in assignment and promotion boards.
--Role of Mission Director has been diminished to the point of being irrelevant with the Ambassador taking many of the decisions. In addition Washington managed programs - PEPFAR, PMI give less and less discretion to the professionals in the field who know best how to align resources for maximum impact.
--Increase in redundant paperwork. OP process/Program Office attempting to over-manage activities. Reporting, documentation & evaluation ->are necessary but these processes/paperwork can consume more time than designing and assuring good field work can/is happening. Once when stressed over the time period for procurements (2-3 months) I was told if my team did not "do" so much our work would be simplier... da?!
--I believe that there is an intentional plan to push more and more costs of working overseas onto the employee. Support offices are being moved into State and appear to disappear, leaving the FS employees holding the bag.
--Funding issues. Centralization of development funding and decision-making in DC (F).
--Perception that USAID is merged with DOS. Short-term focus on development. DOS FSOs have more benefits than USAID FSOs (DSID for example).
--Agency in a bad way with Tobias reforms, OE funding, diversion of efforts to Iraq, loss of responsibility for major aid programs for MCC, PEPFAR, etc., unconfirmed leaders, encroaching State Dept control over USAID business and operations (including overseas)
Harder for families. More unaccompanied posts. Too many war zone positions.
--The Foreign Service for USAID is worsening as we become only a sub-Agency to State.
--There is a huge problem with all the different hiring mechanisms (PSCs, FSLs, IAPWS, etc) They are taking jobs from USDH and there are a variety of preceptions that USDH don't play significant roles.
--Exhaustive efforts are ongoing under both HR and Agency Reforms. However, if we do not secure adequate OE funding, conditions will worsen.
--Morale is hideous. F is killing us, and there are no longer decisions or flexiblity evident at the mission level given the Malaria Operational Plan, Country Operational Plan, and the Operational Plan.
--I joined USAID in 2005 as a NEP. The FSL program was started the same year and it caught many of NEP colleagues by surprise. The lack of clarity and long-term planning about the mechanism raised strong concerns for those of us who joined the system in the 'traditional' way. The F reform process followed and raised further concerns about USAID's future and impact. Views from long-term USAID FSOs reflect serious concerns about USAID's future. It is very difficult to maintain enthusiasm for this new career when the Agency seems to be struggling so severely.
--Efforts to enlist the development programs of USAID and spread development funding to other agencies (notably ODC of the DOD)and CDC has created inequities and inefficiencies that hamper effective foreign aid. the ambassador has time to micro-manage some activities, but rarely the information, time and development expertise to lead development. That job used to be largely left to the experts; now it's done by committees including absolute neophytes with little expertise, accountability or legal, policy and regulatory structure behind them. want to see waste in government? Visit your local ODC office and see how they throw money around without criteria for selection, competition, or a solid factual base. Time to take the gloves off and face it, the military has decided development is useful so instead of supporting it being done right, they decided to do it themselves, poorly and with little planning, staffing or structure to ensure USG resources are used effectively. Finally, forcing development programs into non-pacified areas does not work, and Iraq is destroying the reputation, morale and mission of the USAID.
--Morale is low, people who have no clue are directing our programming and budgeting and we're the only agency that actually knows how to implement.
--a certain cluelessness about the FS among some non-FS, especially appointees
any dim wit who serves in a CPC gets first choice at assignment and promotions. many good FSOs cannot serve in CPCs at this time and are disadvantaged.
--The Agency's fight to remain relevant is affecting those of us on the front lines -- in the field -- disproportionately. We are marginalized from decision-making processes yet are still asked to implement reforms and increasingly larger programs with minimal OE resources. On the ground, this translates into fewer hours spent doing ‘real’ strategic analysis and development work and fewer staff having to spend more time in the office just to fulfill minimum functions. At the end of the day, this adds up to overstretched, tired and frustrated FSOs.
--USAID's merger into the State Department detracts significantly from our ability to plan and implement long term development programs.
--budget cuts with increasing responsibilities; working in conflict zones and not being able to adequately monitor projects; increasing number of hardship posts and reduction in non-hardship posts
--Fewer numbers, more reporting requirements
--Impending collocation move to new embassy compound.
--The chaos that F has created, and the total lack of leadership at the highest levels means that no one knows what they are to do, and have no idea what their future is. I've talked to PMIs, who report that their discouragement is such that they're seeking other jobs.
--I see a big difference in the benefits received by State and USAID. Such things as Business class travel for new postings, Difficult to staff post incentitive pay.
--The bidding exercise is becoming more and more difficult/cumberson. The ole boys network is still alive and well in LAC - impossible for others to break through... and positions truly are "wired." The entire Agency seems to run on WHO you know and WHO likes you rather than merit.
--The reform process and advent of the Operational Plan has meant greater focus on process rather than development results.
--Although benefits (like lack of comparability pay) are falling behind, general living and working conditions are improving worldwide (for instance, ability to do so much business over the internet). However, these improvements (which are not USG related) are, in my opinion, not sufficient to offset the costs of lagging benefits.
--AID seems to have been centralized in Washington and, of course, under State. Here a relatively inexperienced State Officer has power over USAID activities. State Officers can now re-direct program money for shorter term ends.
W--e are expected to do more with less resources. Further, there is pressure to abandon family members to go to a war zone.
--Civilian agencies have lost out to the military which has the human and financial resources we lack. USAID's mission has been lost in favour of "diplomacy." USAID is without confirmed leadership, lacking the necessary financial resources, losing its experienced staff and institutional memory and stymied by serious morale problems and scars from the Tobias era.
--The "reforms" are deprofessionalizing USAID field professionals.
--With a new Administrator as discussed with my collegues, everything looks much brighter for USAID.
--I think that we are filling the gaps by bringing in new employees at higher grades and money than existing employees, thereby creating dissention among coworkers, and are gearing up to increase this trend. I think people are separating from service--leaving/retiring/resigning-- because the promotion and compensation systems are unfair at the lower ranks; and at the higher ranks people with experience are being marginalized in the decision making processes.
--We need to remind ourselves that sustainable development is our mandate.
--Tighter security restrictions at post, more and more unaccompanied post, for example Sudan, Lebanon and Yemen are unaccompanied post for US FSO but for other International Cival Servants they are not considered unaccompanied posts.
--The number of USDH positions is growing smaller by the day, due to so many positions being made available for US PSCs and FSLs. This trend of undercutting the USDH work force is incredibly demoralizing, as is the lack of an adequate response by AFSA representatives. Some US PSCs sat in nice posts for 4 or 5 years, and then converted to FSL for another 5 years. How could it be fair for one person to be hogging a coveted position abroad for 10 years, while USDHs are expected to bid on CPCs if nothing else is available?
--When I got to post in my first assignment I found that the MD had been recalled to DC. His offense was that - according to FSN staff - that he had tried to empower them and treated them with kindess and respect. This has created an atmosphere at post of disgust among FSNs that is communicated constantly and has destroyed USAID's respect among employees. This is in addition to having to deal with the F changes, the constant lack of direction from the RRB, the lousy pay, poor housing, and the level of servility expected to be displayed by "junior" officers .
--OE is getting tighter and benefits for travel via business class for trips that can take as long as 30 hours have disappeared for USAID while State offers this benefit.
--Uncertainty for USAID. Is there a career path, or not?
--What is getting better? Work hours get longer and longer, work load gets bigger and bigger, and we continue to "do more with less"...soon, we'll be doing everything with nothing.
--Agency reforms, increased coordination (donor and interagency) combined with decreasing management resources is stretching all staff to the breaking point. Core functions such as design, monitoring and evaluating of projects have been greatly neglected as a result and program impact has been adversely affected.
--It's more dangerous and less rewarding.
--It has long been considered that AID EXO's provide a higher level of service than their counterparts in State. With the merging of administrative functions with State, we're losing the level of service that we were used to.
--Although we are being told that we are not merging with the State Department, its hard to believe with the "shared services". With this shared services comes the worst service for USAID staff. Our abilities to go out and monitor our projects been cut back because there are often no cars available. There are some services that should not be "shared".
--Many unaccomp posts, dangerous conditions, poor morale when admin work is under Joint State function. Not enough USAID FS officers overseas to plan, direct and manage programs.
Programmatic difficulties: Operational plan, no strategy, all major decisions made by DCM (not mission directors)
--No leadership at USAID, F process was launched without any preparation thereby doubling and tripling our workload for no value-added. Centralization of budget and program authority defeats the structural strength of field missions and mission staff spend all their time feeding the O/GAC or F beast. Joint USAID-State plateforms (ICASS) have been hugely expensive for USAID (staff lost, services are not improved but are much more expensive), costs are not fairly distributed as ONLY USAID must adhere not other U.S. agencies and USAID employees continue to be treated as second-class citizens (must fly economy for long-hauls while we subsidize state through ICASS so they can fly bus. class, etc...)
--There is very little communication with DC. I have no idea what Fore is doing or F, except giving directives. There is a major lack of communication about what is really happening. Budgeting decisions made in DC without looking at the wishes of the Missions.
--Lack of clear equality with DOS and USAID, extremely poor management at USAID without vision or understanding of basic management principals. Does well at creating paperwork to support development objectives but terrible at day to day management.
--Steady erosion of overseas benefits, inadequate medical care
--MtB has forced severe staff cutbacks in this mission, plus consolidation has led to loss of USAID admin function -- the result has been sharply increased workload, and less time to focus on program management
--less people, more FSLs, less posts for FS 3s and 4s, the cancellation of the NEP program.
heavy workloads, late release of funds, not enough staff, low morale
--USAID is losing control over how we do our work. Integration with the state department has not improved equity for USAID employees. We are now focused on short-term priorities rather than long-term development.
--Decision making has become more centralized with field input sought after the fact. The resource situation is causing us to cut programs early and reducing our ability to plan. The people being assigned to senior management positions have insufficient experience to perform their duties and to lead the Agency.
--USAID support is moving to ICASS. We get much worse service under ICASS.
Roles and responsibilities are not well defined within AID/W so guidance to the field is blurred as well.
--Acting Administrator Fore has more respect for USAID staff and its work than here predecessors did.
--The creation of F has destroyed reliable Agency systems; created significantly more work and more complexity; dramatically increased confusion; and has led to serious mistakes (e.g., Nepal's FY 2008 budget; the FY 07 budget was allowed in the last week of the fiscal year, etc.). This reorganization has had a major impact on individual roles and responsibilities and overall authorities at the Mission level. Many people feel that their jobs are far less rewarding and interesting since the creation of F, particularly program officers. Interesting analytical work has been taken away from Missions and has been replaced with far less satisfying work: increased reporting requirements, frequent justifications for why specific programs are needed, fighting with FACTS, etc. F’s reforms, along with shrinking OE levels, co-location challenges, and the stress of possible forced CPC assignments, have damaged Agency morale.
--Durng the past 7-8 years living overseas has become much less fun thanit used to be.
--If compared to 2000, then definitely worsening, but if compared to 2005, it is about the same.
--Limited knowlegde resources with little middle management
--Leadership at the Bureau level is a disaster for the majority of Bureaus
--The security environment worldwide is declining. This affects the conditions faced by all Foreign Service Officers.
--Attitude in DC that leaving family to serve in dangerous posts is just routine and just be glad if they haven't sent you yet.
--USAID employees are losing out while increased attention is being focused on needs for staffing at State.
--Morale is dropping, professional expertise is dropping, compensation disparity with the private sector is cropping, family friendliness is dropping.
USAID is losing its identity as, and reason for being, a technical development agency for the US; and becoming instead a bureaucratic office of State.
--Once again, staffing the agency with incompetent managers.
--The introduction of the foreign assistance "reforms" has completely undermined USAID's role and the role of USAID professionals. Strategic decision-making regarding policy and budgeting is held in Washington and it's a joke. While Acting Administrator Fore is a substantial improvement over Tobias in that she actually seems to have faith in the Agency and it's employees, believes in USAID's mission, etc. and is requesting an increase in our OE (vs. Tobias' reductions) - it remains to be seen what happens. And the "F" process is not going away. It remains to be seen what HFore succeeds in accomplishing in the coming 15+ months. So for now, I would say that conditions continue to be worse than they were a couple of years ago - although there is some hope in sight.
--Regionalization of USAID services and the "consolidation" of our budget with State (programming) makeds my job much les satisfying.
--F, MCC, colocation declining budgets, decline in U.S. respect overseas, over emphasis on CPCs all reducing work conditions.
--there appears to be many changes and the rules of the game are not clear any more. the merger between USAID and State has left too many questions unswered. There seem to simply be a lack of leadership.
--There are not enough officers to do the work.
--Depends on what the question means. Our working conditions are continuing the same, without major changes in benefits, salaries, etc. The overall environment as a development professional is, I think, worsening due to the way that the F reforms were implemented, since decision making was largely taken out of the hands of those who are closest to the challenges that need to be faced and met, and the reforms have thrown the Agency into a so-far-unresolved tizzy where key decisions are not being made (such as those regarding strategies, long-term budget scenarios, status of relationship to other government agencies, expecially State, etc.). While some of the reforms were necessary, the way they were implemented made the cure worse than the disease. Finally, the administration's decision to focus resources on failing states - necessarily robbing Peter to pay Paul and devastating budgets of Missions in traditional development organizations - has undermined AID's effectiveness in the countries where it CAN have the most impact and concentrated resources where our potential impact is severely reduced due to lack of security and stability.
--It seems that expectations of the foreign service are ever increasing while staff numbers and opportunities--especially outside CPCs, and especially for junior officers--are on the decline.
We need communication from the top... and the field needs to be consulted as part of the reform process.
--The fear of directed assignments looms and the creation of F and has meant that USAID has effectively lost its ability to implement a long-term development vision.
--Lack of OE funds results in economy class travel during 36 hour trips to the US. Not enough support staff in Washington to properly answer in a timely manner our numerous questions - HR in Washington is drastically understaffed and service rendered is poor at best. Poor policies are in place to support non-traditional families, such as gay partners and single partners. Policies do support exceptions but when those exceptions are exercised, FSOs are chastised for taking advantage of the systems. Poor medical services are available in country but to be medevaced you practically have to be declared dead.
--budgets are being cut, the agency is moving more and more into hardship posts and becoming militarized, the agency is outsourcing its technical expertise leaving behind only contract management responsibilities so there is no opportunity to provide expert direction/advice, and the cultural/language preparation USAID FSOs receive is non-existant
--Funding decreasing, autonomy decreasing, reporting requirements increasing, directed programming increasing
--I'm single, I watch all the benefits being given to my married colleagues - nothing has changed in more than a decade of service.
--We are asked to do more with fewer staff. F deadlines are unreasonable and do not allow us to properly engage and advise. Funding is insufficient in the field to do our jobs.
--The gap in locality pay keeps getting wider.
--There is not enough OE to adequately maintain housing and offices. There are too few people to do the work accountably and without causing damage to employee's health. Although there are fewer and fewer people every year, the bureaucratic requirements multiply (OPs being the most egregious example).
--I haven't been with the FS long enought to make a comparison.
--No staff, no resources, inconsistent policies, inefficient systems, beauracracy but more work.
--Conditions have remained approximately the same for several years, and will not be improved until overseas pay comparability is approved in some form.
--CDOs have obtained too much power.
--Need more direction and clarity of vision from the highest levels of the Agency. Right now, it seems that it's still a rudderless ship.
--Too many unfair and unbalanced hiring mechanisms that preclude bottom-rung FSOs from pomotions....the latest slap in the face are the competitive FSLs entering at the 02 level and subsequently competing for positions with those FSLs who entered as 06s and 04s and put in their time--this is both outrageous and criminal--and will bring about a lawsuit which methinks the class will win "on brief...."
--Take a look at OPMs glossy training catalog. Can I go? No way - no money! Come see my house - a dump. I'm paying for improvements out of pocket. Private sector is looking pretty good these days.
--Insufferable reporting requirements and long distance micromanagement prevent field officers from visiting activities and gaining firsthand experience with issues
increasing number of assignments to war zones.
--My job is all about managing a dwindling budget implemented by contractors and responding to "taskers" from Washington; it's not really about working for the long term development of the country/region.
--Consolidation of admin support services is a giant fools errand. It will not result in cost savings, and USAID will only sell USAID's ability to move nimbly to assuage power plays by the Department of State.
--come on - State has the ability to trump anything USAID does, and take credt. MCC is killing
--USAID economic growth programs every where - the way skilled personnel are treated continues to deteriorate.... (FS 3 or even FS4 as supervisors... come ON)!!!
--I have been an FSO for only three years, but feel that a few things are the same, but much is getting worse.
--morale could not get any worse than spring 2007!
--Constantly increasing workloads, major system changes, and information overload are causing field professionals to work 6 or 7 day work weeks. Meanwhile, we see cuts in benefits and training opportunities.
--Even the threat of forced placement in war zones is hurting morale. Some FSLs positions will become permanent FS; hurting those of us who're in system. Lack of sufficient staff is worsening - and frankly, it doesn't look like it will improve, despite Fore's wish to do so. Increasing immersion in State hurts development.
--AID's budget crunch is exacerbating the difference in benefits with those of the State Department. The need to continuously feed the CPCs with staff is distorting the entire agency.
--Depends on what you are comparing it to, so it's hard to say.
--While I take seriously my agreement to be available for worldwide assignment, I do not believe USAID would implement a directed CPC assignment process in a transparent and objective manner and this is of great concern to me.
--Fewer overseas opportunities for service. Lack of training.
--I am apprehensive about the merger with state, and I'm concerned with DOS's directed assignments. People who have already served in these countries are getting letters to serve again because they are "experienced." Also, the Agency needs to treat PTSD like alcoholism - full cadillac treatment on demand and no impact on career, medical or security clearance.
--Insufficient staff to meet increasing demands for program management, coordination among donors and within USG.
--Early signs are not promising for ICASS consolidation, which is representing a reduction in quality of services to USAID, with little or no cost savings to USAID.
--USAID has a staffing crisis. I have to work 10-12 hour days and on the weekends just to keep up. So does everyone else I know. Even so, we do not have time to monitor our programs properly. the reporting process has become rediculous and extremely time consuming as most program offices are making us report the old way and the new way. We have to do the old to make sure we properly monitor our programs. We have to report the new way because of the F process. I love our new Administrator but she just hasn't been around long enough to undo the insanity of the last year.
--Security overseas, diminished status of USAID overseas (in USG)
--Uncertainty on assignments (due to Iraq, etc. bidders bumping everyone), extremely unclear relationship with State (F), conflicting statements on budgets (MtB), and lack of comparable benefits with other foreign service professionals
--The F process.
--I'm a new IDI and I've only been with USAID for about eight months.
--As a USAID FSO I don't see me or my colleagues getting the same respect as say our State Dept. counterparts. For example, most State FSOs and their spouses, receive language training prior to assignment at post. USAID FSOs do not recieve this most useful benefit. Not have the language skills to communicate effectively makes my job that much more difficult.
--Poor leadrship in USAID is the core of the problem.
--I believe they are worsening because of the situation in CPC countries and the negative impacts of the F reform process.
--The Agency is pretty much the ANE Bureau. Mission Directors have been disempowered with decisions now centralized in Washington w/ the new OP process. Who can keep track of the constant procedural/policy changes?
--We are becoming an orphan child to State and increasingly DOD. The technical capability that USAID once had is eroding and we are no longer a lead institution in the development field because of this erosion of technical specialists. AID officers in the field have simply become paper pushers -- process driven instead of impact driven.
--Morale is down, opportuities to touch the people directly have been severely hindered by ever increasing security concerns.
--its becoming militarized and there are more unaccompanied posts
--We signed up for World Wide availability but not to work in war zones. We are not the military. In any other country, other than Iraq, the Embassy would be closed.

--If we are going to make people work in CPCs, then find ways to allow families to be close, or spouces to get jobs there too.
--No budget to recruit and train FSO, recruiting numbers are not keeping pace with numbers of those leaving. USAID seems to be going away....just slowly fading away bit by bit, in numbers, our work going to other agencies, will there be a USAID in 10 years?
--Less OE funds to support employees upon arrival to a new post; less motorpool services; less money due to exchange rates.
--Too many domestic agencies working aboard. Lack of a development perspective. Too prescriptive from Washington. Not all FSOs and families are treated equally (no seperation allowances for MOH, no RR, healthcare, visa, etc.
--We receive no trainig. We don't get to go to conferences with FSOs in the same field working in different countries. There's no sharing of knowledge, experience, or best practices.
--I haven't been in the foeign service long enough to make a judgement.
-- quickly eroding pay with the fall of the dollar
- -possibility of serving in active war zones
--ever increasing disparity between benefits for State vs USAID foreign service (training, language training, awards etc)
--There are insufficient resources to do the job properly.
--more work, more work, and more work; the foreign assistance reforms have removed our operational freedom while burying us in processes than don't work and quadtrupling our reporting burden; my morale is as low as its ever been and getting lower every day
--Lack of direction and leadership makes working conditions difficult.
--I'm only in the second year of my first assignment, so I feel it's too early for me to judge at this point.
--Except for Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, FS conditions are great
--Every other USG agency had decided to go into the development business as well. We have lost our place as the premier American development agency. No one talks about the three Ds anymore and if they do we are the last D. The military in particular which has many times our resources is taking over our traditional role. This is improper and wrong.
--Within AID many post that should be for FSO's are being posted as PSC jobs. Someone, somewhere is making the argument that the specific technical requirements can't be filled by FSO's. I question the reality of this. If the post never appears on a bid list how do we know that we don't have qualified FSO's in the system to do the work. Many FSO's have been hired and are stuck in Washington because the opportunities in the field don't exist....this is a worsening condition because we join the Foreign Service to be placed overseas, not in Washington.
--Security concerns; operating expense cuts; reduced options for EFM employment; increased "Washington-centric" micromanagement of all aspects of program development and implementation; unqualified political appointees running our lives.
--I am not aware of any new benefits or advantages to being in the foreign service now as opposed to five years ago when I joined, except for maybe the new vision and dental insurance group plan and the FSAFEDS.
--Qualified bidders being bumped by less qualified bidders coming out of CPC posts, talk of directed assignments to CPC posts, consolidation of services (and usually decline in quality) with Embassies, constant fighting for budget, too much reporting to too many offices with questionable value, too many directives, too much politics directly influencing technical work
--The pay scale is too low especially for new FSO's starting out their career.
--Impending requirement to serve in "war zones". There is no justification whatsoever to throwing away $ billions of taxpayers' money to try to impose the U.S.' way of life via developmental assistance to societies that really do not want (or care about) the U.S.' way, particularly when the place is still a war zone. Although I don't agree even with the U.S. military initiatives itself, if there must be USAID assistance, it needs to be after the military has completey wiped out any reason to be there.
--Crime is an issue overseas.
--Most technical backstops are converting to program because simply put, there are no positions overseas. Missions are downsizing, yet in Washington we talk about bringing more people in when there are no positions overseas to adequately employ those people we have. The result is a lot of underemployed people in Washington and very stressed people overseas (Having been in both situations this year). Morale in Washington is also extremely low and a lot of civil service employees are leaving because of downsizing or frustration with current policy and inertia.
--Less able to design and implement activities for sustainable development. Today's focus is on visible photo-ops. Operational plan is a mess pushing project design to activities yielding short news bite results. FSL conversions at higher levels than NEPs who took significant pay cuts to join is a bummer. Reinforces the belief the Agency is disingenous when it speaks. One should plan and watch out for self, Agency needs come last as it doesn't care for us.
--Right now USAID lacks the capacity to perform its core functions. State has been consistently able to secure resources to perform program/project functions that were once USAID's role. DOD as well is developing capabilities in USAID's core service areas. If we don't secure additional resources the Agency will continue to become irrelevant. At the same time senior leadership of the Agency does not interact effectively with senior leadership at State. We continue to appear unorganized and not able to represent our agency effectively to our various constituencies. If we are to survive as an agency we have to argue our case better, report more on successes, and invest more in doing things that State and DOD do, but do them better. In some offices there is a paralyzing level of dissent and "consensus-building" with a lack of vision and leadership. As a newcomer to the Agency I heard a ridiculous level of complaining combined with a lack of interest in trying to change anything.
--The profession as a whole seems to be under-staffed and under-resourced at a time when its demands are growing. Worse still, USAID is increasingly being programmed around, with embassies asserting more control over USAID assistance, treating USAID Missions as little more than another implementer, and the Agency is watching its presumptive responsibilities being diverted to other/new agencies (MCC, PEPFAR, PMI).
--Directed assignments denigrate morale; inequity of benefits between AID and State are unfair and unjust; morale at AID is not positive
depends on the time frame -- improvement over the past few months; worsening over the past few years...
--We have major inequties between benefits amongst members of the FS. Our leadership does nothing to address basic employment differences; I am especially concerned over inequities in travel and how our NEPs are compenstaetd (in DC) vis a vis State JOs.
--Conditions are poor and don't seem to be getting much better.
--Morale is bad; too many people are jumping ship; new entry professionals not very impressive.
--Great we're doing reforms and getting more money like PEPFAR, but professionals must be grown -- can't turn on people resources like a spigiot. We don't have the right experts in the right places, and were losing more experience than we are gaining. Planning (feeding Washington) is becoming more time consuming than performing for folks on the ground. This is a formula for failures. We need good planning systems that form the basis of good performance and creates good results. But planning should be a relatively small part of the development workload - getting results should be the emphasis.
--The work is increasingly based on advancing political agendas as opposed to developmental priorities.
--We are more at risk today than ever as official Americans overseas, yet we do not receive the security we need at all Missions. For example, at one post with a major terrorist threat we cut costs by not allowing Embassy vehicles to transport us on official business after 4:00 p.m., housing security standards were also not acceptable.
Also, overseas it is expected that FSOs work round the clock. Yet we need to stay healthy and have a family life.
I never received comp time when we travelled on off duty hours, now we do. Promotions and assignmnets were geared to favorite sons or special people, now less so. Flextime now exists.
--More and more, we are being asked to go to dangerous places and posts without families.
I--'m too new to the service to make an informed assessment. I do know that pay is not comparable btw USG and Private Sector, and benefit disparity between USAID and State are unjust.
--There are mixed trends - but I think in general the consistent need for FS officers and their roles in the organization don't change much and these realities are recognized in the conditions we operate under.
--Micro-management by Washington and Congress, new FS officers with inadequate training, overall lack of competent staff
--low budgets and blurring of the missions between USAID and State are hurting morale in both agencies.
--The Agency is more over-controlled by Central influences in Washington that ever before. At a time when we really need to be a major player at the table of US international policy, we are still sitting at the little kids table. State doesn't think we are as important as they are; but luckily DOD is starting to 'get it' and they seem to understand how important development is in stabilization efforts.
--State involvement, increasing rules and regs are boxing creativity into a corner giving FSOs less flexibility to find the correct solutions.
--Some areas are improving, others worsening. Overall amount of work one is expected to perfom is too high. Tenured officers do not get overtime. Some bosses do not look well at claims for comp time - and even if you can earn comp time, it is hard to take them due to workload.
--Not aware of any recent notable changes
--I would like to elaborate on my anwer to Question 22 since the choices were not adequate. I would rather resign than take a directed assignment to Iraq. I wouldn't resign if directed to the other CPC countries.
--There is an undervaluing of the professionalism of USAID staff. We have extensive training and educational backgrounds to do the work we do, yet we are second-guessed constantly by political appointees or State folks who have no clue how to do development.

--Given the closer links to State, it seems that much of what we do now as FSOs is less substance and more about appearance. I am not a Public Relations specialist, yet this is what I now spend close to 70-80% of my time on even though I am a technical officer.

--When I signed on for "world wide availability", it was with the understanding that I would have to go to hardship posts, maybe even post-war reconstruction type posts - but never, ever, a post where war was still raging. To send us as unarmed, untrained civilians into that kind of situation, is very objectionable and I would quit before I would go.

--I also resent that by the fact that I will not go to a CPC post, that my chances of both getting promoted and getting a good assignent are signficantly diminished. This, notwithstanding that I have served extremely competently (as exemplified by my AEFs and the Agency level awards I have received), during my time as an FSO.

--The amount of bureacracy imposed by the new F systems has wrought havec as well.
I believe that transformational diplomacy has negatively impacted USAID. I am particularly concerned about the diminished role played by Mission Directors and USAID Mission staff. In particular, I don't believe they are recegnized as the experts that they are and I resent the Ambassador's ability to put non-USAID staff at post in charge of coordination of foreign assistance.
--The world is a more dangerous place than ten years ago. Poor leadership allowed unknowledgeable people at State to lead more knowledgeable people at USAID through the transformation process, with disastrous consequences. As a result of all this, employees overseas face enormous stress burdens, and yet the Agency has done nothing positive to help provide healthy tools for maintaining physical and mental health. It's a disgrace and failure in leadership.
The need to staff Iraq, Afghanish, and other hardship countries seems to be taking over all other issues in the State Department, and thereby affecting moral. It remains to be seen how service/lack of service in these countries will affect careers.
--Too many unaccompanied posts - we're CIVILIANS
--Our agency is selling itself down the river (just as our sister agency - - USIS did 8 years before us) to a bloated inefficient Agency(State) which is incapable of managing itself, much less the added burden of USAID - - all in the name of efficiency - - Everyone (in both State and USAID) knows its a sham but they continue to march in lockstep applauding the emperor's beautiful new clothes - - even though we all see that he's a naked as the day he was born - - and in fact seeming awfully stupid. It seems that only with the success of forcing the merger and the failure it invariably will bring (as it did for the works of USIS) - -will it finally dawn on the powers that be that . . oops we made a mistake. But by then the architects of this fiasco will have received their undeserved accolades and rewards and retired from the scene -- The losers in the end will be the future of Foreign Asssistance and the billions of poor and needy people of the world who will not be helped in their time of need - - and ultiamtely, the American people.
--It seems that more and more benefits are being taken away especially housing overseas.
With everyone's eyes off the ball on comparability pay, I would say things are worsening.
benefits keep being eroded as the Dept. finds ways to save money. The Dept. always finds a way for the employees to eat any shortfall of funds. They NEVER suspend or eliminate programs. They just eliminate Business Class travel, training opportunities, etc.
I-- believe that in terms of benefits and working conditions things have remained the same or improved. Professionally, (in terms of being able to design and implement programs) things have deteriorated.
--Low-quality leadership, fewer resources, lack of respect from other government agencies and the public, generalized public and Congressional disdain and disregard for the Service, as illustrated by comparibility pay issue, and response to directed assignments controversy.
--No OE, inadequate staffing, no training. Just look at my house and furniture - old and dumpy.
T--oo few people to manage too many projects. The budget is increasing but the Agency's ability to provide appropriate oversight seems to be consistently shrinking. Additionally, many of the A--gency's most important projects are in areas with questionable security. In such places, it is critical both for proper accountability of use of funds but also staff morale that RSOs allow
--USAID staff to travel to the field.
--Our foreign policy in recent years makes it harder to be an American abroad.
--Co-locating in inadequate NEC building impair our ability to conduct our work, and impact negatively on QoL. F and the fact we are being absorbed by STATE despite all the rhetoric leaves us as second class citizens without a home.
--Morale is dropping like a stone. There is no sense that upper management cares what its people think about anything -- from plicy decision to personnel. This attitude is reflected in budget decisions and the failure to defend the Service on any level, including overseas pay and directed assignments and the need for more staff.
--It has become more and more difficult to serve overseas, especially in terms of matters which are completely in control of Mission management. Personalities of Foreign Service employees these days are very self-centered; employees today are mostly interested in fulfilling their own agendas.
--Loss of interesting posts because of changed in development policy, i.e. unbalanced programs, focus on conflict.
--Working conditions in war zones are certainly more dangerous than elsewhare but perhaps--in terms of hardship and lack of amenities at least--comparable to people working out of trailers when the former Soviet Union collapsed. There were some impressive technological gains (e.g., transition from outdated Wang computers to desktop internet access under Secretary Powell) in the past; unclear whether the Department is pursuing such advances as vigorously now. Despite isolated use of Blackberries, FS seems a bit behind the private sector in implementation of best practices, including IT.
--The service is not considering the safety of officers as it previously did. Posts that are unsafe should be drawn down to minmium staffing levels and work that can be performed outside of the country should be done in other locations. Families should not be forced into long term separations. Further, officers who come out of these situations with psychological issues are not supported appropriately. Officers are not given sufficient support and training for service in such areas.
--There is too much emphasis on security. We are cut off form the real world at post around the world and even in Washinton. There are too few people to do the work that needs to be done and way too much papework.
--MONEY IS TIGHT
--If you are a USAID FSO who serves in Kabul and see how we are treated here vis-a-vis State officers, all you can look forward to is a career in which you are treated as a second-class citizen and your professional life is defined by responsibility without authority (State now has the authority and no corresponding responsbility. When the IG shows up some day to ask why you did this or that and you say it was on orders of the embassy, you will have no proteciton).
1)Disregard for professionalism of Foreign Service with EFMs taking over substantial/substantive duties of FS officers/specialists; 2) Inequality and unfairness in the bidding process for FS OM/OMS positions in favor of EFMs and Civil Service; 3) Inequality in promotion system for FS OM/OMS; 4) Extreme lack of professional management at posts
I don't agree with the new intake process; bad form for management to go to the press before employees on the Iraq directed assignment issue--also, it was premature; other hardship posts continue to suffer personnel shortages, but managment doesn't care; we are sending important allies the wrong message with global repositioning
--Leadership appears disjointed. Where is Powell?
--A FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON MILITRAY OERATIONS MAKES LIFE WORSE FOR THOSE WHO STRESS DIPLOMACY
--Less funding is available to properly do our jobs and grant proper equal housing for families.

Expanded Alternate Work Schedules?

USG agencies are encouraged to allow employees to participate in alternate work schedules (AWS) in order to reduce traffic congestion, improve work efficiency and accomodate family needs. However, USAID has several restrictions that limit AWS participation, including official starting time no earlier than 7 am and no option for a 10 hour work day. In addition, telecommuting cannot be done in coordination with AWS - it is one or the other.

What do you think of AFSA trying to negotiate these types of proposals with HR? I want to hear from the membership first to determine if there is enough interest out there for requesting expansion of our current rules for alternate work schedules. Let me know your opinion.

Blog is Back!

The elections for AFSA are now done and so the Blog is back. First let me thank you for re-electing me to the V.P. Position. I will do everything to serve your interests as well as I can. To start off this term, I would like to request topics which you may want to discuss. So, please let me know what is in your mind so that we can start a discussion thread by responding to this posting. Waiting to hear from you all. So, please respond to this posting with your ideas or comments so that I can start a discussion thread. Francisco

Proposed Newsletter

In our latest AFSANET, I proposed that we publish our own newsletter now that the Frontlines seems dead. We tried for months to get the Administrator to restart the Frontlines but he has not been responsive. The last issue came out in May 2006. Many members wrote to me supporting this idea and so we will give it a go. The Newsletter (which still has to be named) will be smaller and come out every 3 months. I think with input from overseas and others we can put out something decent.

We will accept articles and photos from any USAID related contributors. The universe of what we will publish is open right now so almost any contribution is welcome: family stories, projects, fiction, tips on overseas living, complaints, letters to the editor, jokes, etc. I want it to be entertaining and informative. Tell us about activities at your mission, with your counterparts, progress of your projects, touristic points of interests, awards, local events, tips on overseas living and we hope to get plenty of pictures. I will be sending data on retirements, postings, statistics, promotions, and other things. The newsletter will be web-based housed at AFSA so it will be easy to access and print if you like.

So, if you want to contribute something or know of someone who would, just send it to me at fzamora@usaid.gov. Be creative and let us know what is happening at your post or office. Francisco

What is AFSA Working On?

I just posted this in response to a comment from a member. I'm also making this a separate post so those who might otherwise have missed it can see what we are working on.

"Your comments are legitimate in wanting to know what AFSA is doing for you. This was also the reason for conducting the survey. Now I know more specifically what is bothering the membership and what they want me to do about it. If you read the January 17 AFSANET where I discuss the survey, you will see that members have certain priorities. Quote: "Members would like us to continue pursuing locality pay and better benefits (65%), closely followed by fighting for fairness in the assignment/promotions area (63%). In fact, 95% of the members want AFSA to pursue overseas locality pay 'vigorously'." The third highest priority (57%) is to ensure equal benefits for all foreign affairs agencies as there are some glaring inequalities currently existing. Among them are higher compensation for things such as language training between assignments, difficult-to-staff differentials disparities between State and USAID, travel benefits, student loan reimbursement and USAA membership. There were numerous comments also detailing suggestions and opinions which I find very useful. So, you see, I feel I know what is going on out there!

Now, back to your comment on "what you are doing to make conditions better for us?" Much of what we at AFSA do cannot be published due to its confidential nature. At any one time, we have several FSOs whom we are helping obtain benefits unfairly denied, presenting grievances against the agency, facing disciplinary actions, appealing assignments, contesting non-promotion, requiring assistance with agency financial mistakes (i.e., vouchers denied), experiencing retirement related issues, etc. Believe me, the list is long, and it keeps our staff very busy. Unfortunately, you don't hear about these private issues. However, one never knows, including yourself, when AFSA's advocacy will be needed. (In fact, while I was writing this, I got a phone call from a member having problems with not getting a correct W-2 form. I will immediately follow through on this.) Sometimes, it is just a matter of me going over to HR or other offices to move things along, and I am glad to do this. But we are not just sitting on our hands.

The other big part of the job at AFSA is dealing with the overall major themes such as overseas locality pay, reorganization issues, ADS changes, AEF procedures, performance board monitoring, the assignment process, working conditions, diversity, training, foreign service limited (FSL) issues, and other benefits. We are also the face of the Foreign Service when we unfortunately have to attend memorial services for those FSOs making the ultimate sacrifice. This is difficult, but I am proud to represent you on such occasions.

So, I hope I have thrown you a big enough "bone". The agency is hearing about your concerns from us, very regularly. The survey had a big impact already, as it has been discussed at all levels, even in the Washington Post. I am not saying that we are winning on every front but we are here fighting on your behalf. I hope you trust that we are sincere and we need your support from the field to keep us motivated. Keep your comments coming via the blog or e-mail. Regards, Francisco"

Feel free to comment here. Do you have specific issues you want us to work on? Want to know about progress on a certain problem? Let us know!

The 2006 USAID FSO Survey: The results of this survey just went out as an AFSANET. The graphical presentation of the survey is scheduled to be published in the March 2007 AFSA Journal, which will make the results much easier to interpret. A total of 368 of the 914 USAID AFSA members responded to the December 2006 survey--making this a quite decent 40 % response rate. Officers answered 29 questions regarding their opinions, concerns, and priorities for the agency. Some of the data is very interesting and controversial. What did you think of the information? Let us and everyone else know!